Essay: Films and Movies.
Occasionally, my roommate will allow me to talk about movies with him. It’s with the same wariness that I allow him to talk about baseball stats with me. He loves movies; I love baseball. But not nearly to the obsessive, almost sick degree of the other.
Usually, it begins with a teaser commercial for an upcoming movie. Let’s use the recent example of Ghosts of Girlfriends Past starring Matthew McConaughey. We both laughed at the trailer. It’s another obvious McConaughey movie meant to attract an audience of women from twenty-four to thirty-six years old shallow enough to believe that the trite plots and characters’ epiphanies about love somehow convey a depth of emotional reality. Based on the teaser, we know exactly how the movie will end. (That’s true of a lot of movies.)
I decided to look up the reviews and ratings for this gem at Metacritic. Not so good. But then my roommate laughed at me for even bothering to look. Of course it got bad reviews, he said, it’s not that type of movie; you’re not supposed to critique it, only watch it and enjoy it.
That’s operating on two very shaky assumptions. The first is that most movie reviewers are critics. The second is that any movie meant for mindless entertainment cannot be judged by any merits.
But I’ve noticed this problem a lot, and it is my theory that there are two different types of motion pictures: films and movies. Yes, I use the terms interchangeably here to talk about a motion picture. But when referring to the quality of a motion picture, I mean ‘film’ and ‘movie’ in very specific, distinct ways.
Let’s compare to books: a film is a literary novel, like Tree of Smoke by Denis Johnson, and a movie is like a genre novel, like Patriot Games by Tom Clancy. (Though, I don’t mean all ‘movies’ are ‘genre movies’; I’m only comparing the literary or artistic gravity typically associated with genre novels.) Films, in the qualitative sense, are award winners when the industry decides to pat itself on the back. They get nominated for things, and they tend to be released in the fall and early winter. Lately, they tend to be indepedently made and then distributed by a major studio. Films are typically thought of as made by ‘artists’ rather than plain directors, and these artists seek to convey some profound meaning (or meaninglessness) about the human condition.
Movies get nominated and win awards from time to time, but mostly they are meant to entertain. Like Mr. McConaughey’s film above, you’re supposed to watch it and enjoy it. (Whether or not you can do either often depends on the strength of your stomach.) They are typically helmed by directors looking to tell a good story or one of two very cynical other explanations: boosting the ol’ resume or fattening the checking account.
It might be best to approach movies and films from the perspective of the industry. Nothing like a little Marxism to sweeten the pot. All motion pictures are products. Even the artistic directors want to sell you their films, though their motivations aren’t always green with Presidents’ faces on them. Films and movies are defined by their intended markets. Many people will see either type of picture, but I know of plenty who would rather see only one or the other. Still some more might get physically ill to see either a film like The Godfather Part II or a movie like Old School. But films and movies are geared to attract certain types of audiences; films are elitist, and movies are populist.
But the categories themselves can’t be compared. A film is not better than a movie or vice versa. And, for the most part, good films are good movies with an artistic intent. In that sense, films are more than movies but not better.
Let’s use some examples to flesh this out. Two from above. Great film: The Godfather Part II. Great movie: Old School. And sometimes, great films don’t make the best movies. One of my favorite films of all time is 2001: A Space Odyssey, but it’s not the first movie I think of watching on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Give me Spider-man, Dodgeball, or Blood Diamond for that (just glancing over at my ‘library’). But 2001’s example might be due to an increase in the overall ADD-level of our culture. Sad but true.
Then there are bad movies. Land of the Lost, Terminator Salvation, and most things involving Eddie Murphy. These are mostly movies that promise to deliver something and fail miserably, whether it’s laughs, screams, thrills, or tears. But the worst of the worst is when a movie is so obviously trying to be a film when it should just relax and be a movie. Windtalkers. Pearl Harbor. 300 (worst heavy-handed, message-laden dialogue imaginable). These movies are just embarrassing.
But it goes to show that even movies that aren’t films have merits to be judged by. As a viewer, you are after all purchasing the experience. It is up to reviewers, however, to acknowledge this difference between films and movies, to realize the intentions of a motion picture and give its creators and producers a little credit.
I think that this generally happens. No one should be afraid to go someplace like Metacritic to take the pulse of a film or movie. We just need to keep in mind that each review represents a single opinion, and those opinions may not always take everything into account. There are great films, and there are great movies. Hopefully, we can respect and celebrate the differences between them.
