When one goes to the cinema, there are two things they can go see: a film or a movie. Many people mistakenly refer to them as the same thing. Here is a clarification between them.
MOVIE: Made for entertainment purposes only. These are produced for the mass market, making sure that the companies can make quick bucks. A few characteristics of a movie are such:
-It is based off of another work (a book, a song, or even a film...more on this later)
-It is predictable (the two protagonists end up happily ever after and you're a dirty liar if you never saw it coming from a mile away)
-It is a sequel of a previous film/movie
FILM: A cinematic piece of ART, meant to portray a specific idea by the ARTIST. That is important and not enough emphasis can be placed upon it. More often than not, an independent film is the only thing nowadays that falls under this category, but this wasn't always the case (read: The Godfather, Star Wars, or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon).
Please do not think that one of these categories presides over the other in quality, because that's plain not true. Some movies are very good (Sin City, for example) and some films can be clinkers (The Village). However, more often than not, films tend to have better quality than their counterparts.
And this is fine, it is. However, my main qualm behind this discussion is the sad fact that we, in the 21st century, are a movie-bound culture; most of the highest grossing films nowadays are either a) based off of novels, b) remakes, c) sequels, d) tripe or e) any combination of the aforementioned characteristics.
Remakes are the bane of the film industry. Yes, the original was great. Yes, it grossed a lot in the box office. No, you can't improve on a good thing. NO, YOU CANNOT IMPROVE ON A GOOD THING. Please God, do NOT try to. Why aren't you listening to me? Don't you remember that the last Hulk movie sucked ass? Just because you replace the main character with Edward Norton does not mean it'll be an improvement.
Sequels effectively kill all good things. For instance, Pirates was an excellent movie, it was clever and fun and intense and one of the more entertaining flicks a person could watch. HOWEVER, now they are beating it to death with franchises and an innumerable amount of crappy sequels spoonfeeding the audience only what they liked about the first movie and not covering any new ground. Further, the second and third iterations could very well not be called "number 2 and three". They had to be called "Number 2 Part One and Two", as they were, effectively, the exact same plotline.
In conclusion: film =/= movie. There is a difference...it's not a negative connotation, but it is imperative that there is a difference.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
hm.. on a classical linguistic stand-point (with both words simply
describing moving image), i don't agree with you. Regardless, i find myself classifying cinema more and more into these two categories, "film" and "movies."
it's funny because the only "movies" here in France are the American imports, and all of the French films, out numbered 5-1 by the American movies, are what we would label as "artsy, independant, thinker films."
so yes, vive le film!!
dont even get me started on comic book vs. graphic novel
in my opinon there, no difference between the two. graphic novel is used because a lot of people are embaressed to say they're reading a comic book. (it's like saying, "oh, i shop at Targé," when everyone knows you go to Target.)
Post a Comment