What's in A Movie?

When I chose to write a blog about movies, I didn’t really think much about the reason behind it. It just occurred to me that when you want to do something, you’d better do something that you like, something that you can put your interest in; and movies seemed to fit nicely in the frame. Now, that I have written quite a lot of posts, I realized that there are some questions that have always been on my mind and might have been ignored. What makes people like movies? What is so intriguing about movies that people would spend their time going to the cinema every weekend? Therefore, what’s in a movie?

According to the Word Net Web, a movie is a form of entertainment that enacts a story by sound and a sequence of images, giving the illusion of continuous movement. From this definition, we can take that entertainment is the main purpose of a movie. People go to the cinema to be entertained; let it be for flashy visual effects, heart-breaking moments, or the most grotesque scenes. We all want and need that (almost) 2-hour length of entertainment. Then again, entertainment is not the only word associated with movies. According to The Geek’s Guide to Movies: Are Movies art?, movies are also a form of art. This assumption is reached through a study based on the book “Varieties of Visual Experience: Art as Image and Idea," by Edmund Burke Feldman.

“Dr. Feldman divides the experience of seeing the work of art into the work itself which is perceived (the visual form) and our understanding of what it is we're seeing (the aesthetic structure). While you and I may see the same object, our understanding of what we're seeing is likely very different. So for our discussion we'll take as a given that the visual form exists outside us, there for all to see, but that the aesthetic structure which we give to the work exists solely inside us.”

By taking visual form and aesthetic structure into consideration, we can then obviously draw a conclusion that movies do have the visual form, and we, as the audience, most certainly have our own different understanding that classify movies according to the aesthetic structure. Hence, if we combine all the previous definitions about movies, all movies must be a work of art and they have a sole purpose of entertaining people.

However, the words entertainment and art have never had good terms with each other. As Jonah Goldberg stated in Are movies art? A symposium featuring: Jonah Goldberg * Chris Weinkopf * Brandon Bosworth * Josh Larsen * Cristopher Rapp * Jonathan Last * Terry Teachout, we have several problems regarding this art and entertainment issue. There is a general idea within our society that art is always boring, and therefore, something fun and popular is definitely not an art. To sum it up, some people who consider themselves as a certain “art elite” usually think of art as something that is limited and exclusive. Essentially, there is nothing wrong with this view because we were raised with these kinds of conservative ideas: art is exclusive, original, and one of a kind. This concept makes art so highly regarded in life. Take the painting of Monalisa as example. There is only one Monalisa painting in the whole world, and it can never be this famous and praised as a marvelous piece of art if it can be found in every house. If we follow this idea and compare it with movies, which are produced and sold massively all over the world through DVDs and cinemas, then we would definitely think that movies do not fit into the art category. Is it true that something fun, entertaining, and popular can never be an art?

It seems that the world has forgotten that the “old art”, which we find boring now, used to be popular and entertaining in the old days. It has become dull now because it is not living in its own entertainment time frame anymore. On the other hand, movies that we know of now are in the current entertainment time frame, but they are not receiving such a warm welcome in the “art zone”. The more popular a movie is, the harder it will be to be recognized as an art. The problem is not from the lack of artistic qualities that the movie presented, but from the people who claim themselves as the “art elite”. These people are still living in the “old time frame”, and as long as they are still stuck in the past, everything that is not “old school” will always get a bad welcome from them.

The good thing is that there are also people who live in the present time frame. These people are more open to changes and can cope with the fact that movies–the entertaining and popular ones–can also be considered as a piece of art. Nevertheless, there are still some disputes on whether or not all movies can be deemed as an art. The reason is clear, because if all kinds of movies are to be named as an art, then we must also bear the fact that a personal video shot, amateur cell phone documentation, and even porn will also fall into the category of an art. We certainly need a better mean of classification to really put these movies to their respective boxes. Jesse J. Prinz’s written version of a talk at the Pacific APA, 2007, has then classified movies into two separate categories: 1.) The art films and 2.) The non-art films.

According to When is Film Art?, we can conclude that art films are intended to be exhibited in galleries, independent movie theaters, or film festivals. This really comes to a synch with the view that art is an exclusive class, and is there any better ways to keep its exclusivity than exhibiting films in limited places? Next, we have non-art films that are intended to be exhibited at the cinemas around the world. This kind of movies is made for larger mass audiences, for general public to enjoy. Hence, as the term implies, it is definitely not an art. Apparently, these movies are already labeled as art or non-art from the moment they are intended to be made.

This art and non-art classification of movies does help us to categorize movies. However, this classification does not really bring justice to the non-art films because it denies movies that are shown at public cinemas as an art. We know that not all movies are art, but it is also harsh to say that all movies that are intended for general public as a non-art. This kind of movies–the ones exhibited at cinemas around the world–is usually the entertaining kind. It usually gets so much attention, watched by so many people in the world, and of course, popular. Isn’t art supposed to have an aesthetic structure? Isn’t an aesthetic structure supposed to be our own understanding and acceptance of the object? If that is the case, then isn’t something popular, which attracts a lot of people to see it and bring up different understanding, at least worth a chance to be considered as an art?

In the end, it doesn’t really matter if a movie is considered as an art or not. It also doesn’t matter if one likes an art film or not. Each of us definitely has different taste from one another. Before we start talking about what it is in a movie to us, we must all take a step back and look at the initial definition of art. Art is a form of entertainment that enacts a story by sound and a sequence of images giving the illusion of continuous movement. Actually, only the first four words of this definition that really matters: art is a form of entertainment. Art is an entertainment, and entertainment is there to entertain people. Thus, everything about movies will eventually come down to these things: Do you have a great time watching it? Are you entertained when you watch it? Do you leave the cinema with a smile on your face? If the answers to those questions are yes, then that particular movie has done its purpose well. That kind of movie will surely receive my understanding, and therefore fulfilled the aesthetic structure needed to be classified as a piece of art. At least, it has become a piece of art to me. What about you? What’s in a movie to you?