I was reading a review of a motion picture, and the reviewer referred to it as a movie, and completely unecessarily added the parenthetical thought, "(not a film)." I was very annoyed. The two terms are synonyms for "motion picture." They're called "movies" because they move. They're called "films" because they're on film (or have been). I think the distinction where a "film" is something serious, foreign, arty, or otherwise of great import, and a "movie" is an action, comedy, or summer blockbuster, is stupid. What do you people think?

Pretentious crap or useful distinction?

I always just thought it was a British / American thing. You's go to the movies.

Chapter Two wrote:I always just thought it was a British / American thing. You's go to the movies.

Maybe that's why some Americans use "film" to indicate serious or "worthwhile" movies. There's a perception among many here that British is better. After all, a lot of these people see "films" in "theatres," which also gets me upset. So you never go to movies at all? I didn't know that.

Movies is a pretty vague term.
Most I see are Talkies.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:I was reading a review of a motion picture, and the reviewer referred to it as a movie, and completely unecessarily added the parenthetical thought, "(not a film)." I was very annoyed. The two terms are synonyms for "motion picture." They're called "movies" because they move. They're called "films" because they're on film (or have been). I think the distinction where a "film" is something serious, foreign, arty, or otherwise of great import, and a "movie" is an action, comedy, or summer blockbuster, is stupid. What do you people think?

Pretentious crap or useful distinction?

I don't go to the pictures enough to be too bothered. The distinction is real and often used; I have seen in the TV industry people calling half-hour, digital shot, non-drama or straight doc programmes films, undoubtedly in order to give them a weight way (usually waaaaay) beyond their measure or to assuage their guilty ego.

I also prefer calling them talkies. Why? Talkies is apt enough for the vast majority of moronic crap, and also frivolous and trivial enough to annoy fucking pretentious film people and pretentious, overwrought, over-referential film criticism which I think helps to keep the general public well away from 'serious' cinema.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:So you never go to movies at all? I didn't know that.

Yeah, we do now. We're all americans now.

I was thinking earlier of starting a discussion about whether the big movies can count as art, and how. I won't now though.

johnnyshape wrote:
I also prefer calling them talkies. Why? Talkies is apt enough for the vast majority of moronic crap, and also frivolous and trivial enough to annoy fucking pretentious film people and pretentious, overwrought, over-referential film criticism which I think helps to keep the general public well away from 'serious' cinema.

Really? Does film criticism--movie reviews--keep the "general public" away from certain movies/films?

I'm skeptical about this claim. Even if "film criticism" is expanded to mean the entire cultural and discursive milieu (terrible word, but no alternate comes to mind) of, say, "independent film," I just don't see it.

As for the film/movie distinction, I suppose it's crap. I kind of alternate. Maybe from now on I'll just see filmies. This will occasion a change in my sexuality.

We were talking about this in our film class. Since the beginning of "motion pictures," they have been referred to in a number of ways, but in the end, they are all moving pictures, or movies. Whether one wants to refer to them as film, a picture, or cine-margggh is at his/her discretion.

I agree that most people like to label more haughty-taughty films as 'films' as opposed to "King Kong," which is a 'movie'--but we all know that what we really want to see is tits and beer. Or "Snakes On A Plane."

Question for the Brits: Why must all of your imported films involve older people taking their 'kit' off, Jane Austen adaptations, or silly rom-coms made by the team that brought you Four Weddings and a Funeral? I know there are good British films out there, damn it, I know there are.

Movies tend to imply a traditional narrative. Film seems more open to nonstandard forms/context than linear narrative.

Of course, what term are all the artsy-fartsies gonna use when the visual medium is no longer based on dye-coated acetate running through a gate at 24 FPS? Using "film" will seem a bit anachronistic.

I, however, am not one who's going to miss "film" as a physical medium. HD-cameras and digital cinema projection all-the-way, baby!

A "film" is any movie you didn't understand but feel like you must discuss anyway.



CRAP