Are Films Art or Entertainment?

Art and entertainment are subjective.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

I'd say Both mainly because a film can be beautiful as well as entertaining.

Well in my point of view Film is both, Film is another art form that can sometimes be a means of entertainment.

__________________
Best Movies 2012

But is it high art? Read through the thread to get a bit of a grasp of the nature of the argument, and then weigh in a bit more, perhaps. My knee-jerk was to off course say that film is clearly art. But if you state is as such, that means 2019: After the Fall of New York is art...have you...seen that? It's not art.

__________________

Some are art , some aren't.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

Both. Films were created as a means of entertainment, but I think they've evolved to the point of becoming the greatest art form ever invented.

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

I was reminded of this today, so I hope someone wants to add to it. The question covers more area than you might think even if my first post wasn't too great.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I think nowadays the medium of film can be used to show almost anything you want, and this has resulted in more people using it to convey something else or experiment with ideas rather than use it for more conventional, entertainment purposes. Of course, there's some things you can do with film that are exclusive, but some projects might be suited to others formats.

Nowadays anybody can shoot a film, even if it's with a cheap digital camera they can go out and shoot something, anybody can make a youtube video, people can make animated GIFS, makes films out of drawings etc.

I think film can be anything you want it to be, and depending on how much you enjoy the experience, that's how good it is

Mostly films are both art and entertainment. Film is a branch of art as well as music or paintings and I hope I don't have to convince anybody. Some films that touch serious problems, or philosophy may not be received as entertainment by many watchers, but they're still art and there's still a big chance of probability that someone who stumbles across them will find them entertaining after all. And here comes the definition of entertainment. Isn't a person entertained if he or she sees a film and finds a keen interest in it?

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

I'd like to second this statement. Just because mainstream film is ultra commercial doesn't mean it can only be entertainment. Just because festival film is usually noncommercial doesn't mean it can only be art. Just because you watch film for entertainment doesn't mean they're not art, and vice versa. All that we can say film is is moving pictures with sound accompaniment. Restricting film to these binaries of art and entertainment is primitive and not very well supported on either side.

__________________
Mubi

Both, of course. It really depends on the vision of the director. He's the artist, and the actors, scenes, and props are his canvas. He can create something pleasing to the eye, or he can go for deeper meaning within his work.

Of course, it can also suck, and fail to achieve either.

__________________
Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake!
-Daniel, There Will Be Blood

Yes, I'd say films are art. It's a visual medium so it can hardly avoid the question of art and aesthetics. In an ideal world, the film is as entertaining as it is artistic (or vice versa). Personally I think there's too much focus on the aesthetics of mainstream films, to the detriment of the films themselves. Good cinematography should enhance rather than distract, and I think that nowadays every cinematographer seems to be competing for the Oscar.

__________________
You cannot have it both ways. A dancer who relies upon the doubtful comforts of human love can never be a great dancer. Never. (The Red Shoes, 1948)

They should be both. If it's "art" then it in some way should be entertaining or visually interesting. It's hard to explain what I'm getting at but with movies it can be a mixture of both.

Thanks for the new responses. I was talking about this yesterday with my daughter, and one of the things we agreed on was that art and entertainment seem to have different meanings to different people. We also thought that if a film, perhaps from the "contemplative cinema" movement, is enjoyed by someone then it must be "entertaining" to them. If this is true, why do some viewers think these films are the opposite of entertainment? Also, let's say a mainstream movie? Why do some viewers seem to automatically think less of them? Does this whole argument come down to semantics and aesthetics? Do peoples' opinions always say more about themselves than the topics they're discussing (when talking about anything)? Is it possible to be relatively objective while having this or any discussion?

Probably both.
Some movies are made with the intention to be entertaining(like parodies) and some are not(art-house?) and actually,now that I think of it,best movies are usually those which manage to blend both art and entertainment in one film.
The Godfather is my favorite example of a movie which is artistic and entertaining but there are more.

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

I think the really great films are both. Many films do not strive to be artistic. Let's be honest, Hollywood is not just concerned with making money, but they go after the big money in almost every film. Not only do they not encourage risk, but it seems they want to discover "the formula" and then run it in the ground. Part of this also requires the film to appeal to the lowest common denominator. You can't make a good niche film because it won't appeal to a big enough crowd. There is nothing wrong about films that just entertain if that is what a person is looking for, but film can be real art. I'll try to name some films that are artistic and have some appeal for a broad audience. Back in the seventies and Eighties Woody Allen put out a string of movies tat had good critical reception and a broad audience appeal. There was Annie Hall, Manhattan, Hannah and Hers Sisters, The Purple Rose of Cairo, etc.. There are countless examples of directors creating good art and entertaining: Frank Capra and Alfred Hitchcock to name two that were directing before it was all about the money. I will not attempt to list contemporary directors other than Woody because I don't pretend to be an expert, but I would be interested in hearing what directors or even studios are producing the art these days. I wandered a little of topic, but I am responding to several questions posted on different threads I have read today. Does the director matter?, etc.

I like to think that most films are trying to be art, but it's in the eye of the beholder really. Most people look at film as a pure entertainment medium, but when I look at films, I try to view them in a more artistic light.

__________________
It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything.

Entertainment without a doubt.

__________________
''Haters are my favourite. I've built an empire with the bricks they've thrown at me... Keep On Hating''
- CM Punk
http://threemanbooth.files.wordpress...unkshrug02.gif

So Derek, does that mean you agree with this statement:

Sinister has no artistic merit at all.

?

Indeed. Although live action films are mostly entertainment while animation always is art. Because animation is painting applied to film.