Just as in all art forms, there is “good” and “bad” art. Good film and theatre are designed to make the audience think about and feel things. Sometimes those “things” aren’t specific; one moment in a movie can evoke different individual reactions.

Is ‘art’ a different category from ‘entertainment’? What divides them? A big budget?

Shadows of Colossus, Final Fantasy VII, Half-Life 2?

Hearing directors and actors talk about plot subtext and character analysis deepened my appreciation for film as an art form. Even the seemingly mere logistical, behind the scenes things such as: wardrobe, special effects, lighting, etc. forced me to look at film in an entirely different way than I had been for years.

I’m a musician, songwriter, and recordist. I can’t count the number of times I’ve been watching an interview with a director or actor and I instantly draw parallels to constructing a song, capturing a good performance, editing/exercising restraint, emotional impression, sonic texture, etc. When it’s for the sake of the final outcome or bigger picture, I consider any aspect to be an artistic contribution.

If the Christmas sweater Aunt Betty crocheted for you makes you feel a sense of beauty, it’s art.
If you draw a picture that no one else sees and it moves you, it’s art. If you create a film that expresses something and makes someone else cry, think, laugh, or change, it’s art.

I think “good” art (not to be mistaken for “fine”, “high”, or even “serious” art) is anything created that communicates something in a way that has a significant emotional impact on someone else. It has zero to do with medium, skill, subject matter, popular opinion, occasion, or intention. Good/bad, funny/serious, abstract/concrete, minimalist/baroque, professional/amateur – it’s all different strokes for different folks.

Yes, some movies are not as artistic; but a good film, and a generic movie are separate: Just as a Van Gogh and a comic-book sketch can each be appreciated by their respective audiences at different levels, even though we obviously consider one more “fine art” than the other.

and i loved ‘there will be blood.’ i want to marry it.

Some cinema doesn’t move me at all, though it’s considered top movie art — Citizen Cane, for example. But others move me a great deal — like LOST.

But it’s the same with books. Some classics I think are very overrated — yet they must move some people. Other books that people reject as bad art, like the Harry Potter series, I consider very good art, because I find it well-done and moving.

In my personal opinion, most movies produced have much less artistic value than nearly every book ever produced. For me, the music issue is a tough one, because some of it rocks my soul, and other music feels like an assault on my sensibilities.

I do believe that the challenge to good moviemaking these has always been the profit issue. Many artful movies stand no chance of making money, and many weak-art films are very profitable. This is one of the challenges for consumer-driven art. Here’s my rule of thumb, even before reading the critics–my favorite site happens to be Rotten Tomatoes–For my artistic taste, generally the larger the “hype” on a film, the less impressed I will be.

Having said that, I can point to two of the films I saw last month as great examples of film as art. The Boy in the Striped Pajamas was one such film. The other was Slumdog Millionaire.

By the way, thanks again for doing what you do!

Peace out.

best line in my opinion:
“Okay. There, you see the star is me, right there, and I’ll be in there. The X is Anthony. Bob, you’re the zero out here in the car. ”

so much funnier in context, though…

As to Bruce’s comment about Citizen Cane being a horrid movie to watch, as a person with a BA in Film Studies, I enjoy Citizen Cane a great deal, and watched it several times for different courses. The horrid to watch stuff was some of the “transendental” (their label not mine) film styles from some European directors. Citizen Cane is one of the movies I would love to get on DVD or Blueray someday.

It seems the real question is what is art. People often see paintings and photographs as art. Well video images are part of a film, and some of the cinematography I have seen in various movies has been breath taking, especially those done all by the skill of the use of the camera rather than today’s CG touched up images. Literature is seen as art, and in spite of comments that books are always better than movies, that is simply because to take a 300 plus page story and put it to film would require a rather longer movie that 2 hours. When a movie is written specifically as a movie, I cannot imagine that reading the screen play is better than watching the movie unless the movie is very badly done.

Finally, just because the movies one person has seen they have not found one they consider art, does not mean films cannot be art, it simply means that you have not yet seen one that is.

You see what “Blades of Glory” will do to you.

in fact, you didn’t even HAVE a bad post until today!

(be calm, people. i’m totally kidding.)

“you’re out. and you’re out. i’m out, too.”
o.k. what highly entertaining movie is that from???

need a hint?

I love film. More than reading, listening to music, or looking at paintings or photographs. There are a bunch of movies that inspire me and a handful that have changed me. I do care if others do or do not like them, but I don’t care whether they are called art, films, or just movies.

Thanks.