MovieChat Forums > 8½ (1963) Discussion > Entertainment vs Art

Entertainment vs Art

posted 12 years ago by cubasfinest
23 replies | jump to latest

Many will state a film is purely for entertainment and many will argue for the artistic values of a film.

For me 8½ has little entertainment value, however artistically this film excells, not so much in the story or ideas but in the camerawork and cinematography. I personally respect the value of art in a film but it needs a core substance to entertain.

To conclude I found 8½ a dull affair which I did not enjoy. That's not to say I don't like Fellini as I thought Nights of Caribia was great.

[–] fang123horn 12 years ago

I'm not going to argue about it because quite frankly I couldn't all the images that was on the screen. Its a REALLY great movie but shy away from being perfect, 9 out of 10 for me.

[–] DracTarashV 12 years ago

I think it qualifies as both.

Living in the sixth dimension. Things get rough.

[–] sergiodrummond 12 years ago

I agree with the one of the posters, it qualifies as both. There were some scenes that I laughed a lot and others that resonated with me. But entertainment is completely subjective. If you like the subject, it's going to entertain you.

Let the chips fall where they may

[–] thomassmccallum 12 years ago

Agreed. If you're not interested in a subject, chances are it won't entertain you. However, you can still appreciate it as art.

"Hey, Buster hit her. I just gave her the roofie."

[–] sergiodrummond 12 years ago

Exactly, and I think that Otto e Mezzo is a great artistic achievement.

Let the chips fall where they may

[–] Packyman 12 years ago

I agree. My example is "Birth of a Nation." A GREAT triumph in film making, but the subject matter is pretty disgusting. I mean, the friggin' KKK rides in as the conquering heroes to save the gentrified whites from the newly freed black man?! A beautiful film to admire for the technical and visual aesthetics, but a horrible subject. But I find "8 1/2 both visually and intellectually appealing. As an artist who's struggled with 'painter's block' I fully empathize with Guido in that aspect. CHeating on his wife? Not so much. But it does add to his confusion and apathy.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SteveMoonlightAllaby 11 years ago

Hi worov! I agree with you. 8 1/2 is very entertaining as well as artistic.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

My guess is people who find this film boring were hoping for a more straightforward narrative. The dream sequences and memories of past events and situations led to an elliptical narrative structure that was anything but straightforward. In order to enjoy this film one must put aside such a preference, or it will undermine one's ability to not only respect its art, but to experience the entertainment that actually is in the film.

For example confusion about the narrative can lead to a failure to notice how great the performances are. I love really all the characters, all the perforances. The ensemble scenes were all great, and the pacing, edting and camera work is outstanding.

[–] curseyourhouse 10 years ago

I love movies with non-'straightforward' stories. Some of my favorites are:

Mulholland Drive
Blow-Up
The Fountain
Eraserhead
Reconstruction

But I still couldn't get into this one, even with my appreciation for films of various structures.

I may need to give it a second shot. I'm kind of dissapointed though. So much praise, I kind of feel like I'm missing out on something great.

[–] Bergman_Fellini87 10 years ago

I find it interesting you think this masterpiece is boring, but have Eraserhead as your picture, which is honestly much slower & less interesting than 8 1/2.

[–] john-hitchcock 11 years ago

To be fair if it's any help at all I had to watch this for a film class and really couldn't get into it. Heck, I had to get up and go to the bathroom multiple times just to have an excuse to get away for a few minutes and I remember really wanting to just walk out part way through.

The weird thing of course is that I'm a huge David Lynch fan, and I know Lynch was heavily inspired by Fellini's work. Heck, if my analysis is anything to go by you could say that Inland Empire is probably heavily inspired by 8½:

http://hitchcocksworld.blogspot.ca/2014/03/david-lynchs-inland-empire- vs-federico.html

So if it's any consolation I really didn't like 8½ much either. While I don't mind surrealism I don't seem to be big into any of the European movements of the time (believe me, I could give you a good rant about my feelings on Jean-Luc Godard).

David Lynch walks into a bar... he won't give me the punchline.

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 11 years ago

It doesn't make any sense to me to say that something that has artistic value would have no entertainment value.

Insofar as something has artistic or aesthetic value, it is entertaining.

So if the cinematography has artistic value, the cinematography is entertaining.

http://rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] renatom1 10 years ago

I have not seen this movie, so I can't really comment on it specifically; however, in general I do believe all movies need some entertainment factor to sustain an audience. Films that are purely artistic should be short, not feature-length.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]