Allison Williams Quotes

It's disappointing to see films become pure entertainment, so that it's not an art form.

I don't know if 'Crash' is a good movie or not because I didn't set out to make a movie. Really, what I wanted to do is more of a social experiment.

I want to make it clear: it's not that I hate mainstream cinema. It's perfectly fine. There are a lot of people who need to escape, because they are in very difficult situations, so they have the right to escape from the world. But this has nothing to do with an art form.

One filmmaker makes films that are deep, intellectual, profound and confrontational. And the other one makes purely vacuous, escapist films. I'm not sure the one who makes escapist films is making a poorer contribution than the one who makes the deeper films.

Does 'Shooting Fish' have less artistic merit than a play like 'Angels In America,' which I did? Well, probably. But it's good for something.

So our films had a lot more to them than entertainment value, and I'm glad that a lot of people recognize that now. People realize now the value of them as educational.

Art indeed is a term referring to the social source and to the social utility of creative acts.

A lot of more modern films seem to just be out for violence or sex or what have you, without relating it to what's going within human beings. But every now and then one comes along that does that, and it's a joy.

Whether you think a film will affect society or it's plain entertainment, it's all excellent, it's all noble.

It is a peculiar art form, but I think it's a necessary art form - and I do believe it's a noble art form.

I don't take the movies seriously, and anyone who does is in for a headache.

If you are great, 'El Topo' is a great picture. If you are limited, 'El Topo' is limited.

I don't think good films have messages.

I believe entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot.

If someone makes a supernatural-themed show, and it becomes the best show, you are only making money and becoming famous. You are not learning anything from it. It's pure entertainment, even if the content is regressive.

I feel every film has its own charm and gets made for a purpose.

I want folks to take horror seriously.

I think that there's a difference between being an entertainer and being an artist.

No matter how lofty a film is, it becomes a product after entering the market. It has a price. I think no matter what your purpose of shooting it, it has to have artistic value and then sell. But you can't make money if it doesn't have artistic value.

I'm making entertainment, but I'm making art. This is my art. Hopefully, it's profitable, hopefully it makes money, but at the end of the day I want it to be remembered for its artistic value as well as its entertainment value.

A work of art is good if it has arisen out of necessity. That is the only way one can judge it.

So the Lincoln movie gets trashed because Connecticut voted for the amendment - not to mention how the people in Connecticut feel - but there's a lot of that. And I think it precedes from a fundamental misunderstanding of cinema. They are entertainment. And I'd like to say that entertainment isn't a synonym for disposable or mindless or stupid. Hamlet? Pretty entertaining from where I come from.

Art is good when it springs from necessity. This kind of origin is the guarantee of its value; there is no other.

Art is amoral; so is life. For me there are no obscene pictures or books; there are only poorly conceived and poorly executed ones.

For art to be art it has to cure.