Do you care who makes the film or who stars in it, or do you watch a film to be entertained?

[Chris K.]

One day at my school, a fellow student heard about me doing film reviews for television and asked for my viewpoint on when it comes to watching a movie on the big screen. I responded that when I go see a film I just want to be entertained. I don't care who stars in the film or who directed the picture, I just want to be entertained. And if the film was horrible, then I will say it was just horrible. Of course, this student highly disagreed with me and felt that the audience cares who made the film. However, I did not expect this person to agree with me.

But I feel that this is the way I watch a film. For example, when I saw THE PATRIOT I did not give a damn that Mel Gibson was in it. I just wanted to see if the film would entertain. And it did not so I felt it was terrible. That's it.

And this is the same with a low budget film as well. Herschell Gordon Lewis himself said that when the audience sees a low budget picture, they just want to be entertained. Their is not going to be a big billborad posted on the screen saying "This is a low budget picture, so if a scene is out of focus or the sound is a bit faded or you never heard of either the actors and director before..." Nobody cares who made it or who stars in it, people just want to be entertained.

But how do you view a movie. Do you watch a film to see big actors or who directed the film? Or do you watch a film to be entertained?

Questions or comments?

[Josh Leman]

Well, first off I think it needs to be said that some of the best films ever made aren't really out to entertain the audience.  2001: A Space Odyssey is the absolute high point of the science fiction genre, but it's only really entertaining if you've already seen it two or three times.  The same goes for a lot of other really good movies out there.

And to some extent I think many viewers really do care who directed or acted in the movie.  I don't often enjoy films starring Kevin Costner, though that may be because he chooses terrible projects.  On the other hand I've really liked Edward Norton in everything he's been in.  Knowing the movie's director colors the experience too, like watching The Gift and admiring how much Sam Raimi has learned about cinematography, psychology and character development since the first Evil Dead.  But some actors and directors leave their mark more prominently than others, and every movie is different.

Also, don't forget that people go into watching low budget movies in a different state of mind than when they sit down to watch a big studio blockbuster.  Studios spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the movies they make, so you feel sort of cheated if you don't get big stars and clean camera work.  You forgive everything when you watch an independent cheapie.

[Mofo Rising]

Yes.  To both.

Now of course my first instinct when going to see a film is to be entertained.  That's usually my goal when I see a movie, and it's usually my top priority.  So in some cases that's all I'm looking for.  Sure, DEEP BLUE SEA may not be very artistically or intellectually stimulating, but hey, genetically engineered sharks!

But at the same time I think it is important to know who is behind and in front of the camera.  Now I don't really care about actors, unless it's an actor who's work I really admire.  But that would take a lot.  I'm more interested in the director behind the camera.  If I hear a movie is coming out directed by, say, David Lynch or Terry Gilliam, than it is going to be a movie I'm not going to miss.  I've enjoyed their work in the past, and chances are I will again.

Movies don't show up out of nowhere.  A lot of work goes into even producing the most mind-dullingly boring ones.  I think when you see something you enjoy you should make note of the people who are responsible for it.  In fact, that should probably follow through on everything of quality in life.

As for the opinions of most people. . . I would say that for the most part that the audience wants to be entertained.  But they also have quite a bit invested too in who made the movie, mostly the actors.  It's a proven fact that big name actors draw the audience in.  How else do you explain movie posters that are nothing more than extreme close up of actors faces?  (THE PATRIOT for example.)  They expect certain things from the actors, and thenceforth the production, and when these expectations are not met there is usually hell to pay, i.e. the movie bombs.

Entertainment is key, and every once in a while a film approaches art, but all of it is made by people.  I don't think you have to care, but you should at least take note.

[Flangepart]

The usual list of suspects in a films "Resume"..I.E. the advertising, is there because of a (big Budget ) films track record. The actors get the most recognision  from the average filmgoer, because they see the actors, and get attached to those they see. The Director 's name is a more abstract quality, therefor. We who follow this and similar web sites are expecting to read about the "behind the scenes types". An actors track record is easier to follow, because its right up there, and yet it can be effected for good or bad, by the directors and writers talents, (re: Costner). I guess it all comes down to how closly anyone looks at the effect of the names that come together in the group effort that is filmmakeing.    And don't lets get started on how that applys to the concept os sequils!

[GeeWhiz]

This is really a thought provoking question.  My immediate reaction is that I chose movies to see on the big screen based on my expectation of being entertained.

That being said, I actually got to thinking about what gets me out of the house and into the theater.  So here are those thoughts:

1. I go because I like the idea that is the basis for the movie.  With extremely rare exceptions, I never go to a movie just because of the star(s) or the director.  The exceptions tend to be sequels or prequels. (Yes, I plan to see The Mummy II).

2. If the concept sounds interesting, I may decide to go because of the actors or the director.  Otherwise, I will wait for it to come out on DVD.  (Having a home theater with a big screen does tend to spoil you).

3. Some movies will get me to go see them because visually even my home theater cannot compete with the size of a movie screen. (Multiplexes with smaller theaters are making this less of an issue).

4. My darling wife will always win if she wants to go see an Arnold movie or something like that.  (I am not going because of the actor, but to keep marital harmony).

5. I almost always go to movies that were filmed locally.  It's always fun to see how they make the places look so much different than they really are. (Remember the locale is not an actor or director, so this does not negate my prior comments).

[Apostic]

Something touched on in the other answers but not explored completely: Money.

If you're like me (and God knows, I am), then going to the theater to watch a movie is a negative event.  Gotta get dressed.  Gotta drive to the theater.  Gotta find parking, usually somewhere between two morons with depth perception problems.  Gotta shell out some relatively big bucks.  Gotta endure nic-fits for a couple of hours.

So it's gotta be worth it.

Name brand recognition is there.  And after a while, people learn cause/effect relationships between who made it or who's in it and entertainment potential.  Quite often, a converse is true.  After a few experiences, some people would rather gouge out their own eyes than see (for examples) Jim Carey or Adam Sandler ten times the size of God.  They'd rather choke on thier own bile than sit through (examples) a Farrelly brothers comedy or an Emmerich/Devlin epic.  They know ahead of time they aren't going to be entertained.  Unless they are masochists, they aren't going to shell out the bucks for the experience.

It's a question of choice, too.  For most people (so I'd assume), going to see a movie in a theater is a deliberate experience.  Catching it on television is a more passive experience.  People are more likely to be entertained by things they don't think they'll like if they should happen upon it while on TV.  That removes the pressure of "having" to be entertained because it's less effort to see it and the exit is closer.

So back to the basic question: who vs. entertainment.  Sort of depends on learning from mistakes and capitalizing on discoveries, doesn't it?

regards,

Apostic