There is a magic in art. There is a special feeling that an artist gets when something “comes together”. When a set of lines becomes a face, when words take shape into a poem, when a series of pictures tells a story, something special can happen. However, there is a sad place where this magic can begin to fade. That is when the act of perfecting a craft trumps the ability to moved, or in the case of movies entertained. The magic is lost.
The great thing about film is it is so multi-faceted. A film can be a simple form of escapism, or it can make a statement. It can entertain or move someone. There are such things as bad films, and bad art in general but when an artist takes something that isn’t bad and bashes it because certain techniques weren’t used, it is almost a tragedy. That is a cold way of looking at any art.
A case in point: The Dark Knight Rises vs The Avengers. Both movies were great movies in their own right. I found The Avengers hand over fist more entertaining than The Dark Knight Rises. I went to see both movies with friends, and The Avengers was just an all around joy to watch from start to finish. However, when I left The Dark Knight Rises, I turned to my roommate and told him that I liked The Avengers more. The Dark Knight Rises was a good film, but The Avengers was more fun.
Which brings the argument, does all art have to make a statement? Can art exist solely just to entertain? Does that make any more or less valid? Is it shallow if it exists just solely for entertainment?