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.
__________________
Greg Oden: The future of the Blazers. The future of the NBA.
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.
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
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.
__________________ "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." -Alexander Hamilton
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
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
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.."
KMC Community Forums
The Difference Between FILMS and MOVIES?
Jul 15th, 2005 06:11 AM
I've always said film and taken the word movie to be more of an American word...but that's just me 
