Thanks, David. I think somewhere I mentioned that i wasn't going to list reasons for calling a film great. Perhaps i wasn't clear that the reason for this is that there are countless reasons why a film can be great. If I were to say "emotional truth," I can think of films (very few) where the emotions (on the surface) are not very important and the film is still great. Either way, I do not want to limit film or art in any way. I've seen Ruiz's film but it was a while back so I'll have to re-watch it and get back to you, something I wasn't planning on doing until you suggested the film may dovetail with this discussion. Thanks again!
Na I don't mean make a list I mean your's has things you would could put on either or. Either way it's difficult to look at in the context of a list something similar to categorizing personalties based on horoscope film seems to be as diverse as people. And some people suck.
So what about 12 reasons to call a film great... I think your getting at how it can't be the only reason or it shouldn't make up for anything else wrong with the film but to dictate limitations based on all you've listed well go ahead and wipe most art from your purview. Although I tend to agree with alot of what your saying once being a Ray Carney enthusiast I think the verdict is most certainly still out on proper film critique, alot of the films you talk about are more like cheesy renditions of film art and just beg to be taken seriously or they are just bad films made at the right time. Also my view on film is forever changing I began to see Shindler's List for what it is after seeing the great Come and See. You should check out Raul Ruiz's The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting it's an incredible film essay on art that breaks down the assumptions art instills in us it should speak to your list and this ongoing film discussion you bring up.
Fair enough, Nikki. Re-reading that section it's obvious I didn't make it clear that my issue is mainly with critics who praise such works because of perceived metaphors than with the works themselves. Critics,unfortunately, do the same thing to James and Eliot. My point should have been that if there is something worthwhile in The Old Man and the Sea, it's not the creaky metaphors subpar critics pull out of the tale.
I was going to write a big, intelligent, provocative post to debate with you this list. I actually took time to read again your list, which I think it would be better as a warning about the misuse of those arguments instead of condemning them (because, by the time you don't use ANY of this arguments you just end up with "I liked it" as a criticism, because it's the only "human" answer). And I would just bash your "Black List" of films-that-are-usually-considered-good to hate (although I also hate Dark City). And you know what? As I was writing and trying to grab, order and condense this cloud of ideas and feelings, you know what I came up with? "It's just not worth it." Because you'll get mad, I'll get mad and neither you nor me will change their ideas. Because it's just as useless to argue with you as it will be to argue with me! Life will go on. You can comment on this but I will just not bother to see it. Uf... Fare thee well.
Well, it kind of sounds like you're mad already. Why do you assume we can't have a debate without both of us getting upset? If some of my comments below seem to be filled with rancor it's because the person posting approached the list with an attitude. If you don't agree that some or all of the reasons I've listed are vacuous, that's fine. State your case and maybe I'll learn something. One thing you said really troubles me, on a mostly critical, not necessarily personal, level. You suggest that if the reasons I've listed aren't paramount, then there is nothing else. I happen to think their are countless other ways to speak about a film's greatness but that they can't be reduced to the kind of catch-phrases that pass for criticism in most reviews. To really explicate what makes a certain film great one has to write a long detailed review that delves into what the film does and most importantly, why what it does is important not just to the creation of an original aesthetic but why it's important to our lives. As an example, I don't think identification is very important to our lives. I realize people think it's important. Many of our closest relationships are based on meeting someone who we identify with because they are like us. This is pleasurable in a certain way, of course. It's fun to have comrades who share our beliefs, fears, hopes, etc. Growth, however, typically comes when we rub shoulders with people who we can't identify with, who force us to see another side of the universe. This holds true for art as well. Therefore, a review that at it's core suggests that a film is great mainly because "we can identify with the characters" is a pretty shallow review. The film itself may still be great for other reasons, but identification with the characters isn't a strong enough reason to build the case that any work of art is great. this list is less about the films themselves than it is about the way we talk about them. Yes, it is useless to argue with me but I personally don't think it's useless to debate with anyone. If nothing else it may help force us both to come up with stronger defenses for our respective positions.
While I don't agree completely with every point (nor every film you've selected), I think you're right on in large part.
Thanks! I should probably add something here about the fact that a great film can be any of these things, I just don't think any of them are good enough reasons on their own for a justification of greatness.
What a great list this is. I like this very much. I feel like a lot of this is going on and has been going on forever. There are plenty of films that I think have flashes of greatness, but fail in deliviering a great product. So Mike is your final message that one should like what they like without reservations, or one should take into account several factors before deciding a film is "great," or perhaps a combination of both? BTW what is your personal opinion on the films you listed?
I would say one should constantly be questioning why they like what they like. There are a lot of things to consider but first and foremost you have to think about what you think life is about and whether you think a film is really addressing what life is about in a substantive way. "Substantive" is a tricky term, of course. I suppose I'm also basically trying to say that people use terms to praise films that are pretty shallow and then turn around and criticize stronger works for not having thee shallow attributes. A few of the points here are also about the way people look at films from a wholly different way than other forms of art, which sound right in theory but not in the way it usually happens. Take the idea of there being "nothing else like it." If that's the highest praise you can bestow on a work of art you've got nothing save a bit of distracting entertainment. I think it usually comes from people who only see film as a fluffy medium that can't offer any real meaning to their lives the way books can so if it shocks or surprises them with original craftsmanship, they are satisfied. I'd say that some of the films I've listed here are mediocre and some are awful.
I agree that there are lots of things to consider. For me at least a good film succeeds at balancing many aspects, not just one. ( I like to make writing, which I think is a broad term, of high importance) For example, what you said about a film having great photography and nothing else. A film like Citizen Kane for example which has probably garnered it's reputation for the most part off of its cinematography, I don't find very compelling. The "nothing like it" praise I think can be valid at times, for people who don't know how to articulate themselves well, but most times I hear it I feel like it is shallow praise. Personally I like films that engage me emotionally (it isn't the only thing I look for though ) and I know there are several ways to go about doing that and thats why it's difficult to have a criterion for what makes a great film. People have different reasons for why a film can be great and what a film should set out to do. For clarification though I think all 10 of the reasons you listed CAN be valid reasons a film is great, but not automatically.
Thank you, nice to meet you as well. I agree, the title of the list is basically designed to provoke. I feel that a little provocation is good sometimes. Certainly films caqn have some of these qualities and still be worthwhile. I tend to think that even films that have these qualities and are great are probably great more for other reasons but that's a discussion for another day. Also, I completely agree that having a criteria for art is difficult, and in fact not really a good thing. That's why I will more than likely never make a list of 10 reasons why a film is great. There is so much to discuss when analyzing art but the D,H. Lawrence quote on my profile page is one of the most concise, in it's way, explanations for why i think so many accailmed films are mediocre. I was going to put pictures from different films following almost every line in the Lawrence quote but then I thought such specifics would only prevent people who see the page from thinking about what he is saying on their own.
Yea, I have to make sure to read that quote, it looked interesting at a glance.
"Trust me" you're quantifying thought. And how do you know what society needs? Let's call a spade a spade, eh?
Don't give me that--this list is overly judgmental. (Let's call a spade a spade.) Let society have their great movies. It helps us to have a common culture. If you don't want to be part of it, that's fine with me. (Don't yuck their yum.) Have a good day, though. (Hakuna matata.)
There's no such thing as overly judgemental when it comes to art. Your problem is that when it comes to movies you like and others don't you want everyone to apply some kind of weak, limited judgement that praises what you like. If your against judgement of any kind, that's fine, i assume then that every movie is your favorite and that you don't dislike any film you've ever seen. if you favor one film over another, you're making a judgement. My list is based on the need to eliminate silly criteria from judgement. Society doesn't need a common culture, it needs people who separate the wheat from the chaff, and then repeat the process with whatever they decided the wheat was and then to continue the process in an effort to create greater values of judgement. If you only want to celebrate the status quo in some vain attempt to bring everyone together in their love for mediocre work, that's your business, but it is a business that is detrimental to "society" and to your intelligence. Trust me, I've given a lot more thought to what's wrong with your favorite films, before I judged them, than you've given to what you think is wrong with this list, before you judged it.
That's why the list isn't called "10 Bad Reasons To Watch A Movie." Please learn to read before making inane comments. Thanks.
Drew, your many metaphors are a bit confusing. Are you saying this stuff is obvious? Maybe it is but the vast majority of critics still use these false ideas to back up their praise of nonsense. "The Machine" "masturbates" incessantly so I will pat myself "on the back" for breaking up the circle jerk that praises people like Joel Coen for poor work. Thanks.
I totally agree with the idea that none reason discribed in this list would make a great film. But I shall disagree with the films chosen to "illustrate" this list. For example, "Mulholland Drive" isn't great because it's puzzling, but because that puzzle is the best form I ever seen to deal with mysteries of human dreams (real or symbolical), and therefore of desire, death and Cinema. All the 10 reasons aren't enough to call a film great, but it's not because a film deals with one of these reasons that we can say it's not a great film. Anyway, as you said, no "reason" will ever make a film great, but maybe serve to make a film jump from "good" to "great" (or from "awful" to "bad") in the mind of receptive people.
i must disagree with Fatima that people are trained to pick out metaphors in film. i've found quite the opposite in my experience. I love a good metaphor personally but not bullshit hollywood style ones. Directors like Tarkovsky, Angelopoulos, Fellini etc offer grand metaphors that add a lot of depth to their work, and for that i greatly appreciate them. But yes, metaphors alone do not make a work great. and it is true that in 'smaller' films based more around the subtle emotions of the characters they generally have no place.
Thanks for the great insights, especially the second one. That is the real shame. I see it all the time. People watch some dumb, metaphor laden TV show and are castigated by nerds when they say they don't get it. The hardest thing for all of us to learn is how NOT to be so smart and to see things for what they truly are.
I really love this list and I couldn't agree more (especially with number 6). Not only is it drummed into our heads that metaphors add greater value to a film, but we're constantly taught to look for them (especially in school) even if nothing is really there. Even if there is a metaphor, it rarely adds any real emotional value to the film. English class fucked me over and I'm just starting to recover. I've seen this obsession with metaphors have two main effects on people (in my life). First, there are those who can't accept what they see on the screen for what it is. Thanks to school, they believe that in order for art to be good, it must be 'deep'. And their definition of 'deep' usually translates to 'riddled with metaphors'. Even if there are no apparent metaphors, they discuss and research until they find a satisfying answer. The more complicated and absurd the metaphor, the better because only really bright people get it! Which leads me to my second main group of people...those who more or less feel alienated and intellectually inadequate for not being able to see and/or understand the supposed metaphor(s). This usually leads them to opt for films of much lower quality (summer blockbuster stuff with zilch chance of challenging the viewer) or turns them off of cinema altogether. What a shame.
Yes and let me clarify again that I don't feel that all films that have these qualities are bad, just that these are vacuous reasons to justify calling something great if that is all we can praise about it.
Don't know what to say about the prizes' part (8). That is one bad reason why we watch the movies we watch. And the movies, as the reason, often tend to be really bad as well.
I would add your suggestion to my list but I don't think it's really as much of an issue as the ones I listed. Your accusation has come up frequently on the forum but I see little truth in it. While I'm sure many film buffs feel a small amount of false pride in their esoteric knowledge, I see little evidence that that pride is the sole reason for their preferences. Do you think fans of Hitchcock, Kurosama and Godard who dislike Spielberg and Cameron only do so because the latter two are popular? I see that you are a fan of Scorcese. If you didn't like George Lucas would it be fair to accuse you of disliking him because he's popular? I can honestly tell you that I don't think that any film that is popular must be bad. I do, however, admit that it seems to me from my open-minded consideration of many filmmakers that a lot of what makes films popular is usually bad. It is very difficult for me to imagine any film that really challenged an audience making over a million dollars (at least in the U.S.) People generally don't like to be challenged in life or in films, at least in my experience. This list was created after I came to realize that even a lot of film fans, who one would think were looking for challenges, prefer relatively easy experiences. Some of these experiences may seem difficult on the surface but, when examined deeply, are a bit shallow. I was David Lynch's biggest fan for many years until I realized that, despite the supposedly weird elements in his films, his work is pretty conservative at heart. The media went bonkers when Twin Peaks came on network television and praised him and the show for creating a brave visionary work. In actuality, the show conforms to televisions usual themes of good vs. evil. Twin Peaks provided it's audience with small bits of frisson due to the overlapping genres and eerie music but at the end of the day, excepting the underdeveloped and underwritten confusion over whether the killer was possessed or not, we were left with a dark version of LOTR or Harry Potter, a well-crafter children's tale of evil in the woods and white knights. It's easy to get lost in the nasty, off-kilter violence and sensuality, but those things don't make a work adult, they only make it TV-MA. I only use TP as an example because it's something i used to love that I thought was profound and that I have since mostly dismissed. A big part of my posts that you're not getting or ignoring is that I like filmmakers because i think they're are great. I want the filmmakers I think are great to be more popular, not because they are my friends or because them being recognized will make me look cooler but because i truly believe that they are deserving of greater acclaim. This cannot be divorced from my belief that the reason they are not more well-known is because critics, viewer, festival programmer and other influential folks have a misguided perception of what makes a film, or any work of art great. The standard replies to such an assertion are typically along the lines of "it's all subjective" or "films can do a variety of things." I agree with the obvious intent of these beliefs but must stress how important it is that films that do the best things (as in create adult experiences which can alter our perceptions) get the most recognition. This is the highest function of art. I am not on a witch-hunt to stop the production and consumption of what I fee is mediocre. I am on a crusade to broaden my own and others ideas of what great art can and should do. I have no use for Hitchcock because i think his brand of entertainment is shallow. i like Godard, although I think much if not all of hi work, that I have seen, is a bit too conceptual and not properly perceptual. It's been a long time since I've seen much Kurosawa but from what I've seen (5 or 6 films) and remember he's way below Ozu or Cassavetes in terms of achievement, not because he's more popular but partly because he's more populist, in the worst way. Instead of labeling my posts, what you should do is think and rethink everything you've heard or even felt about the films you've seen, look into some to the less well known filmmakers who've been brought to light in various places on this site and elsewhere, and reform your ideas of what is great and why it is great. Then do your own list.
I'll add something to your list "It's good because nobody's heard of it"....too many people like you think just because you watch "obscure" movies, makes you an authority on what's really "great film." I bet you can't stand Kurosawa, Hitchcock, or Godard because they're well known film makers. Your posts are film snobbery at its finest!
@USER - I'm not sure if listing films will clarify my point as it is more the responses to films that I am addressing. Anything from Sin City(garbage) to Ordet(masterpiece) can be poorly defended by critics and viewers on the basis of purely aesthetic beauty. @BKNIGHT23 - Ok, thanks for not wasting my time.
I started to write a high minded post in response to the implicit ideology embedded in your list, then I realized I could be filming myself having a harrowing discussion with my neighbors cat in which the ennui of my bourgeois, scratch that, post-consumer existence is perfectly encapsulated in the pause between my groans and his mews. This would be a much better use of my time.
User, you have misunderstood my point. I was never saying that pretty pictures are bad. I like a lot of great filmmakers who are also great at making pretty images. What I'm railing against is the defenders of those who only make pretty images and the notion that beauty alone justifies itself as art. I could have added a warning about non-pretty pictures, and probably many other things but these ten struck me at the time as the most prevalent bad reasons to call a film great. I would agree with someone who said there are artists who use ugly imagery to pander to a certain demographic and disagree that Korine is one of them. I suppose the thought process could be similar but since, as of now, empty prettiness is fooling more people than empty ugliness I chose to comment on the former. If i were to expand this list, as I probably should, I would add examples of films and filmmakers who make images that are so beautiful that many miss the more important aspects of their work.
I hope, hope, hope, it doesn't seem like I'm bashing Grand Illusion. My goal was to bash the idea that The Rules of the Game is a lesser film because it's "only" about affairs of the heart. The Grand Illusion is one of the greatest films I've ever seen and I have nothing but love for it. I have another list I'm working on that's a bit more positive. Hopefully I'll post it soon. Thanks for the feedback.
Also, If you're going to be a good philosopher, you might as well give us the opposite, top 10 great list, just for the fairness of balancing your argument! Your argument sounds similar to Goodman's "Ways of Worldmaking" (don't be fooled by the title, he hates scifi/fantasy as well). Check it out.
But, eh, just have to say, Grand Illusion is so great because it humanizes and adds details to the "epic" aspect you are bashing. Slightly unfair to bash Grand Illusion, especially since it was one of film industry veteran Erich von Strohiem's last personal and artistically tooled role. When was the last time you saw a war movie without a million explosions and copious amounts of dying people? Grand Illusion. :P
Well, I think Hollywood values have a bit to do with the reason why someone thinks their life as a menial worker isn't as important as the life of someone who is a state senator, or that a movie based on the life of a menial worker isn't as important or ambitious as one about the senate (unless of course they can heighten the importance of of the former through sociological or psychological interpretation). People are constantly told both directly and indirectly that their ordinary experiences don't matter. I don't remember going on about the close-up more than maybe once, but perhaps my memory is failing me. I don't now feel that the close-up is a bad thing, only that close-ups designed to let the viewer see into the inner nature of the character, usually their "good side" but sometimes their "bad side" are dangerous to any serious work of art. There are good close-ups and bad close-ups. Aside from Cass, there's a couple of good close-ups in Junebug that do not seek to ensure the viewer identifies with what a character is feeling, but rather holds the viewer on the outside for the duration of the shot's length, intensifying the mystery of what it is that drives us without ever attempting the idiocy of trying to solve it.
Yes, but I find some criteria to be shallow and misguided. Hence the list. Most people seem to agree with number 8, but let's take number 3. Many people think identification is important because they are used to Hollywood films where the lighting, music and editing are designed to tell you that, despite what you see on the surface, people have a hidden side that may be good or bad. These films simplify life in a way that is simply not good. In great art, as in life, we never see any hidden side, we only see the surface. "Good" or "bad" isn't visible to us, only "nice" or "mean." Mediocre films spend every effort to show us that under a mean surface a person can be "good inside" but what they miss is that: 1. Everyone thinks they are good (except maybe serial killers, the least interesting most simplistic characters from which we learn nothing) 2. Our private fantasies about ourselves aren't interesting until they are challenged by our interactions with others, who don't have the ability to see inside us, or by the contradictions between who we feel we are and what we do. When films explore the complexities of the contrast between our supposed private selves and our actions and interactions, they can be great. When they attempt to ingratiate themselves with the audience by suggesting that "good" people have a deep, hidden persona that will ultimately transcend their actions, they are shallow and bad.
