and cause us to move out of ourselves during the time that we respond
to them. The crucial difference between art and entertainment, however,
is the intensity of the experience in the case of art and, again, the effect
it has on us after we are physically separated from it.

In cinema criticism there are no universally accepted terms that dif-
ferentiate between a motion picture that is solely an entertainment and
one that is a work of art. We will, however, follow the lead of John Simon
in the introduction to his book of film criticism, Movies and Film ( New
York, 1971), and refer to the former as a movie and the latter as a film.

The borderline between movies and films is hidden in a forest of in-
dividual tastes and judgments. To complicate matters further, a movie
may contain a moving and memorable scene and a film may have arid
portions. Even if we agree that it is the effect of the motion picture as a
whole that distinguishes the two types of cinema, there is still the prob-
lem of individual judgment. It is not unusual for one critic to evaluate a
motion picture as an artistic masterpiece and another to dismiss it as a
dull movie. The same diversity of opinions may occur when films of
generally acknowledged value are compared with each other to estab-
lish their relative places in a hierarchy of artistic significance.

No more than in the other media that produce works of art does cinema
criticism contain absolute criteria for judging between a movie and film
or degrees of success within each category. There are even those who
maintain that cinema is incapable of being an art. Some of their argu-
ments are specious; others are disconcerting in pointing out the limita-
tions of the motion picture medium. We do not have the space to engage
in a defense of our position that cinema has and will continue to give us
works of art, but we will make the following points: Critical judgment
is always difficult in a popular medium, especially in the case of cinema,
which has created far more movies than films. We should also keep in
mind that the history of motion pictures is considerably less than a cen-
tury old and serious criticism has appeared only during the last four
decades. In addition, motion pictures are expensive to make (which re-
stricts the possibility for experimentation with new ideas and tech-
niques); specific works are not the creation of a single individual; and,
most important, they are not as readily available as books are in print,
paintings and photographs in reproductions, and music on phonograph
records (a situation that could change radically when video cassettes are
perfected).

What difference does it make, though, in viewing a motion picture if
we consider it a movie or film? None, if an individual maintains the same
sets whether listening to a symphony by Beethoven or tunes played by
Guy Lombardo and his orchestra. Most of us, however, prepare our-
selves to make a greater effort emotionally and intellectually when con-
fronted by art than when exposed to entertainment.

The precept that an artistic work requires concentration and energy

-4-