Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I was watching "Tetsuo: The Iron Man" this afternoon and got to thinking. This particular piece of media wasn't intended for a broad audience, which made me wonder. Would people consider this a "film" or a "movie", and what are the differences, if any, between them.

To me, a "film" is a more personal piece of art. The writer/director has absolute control over the piece, it's not necessarily intended to "entertain", and is all about self-expression, and should YOU like it, that's a bonus.

On the flip side, a "movie" is just the opposite. It's made to entertain, may or may not be horribly formulaic, and share a lot of atypical movie structures and devices.

Is there anyone else out there that thinks the two terms aren't as interchangable as one may think, and should films and movies be recognized as such, or are they in actuality all the same?

I kinda agree... My thinking is that a film is a movie, but a movie is not neccesarily a film. That is to say a film is a type of movie. I've always taken the term "movie" to mean 'moving pictures' (as in "talkie" when movies with dialogue came out), so then ANY media that has moving pictures would be a "movie".

But I agree that a "film" is a more personal media. It's a more artistic movie...

I think they're all the same, but I see your point about a film being more personal and artistic now that you mention it I've always said film and taken the word movie to be more of an American word...but that's just me

Well I technically believe they are the same, but I do often use them the way described by CA. Example, WotW would be something I would mention as a movie while I'm discussing with somebody while something like Sideways I would often use the word film. Btw, I prefer movies that I refer to as films.

No.

You could ask what is the difference between Art and Commerce.

Perhaps it is something of a genre almost, like what is the difference between fiction and literature? To me it seems like the levels. Movies are like fiction, big sellers, big budgets, made with good intentions and all, but still intended to appeal to the masses. A film, on the other hand, is far more niche, artistic, mass appeal is to a degree sacrificed to create a far more personal, creative piece of cinema. When I think of film I think of many French creations, and arthouse. When I think of movies I can't help but think of the latest carbon copy Hollywood action, or yet another buddy comedy.

I agree with Cinemaddiction.

I would say that the difference between a film and a movie is:

FILM: done more for art and self-satisfaction than for the entertainment of others. A masterpiece that doesn't have to be for display, but if chosen to be, wants to show the audience something, like a lesson or moral.

MOVIE: done strictly for entertainment and not for a true art meaning. Made to make money and be recognized as popular and awesome, not for magnificense of the way the film was made.

That is basically how I view Film/Movie.

Ingmar Bergman's work is Films, The Rock's work is Movies...

You definitely have a point there CA.

A bad film told in pretty pictures is still a bad film

A good film with dodgy shots is still a good film.

Ultimately, its about story.

I agee 100% same thing as most movies as youd call them are just "popcorn flicks" But not great peices of work

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
I was watching "Tetsuo: The Iron Man" this afternoon and got to thinking. This particular piece of media wasn't intended for a broad audience, which made me wonder. Would people consider this a "film" or a "movie", and what are the differences, if any, between them.

To me, a "film" is a more personal piece of art. The writer/director has absolute control over the piece, it's not necessarily intended to "entertain", and is all about self-expression, and should YOU like it, that's a bonus.

On the flip side, a "movie" is just the opposite. It's made to entertain, may or may not be horribly formulaic, and share a lot of atypical movie structures and devices.

Is there anyone else out there that thinks the two terms aren't as interchangable as one may think, and should films and movies be recognized as such, or are they in actuality all the same?

I don't know if that is the right definition (I mean there most be some, doesn't tere?) but I think that is a very good idea either way.....and should probably be so...
Although for some reason I connect Movies with Cinema while Films don't necessarily ....don't really know.....so why the hell do I post

isn't the only difference the ethymology of the word?

for me it's the same
movie does mean film in polish
and film is film always.

It's more of an industry thing, honestly. I like to make the differentiation, because there are "movies" that really deserve a distinction from one another, i.e. "Naked Lunch" and "To Wong Foo.."

except for opinions there is no difference between a film and a movie.

I've always used them interchangeably, myself.

Had no idea that anyone thought there was a difference.

perhaps its a wrong approach, albeit knowing what you are talking about

It's the same thing. Or so it is for me, as we only have one word for film/movie here.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
except for opinions there is no difference between a film and a movie.

Originally posted by dawsey28
I've always used them interchangeably, myself.

Had no idea that anyone thought there was a difference.

I must agree, I feel the same way.

I had been researching, and came across a Stanford professors essay that said he believed there was a difference as well, and that it's only shared in the industry with the artsy types.

"Anything on celluloid can be considered a movie, but a film has life, meaning, and sentinence".

They're the same thing, "film" is a word used to describe artsy movies, usually by lazy pretentious people who use the word "film" rather then a valid description to describe the "film". Wedding Crashers is a film, as is Requiem for a Dream, just two words for the same thing. Wedding Crashers is a movie, Requiem for a Dream is a movie. Blah.

I don't quite follow how referring to something as a film is lazy or pretentious. It's designated for more intimate pictures, like indies, sure. "Wedding Crashers', to me, is a movie. It's shallow, it's not a piece of artistic expression, etc.

Any form of creation or expression is art, Wedding Crashers was createdby someone, as such, it's art.

Every movie ever made is art in the technical sense.

Movie = film. Film = movie.

Pardon the French, but **** technicalities, lol. Hollywood and underground don't abide by them, so why should movie fans? I mean, that's the beauty of opinion, and nothings going to change mine.

Hollywood has movie premiers, independent circuit has film festivals.

By definition, they're all motion pictures, but the level of intimacy that's in independent films aren't in Hollywood flicks because most indie directors write and direct their own works. Hollywood will get someone to adapt something from someone elses work, then throw some big name director behind it. This holds true especially for documentaries and true life stories, both indie territories, neither "movies".

It's not fair, IMO, to suggest something made strictly for entertainment with no emotion attatched is "art", regardless of any technical, empty, generic, mainstream definition. I'm glad atleast some people agree with me, so I'm not totally off my rocker.

Who says hollywood movies have no emotion attached? Every film ever made was made by someone, someone put their time and effort into it to try and make it the best possible movie they could (some failed, some succeeded) and, as such, obviously put emotion into it. Every movie has to try to evoke some emotion from the viewer, whether it be humor, sadness, anger, fear, ect. No movie attempts to draw no emotion from the viewer, find me a movie that does not attempt to draw out all emotion, and then you can call that movie "not art".

Everything else you said is strictly a matter of opinion and nothing more, and I won't attempt to argue that. Though, technically speaking, reguardless of your personal feelings on the matter, every movie ever made is a piece of art.

I think like National Treasure is a movie, not a film.

Movies are created to make money but may end up being appreciated.
Films are created to be appreciated but may end up making money.

Originally posted by BackFire
Who says hollywood movies have no emotion attached? Every film ever made was made by someone, someone put their time and effort into it to try and make it the best possible movie they could (some failed, some succeeded) and, as such, obviously put emotion into it. Every movie has to try to evoke some emotion from the viewer, whether it be humor, sadness, anger, fear, ect. No movie attempts to draw no emotion from the viewer, find me a movie that does not attempt to draw out all emotion, and then you can call that movie "not art".

Everything else you said is strictly a matter of opinion and nothing more, and I won't attempt to argue that. Though, technically speaking, reguardless of your personal feelings on the matter, every movie ever made is a piece of art.

I know, I'm not out to do anything but share a philosophy and somewhat of an observation, and people aren't always going to agree. I respect that.

It's not even the triggering of emotion that I'm getting at, it's the actual intimacy. I mentioned the big difference is that indies are from the heart, and that's MY definition of a "film", where it was one person's work from start to finish, down to the finances. "Movie" just feels too generic, and shouldn't be just slapped on whatever makes its way through a theatre. I'm not trying to be artsy fartsy or snoobish, but Hollywood is impure and I don't think the levels of devotion between the two outlets are comparable, and that's how I make the distinction. I also take into consideration the actors and directors.

Lemme share a couple of sources I've came across...



Hell, even Wikipedia gets in on the debate.



Colloquial, meaning informal, which suggests "movies" doesn't necessarily respect the medium.

Movies are what you put on while you make out with chicks. Films are what you watch with chicks to get laid.

When I think movies, I think big mainstream cinema and wide releases.

Films, I think independent and indy.

Of course I use the words "movie" and "film" to describe either or.

Originally posted by BackFire
Any form of creation or expression is art, Wedding Crashers was createdby someone, as such, it's art.

Every movie ever made is art in the technical sense.

Movie = film. Film = movie.

I agree, I see it the same way Backfire does.

Originally posted by The Tired Hiker
Movies are what you put on while you make out with chicks. Films are what you watch with chicks to get laid.

My point is that I can frame a piece of used toilet paper and consider it art because it's a piece of personal expression. That doesn't mean it's supposed to be held in high regard or compared to van Gogh's work.

Just because it's art, and I agree any movie is art, doesn't mean it deserves higher esteem than proven artists works.

I have used the words interchangeably, but mostly agree that they mean different things in our Hollywood-driven society.


Originally posted by Myth
Movies are created to make money but may end up being appreciated.
Films are created to be appreciated but may end up making money.



And I think a movie can BECOME a film. I don't think that film is only where the director had/wanted self-expression. I think there are many movies that were created to BE popcorn-flicks but because of time or whatever (fans, etc.) they are studied as film.