The Responsibility of Movies...

[Sven]

...prompted by trotchky's complaint in the critical pet peeves thread:

What do you feel movies are responsible for accomplishing? Why do you think people make movies? Do you factor their reasoning into your own response to the film?

Most on this message board (that I've noticed) appraise individual works generally on their own artistic merits, but is art the primary impetus for the creation of most of these films? If so, is it then not fair to gauge it primarily in artistic terms? If a film's goal is to make money, why is the defense that "it has merit because it made money" usually scorned? Should capitalism, not Michael Bay, be the object of derision?

On the subject of social responsibility, do you find it wrong or annoying to criticize it for possessing a potentially frustrating perspective on society? Trotchky's peeve struck a chord with me because I find such a denial of social roles of movies to be entirely unrealistic and, when pushed to further conclusions, utterly absurd.

Ultimately, my question is: what do you think movies should accomplish? (art, money, society, edification, instruction, etc, etc) How do you think they function?

[Dukefrukem]

For me, it's a way for people to come together and share similar emotions and relate on some level. FEAR seems to be the easiest and most common thing for movie watchers to share, unlike emotional movies, or comedies. This is why I enjoy horror so much. It's almost a universal emotion. Horror's are filled with things we don't understand (until possibly way later in the movie, or maybe not at all!) and everyone fears... what they don't understand. (quick what movie is that from).

[Sven]

(quick what movie is that from).

Seems like the kind of thing that's found in a ton of things, but for some reason I cannot think of any.

I like your answer a lot. I like the incorporation of others into your perspective. Clearly I'm big on that. The insularity that some espouse, to me, is a waste of grey matter.

[Wryan]

Seems like the kind of thing that's found in a ton of things, but for some reason I cannot think of any.

He was probably going for http://theywereinthat.files.wordpress .com/2009/04/carmine.jpg.

[Dukefrukem]

Seems like the kind of thing that's found in a ton of things, but for some reason I cannot think of any.

There's two big answers I'd accept as an answer. One of them I watched recently, but it's off my Last 10 Viewings list already.



I like your answer a lot. I like the incorporation of others into your perspective. Clearly I'm big on that. The insularity that some espouse, to me, is a waste of grey matter.

I suppose I enjoy feeling anxiety and tense on a personal level as well. It's an experience you really can't get from anything else. Shut off all the lights, turn up the volumne, and watch Black Christmas. NOW try and sleep.

[Dukefrukem]

He was probably going for http://theywereinthat.files.wordpress .com/2009/04/carmine.jpg.

Winnah!

[B-side]

I'll be interested to see the various reactions to this. I find myself bouncing back and forth on the societal responsibility issue. I tend to think one shouldn't render political inference as a negative aspect of a film simply because you disagree with it. But then there's films that focus almost entirely on their political point. What do we criticize then? Lot of folks here hate Michael Moore. Is it possible to judge his films outside of their obvious political bias? I'd say no, not really. Of course, I would acknowledge the near-universally agreed upon ideal of universal health care and Moore's heartfelt fight for it. The application of that struggle is where the critic comes in, I would think, or at least I think that's the ideal approach.

When it comes to moral issues, I see a lot of critics that are far too quick to dismiss a film like Salo because it doesn't conform to their notions of what cinema should be. I have little idea of what cinema should be except a collection of images on a reel, more or less. The alleged moral discrepancies of films like Salo don't bother me. I don't think I've ever seen a film I felt was truly hateful. It's the distance between artistic intent and what ends up on screen. Naturally, it's all up for interpretation. I don't expect a director, or painter, musician, etc. for that matter, to mold their work to fit into my view of the world, and it's pretty silly to expect otherwise. I've always been really irritated by the reductive and ignorant accusations of Trier being a misogynist. This is, to me, a prime example of people bringing into a film their own issues and transparent biases.

[Raiders]

I think the discussion must start with the understanding that film is an artform, but the movie industry is a business environment, and as such they have different sets of responsibilities and motivations. A film, that is an artistic expression through the moving image, has no real responsibility in and of itself. The movie industry however is responsible for the release of their products, and these products must be dsigned for consumption by as many people as possible. "Going to the movies" is a communal experience.

But the heart of your question is really do I care how effective of a product something is or do I view it as work in a particular artform. It would be silly to view a Michael Bay film as anything other than a "product" to make Paramount as much money as humanly possible. Large companies are profit maximizers and when you invest $200 million, your concern is butts in the seats not how artistically satisfying the end result was.

But really, let's face it, unless you are rich, filmmaking is pretty much all about the money. Do you really think Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick made movies without caring that they profited from them? If so, they each may have made about two movies before going broke. Filmmaking is an expensive art. You can't buy some oil paints and a brush and create a masterpiece. If you want to create a film, the only real responsibility is to yourself, to expressing your vision through motion pictures. And there is an audience for challenging and revealing film, but it isn't nearly as big and I think early on a filmmaker needs to ask what route they are going to take because very few, especially nowadays, can be both a filmmaker for themselves and become very rich.

Ultimately though, I find that there are almost just as many great works of film that were widely released as there are films that few people saw (or maybe I have just seen a far greater number of the former). So, for all my thoughts and everything else, I just assume judge each film on its own terms since the impetus matters less to me than the results.

[Dukefrukem]

I think the discussion must start with the understanding that film is an artform, but the movie industry is a business environment, and as such they have different sets of responsibilities and motivations. A film, that is an artistic expression through the moving image, has no real responsibility in and of itself. The movie industry however is responsible for the release of their products, and these products must be dsigned for consumption by as many people as possible. "Going to the movies" is a communal experience.

But the heart of your question is really do I care how effective of a product something is or do I view it as work in a particular artform. It would be silly to view a Michael Bay film as anything other than a "product" to make Paramount as much money as humanly possible. Large companies are profit maximizers and when you invest $200 million, your concern is butts in the seats not how artistically satisfying the end result was.

But really, let's face it, unless you are rich, filmmaking is pretty much all about the money. Do you really think Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick made movies without caring that they profited from them? If so, they each may have made about two movies before going broke. Filmmaking is an expensive art. You can't buy some oil paints and a brush and create a masterpiece. If you want to create a film, the only real responsibility is to yourself, to expressing your vision through motion pictures. And there is an audience for challenging and revealing film, but it isn't nearly as big and I think early on a filmmaker needs to ask what route they are going to take because very few, especially nowadays, can be both a filmmaker for themselves and become very rich.

Ultimately though, I find that there are almost just as many great works of film that were widely released as there are films that few people saw (or maybe I have just seen a far greater number of the former). So, for all my thoughts and everything else, I just assume judge each film on its own terms since the impetus matters less to me than the results.

Raiders, you make a good point by referencing the business side of the movie industry. And the first two names that come to mind are Bay and Bruckheimer. But I feel like this idea is accepted more for disaster and action movies. Obviously NO ONE wants to lose money when producing a film. But let's take Clint Eastwood as an example.. Look at the last 5 films he directed;

Movie: (Budget/Gross)

Gran Torino ($33 million/$263 million)
Changeling ($55 million/$112 million)
Flags of Our Fathers ($90 million/$65 million)
Million Dollar Baby ($30 million/$216 million)
Mystic River ($25 million/$156 million)

With the exception of Flags of Our Fathers, they all made ridiculous cash. Do you think Clint's primary objective with these movies is to make cash? Or to create some incredibly engaging movies that are enjoyable, interesting, and relatable? (winning a few academy awards wouldn't be too bad either)

[Raiders]

Do you think Clint's primary objective with these movies is to make cash?

I can't speak for Eastwood, but I imagine it is certainly near the top. But honestly, he's a bit more unique than most filmmakers with a creative license, and likely some built-in fans, most filmmakers don't enjoy.


Or to create some incredibly engaging movies that are enjoyable, interesting, and relatable? (winning a few academy awards wouldn't be too bad either)

Right, and in the end, what does all that ultimately equal for Clint? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

Please note I am not saying that prioritizing money means the films will be bad or that artistic inspiration goes out the window. I'm just relating that all movies, particularly nowadays, are to an extent a business.

[Dukefrukem]

I can't speak for Eastwood, but I imagine it is certainly near the top. But honestly, he's a bit more unique than most filmmakers with a creative license, and likely some built-in fans, most filmmakers don't enjoy.



Right, and in the end, what does all that ultimately equal for Clint? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

Sure everyone wants to make the most amount of money possible. It's the American dream. But if you're already good (or great) at something, I'd want to be considered the best... In his case, awards. It's like an athlete wanting to win Championships.

[Raiders]

Sure everyone wants to make the most amount of money possible. It's the American dream. But if you're already good (or great) at something, I'd want to be considered the best... In his case, awards. It's like an athlete wanting to win Championships.

True, although I would argue that time has a way of distringuishing the great filmmakers as opposed to awards. Film is more subjective than athletics. Awards, well the Academy awards anyway, are more about prestige. And with prestige comes...

[Dukefrukem]

True, although I would argue that time has a way of distringuishing the great filmmakers as opposed to awards. Film is more subjective than athletics. Awards, well the Academy awards anyway, are more about prestige. And with prestige comes...

Fame? A legend?

[bac0n]

Film is as much art as it is entertainment. Hell some films are all of one and none of the other. Some films are neither. Many films manage to balance the two to a certain degree.

To me, a film has fulfilled its responsibilities if it entertains me and leaves me with something to think about after the final credits roll.

[Sycophant]

The reason I watch movies and the reason studios finance movies and the reason directors make movies and the reason actors star in movies, I imagine, don't always synch up. I come at them looking for, a suppose, some abstract mixture of "art/craft appreciation" and "entertainment" or whatever, though I don't have as easy a time separating the two pursuits as possible, since I find them inextricably bound. So that's the sort of merit I'm looking for. When I judge a film--I'll take the obvious track and suppose a Michael Bay film--I'll probably find that it fails as far as what I should want it to be and I may deem it a failure by my indefinite criteria. But if the opening weekend receipts are satisfactory enough, the producers and Bay himself will probably be satisfied and judge the film a success. Someone else who believes they attend the cinema for "art/craft appreciation" and "entertainment" might actually find that very same movie I called a failure a rousing success.

On the other hand, you've got people like Woody Allen, whose movies rarely turn up any kind of respectable box office these days. But he's got financiers who have an interest in seeing him continue to produce one film a year and may be doing so more for the reasons I want to see a movie than why Paramount wants Michael Bay to direct a movie. Woody Allen's drive to contiue to create movies is something I'm not entirely sure of, other than he doesn't want to atrophy.

On the issue of social irresponsibility, I find that can be a perfectly valid complaint. It's what for me took Enchanted from dull and bad to awful and reprehensible. Of course, it's a complaint I can disagree with from instance to instance.

[Sycophant]

Also, art, schmart.

[megladon8]

I don't think the "art" side and the "business" side need to be mutually exclusive. And this goes for any art form - literature, music, formal, etc.

[Sycophant]

The entertianment industry is businesspeople hiring artists/craftspersons to make art/crafts to make the businesspeople money.

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

The responsibility of movies is to make me erect.

Anything other than that is considered disappointment.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I feel that the responsibility of a movie is to fully engage the viewer for its runtime, to pull them into the unreality of the film and make it their current reality. Be it by the art of the film or its narrative. The communal experience is essential, as the point of mass communication is to allow many different types of people to share the same information, but ideally when you watch a film, you are essentially "alone" with it.

I believe that what happens in that space between viewer and film/filmmakers is a type of magic. And that magic carries with it a tremendous weight. When one produces two hours of expression designed for millions of viewers, I believe there is a vital trust between filmmaker and viewer, for emotional and/or intellectual fulfillment. I become upset when either side breaks that trust, either by the viewer settling or the filmmakers pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Granted, that results in a weak "call-it-as-I-see-it" judgment of artists and viewers. But generally what I believe is this: a filmmaker who is not passionate about their film as art and communication has no business making it, and a viewer unwilling to engage films with their heart and mind has no business watching.

[Grouchy]

With the exception of Flags of Our Fathers, they all made ridiculous cash. Do you think Clint's primary objective with these movies is to make cash? Or to create some incredibly engaging movies that are enjoyable, interesting, and relatable? (winning a few academy awards wouldn't be too bad either)
The difference is that Clint has been a huge movie star and an Oscar-winning film director for decades now. He can make non-commercial movies like Changeling and still enjoy a fanbase and an acceptable box-office. But he'll never make a movie that is as non-commercial as a Woody Allen film, who's equally famous but less mainstream - ok, at least talking about the "good" Allen films.

I think we live in mind-opening times, though. Times where a brooding and deceptive film like The Dark Knight can be a blockbuster because, basically, youth today is a lot more exposed to media of all types. Cable TV, the internet and the explosion of cinephilia mean that people over the age of 20 with no overt interest in movies have at least seen one or two very arty films.