offoffoff film
 RELATED PROJECTS

      







 ADVERTISEMENT













Site links
  • OFFOFFOFF Home
  • About OFFOFFOFF
  • Contact us

    Get our newsletter:
     
    Search the site:
     

    Film section
  • Film main page
  • Film archive
  • Audio index
  • Film links


    Top 10 lists


  • Top 10 films of 2004
    (Andrea, David, Joshua, Leslie)
  • Top 10 films of 2003
    (Andrea, David, Joshua, Leslie)
  • Top 10 films of 2002
  • Top 10 films of 2001
  • Top 10 films of 2000
  • Top 10 films of 1999
  •  All of our top 10 lists, 1999 - 2004

    Current movies


  • Afterschool
  • Antichrist
  • Babies
  • Broken Embraces
  • Dare
  • District 9
  • The End of Poverty?
  • Fix
  • Food Beware
  • The Men Who Stare at Goats
  • Pirate Radio
  • Precious
  • Red Cliff
  • The September Issue

    Festivals


  • Brooklyn International Film Festival
  • Human Rights Watch Film Festival
  • New York Film Festival

    Archive


    Complete archive

    Recent reviews:
  • (500) Days of Summer
  • Anita O'Day: The Life of a Jazz Singer
  • The Art of the Steal
  • The Beetle
  • Blessed is the Match: The Life and Death of Hannah Senesh
  • Boy A
  • Brideshead Revisited
  • The Brothers Bloom
  • Burn After Reading
  • Cold Souls
  • The Duchess
  • Elegy
  • Enlighten Up! A Skeptic's Journey Into the World of Yoga
  • Five Minutes of Heaven
  • Flame and Citron
  • Frozen River
  • Happy-Go-Lucky
  • How to Lose Friends & Alienate People
  • The Human Condition
  • Hunger
  • Inglourious Basterds
  • King of Shadows
  • The Lemon Tree
  • Lorna's Silence
  • A Man Named Pearl
  • Man on Wire
  • Memorial Day
  • Mister Foe
  • Morning Light
  • My F├╝hrer
  • My One and Only
  • Paris
  • The Pervert's Guide to Cinema
  • Peter and Vandy
  • Police, Adjective
  • Pray the Devil Back to Hell
  • Profit Motive and the Whispering Wind
  • Rachel Getting Married
  • A Secret
  • Sleep Dealer
  • St. Trinian's
  • Thirst
  • Throw Down Your Heart
  • Valentino: The Last Emperor
  • What's the Matter with Kansas?
  • Wild Grass
  • Jay DiPietro

  •  READER COMMENTS

    Reader comments on

    Subject: Re: Terrible, but . . .
    Date: Feb 24, 2001
    Sender: CraigPrevious | Next

    Having recently spent a couple of weeks at the Sundance Film Festival, I have some appreciation for the difference between a film and a movie. While I was there, I saw something called "Scotland PA". It was described as the "white trash version of McBeth". It was both entertaining and stayed true to Shakespeare. Is it a movie or a film? Is it also true there are only two kinds of people in this world - those who put everything into categories and those who don't?

    I completely agree "film" is an artistic endeavor. However, if a "film" is entertaining, will it be disqualified as art and downgraded to just being a "movie"? Does merely being "artistic" necessarily make it great art? If art is successful when it merely provokes, then Dancer succeeds by definition. But is "provocation" enough? Does Dancer say anything new or profound about the human condition? Is Dancer great art?

    To me, Dancer is a pretty good musical comic book created by some very talented people. It works in some ways, but for the most part, it misses the mark. It could have been so much more.

    Previous: Re: Terrible, but . . . | Next: Re: Terrible, but . . .

    Respond to this message | Return to original article:



    Response to this comment:
    Re: Terrible, but . . .

    There is a difference between a movie and a film. A movie is a packaged product designed to make money first, and entertain second. A film is an artistic endeavor. This is a film. Film lovers will love it. Movie lovers will hate it.

    A parallel is in 'pop' music (MTV, rap, boy bands) and 'serious' music (classical, jazz). Pop music is a packaged product designed to make money first, and entertain second. Serious music is an artistic endeavor. MTV fans hate jazz and jazz lovers hate MTV.

    There's no point in arguing the merits of one versus the other. The pop products require little or no examination to be enjoyed (in order to broaden their appeal), while the artistic endeavors require, in fact, demand introspection and specialized knowledge to be enjoyed (and, so, limit their appeal). Not everyone has the time or desire to commit study and investigation towards their entertainment. We are lucky to have both varieties available.

    So, choose what you want and compare within your 'realm', but criticizing 'pop' vs. 'serious' only serves to show one's need to have his opinion affirmed and will win no converts.






    Comment index:

  • loved it   from nathalie, Nov 6, 2000
  • [no subject]   from Ponet, Dec 3, 2000
  • Terrible, but . . .   from Craig, Jan 1, 2001
  • Re: Terrible, but . . .   from makingitup, Feb 21, 2001
  • » Re: Terrible, but . . . «   from Craig, Feb 24, 2001
  • Re: Terrible, but . . .   from makingitup, Feb 25, 2001
  • Re: Terrible, but . . .   from Craig, Mar 28, 2001
  • Re: Terrible, but . . .   from Erin, Jan 18, 2004
  • my two crowns...   from Odd Harry, Mar 4, 2001
  • Bjork is great   from George McKinney, Mar 20, 2001
  • Re: Bjork is great   from Craig, Mar 30, 2001
  • loved it   from nathalie, Nov 6, 2000
  • [no subject]   from Ponet, Dec 3, 2000
  • Terrible, but . . .   from Craig, Jan 1, 2001
  • Re: Terrible, but . . .   from makingitup, Feb 21, 2001
  • » Re: Terrible, but . . . «   from Craig, Feb 24, 2001
  • Re: Terrible, but . . .   from makingitup, Feb 25, 2001
  • Re: Terrible, but . . .   from Craig, Mar 28, 2001
  • Re: Terrible, but . . .   from Erin, Jan 18, 2004
  • my two crowns...   from Odd Harry, Mar 4, 2001
  • Bjork is great   from George McKinney, Mar 20, 2001
  • Re: Bjork is great   from Craig, Mar 30, 2001