Movies: Art or Product?

[drblood]

Since I've had this discussion a few times on various forums, I thought I'd set up a poll here to see what everyone else thinks.

Some people see all movies as "art". Although that really depends on your definition of "art" (whether you want to see films as moving paintings or just the work of an artisan), it could be argued that anything created by anyone, no matter how insignificant, is actually art. From the Mona Lisa to a rubber washer, if you think it's art then it very well could be.

Alternatively, movies are commercial products. It's "show business" and as every A & R man in the world knows, if a product gives people enough pleasure to part with money for it then it's a good one.

Personally, I think that most movies are formulaic money making products. Even "arthouse" films are a bit of a misnomer nowadays too. In fact, I question whether any film can ever really be seen as "a work of art". What do you think?

[StevePulaski]

I say "art" because of the fact that I believe a film can be a work of art. Some movies are so passionate and can be considered a work of art.

[briggs]

I say art. No matter how halfassed and reconstituted a film ends up as, a writer has to have had the creativity to at least make a script run around an idea for some length of time, actors have to decide some way to play their characters, and directors have to find some way to make shots look good.

Editors can spin a good commercial, but that's a small part of what makes a film succeed; directors have to craft a vision that will at least connect emotionally with the public. In this case, in order to succeed in business, you have to successfully make art.

[nopersonality]

Most people want them to be art but everyone involved with the making of a movie needs them to make money. Whether they care about them making money at the time of production or not. Filmmakers need to live, too. Without money, who can live? Right now... there really aren't all that many movies made for under a million dollars in the U.S. and Canada. Not ones that get a good release. And then, advertising campaigns cost as well.

Hollywood only cares about money. That's a fact. Awards ceremonies and the people behind them care about prestige more than anything else. Actors bow down mostly, depending on how much they feel they need major awards commities to like them, to the Awards'. Directors want to be happy with the deal they make to make a movie. The less exposure they have, the more they care about the film they're making. The art they want to make. A good example - Eli Roth. At the time of Cabin Fever, I promise you he cared about what horror fans were going to think of his movie. When he made Hostel: Part 2, he went on ranting about illegal downloading and bootlegging of Hostel. And now he's an actor in a full-blown Hollywood film with a huge advertising campaign when he started out peddling stills of the gore scenes from Cabin Fever in '02 and '03 on IMDb.com and some dinky little word-of-mouth site (he must have figured: if it worked for Donnie Darko and Blair Witch Project, it would work for him too...).

Movies don't exist without filmmakers and the entire crew- including actors. The more exposure they get, the more they care about money. Sometimes with good reason (look at how John Carpenter got screwed after the Halloween remake).

[StevePulaski]

Thats true too NP.

If a movie makes under $1,000,000 in a release over 1,000 screens (Transylmania for example). Thats to blame for the poor advertising and corrupt TV spots. But once again, did they have the money for it?

It baffles me why Eddie Murphy's The Advetures of Pluto Nash bombed so horribly. I remember seeing commercials forever with that film. They had the marketing right, just not the audience.