The Magic of Cinema: An Exploration of Film as Art and Entertainment

Film has been in a state of constant motion and evolution since its advent over one hundred years ago. Beloved by billions as a source of entertainment, it still sometimes struggles for credibility in the world of art.

Does film have an objective, immutable artistic quality? Or do movies have to earn their artistic merit based on public consensus? In this article? We explore what it means for a movie to be considered art.

A New Era in High Art?

For most of human history, the art landscape has been relegated to several specific and inflexible categories: painting, sculpture, theatre and great literature. Although film is older than anyone alive today, it is still a relatively new medium. It sounds strange to say, but it’s not exactly clear what to make of it.

Unlike other forms of art, it’s commonplace. You meet it every day, as you stream a movie on Netflix, or catch the latest blockbuster with your friends. Are these films art? Or is that a word relegated to low-budget, high-concept films?

If it is art, how should it be consumed? Everything is digital now. Streaming services. Grocery shopping. Even the online casino. It’s all just a few short clicks away on your phone.

In an age where media access is commonplace and uninterrupted, how do you distinguish between art and mere entertainment?

The Art of Film

The history of film as a form of art is difficult to lock in. The first films began to show back in the 1890s. A case could be made that this was the first public appreciation of cinematography as a form of art. Of course, film progressed as a medium throughout the early 20th century, perhaps hitting a higher benchmark with the popularization of silent films.

Here, audience members combined their appreciation for visual stimulation with a much more well-established form of artistic expression: acting.

And so, it’s gone. Each new year has deepened the capacity for artistic expression within the medium of film. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. The Avenger’s flicks may not contain the meaning of life, but they represent a new height in spectacle, redefining what is possible one movie at a time.

Is There a Case Against Film As Art?

Scorcese made headlines a couple of years ago for saying that Marvel films weren’t cinema. They were amusement parks. In other words, not art. This may seem surprising when you see big Hollywood names like Scarlett Johansson, Robert Downey Jr, and Bill Murray in the credits.

Well, here’s what Scorcese himself said on the subject:

“For me, for the filmmakers I came to love and respect, for my friends who started making movies around the same time that I did, cinema was about revelation — aesthetic, emotional and spiritual revelation. It was about characters — the complexity of people and their contradictory and sometimes paradoxical natures, the way they can hurt one another and love one another and suddenly come face to face with themselves.”

In other words, the franchise flicks that are so popular today lack the breadth and depth required to constitute meaningful media. Film, according to Scorcese, certainly can be art, but only if it contains essential qualities that so many of today’s movies lack.

There is Art in Every Film

Did you know that the average film involves around 500 people? That’s a lot of hands, all shaping it with their own creative touch. Even films that no one would call “high art” have redeeming qualities that make them worthy of further consideration.

Maybe the special effects are incredible. Maybe the soundtrack is top-notch. Or maybe there is an unforgettable performance. Say whatever you will about The Dark Knight, but it’s not exactly Shakespeare. It’s an action movie through and through. A good one, maybe even one of the best, but still a few shades away from what is traditionally considered “high art.”

And yet few who watch the movie come out the other end with anything other than enormous respect for how Heath Ledger re-interpreted one of the world’s most famous characters. Isn’t what he did art?

Taste-makers (writers, award ceremonies, podcasters, etc.) try to lend objectivity to a concept that simply can’t be objectified. There is no singular definition of art. One needs only to walk into the nearest art museum to learn as much.

You may find paintings by the grandmasters, but you’ll also find unusual things that appear to have been found in a nearby trashcan. Bent hangers. Broken glass. Heck. An actual banana taped to the wall of an art gallery sold for six figures. Three times!

Art truly is in the eyes of the beholder, and when it comes to film, you don’t have to look too hard to find beauty. Be it in the writing, or the cinematography, or the acting, or the music, there is some element of beauty in even the very worst films. You just need to be willing to look for it.

Share on Facebook

Tweet

Follow us