The Purpose of Film

I read some argumentative comments the other day on what the point of film is. Most everyone claimed something along these lines, "The whole point (of movies) is to entertain, right?" While most people I know would agree with that, I'm not entirely sold on that argument.

The point of eating is to nourish and fill oneself. The point of sports is to root for a particular team and play the role of their cheerleader. The point of traveling is to hit all the big spots which have been talked about for decades. The point of movies is to entertain us.

To the average Joe (or Bob, whatever), this may very well be the case. Most people go to the movie theater for entertainment. They may buy some popcorn or candy, some soda, and waltz into the theatre with the big screen and hope that the next couple hours are well spent (in more ways than one) and enjoyable. But, not everyone thinks this way.

There are times when I'm so hungry, I could about grab anything in the kitchen, place it in my mouth, and chew, just so I fill myself to prevent my stomach's constant grumblings. But, on many occasions, there's more to it than that. I don't just eat the food to fill myself. I eat it because I enjoy it. I want to take in every flavor I possibly can and make like the star in the film Ratatoville. There are many times when I just want to see a sporting event well played, evenly officiated, with building suspense and a climactic ending which gives those in the sports' world something to chatter about for weeks, months, even years. When I'm traveling, I want to experience the culture of a certain area more so than certain landmarks that are well known. I want to meet the people, experience the food, the music, art, entertainment, language, etc. to garner the best feel for that particular area.

While filling oneself is certainly a satisfying feeling (so long as it's not overdone), one's favorite team being victorious on any given day is likewise satisfying, or even knowing that you saw one of the most talked about landmarks in the world may be an accomplishing feeling it's own right, sitting down in a theatre and being entertained is a definite bonus to the experience, but not the whole experience.

This is where critics and average people differ. I was scolded not long ago about how film critics are stupid, are too picky, and should never be listened to, because they don't know what they're talking (writing) about. Where lies the difference is that people, more times than not, grade movies based on their entertainment value and critics grade films based on their overall quality. It may be similar to a live musical act or a restaurant. The people may find the overall dining experience to be fun, but food critics may be disappointed by the quality of food served. The people may be in love with a certain musician, based on the energy they exude throughout their performance, but music critics may feel that this individual's voice was off-key throughout the evening's show. While people go to films for a good laugh, a good scare, or some happy tears, critics want to see something mind-blowing, a film with originality, with revolutionary direction, clever editing, ground-breaking cinematography, Oscar-worthy acting, etc.

While I will agree with my brother's comments when it comes to critics' reviews from an entertainment standpoint, I don't agree with him when it comes to a quality one. When it comes to the overall quality of films, I typically agree with the majority of critics. There are a few disagreements, sure, but I'd say 75-80% of the time, I agree with them.

Perhaps if we (the people and the critics) had a better understanding of one another, we'd be less inclined to bash the other when they seemingly believe the polar opposite of us when it comes to a film. Critics want to be entertained as well. They are typically entertained in a different manner than average people, though. While repetitious fart jokes may make certain people laugh, chances are the majority of critics won't be very impressed. They'll be more apt to being entertained by quality performances, such as Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or more recently, As Good As It Gets. They'll be more entertained by the adult dark humor parlayed in Little Miss Sunshine. They'll be more entertained by clever editing, such as in Hot Fuzz. They'll be more entertained by an original screenplay, such as Gosford Park. While I agree that critics can be a little too hard on some films, on comedies in particular, we have to remember that they're not grading based on entertainment value, but on the quality of the picture. There are some '80s films I've always enjoyed, such as Twins and Uncle Buck. I find them to be fun films to view and would grade them rather high when it came to entertainment, but they're not earth-shattering pictures. The acting is less than stellar, the storylines and plots are nothing to write home about, etc., so when it comes to a quality film grade, they wouldn't receive very high scores from me. Perhaps that's what critics should now do. They could give two scores for every film they see, one for entertainment value, which the majority of people could relate to more and the other for quality value. Just as there are different loves and tastes when it comes to anything, the same is true of film. I'm a hybrid of the critic and the average Joe. While I love dumb '80s comedies, such as the before-mentioned Twins and Uncle Buck, there's nothing quite like experiencing a film that affects you in such a manner that it makes a permanent indentation in one's mind that will never dissipate.