What does "move [you]" mean? Does a movie have to produce an emotional reaction of some sort? If so, how broadly is "emotion" understood in this formulation?
I ask because I love John Wick films, Jackie Chan films, and Gene Kelly films for the same kinetic sort of reasons. But I would never really describe those films as moving (though I do get a bit weepy at singing in musicals in my dotage).
Interesting questions and I'm not sure I have all the answers. I suppose Justice Potter Stewart's definition of porn will have to do for my admittedly subjective definition of art, "I know it when I see it."
Art is always personally subjective. One man's art is another's trash. Personally, I don't feel like I'm a terribly gifted artist. I was a decent high school, college, and summer stock actor. Perhaps, my definition of good art, at least for myself, is "could I do this easily myself"? If I could, it's not art. If I couldn't, perhaps it is.
But, the viewer's emotional engagement is clearly a part of art. I remember seeing a blue canvas in the Paris Modern Art Museum. I could easily have painted that, I thought. An artist snapped back, "But you didn't, did you?" No, I didn't but the canvas left me with nothing but the regret that I had lost precious time viewing it. A film friend of mine once described the feeling of watching an unsatisfying film as "brushing your teeth for three hours". For a film to be great, every scene should engage the viewer and "fit" into the puzzle. Wasted scenes annoy the hell out of me. Doesn't matter whether the film is 1 1/2 hours or 4 hours, there has to be a compelling reason for every scene. In essence, the scene is a little short movie unto itself.
Expectations are another issue/problem. I have to fight them sometimes. "Star Wars" seems to be a fave here. I hated the movie the first time I saw it. It had been out for months and I had endured people constantly chirping about it. I went in expecting "2001: A Space Odyssey" or at worst, a good episode of "Star Trek". Instead, I got a stupid, space western with admittedly interesting special effects. To me, "The Empire Strikes Back" was a FAR better movie. Was it because I had lower expectations for the second movie? Was it because the first movie was merely exposition for the second? Was it because my personality tends to gravitate towards the dark side of the force? I don't know. Perhaps, I just thought the second movie's parts fit better together and "moved" me more than the first. By the way, I absolutely hated the Ewoks movie. It was the worst of the three and pretty much ended my fascination with Star Wars.
I could go on and on. Mercifully, I won't. The bottom line is - art is subjective. If it doesn't connect with and engage in some meaningful (emotional?) way, I'm out.
P.S. - I think "Rocky 3" was the best Rocky movie. I liked "Crash" and hated "Brokeback Mountain". 1979's "The In-Laws" and "This is Spinal Tap" are two of my all-time favorite movies. I marveled at "Schmigadoon!" and consider it to be one of the best TV shows I've seen in years. I love "The Shawshank Redemption" but I'm "meh" about "Citizen Kane". Go figure!
