Camp is the first quality that comes to mind. For instance, I love The Ten Commandments, which is so overblown in both scope and performances that, while it can’t be taken seriously as the story of the Biblical Moses, it instead becomes this wacky giant epic that ends up being highly entertaining because of those flaws.
Pedestrians looking into the camera in Breathless.
Spoiler
The part in Evil Dead 2 where he saws off his hand laughing and insulting his opponent. Anybody would be crying in pain, but I let it go and found it hilarious.
I don’t know. How about a film I find bad, but I still find it to be a guilty pleasure such as Oliver Stone’s Alexander. The scenes with Colin Farrel and Angelina Joeli talking in that silly accent are kind of ridiculous and then of course the scene where Val Kilmer as King Philip tries to get Alexander played by Colin Farrel to acknowledge another part of their family at a banquet. The acting is over the top and makes me laugh, but I still find it entertaining.
Hmm, one criticism people make about many films I love is that they’re “self-indulgent”. I’m thinking something like Fellini Satyricon – that everything in that film is so absurd and overblown, I find it all the more fascinating. A more recent example might be INLAND EMPIRE – I don’t mind if these filmmakers don’t go for such an understated, subtle approach because the results are so often fascinating even in films like the above ones that do miss the mark in some other areas. But to a point – Kill Bill I find annoying and over-the-top, for example. I guess I’m partial to some filmmakers’ extreme idiosyncrasies, and less to others.
A fundamental flaw for the movie Irreversible where Vincent Cassel says his name is Vincent Cassel. Though his name was Marcus he still says it jokingly.
great topic
cause you cannot have a masterpiece without flaws
a movie is better if it leaves balls hanging in the air due to lofty ambitions or if it is just a bit messy
I am thinking Bulworth or Alice’s Resturant here
I got to go but will speak on this later.
First thing that comes to mind is the little kid who plugs his ears in “North by Northwest.” This is a great topic. The greatest films tend to be made under pressure, be it financial, duration, actor troubles, etc. As such, great films are flawed. It’s these imperfections that make them feel honest and sincere. I feel that sincerity is the thing audiences respond to the most (that’s why there have been few, if any, great American romances in the last couple decades). A perfect example of flawed and honest due to constraints vs flawless and insincere due to unlimited budget/time/whatever: “The Matrix” vs. “Matrix Reloaded and Revolution.” It should be noted my argument has to do with the on screen/visual elements not scripting.
@Den
cause you cannot have a masterpiece without flaws
That’s an interesting statement. It’s almost as if you’re saying the flaws make the masterpiece a masterpiece. I tend to think of masterpieces as flawless. I think flaws sometimes add to a great work of art, but I wouldn’t use the term masterpiece or at least the term wouldn’t be appropriate.
@Scub
The greatest films tend to be made under pressure, be it financial, duration, actor troubles, etc. As such, great films are flawed.
But what about films like Casablanca, The Godfather or Citizen Kane? I think the filmmakers made the film under the conditions you mention, but they seem flawless—or at least the I don’t think the flaws make the films better or more appealing.
I think that often, some things that could be considered flaws in and of themselves are what make up the charm and character of a film.
Like, in Star Trek, time travel mechanics are just plain ridiculous, and never trace to a logical set of rules, but time travel is one of the things that makes Star Trek special.
Speaking of which, Back To The Future 2. When Biff comes back from 1955 having given himself a sports almanac, why doesn’t he come into a changed 2015? And why, after thirty years of butterfly effect, are the almanac’s results still accurate?
In Indiana Jones, there’s a scene where a guy waves a sword around and Indy just shoots him. This scene was not scripted, it was supposed to be a longer fight, but it became that because Harrison Ford had a cold and couldn’t do the longer fight. And it’s one of the best scenes of the film, it makes fun of the idea of using short range melee weapons in a world where guns exist, which the film is itself guilty of.
One could argue the removal of flaws ruined Star Wars.
^ I still chuckle every time I see the storm trooper nearly knock himself out on that rising door. Is that still in the most recent iteration?
Sometimes VHS or watching the television from a strange angle can. . disarm me. Not what you mean, but.
Who likes perfection? Why?
“i’m sorry if i’m distracted, but my wife is over there with some guys ass in her cock.” … or something like that from Boogie Nights.
Speaking of PTA: I always thought Woody looks at the camera at the end of Manhattan, and I thought this unintentional glance was payed homage to at the end of “Magnolia” when Melora Walters looks dead at the camera before a cut to credits.
@ Jazz
I understand what you’re saying about those films appearing flawless, but many of the shots (especially Kane) are fudged to acheive something approximating the director’s vision (but not a literal translation of that vision). But that hardship creates a sense of that honesty/sincerity that I mentioned (this is why Ed Wood movies endure). Just as you accept a story from an honest and sincere person as truth, even though human recollection is flawed: you accept flawed yet beautiful film as masterful. When someone is given the tools and money to perfectly transpose their vision to the screen, the results tend to be lackluster (see the Star Wars prequels).
Beauty and perfection are not synonymous. People need some flaw in the beauty in order to connect to it. The old studio system knew this and would ensure that their stars (especially actresses) had some flaw that would keep them from perfection in order to endear them to audiences. When we watch these great masterpieces and marvel at their beauty, we are endearing ourselves to the subtle flaws in it. And the flaws are subtle, not usually glaring problems with the film.
You mean pimples? Zits? Stuff like that? I heap laudations upon actors who will appear in films with zits on their chins. Or allow a scene to remain in which a fly is sunning itself upon a tit. Mara Corday is such an actor.
@Paulofilmo
Who likes perfection? Why?
Perfection can be sterile, “too safe” and therefore not so interesting, but I also associate perfection closely with excellence, and excellence with greatness and the concept of “masterpiece.” Personally, I think this is difficult to achieve and therefore rare; when it happens it’s a special and exciting thing. Films like Citizen Kane or Godfather I and II make me think of perfection, and it’s a high achievement, imo.
@Scub
I understand what you’re saying about those films appearing flawless, but many of the shots (especially Kane) are fudged to acheive something approximating the director’s vision (but not a literal translation of that vision).
What do you mean by that? And, can you think of examples? Maybe Welles, Coppola and Curtiz didn’t get to do exactly what they wanted, but that doesn’t mean the results are “flaws.” Flaws refer to the actual results, not the methods.
Similarly, Lucas may have had the means to realize his vision in the Star Wars prequels, but the results are flawed, imo. For example, the f/x might have improved, but the story and characters are highly flawed imo.
When we watch these great masterpieces and marvel at their beauty, we are endearing ourselves to the subtle flaws in it. And the flaws are subtle, not usually glaring problems with the film.
Can you think of some examples—especially for the films I mentioned? What about something like Psycho? I think that’s close to flawless as well. Perfection isn’t always associated with beauty, but sometimes it works hand in hand with it.
@Brento
You mean pimples? Zits? Stuff like that? I heap laudations upon actors who will appear in films with zits on their chins. Or allow a scene to remain in which a fly is sunning itself upon a tit. Mara Corday is such an actor.
Well, if the “errors” actually enhance the film, then I wouldn’t consider these flaws. A flaw is something that actually weakens the film as a whole. We can acknowledge this, but sometimes we don’t care and actually prefer the flaws.
@Jazz
Many of Kane’s deep focus shots are compositions and multiple exposures. As a result, some parts of shots are subtly out of focus. Now, I don’t want to spend most of my responses listing flaws in great movies. And again, I am only taking into consideration the visuals. Story flaws are hard to overcome regardless of the power of the images. I will just use the cliche that a diamond is worth more when it has a flaw. Flawless diamonds are mainly cubic zirconia and worth far less.
I think Psycho has a pretty glaring flawed scene: the death of Arbogast. That tumble down the stairs is cheesy at best. But it is still an iconic scene and a fan favorite. We overlook the awkward effects in the fall because the film as a whole (and the build up) are so great. We find this scene endearing and that connection improves the overall experience of the film. It makes the film better. I will admit that what I am calling flaws are not the fault of these great directors but most often necessary compromises in order to acheive a semblance of their vision. The best example I can give for this kind of compromise, that we love (and many miss), are matte paintings. Most of the time, even the most cursory study reveal the entire background (and sometimes foreground) to be a painting, but we are too wrapped up in the film to care. I’m sure that with “The Thing” John Carpenter would’ve rather had an actual spaceship built in that crater instead of having Kurt Russell printed over a painting.
You responded to Brentofilm saying that flaws weaken a film. That statement negates your title. The flaw cannot, by your definition, make the film better. I say it can. It adds value to the diamond.
@Scub
I think Psycho has a pretty glaring flawed scene: the death of Arbogast. That tumble down the stairs is cheesy at best.
I think the scene doesn’t hold up very well, given the technology, stunts and effects we have available to us. (There are scenes like this in The Birds as well.) Technically, we can call these flaws, but I tend to feel like “flaw” isn’t the most appropriate term. (King Kong doesn’t look real in the original film. Is that a flaw? Maybe it diminishes the film a bit, so I guess we could call it a flaw….)
You responded to Brentofilm saying that flaws weaken a film. That statement negates your title. The flaw cannot, by your definition, make the film better. I say it can. It adds value to the diamond.
I admit this is a paradox (and my title was meant to be Yogi Berra-ish), but I think this is possible. Here’s a possible example. I’ve argued that the dance sequence between Sport and Iris is a flaw because it’s goes outside the central theme of the film; the film would be more unified and a stronger whole if you left the scene out, imo. At the same time, it’s a very good scene, and I could understand if people like that it was left in, even though it may be a “flaw.”
Maybe we need a refined definition of “flaw” for this thread. Although, I worry that to do that may pigeonhole an otherwise open topic. I can only say that I do not intend the term “flaw” to be purely negative. I would never use “flaw” for a Bret Ratner film. I would use “complete fuck-up,” for example.
One of the interesting things about this thread is that the comments can be revealing in three ways: your definition of “flaw,” what you find to be flaws, and your opinion on whether it can be beneficial to a film. It’s made everyone’s comments very interesting to read.
a diamond is worth more when it has a flaw.
??!
That’s the first time I’ve ever heard that.
With diamonds, the flaws that do not hinder the value are usually not visible without high magnification. Minor flaws give a stone character, much like a film. This is not to say that there are not flaws that hurt a diamond’s value. They are usually on the outside of the stone or immediately noticable. My previous statement did make it seem as if any shitty rock is valuable. This is not true. I was just generalizing.
Don’t want to get off-topic here, but this diamond analogy is just way off-base.
Clarity is the measure of how clearly a diamond is able to allow light to pass through it, reflect off of it, and refract within it. This light quality is determined by a number of factors, one of which is the level of flaws, both internal and external. The internal flaws are referred to as inclusions, and the external flaws are known as blemishes with inclusions more often being the more detrimental of the flaws.
(http://www.abazias.com/DiamondEducation/articles/Fundamentals-The-4Cs.asp)
Incidentally, I must mention one of the most interesting books I’ve read:
Diamond: The History of a Cold-Blooded Love Affair by Matthew Hart. Check it out; it’s a fantastic read.
“Maybe we need a refined definition of “flaw” for this thread. Although, I worry that to do that may pigeonhole an otherwise open topic. I can only say that I do not intend the term “flaw” to be purely negative. I would never use “flaw” for a Bret Ratner film. I would use “complete fuck-up,” for example.”
Exactly. I think we are all going about this in the wrong way. I would say a flaw is something which distracts, but can sometimes eventually heighten the beautiful parts of the film (that which is not flawed). The best analogy I could think of, is essentially a worker evaluation: though a consistent job performance may be pleasing, the worker who has messed up once, but gone on to improve their work is going to be considered as the person who did the better job. Why? I’ll tell you why: didn’t you expect a lot more from the guy with persistent performance than what he ultimately gave you? (Something, perhaps, not immediately apparent; not a “flaw”).
I feel that every “masterpiece” has its own flaw which has come to be understood as fact. For what is a flaw in film anyway? I don’t want to get into the conversation about camp as was discussed (I think?) before, or qualitative-relativity, but I would say a good example of a proxy film for each worker would be: Hitchcock, the consistent slow-build, flawless story; versus, say, “Kane,” which has a different flaw for every person, but transcends that flaw to end at a level heightened by said flaws, that though it’s ending may accomplish the same narrative satisfaction that Hitchcock’s best did, it was nonetheless better by relative expectations set forth by the earlier part of the film.
But that was a really hard comparison to make, because I think Kane is a flawed muddled mess. I would be interested to hear others thoughts on this comparison, and to come up with their own.
^^ That’s stupid. I didn’t even say anything.
A “flaw” in a film, if this is a definable aspect of a film that we can in fact spotlight, is 100 percent attributable to mistakes made in the editing bay. That’s it.
Famous story about the nude drawing scene of Titanic, Leo’s line is only supposed to say, “over on the couch” but slipped and did the “Over on the bed… the couch!” and they kept it for one of the movie’s quirkiest lines.
—PolarisDiB
I like a messy improvised feel to my flicks that some consider flawed
too polished is not good
Actually, I don’t know what a “finished” Brentofilm would look like. None of them really begin or end. They just sort of “emerge”, each one taking up from the last and continuing on from there. That’s why I’ve taken to calling them a journal as a whole but with titled “sections”. I am aiming at a more formal project based on the Frankenstein material of various sorts, mostly cinematic but I’m also giving the Shelly novel another close read; also things like Meyrink’s The Golem, ETA Hoffman and so on. The mainspring of all this is German Expressionist film of the 20s, Orson Welles, Dreyer, Bergman, fatacists and surrealists like Cocteau, Bunuel, and of course that strange, fractured house of mirrors, Last Year at Marienbad, etc., etc., the list goes on and on. Really, I’m having the time of my life making these nuttso home movies. I am an amateur and plan to remain so. Nuff said.
Actually, I don’t know what a “finished” Brentofilm would look like. None of them really begin or end. They just sort of “emerge”, each one taking up from the last and continuing on from there. That’s why I’ve taken to calling them a journal as a whole but with titled “sections”. I am aiming at a more formal project based on the Frankenstein material of various sorts, mostly cinematic but I’m also giving the Shelly novel another close read; also things like Meyrink’s The Golem, ETA Hoffman and so on. The mainspring of all this is German Expressionist film of the 20s, Orson Welles, Dreyer, Bergman, fatacists and surrealists like Cocteau, Bunuel, and of course that strange, fractured house of mirrors, Last Year at Marienbad, etc., etc., the list goes on and on. Really, I’m having the time of my life making these nuttso home movies. I am an amateur and plan to remain so. Nuff said.
@Scub
Maybe we need a refined definition of “flaw” for this thread. Although, I worry that to do that may pigeonhole an otherwise open topic. I can only say that I do not intend the term “flaw” to be purely negative.
Defining “flaw” more precisely would probably be a good idea. (See below for some idea of what I mean.)
@Den
I like a messy improvised feel to my flicks that some consider flawed
too polished is not good
But masterpieces aren’t necessarily too polished or even polished. I think of perfection in terms of all the parts of a film working together to achieve the aesthetic goals of the artwork—with no extraneous part. This definition allows for some minor defect or error. As Robert might say, a film might feel perfect, even if it has errors—as long as the errors doesn’t interfere with the totality of the film.
Jazzaloha
Huh? Here’s what I mean. We can recognize and knowledge flaws in films. Perhaps, some aspect of the film weakens the film’s overall objective or is extraneous to it. Nevertheless, we love the flaw, so we actually prefer the film with the flaw; if the filmmaker removed the flaws, it would diminish the film for us. Hopefully, that makes sense. What are some films that you like because of its flaws?