Are movies an art-form, or a form of entertainment? I think both could be, because movies have many categories, like comedy, Dracula movies, action movies, etc. Nowadays, most of films are commercial films, they have grand scenes, famous artists, famous directors, so they can attract more people's attention. There is no denying that some of them are pretty good; however, a few of movies just want to earn more money. Therefore, I think most of commercial movies are a form of entertainment. There also have some films named "literary movies," this kind of movies are "better." I mean that movies just don't use too much cost to complete the whole film, they also can give people aesthetic feelings, some inspiration. In my opinion, this kind of films are an art-form.
I have many favourite movies, for instance, "Harry Potter" "X-Men" "Spider man" "The Pursuit of Happiness" "Forrest Gump." Although "Harry Potter" X-Men" or "Spider man" belong to commercial films, I think that their story lines are really interesting for me, so I like them. On the contrary,"Forrest Gump" or "The Pursuit of Happiness" are not commercial films, they have very good stories, which moved me very much, and also tell me the keys to success. Thus, when I define a "good" movie, no matter who is the actors, who is the director, how much they cost, as long as the movie's story can attract me; besides, it should give audiences some feelings or inspiration.
Hi Nick!
ReplyDeleteTerrific post--you do a great job of discussing commercial and non-commercial movies, and the benefits of each. It seems to me that the plot is the most important thing to you: do you think "A Streetcar Named Desire" had a good plot?
Hi Jessica:
ReplyDeleteof course, "A Streetcar Named Desire" had a good plot. Although it was an old movie, I was a little surprised about the end of the movie. The whole movie relected American social form at that time, I think it is a good movie!