Sight & Sound 2012

Food for thought is all good, if it provides entertainment value. Movies are entertainment first, art second. Films such as Schindler's List, Forest Gump, Fight Club, The Departed, Godfather Part II....etc, provide both.

Uhh.... How? Mind elaborating?

No love for The Rules of the Game?

__________________
"Puns are the highest form of literature." -Alfred Hitchcock

For the record, I didn't much care for it either. Citizen Kane, Vertigo, and Sunrise much, much better. The rest I haven't yet seen.

And those are very typical choices, which is fine but implies little exposure, not to mention you completely ignored how I mentioned many people exist that do enjoy/are entertained by what you call "art value."

This entertainment primary is also not a truth, especially since many other things lead to entertainment rather than mere entertainment. You're trying too hard to make something not immediately gratifying into an enemy.

I simply meant that he starts with a static camera, shooting whatever's in front of it in one take on one reel. No editing, sound, colour, direction, set design, etc. As these are introduced, as well as basic narrative, he starts shooting screen tests and creating stars (superstars, as he called them), before moving into a producer role and having Paul Morrissey take over the directorial duties, upping the budget and making more mainstream films (well, mainstream compared with the earlier stuff) with which he was more concerned with making a profit, than he was 'the art', before experimenting with genre (Western and horror, though you could include music documentary) and even 3D.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Must. get. magazine. issue.

I've seen plenty of movies on that list and don't agree with some of them being so high. We can argue about this all day long. It won't change my mind and I'm sure I won't change yours. Lets just agree to disagree.

In The Mood For Love and Mullholand Drive are way high up there. I like it.

We had a thread about recent films that might crack the list. Anyone care to dig that up to see who predicted this?

...missed my point w/e

Watch Tower: Film is not necessarily entertainment first, art second. I would agree that it can be and most mainstream movies are like this. However, there are tons of movies where the art comes before the entertainment. The Godfather: Part II, Schindler's List, Once Upon a Time in America, and Apocalypse Now are all more art than entertainment. Are they still entertaining? Of course! Then most of the others on your list are purely entertainment, but many of them won't hold up in 50 years. All of the films on your list are great movies, but in fifty years, T2 is going to look like ****. Plain and simple. Technology will have moved on to a point where it will look plain ridiculous. Does that make it a worse movie? Will it still be as entertaining? How are you going to explain to the future generations how big this movie was at the time and it was the first of it's kind? The main point is that Citizen Kane and Tokyo Story are not on the list because of purely entertainment value. They are important films because they furthered the craft. Shakespeare isn't very entertaining (for most of us) and neither is the Illiad, but they are culturally important. That is, for better or worse, what these lists are all about.

Wow...I just wrote a novel.

hahah you did write a lot but I'll have to disagree, Godfather 2, Schindler's list etc. are all art but they are definitely entertaining. Some film makers forsake entertainment completely and create something that is "arty" missing the point of film altogether.

And how dare you speak like that about T2....I am simply seething with rage at the moment.

huh?Isn't art itself entertaining?

__________________
"Anything less than immortality is a complete waste of time."

Don't bother he won't get it

Films are both art and entertainment, though some strive to be one and not the other. There's nothing wrong with that (at least as long as the movie is good at what it attempts to be), but I find that most of my favorites are a blend of the two. I agree with what Gabrielle said though; often, truly great cinematic art can be uniquely entertaining in its own overwhelming way.

if anyone wants to see this one it is free on YouTube

__________________

Some art is entertaining and I believe that in itself is entirely subjective to the individual. Some might find it entertaining to stand and look at a painting, which would not be my idea of entertainment. I would much rather watch a game of football/cricket and boxing and sport is considered by some to be art, the truly great athletes make it that way.