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.

[–] kaka0002 9 years ago

boring your'e viewers to death is'nt art..

[–] Errington_92 9 years ago

If one prefers more sophisticated cinema, such as 8½, then audiences should be entertained by Fellini's artistic style.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not.

[–] this_seat_taken 9 years ago

No mention of music in the thread. Got tin ears?

[–] Ore-Sama 9 years ago

Without a doubt the film is both.

If one doesn't believe me, all you need do is compare it to the films of Antinioni, Tarkovsky, Cassavette, which could be called anti entertainment. Don't get me wrong, some of the best films ever made, but no one could argue they're trying to entertain.

8 1/2 on another hand, absolutely is. Hillarious and somewhat touching as well.

"It's just you and me now, sport"-Manhunter

[–] Smart_Monkey 9 years ago

I personally thought it did well at both. I can totally understand why someone would be bored to death but this film but I found it to be entertaining for the most part. I will agree that it does much better in the artistic department but I still enjoyed it quite a bit.

That Really Rustled My Jimmies

[–] Maniac_In_Black 8 years ago

Yeah its beautiful to look at but most of this movie I don't find entertaining, but.. that doesn't mean I don't like it. I appreciate it as art and its for sure not a "popcorn movie". 9/10