CMP 403
Oct. 4, 1992
While watching an
Arnold Swarzeneggar movie at the theater, does the phrase “that’s art” come to your mind? For an Arnold film, it usually doesn’t, but for other films such a
Bergman,
Hitchcock or
Allen, it’s questionable. Whenever some personal creation is viewed in public, be it painting, sculpture, writing, and even movies, the eternal question of what is art always arises. That is the dichotomy of movies and film; should it be considered as art or as entertainment?
Movies are easy to imagine as being art, but that does not mean they are. They are more easily viewed as entertainment, because so many people enjoy them so often. Art is not enjoyed by many people. Can you consider an Arnold film such as Terminator 2 as art? It grossed an ridiculously large amount of money at the box-office and was seen by many, but does it have art’s social value? How about an action-adventure movie such as a Van Damme picture,
Cyborg? Obviously, they couldn’t be art. With an exception such as Citizen Kane, movies can be taken as art. When compared to other art forms, movies are above all entertainment. A
Citizen Kane towers above a Cyborg in artistic value, because of its beauty. In entertainment value though, both provide pleasure to its viewer each in its own way. Citizen Kane is a classic example of good storytelling, and Cyborg is just an amusing film.
People think art is for the highbrow crowd. It is for the intellectual and not for the average person to understand. Art is out of touch with the common person’s feelings. Comprehension comes before appreciation. When you watch an average movie, it moves you, because it’s easy to understand. It is staightforward a simple story, and there is nothing misleading about stories. Art, on the other hand, is an abstraction of ideas. Its concepts are beyond some people’s capacity to comprehend. Movies appeal to all ages; everyone from children to adults can like a movie. Young people can not appreciate art that much, because the meaning behind art is elusive and too complex for inexperienced minds. Art’s appeal is limited. If that is true, then movies which appeal to a broad spectrum of people are different than art.
From very early in film history, movies were a form of entertainment. The silent pictures of
Lumiere and
Melies were above all an amusing event. At first, films were a novelty, but they quickly became a form of diversion. To go to the a movie theater in the Forties and Fifties was like a night on the town. It provided people with a chance to leave the seclusion of their homes to socialize with others. The most common thing said about movies was that they were an escape from reality. As for art forms such as painting and sculpture, they were not as accessible to the masses. They were even harder to comprehend much less enjoy. Movies though were thoroughly enjoyable. You did not need to be an intellectual to know what amused you. Movies were, and still are, for pleasure for the audience.
A filmmaker would like to consider his or her creation a work of art, but the audience, as well as the producers, consider the film as entertainment. People spend a lot of money to be entertained. What they are not particularly looking for in their entertainment is some form of social value in it. The dollar plays an important role in movie making. Someone pays for movies: to make them and to see them. Films are big business and the bottom line in business is money. True artists work for their self satisfaction. At every moment, they strive for the sake of art and never sacrifice their integrity for money. Moviemakers balance the art and entertainment aspect of their work, but usually business wins over the artistic vision. Filmmakers are paid to make movies which shapes their decisions.
Wherever money is at stake, personal visions are put on hold. This adage is true especially with movies. Take for example
Ridley Scott’s
Blade Runner. Originally budgeted at $26 million dollars-- plenty of money in its days, it ran over budget. When shown to preview audiences, the reaction was unfavorable. Ridley Scott wanted to make the film in his vision. He took the media of film to new heights especially in the art direction and production. Yet, the audience found the movie too confusing; it left them cold. The distributor realized that it would loose money on an unentertaining film, and they wanted a better, revised version. Ridley Scott did not want to compromise his film, but it wasn’t in his hands any more. It fell to the people with the money, and true art is not influenced by money only by artistic vision.
Movies are first and foremost entertainment. The plot takes precedence over the moving pictures. No matter how beautiful a film is photographed or staged, it’s considered a success when it charms its audience. Above all, the goal of moviemakers is to tell a story, and they succeed when the story comes through in an enjoyable manner. In essence, movies are modern day versions of oral tales, and the moviemaker is the modern storyteller. In the past, tales were told to amuse the listener.
Movies continue that tradition except instead of words they use pictures.
Labels: art, CMP403, movies
