08-25-2023, 03:48 PM
What is the difference between film, movie, and cinema?
Gerald Mast in Film/Cinema/Movie: "A Theory of Experience" focuses early on in his book on the disambiguation of the 3 terms. He points out that “movie” is an Americanism, a slang used in the early days of Hollywood as an abbreviated form of “moving pictures”. Since it was originated in Hollywood, the heartland and birthplace of the big budget entertainment industries, the word “movie” has more fun, enjoyable, easy, amusing, etc. connotations attached to it. Movies act more as diversions and escapades from daily lives, as they emotionally stimulate their audiences and capture their attention for brief amounts of time by means of great audio‐visual “wizardries”. Movies are rarely the center of deep intellectual discussions.
Film on the other hand, as Mast elucidates, has higher intellectual connotations attached to it. Contrary to movies, watching a film is not necessarily an entertaining experience; it is however (theoretically of course) a thought provoking, and culturally enriching one. Cinematographic works outside the circle of influence of Hollywood, or Bollywood, for that matter, are considered to be more as films than movies since the purpose of their production is not necessarily solely an entertaining and economic one: filmmakers5 have relatively more freedom over their works as they are not constrained by big budgetary demands from their producers/production studios, i.e. investors. This relative financial freedom in film production is often interpreted as an artistic freedom of expression, which doesn’t always necessarily entail
amusement from audiences experiencing it. Consequently, films have usually more of a niche audience distribution contrary to movies aimed at appealing and pleasing an as large as possible market base.
Cinema is “far more genteel and classier than previous both” according to Mast, and it can be considered a s having a “more generic meaning appearing as a plural and standing for a whole class of works.”
Gerald Mast in Film/Cinema/Movie: "A Theory of Experience" focuses early on in his book on the disambiguation of the 3 terms. He points out that “movie” is an Americanism, a slang used in the early days of Hollywood as an abbreviated form of “moving pictures”. Since it was originated in Hollywood, the heartland and birthplace of the big budget entertainment industries, the word “movie” has more fun, enjoyable, easy, amusing, etc. connotations attached to it. Movies act more as diversions and escapades from daily lives, as they emotionally stimulate their audiences and capture their attention for brief amounts of time by means of great audio‐visual “wizardries”. Movies are rarely the center of deep intellectual discussions.
Film on the other hand, as Mast elucidates, has higher intellectual connotations attached to it. Contrary to movies, watching a film is not necessarily an entertaining experience; it is however (theoretically of course) a thought provoking, and culturally enriching one. Cinematographic works outside the circle of influence of Hollywood, or Bollywood, for that matter, are considered to be more as films than movies since the purpose of their production is not necessarily solely an entertaining and economic one: filmmakers5 have relatively more freedom over their works as they are not constrained by big budgetary demands from their producers/production studios, i.e. investors. This relative financial freedom in film production is often interpreted as an artistic freedom of expression, which doesn’t always necessarily entail
amusement from audiences experiencing it. Consequently, films have usually more of a niche audience distribution contrary to movies aimed at appealing and pleasing an as large as possible market base.
Cinema is “far more genteel and classier than previous both” according to Mast, and it can be considered a s having a “more generic meaning appearing as a plural and standing for a whole class of works.”