I recently came across a posting in reference to "Austin Powers: Goldmember"...

"The movie was a comedy. It's purpose was to be funny. If a movie achieves its desired reaction, then it should be praised and considered a "good movie"."

This got me wondering. I think this post cuts down to a question that plagues most filmmakers. Like the author said, are the qualifications for a good film the achievement of "its desired reaction?"

*******

Personally, I don't believe it. There needs to be an attention to quality of the way in which the story is told in order for it be called a true film. I agree that Goldmember was funny, but if all I wanted was to laugh, I'd hang out with my friends, they're a lot more fun.
I guess the purpose of watching films differs dramatically between different viewers.

Just my thoughts, what are yours?

The purpose of a film (as I see it) is exactly what you were quoting. A movie is made with a desired reaction to get from its audiance. Wether you want to get people to laugh and forget about their worries, make them worry by exposing a truth they never thought about, making them jump from thier seat, or cuddle up with the person next to them. Thats the point of film, and theater too, as I see it. Not to impress a critic, not to rake in money, but to get a reaction. Cause without a reaction, you have nothing.


-Thomas Chalifour

Writer/Director/Actor Extrodinaire

That quote was mine, so I felt that I should elaborate on it, but Thomas beat me to the punch and explained exactly what I would have said in most certainly better wording than I would have used.

Basically, movies are made for causing some sort of reaction. If that reaction is achieved, then it was successful. Now, we could get into the whole "But Hollywood movies are made solely to make money" agruement. However, while true, with that defense you still have to keep in mind that the money is only made if the general public accepts it, and the general public will only accept it if it is successful in achieving its reaction.

--Alan

------------------
http://www.alandenton.com
------------------

The purpose of any creative endeavor should always be to be truthful and to cause an emotional reaction, or some connection between film-maker and audience on a viceral level. That's why conceptual art is only popular with critics and not with real audiences, it doesn't bother to make an emotional connection. Self-masturbatory films are not needed in the world, and "the meaning of film" doesn't need to have some pretentious discussion. Film, theatre,music and art should be made with the purpose of connecting. Anyone can look at a Van Gogh and have a connection. It's not elitist. Same with someone like David Lynch. He may offend your emotions, but he's interested in making that emotional connection, and he's successful. Too many film-makers don't care and don't bother. (Like "you know who" for example. Last name begins and ends with "K".

Critics Suck. They see too many movies and discourage people from seeing them just because it's not as good as all the movies they've ever seen.

Plus, most critics write because they're writing for a magazine, journal, newspaper, etc., so they exaggerate their either bashing or rave reviews.

By the way, Why do all critics give independent films really good ratings, even if they suck?

http://badwig.cjb.net

*"movies are made for causing some sort of reaction"

Well said, but what kind of reaction? If it is an emotional one, why? How can a simple imitation of life have any kind of value in a world where real emotion can be felt, and real life can be experienced every day?

*"That's why conceptual art is only popular with critics and not with real audiences"

All right fine, so does the majority decide what good film is? Just look at all the different eras of art (including film). Obviously public tastes are fickle. This also ties in with what Badwig says, "Critics Suck," this is the only thing I outright disagree with in this discussion; good critics are as essential to the arts as are artists and audiences. Without critics, the world would truly be filled with "Self-masturbatory films." Critics are the ones who steer the medium, always making sure it doesn't run off the tracks.

Why a reaction? Cause if you watch a movie and you don't get anything out of it besides some confusing mess of images that have no relivance to you...then why the **** are you watching it in the first place? Why watch a movie if it's not there to make you feel something? Laughter, compassion, horror, thats why you go to the movies. You probably just don't know it yet.

And by the way, critics are only good for putting on a poster.


-Thomas Chalifour

Writer/Director/Actor Extrodinaire

Why would anybody watch a film without getting a reaction? Yes, I agree, but why? What is the point of getting these reactions when they are from mere "immitations?"

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just trying to get to a deeper point because I honestly wish to know.

Actually, I guess I DO disagree with you on the role of critics. The majority of critics are fools, I agree, but I feel that good critics have an important role in art.

Ultimately it's to make money.

I agree more or less with the original quote.

I think that MOVIES are just for entertainment, nothing more, nothing less.


FILMS on the other hand.......

Make a movie to make money to make anothe movie to make more money..ect.

TACO WAGON PRODUCTIONS©

God, I hope you guys are wrong.

Seriously Zulu, It's all about the cash money.

Now if we had more people making films as an art form then there would be less of this teeny bobber crap like XXX or even the lizzie mcquire movie...

Lizzie rocks...

TACO WAGON PRODUCTIONS©

Miranda rocks

Who the f*** is Meranda?

TACO WAGON PRODUCTIONS©

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one those people who says films have to be boring nonprofit things, but god I'd hate to have dedicated so much time and effort into something that's "all about the money."

quote:

---

Who the f*** is Meranda?

---

Helloooo, Lizzie's mexican girlfriend.

quote:

---

I'd hate to have dedicated so much time and effort into something that's "all about the money."

---

Yeah, but that's the reason they do it. There are some things I'd never do for money either...

To Zulu: Dude...you wanna make films, right? You can still make films that are original, artistic, cool ect. BUT! You want to be thinking of money your gonna get FROM the film...this way you can CONTINUE making films. If you wanna break into the business, try making a POS script that HOLLYWOOD WOULD LOVE and YOU think would make money. This way after you give the production company millions of dollars because you made a blockbuster they will basically give you thirty million to do whatever you want because they think you'll bring in money. It happened to Spielberg, Lucas, Tarantino, Rodriguez, & stupid Orson Welles who made crap after Citizen Kane...(not saying Citizen Kane was good, but every one on the bandwagon of movies seems to love it for some stupid reason.)

To Kyzqo (whatever): Who the f*** cares ano==bout Lizzie's stupid friend of a Latino origin?! Lizzie's the hottest one on the show!

TACO WAGON PRODUCTIONS©