Film is not just an art or just a business, it is both. One can argue that art is a business or that business is an art, of which I believe it is. An art is a performance act, whether it’s creating a visual piece or by simply carrying out our actions, everything we do is an art, because as people, we are simply creators. Never mind the deep meaning of art, but take this situation into consideration. A director creates a film, and releases to the public, is it for himself to gain recognition, self esteem etc. or is it to make money? Regardless if one is to create a film for their own viewing it is both still an art and a business, because in return may not be money but experience. A business is not necessarily just about money, but branding, when you gain recognition/reputation/become well known you are selling yourself, therefore it is a business, you are putting something in and receiving something. Film is now a multi-million dollar industry, although the visual piece is an expressionist art form, of thoughts, dreams, imagination and ideas, there is a heavy side of cash flow coming out the other end. You don’t need a lot of money to create a good film but you need an artist. Unfortunately everything comes with a price tag, both literally and metaphorically. Now days it’s hard to put something out in the world, even if it’s your own, without getting something in return. Therefore film is both an art and a business.
I completely agree with Alison’s point of view on this question. Film can really be both, or even none. Firstly, art and business can be diametrically opposite as it is clearly differentiated. Art could potentially represent the ‘creative’ aspect upon producing film, whereas business could relate to the ‘disciplined’ side of film. What I mean by this is a person can both produce a film, solely to express their emotions and mood, or solely to generate income, or both. It really depends on the director himself, as films that are produced really relate to the directors choices. If the director is completely heartbroken and he/she creates a dramatic love story, of course its going to be thrilling, intense and engaging – due to personal experience! If the director is doing it solely for money, he/she can produce a film which could potentially be a “hit” in the film industry through creating innovative and attractive films – not focusing on the emotions he/she is feeling at that moment. Now as Alison referred to – are businesses all about money? Now fundamentally a firm expands to decrease its average cost and to increase its production, raising revenue. In the same way, a film industry expands and creates a spectacular film, which raises revenue for the film cast. One other reason a film industry rises to the top is related to recognition. They want to be recognised for their amazing films they produce. They want to be FAMOUS! Hypothetically, if director A had a lot of money, but had no emotions, and director B had a small budget, but strong emotions, who would produce a better film? Well simple, none of them. Director A can focus on just blowing his money on props, sets, and other mise-en-scene determinants, but won’t produce an engaging film as emotions are not involved. Director B will produce a film solely using his heart and nothing else with a low budget, clearly expressing emotions that could potentially relate to other people in the world. But how would he/she do this if they don’t have the money to buy props, clothing, etc? In conclusion, film can be a type of art and can based on business. If a director consist of one and not the other, they could potentially create a decent film, but those mind-blowing hits will be created when a director produces a film for the business sector, and the art sector too.
I agree with alison we can perceive film making as both an art and a business. But it depends who you are for example the audience will think that filmmaking is a business and all this industry is interested in is money whereas somebody working in this industry may think it is an art form, an expression
I feel that film is both, art and business. It mainly depends on the director of the film. If their main aim is to earn money then they will use the film as a business, but if their main aim is not about the turn-over of the film and they just want to entertain the audience then they will be producing the film as a piece of art and not just a business. I personally see film being more of an art form than a business, as you can clearly show your emotions and be able too send a clear message through a film.
Film Making can be either an art or a business, depending on the directors intension when making a film. If the director chooses to create a film and just profit from it, or if he creates it with intentions of giving out a message to the public, it is up to to him/her.
I personally feel that Film Making is an art which is created by individuals who want to share a message or sometimes even a past experience, through the medium of filming. We are all creators, whatever we do or make is our creation.
While I agree with most of the points mentioned, I do have a different view on this.
It is completely dependent of the aim of the film itself. Some films like blockbusters are engineered to be mass appealing in order to gain the most profits. So in that instance it would be business. Some other films that are more meaning based and aren’t afraid of being controversial can be considered more like a work of art. However there are times when the two will merge such as animated films. Animated films tend to be for a mass audience and for a profit but that doesn’t make them unworthy of being called an art film, especially in terms of visual art. When the neorealism era started, it wasn’t because they wanted to make money or art, but rather to show how society was and that they didn’t have to conform to America’s filmmaking style. Art is subjective. It is what we think it is, so debatably we can say any film is a work of art (whether it’s good or not is another debate) but not every film is for business. Given how large the industry is nowadays, it’s natural that filmmakers will want to make a work of art that will also pay their bills. So I will ask this question in return: Why does it matter if it’s considered an art or a business? Either way, people will still make films.
I think that film making is an artistic way of expressing ourselves. However, there is obviously another bigger side which is the Business side. Across the world, there are many different film industries/companies, for example, Dreamworks and 20th Century Fox. These companies and Directors make lots of money, for example, Avengers 2 box office thing received $459,005,868 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avengers2.htm). That is just the box office figures. There will probably also be CD’s that will sell and add further profit. So even if there is a business side, I think that whether or not it is an art depends on the film’s intention. Hollywood may aim to gain the most profit and this could make some directors complain as they do not have ‘creative freedom’. This is why I like independent films; they may not care about profit that much and aim to generally express themselves and experiment. I guess this is also why I like the idea of film festivals. Anyways, I’m going a bit off topic so I’ll just end it with the same idea as Hilary’s. It does not matter whether or not it is an art or a business, people will still be making films.
I agree with Alison and Kunal. I believe that film is an art form that, like any other art industry such as fashion, music or visual art, can be highly controlled by business aspects, but remains an art form. The most stereotypical, cookie-cutter typical blockbuster Hollywood film would, arguably, still bring pleasure to the masses (and perhaps even increased pleasure due to the scale and advertising of such films), and because it is making people feel something, it is inadvertently at least somewhat artistic. However, each time a stylistic or thematic choice is made by adhering to the “greater masses” instead of remaining integral to true artistic motivations, artistic intent is compromised, and the film becomes less of an art form and more of a formulaic, calculable business deal. Thus, the business-like aspect of film can often compromise the artistic side.
For example, in interviews with Tim Burton, he confessed that while at one of the most well-known filmmaking businesses, Disney, he was depressed because his ideas were constantly being rejected or repressed for being different to the extremely rigid codes already in place. Burton was merely given minor projects to keep him busy, and only when the box-office breakthrough of ‘Beetlejuice’ deemed him a “bankable” director did he begin to receive more funding and artistic licence: he was next given the highly lusted-after directorial rights to Batman. In this case, an artist with innovative, different ideas was repressed because of the fear that he could not appeal to the masses and therefore make money. Only when he brought in large revenues for Beetlejuice was he trusted with a larger budget and given more artistic freedom. From a business perspective, this makes sense: it would be insane to invest millions of dollars in a film made by a wildcard director. Even so, this business “sense” can clearly have detrimental effects, seeming to discourage originality, something that should be valued as an artistic merit.
Thus, I (respectfully!) disagree with Hilary and Michael. This is an issue that it is in fact important to discuss and understand. Yes, people will continue to make films anyway, but perhaps if the producers at Disney had realised that talent can come in many way, shape or form, and that audiences can in fact handle – and often even enjoy – something new and different, Burton and other artists like him could have been allowed to make a greater variety of interesting, genuine films. The business side of film should not be allowed to dominate and to turn the art side into something as formulaic as making, for example, textbooks or factory products: make more action movies, because they statistically churn out the most revenue. Always use the same few actors because their names are well-known and will again, generate business. The business aspect of filmmaking should be used as a platform to encourage, develop and explore the artistic aspect, not the other way around.
Film Making can essentially be whatever you’d like it to be. Whether thats conveying a piece, subject or narrative in its most purest and artistic form, or whether its a franchise induced TV show that requires numbers to please all synergistic institutions.
‘Film Making’ as a term is almost completely subjective. A person could say; All the Harry Potter films are exquisite and presented in the finest art form! Who’s to disagree? No-one because there is no definition regarding any sort of picture related opinion. Of course, one could argue that these filthy rich directors (sometimes authors) don’t do it for the exposure but for the money… but then again, thats someones insignificant opinion in a vast sea of hypocrisy and controversy that is the ‘film world’!
There is of course, statistics – which brings a whole new concept of value regarding businesses and art forms but thats over-thinking whats being presented.
I would say in todays world, ‘Film Making’ revolves around both art and business. However, in order for it to function, both of them need to coexist. Whether thats ‘right’ or ‘wrong’… thats for whoever to decide.
I think Film is part of the industry of business that creates art. Film its self is an art such as the director has thought of the idea of how to create it. Whether or not it is great is dependant on how its interpreted because film is one of those arts that can very easily be miss interpreted unless made clearly to the audience. The Director may have thought of sales before making the movie, but that is still art as he has still created something he acknowledges to be art. He also either has the choice to make it personalised upon him and make him love the film more than the audience, but that only means he didn’t care of what others though he only made art for himself to appreciate. Therefore if The director adds personality and it sells that is when the industry excels because it is appreciated.
I believe that Film is both a business and a art, but mainly an art, as most of the time the plot, script and other aspects of the film require more creativity and thought than the business aspect. The creativity aspect is more heavily involved in filmmaking with the actual planning, filming and editing requiring more thought creatively.
The business aspect of the film, is to make a successful film, which will make as much profit for the crew and actors, involves mainly business relationships with its cast and crew. Also its sponsorships and deals it makes before the release of the film is also a part of the business aspect.
ib film is sick 
The Force is Strong in You Alison – Good Luck
LikeLike
Film is not just an art or just a business, it is both. One can argue that art is a business or that business is an art, of which I believe it is. An art is a performance act, whether it’s creating a visual piece or by simply carrying out our actions, everything we do is an art, because as people, we are simply creators. Never mind the deep meaning of art, but take this situation into consideration. A director creates a film, and releases to the public, is it for himself to gain recognition, self esteem etc. or is it to make money? Regardless if one is to create a film for their own viewing it is both still an art and a business, because in return may not be money but experience. A business is not necessarily just about money, but branding, when you gain recognition/reputation/become well known you are selling yourself, therefore it is a business, you are putting something in and receiving something. Film is now a multi-million dollar industry, although the visual piece is an expressionist art form, of thoughts, dreams, imagination and ideas, there is a heavy side of cash flow coming out the other end. You don’t need a lot of money to create a good film but you need an artist. Unfortunately everything comes with a price tag, both literally and metaphorically. Now days it’s hard to put something out in the world, even if it’s your own, without getting something in return. Therefore film is both an art and a business.
LikeLike
I completely agree with Alison’s point of view on this question. Film can really be both, or even none. Firstly, art and business can be diametrically opposite as it is clearly differentiated. Art could potentially represent the ‘creative’ aspect upon producing film, whereas business could relate to the ‘disciplined’ side of film. What I mean by this is a person can both produce a film, solely to express their emotions and mood, or solely to generate income, or both. It really depends on the director himself, as films that are produced really relate to the directors choices. If the director is completely heartbroken and he/she creates a dramatic love story, of course its going to be thrilling, intense and engaging – due to personal experience! If the director is doing it solely for money, he/she can produce a film which could potentially be a “hit” in the film industry through creating innovative and attractive films – not focusing on the emotions he/she is feeling at that moment. Now as Alison referred to – are businesses all about money? Now fundamentally a firm expands to decrease its average cost and to increase its production, raising revenue. In the same way, a film industry expands and creates a spectacular film, which raises revenue for the film cast. One other reason a film industry rises to the top is related to recognition. They want to be recognised for their amazing films they produce. They want to be FAMOUS! Hypothetically, if director A had a lot of money, but had no emotions, and director B had a small budget, but strong emotions, who would produce a better film? Well simple, none of them. Director A can focus on just blowing his money on props, sets, and other mise-en-scene determinants, but won’t produce an engaging film as emotions are not involved. Director B will produce a film solely using his heart and nothing else with a low budget, clearly expressing emotions that could potentially relate to other people in the world. But how would he/she do this if they don’t have the money to buy props, clothing, etc? In conclusion, film can be a type of art and can based on business. If a director consist of one and not the other, they could potentially create a decent film, but those mind-blowing hits will be created when a director produces a film for the business sector, and the art sector too.
LikeLike
I agree with alison we can perceive film making as both an art and a business. But it depends who you are for example the audience will think that filmmaking is a business and all this industry is interested in is money whereas somebody working in this industry may think it is an art form, an expression
LikeLike
I feel that film is both, art and business. It mainly depends on the director of the film. If their main aim is to earn money then they will use the film as a business, but if their main aim is not about the turn-over of the film and they just want to entertain the audience then they will be producing the film as a piece of art and not just a business. I personally see film being more of an art form than a business, as you can clearly show your emotions and be able too send a clear message through a film.
LikeLike
Film Making can be either an art or a business, depending on the directors intension when making a film. If the director chooses to create a film and just profit from it, or if he creates it with intentions of giving out a message to the public, it is up to to him/her.
I personally feel that Film Making is an art which is created by individuals who want to share a message or sometimes even a past experience, through the medium of filming. We are all creators, whatever we do or make is our creation.
LikeLike
While I agree with most of the points mentioned, I do have a different view on this.
It is completely dependent of the aim of the film itself. Some films like blockbusters are engineered to be mass appealing in order to gain the most profits. So in that instance it would be business. Some other films that are more meaning based and aren’t afraid of being controversial can be considered more like a work of art. However there are times when the two will merge such as animated films. Animated films tend to be for a mass audience and for a profit but that doesn’t make them unworthy of being called an art film, especially in terms of visual art. When the neorealism era started, it wasn’t because they wanted to make money or art, but rather to show how society was and that they didn’t have to conform to America’s filmmaking style. Art is subjective. It is what we think it is, so debatably we can say any film is a work of art (whether it’s good or not is another debate) but not every film is for business. Given how large the industry is nowadays, it’s natural that filmmakers will want to make a work of art that will also pay their bills. So I will ask this question in return: Why does it matter if it’s considered an art or a business? Either way, people will still make films.
LikeLike
I think that film making is an artistic way of expressing ourselves. However, there is obviously another bigger side which is the Business side. Across the world, there are many different film industries/companies, for example, Dreamworks and 20th Century Fox. These companies and Directors make lots of money, for example, Avengers 2 box office thing received $459,005,868 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avengers2.htm). That is just the box office figures. There will probably also be CD’s that will sell and add further profit. So even if there is a business side, I think that whether or not it is an art depends on the film’s intention. Hollywood may aim to gain the most profit and this could make some directors complain as they do not have ‘creative freedom’. This is why I like independent films; they may not care about profit that much and aim to generally express themselves and experiment. I guess this is also why I like the idea of film festivals. Anyways, I’m going a bit off topic so I’ll just end it with the same idea as Hilary’s. It does not matter whether or not it is an art or a business, people will still be making films.
LikeLike
I agree with Alison and Kunal. I believe that film is an art form that, like any other art industry such as fashion, music or visual art, can be highly controlled by business aspects, but remains an art form. The most stereotypical, cookie-cutter typical blockbuster Hollywood film would, arguably, still bring pleasure to the masses (and perhaps even increased pleasure due to the scale and advertising of such films), and because it is making people feel something, it is inadvertently at least somewhat artistic. However, each time a stylistic or thematic choice is made by adhering to the “greater masses” instead of remaining integral to true artistic motivations, artistic intent is compromised, and the film becomes less of an art form and more of a formulaic, calculable business deal. Thus, the business-like aspect of film can often compromise the artistic side.
For example, in interviews with Tim Burton, he confessed that while at one of the most well-known filmmaking businesses, Disney, he was depressed because his ideas were constantly being rejected or repressed for being different to the extremely rigid codes already in place. Burton was merely given minor projects to keep him busy, and only when the box-office breakthrough of ‘Beetlejuice’ deemed him a “bankable” director did he begin to receive more funding and artistic licence: he was next given the highly lusted-after directorial rights to Batman. In this case, an artist with innovative, different ideas was repressed because of the fear that he could not appeal to the masses and therefore make money. Only when he brought in large revenues for Beetlejuice was he trusted with a larger budget and given more artistic freedom. From a business perspective, this makes sense: it would be insane to invest millions of dollars in a film made by a wildcard director. Even so, this business “sense” can clearly have detrimental effects, seeming to discourage originality, something that should be valued as an artistic merit.
Thus, I (respectfully!) disagree with Hilary and Michael. This is an issue that it is in fact important to discuss and understand. Yes, people will continue to make films anyway, but perhaps if the producers at Disney had realised that talent can come in many way, shape or form, and that audiences can in fact handle – and often even enjoy – something new and different, Burton and other artists like him could have been allowed to make a greater variety of interesting, genuine films. The business side of film should not be allowed to dominate and to turn the art side into something as formulaic as making, for example, textbooks or factory products: make more action movies, because they statistically churn out the most revenue. Always use the same few actors because their names are well-known and will again, generate business. The business aspect of filmmaking should be used as a platform to encourage, develop and explore the artistic aspect, not the other way around.
LikeLike
Film Making can essentially be whatever you’d like it to be. Whether thats conveying a piece, subject or narrative in its most purest and artistic form, or whether its a franchise induced TV show that requires numbers to please all synergistic institutions.
‘Film Making’ as a term is almost completely subjective. A person could say; All the Harry Potter films are exquisite and presented in the finest art form! Who’s to disagree? No-one because there is no definition regarding any sort of picture related opinion. Of course, one could argue that these filthy rich directors (sometimes authors) don’t do it for the exposure but for the money… but then again, thats someones insignificant opinion in a vast sea of hypocrisy and controversy that is the ‘film world’!
There is of course, statistics – which brings a whole new concept of value regarding businesses and art forms but thats over-thinking whats being presented.
I would say in todays world, ‘Film Making’ revolves around both art and business. However, in order for it to function, both of them need to coexist. Whether thats ‘right’ or ‘wrong’… thats for whoever to decide.
LikeLike
I think Film is part of the industry of business that creates art. Film its self is an art such as the director has thought of the idea of how to create it. Whether or not it is great is dependant on how its interpreted because film is one of those arts that can very easily be miss interpreted unless made clearly to the audience. The Director may have thought of sales before making the movie, but that is still art as he has still created something he acknowledges to be art. He also either has the choice to make it personalised upon him and make him love the film more than the audience, but that only means he didn’t care of what others though he only made art for himself to appreciate. Therefore if The director adds personality and it sells that is when the industry excels because it is appreciated.
LikeLike
I believe that Film is both a business and a art, but mainly an art, as most of the time the plot, script and other aspects of the film require more creativity and thought than the business aspect. The creativity aspect is more heavily involved in filmmaking with the actual planning, filming and editing requiring more thought creatively.
The business aspect of the film, is to make a successful film, which will make as much profit for the crew and actors, involves mainly business relationships with its cast and crew. Also its sponsorships and deals it makes before the release of the film is also a part of the business aspect.
LikeLike