Movies: Art vs. Entertaiment

Which is more important to you when choosing what movies to watch?
Also, which flicks do you think acheive both?

I made a topic like this at IMDB, and everyone said they choose movies with both....but it all depends on the mood your in.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

yes it depends but for me art is absolutely more important

__________________
If i could laugh, I´d love you; If I could smile at anything you said, We could be laughing lovers; I think you prefer to be miserable instead...("Im your villain", Franz Fedinand)

the reality is that probably 95% of box office revenues come from people who want to see movies for entertainment, so thats more important. An Artsy movie is good too, but the intention is most likley not to make 400 million at the box office, but to send a message or win an award. The most important aspect of a movie though isn't art or entertainment, it's a good story. Movies that can acheieve all 3 of these are always the best.

I tend to know going in to a movie whether I'm going in for entertainment value (Anchorman, etc.) or if I'm going for the artsiness of it (beauty, cinematography, writing, acting, etc.).

I was thinking that maybe I tended to re-watch or buy the artsier ones because they have more lasting appeal, but that's not entirely true. There are some damned silly movies out there that I can re-watch repeatedly and have bought. I suppose the best of these are indeed artistic in their own way, such as Raising Arizona (great writing, pacing), Young Frankenstein or Blazing Saddles (classic humor and writing, etc.).

My tastes are more scattered than I first realized.

__________________
Linda's Author Website
Linda's Amazon Author page

i usually go to film purely for its entertainment value....and come out praising its artistic value....

so i would have to say both...

I'd say art is more important to me, because if a film is artless, I get distracted thinking how I'd want to change it. But I don't think a film has to be esoteric to be art. Ever After is one of my favorites and it's hardly high-brow... but it's beautifully done.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

99 times out of 100 it's for pure entertainment. Every once in awhile I'll enjoy the occassional drama but that's not my genre.

__________________
DVD Aficionado Collection ll DVDSpot Collection ll DVD Profiler Collection

As Susan says: Art is good entertainment and good entertainment is art. I've never differentiated and hope I never will. The road to Pseudom and Begorrah awaits...

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

Some good thought thanks. The reason why I ask is because whenever I come across a thread about the best/worst movies ever I've noticed the same flicks on both lists. Some of my favorite flicks often end up on the worst list and I'm left wondering why? Was it because they lacked any "art" quality to them? I agree that I usually end up buying artier flick on DVD but I never underestimate a good junky action flick.