Is a Movie Still Good if you don't Cry?

“I think it’s one of the nicest privileges as an actor is to know that you can move people in one moment, make them think about their lives, or make them laugh or make them cry or make them understand something. Or just make them feel something because I think so many of us, including myself, spend too much time not feeling enough, you know?” - Gerard Butler on inspiring fans with his role in "Phantom of the Opera"

Any film (or actor) that doesn't move audiences in some capacity is probably not worth making. On the flipside, audiences are so fickle at times that it doesn't always take profound storylines and stellar performances by on-screen talent to deem a film -- or acting performance, a success. That may explain how Denzel Washington wins an Oscar for playing a corrupt police officer in a crime drama that didn't break any new ground, yet, didn't even receive a nomination for his work as a historical figure in "Malcolm X."

It is also why Tyler Perry's comedy films (all of which my friend's boyfriend refuses to see because he deems them "black minstrel shows") made him the highest earning man in Hollywood last year -- he even made more than Steven Speilberg, a legendary director in his own right who brought us "JAWS" and "Schindler's List." Speaking of Tyler Perry, the quote from Butler above had me thinking about a little survey that I conducted with about one dozen people who went to see "Madea's Witness Protection" earlier this summer.

I did not watch the movie but went to a local theater that was showing it and I found out that most often than not, audiences aren't looking to feel anything. One of the women I spoke with told me that she enjoyed Perry's film because it gave her an escape and she appreciates movies that can help people take their mind off of things that they are going through in their lives. As I write this post, I'm also getting a quick flashback of the time I went to see "What's Your Number" starring Anna Faris with a friend who specifically requested that we watch that movie "because it's something light," to which I responded, "Light? Like a salad?!!" and my friend said "Yes, exactly! -- like a salad."

So while I do think that Gerard Butler is on to something important when he mentions that we don't really feel enough (and I can agree, especially in our Limitless-esque multitasking age of ever evolving technology and dwindling human connection), there are times when we actually DO feel -- maybe even too much. All of this is to say....

Can there be a healthy balance between meaty, emotionally driven or epic films and those that don't require a lot of thinking to enjoy -- making room for both types of films and the actors, directors, producers, etc. who make them? -AND- Does the quality of a film directly correlate with it's ability to move YOU or not?

Comments

[Angela Brown]

Movies are movies for entertainment sake. Some audience members may be moved by the slightest little thing while it takes something on the 300 epic level to feel a chill. Not everyone wants to see the sky darken with arrows pummeling down. Sometimes, all the movie needs to accomplish is that moment of entertainment; tears not required. And yes, it can be not-epic ala The Hangover. That movie may not have made a lot of people cry, but it got a lot of viewership.

[Sydney]

I rate a movies as good or bad based on whether it moved me or not. Laugh, cry, got angry or sensitive. Just as long as I had some reaction. I don't think I have enjoyed a "lite" movie. What's the point? If I am going to spend time watching a movie I want to have some emotional reaction to it. Great post.