Entertainment vs. Amusement

Now, that I’ve wrapped up my series on the six elements of compelling entertainment (Plot, Character, Diction, Music, Theme and Spectacle), I’d like to answer the question, “So what?” Why does all this stuff matter? I don’t know. Perhaps, I’m just looking for something to write about. Perhaps, I’m--as my wife might say--a guy who simply overthinks things. Or maybe--as I like to think--I’m out to offer some tools that others could use in order to help more effectively communicate thoughts and idea. Or, gain more understanding from a work of entertainment. Who knows? But, I have to write about something, so I’m going to nerd out. 

When some people approach entertainment, they’ll say something akin to, “I don’t want to think. I just want to shut my brain off and escape from this crazy world.” Honestly, that is not always bad. I too just want to do that. There is a place for that… Yet, if that is all we do, seek out mindless distraction in order to escape reality, what will that do for our well-being? Or, if we simply yell at people saying, “Well, that’s just the way it is!” How can we get them to find what we have to say compelling? 



Thus, we should understand the difference between entertainment and amusement. We so often conflate the two. Entertainment comes from Latin (Latin is some fun stuff, my oldest boys are learning it right now) “to hold among.” It is this idea of letting concepts stew in one's mind. Or, letting others sit in our presence. As one dictionary definition defines it, “give attention or consideration to an idea, suggestion, or feeling.” That is the original purpose of entertainment. Amuse, on the other hand, comes for a French word meaning, “To stare stupidly” or “To deceive.” This is the idea of shutting our brains done, and letting media consume us.

And thus, in order that the masses might deeply stew upon ideas, suggestions and feelings, the critic was born. Now, the critic as gotten a bad rap (not that at times it hasn’t been warranted). People often say, “What do we need those darn critics for? I don’t need some snobby fellow to tell me what I should and should not like.” And, they’re right. No one should tell anyone what they should or should not like. But, there is a difference between the critic who simply says whether or not a work is good or bad, and one who reflects on what the creator is trying to do, and whether or not they have accomplished it. Even if a work is meant to be dumb fun, there are critics out their who evaluate how well the book or movie does that. Ultimately, a critics purpose is to spur conversation about a work of art. The starting point of those conversations will stem from one of Aristotle's six elements of drama. 

Now, no work of entertainment is perfect. As much as I think it is near perfect, I even find flaws with the movie Amadeus. I could let those flaws make me hate the movie, but then why bother with any art? Various flaws bother people more than others. For instance, I can forgive a lot of flaws if the plot is good, but I have also enjoyed plotless movies or movies with bad plots, solely because the other elements were spectacular.  Thus, if we want to have a proactive conversation about a certain work, it would behoove us to find a critic who is bothered by the same flaws. Especially, if we want to know whether or not a movie is going to be worth ten dollars to watch. Or, if a book is going to worth the two weeks to two months it takes to read it. For instance, if a dumb popcorn movie has poorly done Spectacle, people won’t find it fun. 

Yes, certainly over-analyzing entertainment can suck the fun out--not for me, I quite enjoy doing that. But still, at times, perhaps, maybe just perhaps, a critic can get us to see something in a work that we had not thought of. And, ultimately a good critic wants an audience to entertain entertainment, not solely find amusement amusing.