I love film! (1 Viewer)

[BertFalasco]

I was reading the Revolutions discussion and I just got overwhelmed with how fantastic film is!

I appreciate it so much, the potential it has, and the innovativeness of much of it is amazingly intriguing.

Every aspect of any given movie can be cut up, seasoned, and interpreted, isn't it swell!

I am in such an amazing state of mind right now.

Hail film

 

[Steve_Tk]

I love film also, but it sure does pick up video noise sometimes. I'm not a purist, bring on great new digital technology!

 

[Kevin Porter]

Yes, film is a wonderful medium but never try to substitute it for the real thing. It's purpose is solely to entertain and sometimes, tell us about lives other than our own. It is an escape and should be kept in perspective that way.

 

[Luc D]

Yes, film is a wonderful medium but never try to substitute it for the real thing. It's purpose is solely to entertain and sometimes, tell us about lives other than our own. It is an escape and should be kept in perspective that way.

Balderdash! Film is an art form and should be treated as such. Art is not solely "an escape" or only meant to entertain.

 

[RobertR]

I love film also, but it sure does pick up video noise sometimes.

That's an oxymoron. Film is NOT video. The two are completely different media, therefore what you say is impossible. I suspect what you're really objecting to is the analog nature of film.

 

[Paul_Sjordal]

Balderdash! Film is an art form and should be treated as such. Art is not solely "an escape" or only meant to entertain.

I consider "art" and "entertainment" two slightly different things. The old Japanese woodblocks clearly meant to entertain more than be art (they were kind of the Japanese mass media of its day), while French impressionists are generally more artistic than entertaining.

Film obviously covers a lot of territory between the two!

 

[Kevin Porter]

Film is an art form and should be treated as such. Art is not solely "an escape" or only meant to entertain.

You know what? You're right. I might have been a little bit quick on the keys in my post.

But can you really call a movie like Armageddon art? Many movies are not made to be art but to be entertainment. There will be Quentin Tarantino films and there will be Michael Bay "Films".

 

[Steve Felix]

The line between art and entertainment is extremely blurry, and impossible to spot, especially for those like us who are entertained by art!

As for keeping film in perspective -- I have to admit I have difficulty with that. If it came down to a choice between living life and examining it, it wouldn't be clear for me. Luckily it's a nonsensical question -- we get to do both since one has to live in order to have something to examine.

My point, I think, is that art can be fairly assigned a major share of my existence, and is nearly as important to me as actually "living," whatever that may mean. I try to be well rounded, but let's face it, in my case "art" mostly means movies. But the same applies to any truth seeking discipline -- theology, math, music, or whatever one may be into.

Self observation is always important though, which is why I had the same initial reaction to this thread as Kevin. I'm always reassessing my priorities since everything needs to be taken in moderation. It would be easy to slip into excessively using film as escape under the guise of studying the art.

But yeah, I love film, too. And I apologize for not actually studying psychology and philosophy so that you'd all have something better to read than my late night stream of consciousness.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

The line between art and entertainment is extremely blurry, and impossible to spot, especially for those like us who are entertained by art!

Or those of us who think that entertainment is in itself an art.

 

[Brent Bridgeman]

I love film, too! A little mustard, a little relish...mmm....filmmmmm...

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Many movies are not made to be art but to be entertainment. There will be Quentin Tarantino films and there will be Michael Bay "Films".

Art can't entertain? Entertainment cannot be Art? Thanks for telling me that all the time I spent staring at Picasso's "Study of a Woman in Grey" at the Boston MFA was not entertaining to me. Maybe I should have wiped the smile off my face and put on a serious look, then I would have been a true art "devotee".

 

[Steve_Tk]

I think all film is entertainment. I think some people/studios take more pride in their work and cross that line to make it also a form of art....like LOTR trilogy. That took passion and response to every detail, as opposed to some films out there.

Most films are made for the bottom line. They make a film based on projected income and hope they stay out of the red. That's purely profit based and therefore only entertainment. Sometimes a director will surprise us all with those types of films and still make them art. But regardless if it's art, it's still a form of entertainment.

When I watch LOTR I watch it for pure entertainment. But my response to it is "that's a beautiful movie". A response like that from me means that it is also art and entertainment. When I watched fast and the furious, that's just entertainment.

 

[mark alan]

When I watched fast and the furious, that's just entertainment.

As far as I was concerned, when I watched fast and the furious, it was just crap. With movies, you have art, you have entertainment, and you have crap. Unfortunately the third category is the largest.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Alas, it is not that simple. You can very easily say with all art you have "art", you have entertainment and you have crap. The funny thing is, the definition of which label applies varies from person to person. Some people think Jackson Pollack was splatters of paint, some think he was a genius. Both interpretaions have merit. Andy Warhol and others of his ilk created Pop Art, which could easily be labeled the Bay-Bruckheimer of its day. But you certainly cannot claim it is not art, especially given it's influence and staying power in the marketplace.

 

[mark alan]

Warhol's work is art

Fast and the Furious is crap.

In my home theater (and on my walls), only my definition counts.

 

[ChuckSolo]

Sorry, "Cabin Fever" isn't art. "Casablanca" may in some circles be considered art. Human interpretation makes for some very nebulous and intriguing definitions. My take is that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Literature is definately conidered an art, however, would your average porn novel be considered art? "Of Human Bondage", "Tale of Two Cities", this is probably art.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Literature is definately conidered an art, however, would your average porn novel be considered art?

Sure, it is just considered really, really crappy art. Quality is a separate term from the definition of something. It's like saying a Yugo is definitely a car, but it is a really, really crappy car.