Art vs. entertainment
05-01-2005 16:00 | 6641 views | Michael Mackenzie
The other day I was contemplating writing a review of Criterion's superb new 2-disc release of Fritz Lang's M, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that I'm up against a brick wall. You see, despite the fact that I can see M as a monumentally important work in terms of the history of film, it's not a film that I particularly "enjoy" (if that's the right word) watching. I could name dozens of films with similar plots that engaged me far more and that I would prize more highly, and therein lies the problem.
I think there's a real dilemma when rating landmark films like M, or Citizen Kane, or Night of the Living Dead. To what extent does the film's historical importance overshadow its value as entertainment, and which of these two aspects, which don't always work in harmony, should be the defining factor when assigning a rating? It's impossible to debate the importance of these films in terms of cinematic history, but I feel that it would be unwise to automatically give them perfect ratings based on these terms. Frequently I feel that, somewhere down the line, another director (or indeed the same director) takes the same formula and improves on it. Videodrome, for instance, could be described as the ultimate in Cronenbergian body horror, but so shoot me, I prefer Crash. Does that mean that Crash is as important a film as Videodrome? No, it doesn't, but I think you can probably see the dilemma this brings up. The same goes for Halloween. Its importance in cinematic history is assured, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying Scream more (which, for many people, must be tantamount to blasphemy).
I'm curious as to how other people feel about this issue. As it is I've abandoned any thought of reviewing M, because I don't consider myself able to do it justice, but I think that this is a very potent topic and one that could spark an interesting debate. I think that ultimately it comes down to a stand-off between two extremes: (1) the high-brow viewers whose soul purpose is to pick apart movies and discuss them in terms of culture and history rather than enjoying them as entertainment, and (2) the popcorn crowd who simply want loud explosions and a reasonable way to pass the time for two hours. That's not to say that the two can't work in harmony, of course, but ultimately I think it necessary to sway either in one direction or the other.
Any thoughts?
I think there's a real dilemma when rating landmark films like M, or Citizen Kane, or Night of the Living Dead. To what extent does the film's historical importance overshadow its value as entertainment, and which of these two aspects, which don't always work in harmony, should be the defining factor when assigning a rating? It's impossible to debate the importance of these films in terms of cinematic history, but I feel that it would be unwise to automatically give them perfect ratings based on these terms. Frequently I feel that, somewhere down the line, another director (or indeed the same director) takes the same formula and improves on it. Videodrome, for instance, could be described as the ultimate in Cronenbergian body horror, but so shoot me, I prefer Crash. Does that mean that Crash is as important a film as Videodrome? No, it doesn't, but I think you can probably see the dilemma this brings up. The same goes for Halloween. Its importance in cinematic history is assured, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying Scream more (which, for many people, must be tantamount to blasphemy).
I'm curious as to how other people feel about this issue. As it is I've abandoned any thought of reviewing M, because I don't consider myself able to do it justice, but I think that this is a very potent topic and one that could spark an interesting debate. I think that ultimately it comes down to a stand-off between two extremes: (1) the high-brow viewers whose soul purpose is to pick apart movies and discuss them in terms of culture and history rather than enjoying them as entertainment, and (2) the popcorn crowd who simply want loud explosions and a reasonable way to pass the time for two hours. That's not to say that the two can't work in harmony, of course, but ultimately I think it necessary to sway either in one direction or the other.
Any thoughts?
Comments
Member
Posts: 101
I have seen it once and that was enough for me. It is interminably slow with wooden acting and pretentious to boot.
Contributor
Posts: 1647
------
Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site
Member
Posts: 1815
I like all sorts of films, from auteurs like Welles and Fellini to horror to world cinema to film noir to silent classics. Even a few dumb blockbusters. I think I'd call them all entertainment but in a very broad sense - I can be "entertained" by a movie that makes me think, makes me sad or even makes me sick - it just has to provoke some kind of reaction other than boredom.
In terms of comparing films with each other, I just make a sort of mental adjustment for the age and type of film that I'm watching (which isn't to say that I compartmentalise everything, it's an unconscious process). To me, M is every bit as exciting and disturbing as Silence of the Lambs and The Public Enemy is just as good a gangster movie as Goodfellas. I don't even notice the differences in acting styles or creaky special effects (well I do, but I make allowances for them - it's easy).
I'm slightly losing track of what I'm rambling on about here - to sum up I think it's more a case of good vs. bad than art vs. entertainment. To use a really obvious 2004 example, Spider-Man 2 and Van Helsing are both undoubtedly popcorn movies, but one is great and the other is ... shite. Even that's a subjective opinion of course, but that's the nature of opinions!
The same goes for Halloween. Its importance in cinematic history is assured, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying Scream more (which, for many people, must be tantamount to blasphemy).
Yep, it is.
Member
Posts: 44
Member
Posts: 472
I've had a similar feeling with some films such as Citizen Kane - which of course comes with so much baggage that I suspect that many who say they loved it right off the bat are saying so because they feel they should. Second time round, I was pacing myself to it and really enjoyed it. Which is essentially what Phil was saying, in fact I think he nails it. You do adjust to certain types of films, we all do: animation, for example, is viewed from a different perspective to live action, similarly we enjoy genre films in a different way to enjoying dramatic films - contemporary or classic - we're continually adjusting how we view it and how we enjoy it.
Also, viewing films is a very personal experience. People enjoy films in different ways. Personally, I think M is a cracking thriller, historical importance or not, similarly I still find Last House on the Left very disturbing despite the fact it looks hopelessly amateur and poorly acted.
On a side note, I love the fact that high-brow viewers have a "soul purpose", explains a lot…
Spiny Anteater
Posts: 181
I agree with Phil and Dodd about making a mental adjustment for the film I'm watching – I probably use different parts of my brain to watch In The Mood For Love and, say, Aliens, but I'd be hard pressed to say which is the better of the two. I suppose I veer between the "high-brow" and "popcorn" viewing Michael describes.
There's a Mark Twain quote which I think is pertinent here:
A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read.
Or to put it another way, I can appreciate 2001 as a great work of art, but nine times out of ten I'd rather watch Point Break.
scary-crow
Posts: 98
Member
Posts: 2
Same with Three Colours Blue: a deeply affecting and beautifully crafted work, which I could watch again and again, but not one you'd say you "fell in love with".
scary-crow
Posts: 98
A perfect example of a film that is entertaining and wonderfully artistic.
But I think that it all depends on your point of view, I mean, some might say that Fight Club is artistic, and what about Quentin Tarantino films; he makes them with such a passion it may be hard to see them anything other than artistic...
Where it Falls
Posts: 155
I personally find entertainment in art. I'll love watching films like Fritz Lang's M, 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Godfather because they're technically brilliant. I enjoy watching technically sound films over those created for entertainment value. I guess I fall in class (1). I do enjoy the odd fluff film tho, like The Fifth Element.
Michael: I'd go about reviewing M from a retrospective standpoint. Initially point out the qualities of the film, referencing Lang's earlier works (mention Metropolis, everyone's heard of it and people like reading things they're familiar with). I'd move then into how it's influenced films, and some qualities specific to M that aren't found in later films falling into the same genre (the fact that there's no hero is a good example). Finish by commenting on the film from your cultural perspective (not from your personal perspective). How does an audience from 2005 watch M? What important facts about 20s, 30s Germany does the audience need to take into consideration?
That's just how i'd do it ;). Good luck.
The art vs. entertainment issue is pretty interesting, especially for reviewers. I've found it to be incredibly difficult to rate an incredibly good film (like my latest review, Princess Mononoke), in comparison to something that's simply entertaining but not as technically sound. Do they deserve the same wrap? I'm pretty snobby, and would give something highly entertaining but shallow a low score and a balanced writeup. Difficult stuff!
(if anyone's interested, I review for Aussie based www.dvd.net.au)
------
YMDb
Banned
Posts: 2907
p.s - How does the Criterion "M" compare to the already excellent Eureka DVD? It doesn't look like a worthwhile upgrade to me.
Contributor
Posts: 1647
The Criterion M's transfer is a vast improvement on the Eureka, which in my opinion was decidedly weak (although admittedly not terrible): severe edge enhancements, overly bright and generally ugly to look at. In terms of extras, it's really down to what you prefer. The Criterion has some very interesting material, including a new documentary on the film's censorship and restoration history and a great interview with Fritz Lang conducted by William Friedkin, as well as a new commentary, which is rather dry but still very informative, and numerous other goodies. If you're a fan of the film I would definitely advise you to look into a copy.
------
Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site
Contributor
Posts: 610
Banned
Posts: 2907
Seriously it's in my top 3 of most boring films of all time (along with "Blair Witch" and "Drunken Master"). It was great to see how Orson Welles has influenced other directors and clear was ahead of his time but the story oh man it was dull.
Contributor
Posts: 610
Banned
Posts: 2907
The cinematography is good yes but I disagree there is nothing witty about the screenplay.
Huh? Just because you/I love cinema it doesn't mean you/I/whoever has to sit through a film you/I/whoever ultimately find boring. Just because you disagree with me it doesn't give you the right to bash my opinion, thank you.
Where it Falls
Posts: 155
bradavon, i'm sorry. Anyone has the right to bash (or refute) anyone elses opinion. That's what a discussion is.
When you present an opinion like "Citizen Kane is boring" expect to be heavily bashed, because for the most part you're blatently wrong.
(off-topic) Michael: Do you know if the Criterion release of M is any different (transfer wise) to the R4 release of late last year? It was quite an exceptional package, and i'm interested to see whether or not it has been topped.
------
YMDb
Contributor
Posts: 1647
As far as I know Criterion always do their own transfers. The credits in the liner notes list many prominent Criterion people for telecine supervision, digital restoration, etc, so I think it's safe to assume that theirs is a completely new transfer. I don't know how it compares to the R4 though.
------
Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site
Contributor
Posts: 610
Member
Posts: 17
For example, Lang's Metropolis is one of my favourite films, not because I admire its historical importance (which I do) but because I enjoy - not appreciate, enjoy - watching it. I simply think that not many films released in the 80-odd years since have matched it. Similarly, I think no horror film has matched the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre for sheer entertainment value.
That doesn't mean that there are no good new films, of course. For instance, I love The Lord of the Rings as much as I love Metropolis or The Seven Samurai, highbrow snobs be damned. But I still think that the majority of the revered classics (with notable exceptions) are genuinely better made, more interesting, and more entertaining than a lot of the crap that gets released nowadays.
Account Disabled
Posts: 17
One of the challenges I find with most DVD mags and, to a much lesser extent, websites is why there is seen to be any need to review the film at all. I am extremely interested in, in this case, how Criterion have packaged the film, the condition of the image and the audio, any extras that are packaged with it. These issues have a significant value in determining whether or not I might buy the DVD. But when it comes to the content...?
I understand and sympathise with the challenge (A model T ford is a landmark in automotive history - but would I want to commute to work in one on a daily basis?!) but the fact is it's a subjective thing. There are some automotive nuts who would indeed drive a model T everyday and what others might see as it's failings they would no doubt regard as endearing foibles. The same is true of film. 'M' is a landmark because of what,and when, it was. It has to be viewed in that light. Some find that easy to do - others find it hard (neither of them should be considered 'bad people'!)
------
Member
Posts: 472
So essentially, I don't think anyone should review a disc without reviewing the film. Which - at risk of sounding sycophantic - is why this site is vastly preferable to so many others out there.
Contributor
Posts: 1647
do people really invite their friends around to show off the resolution of their discs? "No, get really close, can you see any grain? See? hah! told you!" Very odd...
Sorry to nitpick, but the better the resolution of the disc the more grain you should be able to see, not the other way round. ;)
I totally take your point, though. The film is what matters, then the disc.
------
Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site
Member
Posts: 1815
So essentially, I don't think anyone should review a disc without reviewing the film. Which - at risk of sounding sycophantic - is why this site is vastly preferable to so many others out there.
I agree 100%. I don't only buy DVDs of films I've already seen, in fact DVD has let me enjoy all sorts of things I'd never have discovered otherwise - be they classic Criterion releases, 1960s yakuza films or obscure Italian horror movies.
So yes, you should always review the film, but I want to know the technical details too, just in case there's a better version available somewhere.
Member
Posts: 109
For example: Schindler's List may be in black and white, but it is a thoroughly modern movie made by someone educated in film, so it held pupils' attention. Despite the radical camera moves, the period acting in All Quiet On The Western Front failed to grab anyone until the bunker starts getting bombed, and then when the trench warfare starts and the Maxims and grenades start going off, it held their attention every bit as much as the opening of Saving Private Ryan.
In other words, those elements of early cinema which have become part of the modern language of cinema are easily recognisable to a modern audience, and they will react appropriately. Silent films can thus still be appreciated by a wider audience, paradoxically, to early talkies.
Personally, I can watch pretty much anything from anywhere and anywhen, as long as I'm in the mood for it. If it's Friday night and I'm knackered, then action or horror without subs will usually go on :p However, what makes this site stand out from other review sites is the willingness to go beyond reviewing (disc quality) to criticism (critical appraisal of the film on the disc), and as such, honesty is to be preferred from the writer in all things. :)
Page: 1, 2