Viewing Thread:
"Art or entertainment?"

Film, T.V, music. All so called 'art forms' but how can we class films such as CHARLIE'S ANGLES as art? This film is obviously one of the lamest films ever made (granted, some may not agree).

Are films like CHARLIE'S ANGLES made for the public who are not prepared to watch a more serious and well written film, or is it because there are only a few truely talented film makers oput there?

I must admit, it is sometimes nice to sit down and watch a mindless film. As sometimes it is nice to be able to watch a film, be entertained, and forget the film when it's finished. Films such as KISS OF THE DRAGON and MEAN MACHINE are just entertainment. Where as VANILLA SKY and BLACK HAWK DOWN, although they made not be serious art forms, they are films which require more than just a want for violance and sex.

You can't sit down to watch a Brian De Palma film or a Martin Scorsesee film without having to take in to account the ammount or artistic integrity it takes to make films of such magnitude. Take TAXI DRIVER and SNAKE EYES. These films can be watched as entertianment, but if you actually 'watch' the film you will see the subliminal messages and the way the film is cleverly put together to create certain feelings.

I am not talking about art house films here, i am talking about mainstream cinema. Luckily, every once and a while, a truely great film pops at the cinemas. These types of films usually involve characteristics of low brow and high brow films, sex, violance, subliminal, mind messing, and generaly well made.

Some film makers seem good at making films purely for entertainment, where as others (the better ones) create true works of art. Because film is a form of art, and i think we should appreciate that, the director is the artist and celluloid is his/her canvas.

What do you all think? Is film art or entertainment?

Thanks

The GingerLord wrote:
> Art you not entertained?

Excellent.

Art you not entertained?

...have I got that quote wrong? Never was good at this stuff!

BradW wrote:

Are films like CHARLIE'S ANGLES made for
> the public who are not prepared to watch a more serious and well written film,
> or is it because there are only a few truely talented film makers oput
> there?

Charlies Angels was excellent. Much more cleverer than many give it credit for. Look at the way that characters change once they realise that they're actually bad guys. They start to wear different clothes, sunglasses, and they start smoking. Hilarious.

I think it's a little pretentious to suggest that films such as Charlies Angels are written for those that can't handle 'serious and well-written' movies. I think you'll find that most people will watch all types of movies, and appreciate them on some level or another.

But is it art? Maybe to some. Is it entertainment? Hopefully. Can art not be entertainment?

as long as you don't get confused. that makes me happy.

BradW wrote:
> I am a gimp, I am a gimp I am a gimp I am a gimp I am a gimp
>


and before you say anything BradW, I know you said it once and not repeatedly, but I don't care, I know what you meant :-)

BradW wrote:
>
Because
> apparantly, i am a gimp.
--

That you are.

and before you say anything tarrant. i know you said art and not beauty. But i don't care. you still said the rest of the sentence.

in the words of Tarrant;
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

So, basicly. Your opinion means nothing to me.

Because apparantly, i am a gimp.

I think De Palma, apart from Scarface and Carlito's Way is a hack that owes his career to most people not watching Hitchcock movies.

You gimp