Selecting One Film as the All-Time Greatest Movie
I see a real value in learning as much as possible about film and developing a set of reasonably objective standards to assist one in processing their own opinion about a film. When we start talking about favorite/greatest rankings, for me, that means we can’t deny the subjective. My favorite films are the one’s I most connect to. The one’s that I know in my gut I can revisit again and again and still gain something from it. I don’t struggle so much with this concept because it’s not just about the film, but the place it holds in my life, which only I can determine.
For myself, different films do different things to me and no film does it all. For instance, some films I love because they hit me on an intellectual level (The White Ribbon) while other films hit me on an emotional level (Where the Wild Things Are). So instead of picking one definitive film, I prefer to select a group of films that are diverse enough in achieving the various things in cinema that I value.
When people ask me what my favorite film is, I usually just go to my stock answer of The Godfather. It doesn’t bother me that it might be cliche and it doesn’t bother me that it doesn’t fully encapsulate every aspect of cinema that I love, but it’s just an easy answer to a fairly complicated question. And to be fair, The Godfather is one of the films that comes closest to hitting most of the points of film that I love.
Even in regards to making a top ten list for this year, I’m finding it difficult to rank my favorite films. Unlike past years, there hasn’t been one or two films that really stand out as being my absolute favorite. Instead, this year I have five or six films that I could easily list as my favorite. So I don’t even know if I will rank my list this year – I might just do a top ten or twenty and list them alphabetically.
CITIZEN KANE (Orson Welles, 1941)
FWIW, I look at “greatest” and “favorite” as two separate categories (although when I choose films there can be overlap). For some reason I don’t have a problem choosing one film as the favorite film. But choosing one film as the best or greatest film of all time seems more difficult and maybe not as interesting a question.
Both of you seem to also think more in terms of a group of films rather than choosing one, and I’m more in line with that thinking.
@Santino
I’m interested in hearing why you choose Godfather as your most favorite film.
Btw, fwiw, I, personally don’t care if the choice is predictable or cliche. If that’s your favorite film (or the film you think is the greatest of all time) then so be it. To choose something else just because you don’t want to be predictable or “boring” would be less interesting and less “real” to me.
Even in regards to making a top ten list for this year, I’m finding it difficult to rank my favorite films.
FWIW, as time goes on, I’m less interested in ranking. Is ranking important—especially when you get specific, e.g., #7 versus #8. Nowadays I tend to think in terms of tiers—i.e., a group of films that are on one level versus another. (This is arbitrary, too, but it’s a little more meaningful to me, anyway.)
Yeah, I think tiers is probably a better idea. Drew has been doing that this year and I think it’s probably a more accurate way of listing films. I just have always liked the idea of having one or two films that I would call my favorite. You’re right, #7 versus #8 isn’t that critical a distinction but in the past I’ve liked to have one film that stood out above the rest. And in the last couple years, this has not been a problem. There is always one or two films that I feel comfortable calling my favorite. This is the first year I’ve really had trouble pointing to just one film.
Regarding The Godfather, it’s been a favorite for a long time and every time I revisit it thinking it might not be as good as I remember (because my tastes have changed, I’ve been exposed to a lot more films now, etc) I fall in love with it all over again. I’ve seen the first two films on the big screen (the first one I’ve seen twice on the big screen) and I just enjoy them immensely. For me, they have everything – great story, great acting, great directing, great music, great cinematography, great production design, great editing, great writing. PLUS, they are immensely rewatchable. Some films I love but don’t rewatch very often. Others I rewatch all the time but admit they may not be the greatest works of art. In the case of The Godfather, I think it’s a great film and I love rewatching.
I should say that in the past I’ve lumped the original and Part II together and for ease of discussion, I still tend to do that. For a long time it was impossible for me to say which one I prefer. But a couple years ago, when I saw both of them in the theater back to back, I realized that I slightly prefer the original. Part of this has to do with Brando and part of it has to do with seeing Michael’s ascension, which I think is fascinating and tragic to watch. But a lot of why I prefer the original has to do with Part 2’s shortcomings. Part 2 is longer as a whole film but because it splits it up between Michael and young Vito, we actually only get about two hours of story with Michael, which makes it less time than in the original, which nearly three hours. You get what I’m saying? But this is a minor quibble because obviously the De Niro stuff is great and the juxtaposition between young Vito and Michael is handled so well. And Diane Keaton in Part 2 is so good.
@Santino
I agree with pretty much everything you said about Godfather I and II.
_ For me, they have everything – great story, great acting, great directing, great music, great cinematography, great production design, great editing, great writing._
Yep. And the way all these things come together. It feels like perfection. It’s one of the reasons I think it’s among the handful of all time great films for me. (Man, this is making me want to see them again.)
I understand your criticism against Part II, and I think I agree with you (including the reasons I is more appealing).
The way the third film turns out is a shame, to me, because it had potential.
@ Santino and Jazzaloha:
I agree with both of you about The Godfather. It’s my favorite film as well for all the reasons so expertly listed by Santino…it encompasses so much of what I love about film….it hits on almost all cinematic cylinders….it IS the Watershed film of my life…..the film that opened up what cinema could achieve and that it really was art in the right hands…..I think it will always be my favorite…..and I am astounded and amazed by it on each viewing, no matter how many times I’ve seen it (The Godfather, Part II as well…like Santino I kind of lump them together).
@ Jazz:
//The way the third film turns out is a shame, to me, because it had potential.//
Indeed…not quite the mess everyone would have us believe but a definite squandered opportunity. The miscasting of Sofia Coppola was fatal and some of the scenes with Michael and Kay were too talky and long.
But Coppola’s old touch shone forth in many of it’s scenes…especially the final act set at the opera.
Sans Soleil all the way.
^ That.
I wouldn’t even pick Sans Soleil as Marker’s best. The Grin Without a Cat, ladies and gentleman.
It’s either Wang Bing’s Tie Xi Qu: West of the Tracks or Trinh T. Minh-ha’s The Fourth Dimension.
look no further.. http://mubi.com/films/sans-soleil
Seriously, if you guys like Sans Soleil you really should check out The Fourth Dimension.
Perhaps the best way to approach this topic is by defining our criterion for rating films.
Each individual will have a different perspective.
As I see it, most films are genre pieces. I first judge a film on how well it worked as a genre piece for me. If it’s mediocre for me upon first viewing or tiring upon repeated viewings, it receives a lower rating. If it rewards repeated viewings, it receives a higher rating. This is completely subjective. What reveals itself over time and grows on me could be stagnant for another viewer, and vice-versa.
(For Example: If I was critiquing the noir or gangster genre, I would much rather watch Huston’s Asphalt Jungle or Melville’s Le Samourai & Le Cercle Rouge than Godard’s Breathless & Band of Outsiders or Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs & Pulp Fiction. Why? For me, self-referential gestures in cinema cheapen the experience. Postmodern pastiches such as Tarantino’s have a junk food quality that I don’t find rewarding upon repeated viewings. I might enjoy some of the dialogue of Pulp Fiction but the overall frenetic pastiche pinballing makes it feel more and more hollow and contrived upon later viewings. With Godard, I might initially be intrigued by his spontaneity and improvisation, how he seemingly makes up the script as he goes along, the sense of playfulness. But, upon further viewings, I find it (there’s those words again) contrived and overtly self-referential. I want to actually experience some clarity in the expression of this genre! So, then I watch a movie like Huston’s Asphalt Jungle and it’s there—the gritty locales, snappy dialogue, tragic twists characteristic of the genre. It doesn’t cheapen on repeated viewings either because I can still enter this city, these characters, and not feel like it’s merely a sleight-of-hand. Then, I watch the films of a director such as Melville and I not only experience the crime/gangster/noir genre in a nutshell, but films which move beyond the genre in their commitment to minimal dialogue, visual evocation, existential exploration. Now I’ve run the gamut from the one watch experiences of Tarantino to the engaging yet empty Godard to the entertaining Huston to the atmospheric and philosophic Melville.)
I secondly judge a film on what it has to say beyond genre. This has, for one reason or another, become more and more difficult to find nowadays. Films which are audacious enough to tackle deeper issues than the conventional formulas ascribed to their genres. This was not uncommon during the ‘60s/’70s. This is where the idea of the auteur first originated. Films made by a filmmaker not only to distill the essence of a genre in an entertaining and perhaps formally accomplished way but films which the director actually needed to make.
(For Example: Some of Bergman’s films, especially Winter Light, in which he was casting off the burdens of his religious upbringing and coming to terms with himself as an artist and human being, in general, or Kieslowski’s Double Life of Veronique which doesn’t make much sense as a typical genre piece at all yet reveals his own preoccupations with identity and human connection OR in the genre realm, Altman’s McCabe & Mrs. Miller which overturns America’s most beloved genre of the Western in its depiction of the “American Dream” gone awry; Scorsese’s Mean Streets, prompted by Cassavetes’ remark that his previous efforts were shite and he should create something from his gut, from his memories, which resulted in the many personal, almost autobiographical, compositions and scenes; Kurosawa’s Dersu Uzala which was, unlike the majority of his previous films, so much more than a samurai adventure, it was a regenerated director, fresh from a suicide attempt, needing to express his innermost feelings about the loss of the wilderness.)
The rarest of films, which I accord the highest rating, are those which transform and transfigure narrative, which move into a poetic dimension.
(For Example: On the completely non-narrative side, an experimental abstraction such as Brakhage’s Dog Star Man while on the narrative side, the spiritual meditations of Paradjanov, Tarkovsky’s Andrei Rublev & Solaris or, recently, Malick’s Tree of Life.)
san soleil +2
damn. this keyboard can’t do sss’’sss’’s’ and i can’t edit.
sansss soleil +2
sans soleil +2
x2
I used to agree with the I-don’t-have-just-one-favourite-film idea, but I’ve looked at it in a completely different way since I saw American Graffiti. When I saw it for the first time, I thought “wow, I’ve just found my all-time favourite”. It felt like each small detail had been carefully assembled to meet my idea of a perfect film. I guess I’m really lucky to experience this feeling; as much as I love many films I’ve seen since, the way I love American Graffiti is just a whole level above them all.
Days of Being Wild. There. Something like this will never be satisfactory for folks because everyone has their own vision of what perfection and greatness are.
For any of you willing, I’d be interested in hearing how you come to choose one film as a favorite or all-time greatest film—especially the latter, which to me, seems really difficult.
@GP
Thanks for sharing that. A few questions I’m curious about (but no worries if you don’t want to answer them):
1. Can you or do you select one films as a favorite or greatest of all time? If so, what or how do you select this one film? What sets this film from all others?
2. I also tend to give more weight to films that are more poetic—or at least more profound and serious—at least in terms of evaluating the greatest films of all time. But I’m wondering if you have any thoughts about how to justify this. Specifically, is this strictly a matter of personal preference or can we make an argument that would be compelling to a lot of people (i.e., something more objective or what I would call intersubjective)?
@RGrimes
Just to be clear, fwiw, the Godfather films are not my favorite, but they’re really great films—1st tier greatness, imo. I agree with the “running on all cyclinders” comment as well. (What are some other films like this? Some that come to mind: Citizen Kane, Mishima: a Story in Four Chapters)
Indeed…not quite the mess everyone would have us believe but a definite squandered opportunity. The miscasting of Sofia Coppola was fatal and some of the scenes with Michael and Kay were too talky and long.
To me, the problem had to do with the amount of time that passed between the second film. I felt we needed more screen time for the character arc of Michael. I liked the spiritual aspects of the film—namely, getting to the point of contrition and finding a way for redemption—but I don’t think the filmmakers handled these aspects very well (partly because they didn’t spend enough time on it, imo).
I second Citizen Kane
We could always extend the Top 20 game to total elimination just to see what ends up single and alone.
(Hint: I’d stab myself with a nail file before running it that far into the ground).
—DiB
@Anubhav Bist
Absoultely.
Anubhav and Christopher
If you don’t mind, I’m curious to hear what makes this one film stand out above the rest. FWIW, if I was forced to choose, this would probably be the film I’d choose. For me, it’s not only running on all cylinders—but each of the “cylinders” are impressive by themselves. Moreover, the “cylinders” seem to be running at a high level from the opening scene to the last one. Some people might find this a boring pick, but that’s my feeling.
On the other hand, in terms of emotional impact or profound truth, I would choose another film. (Maybe something like Sunrise: Song of Two Humans—although that’s visually gorgeous—and amazing for the way it has stood the test of time—for emotional impact; 2001 for terrific visuals and ambition)
Writing about this brings to light the problem for me. All these films are really, really great—greatest of all time in my view. But choosing one over the other would be a matter of personal preference or maybe dependent on the mood I’m in.
@Jazzaloha
You see, why CITIZEN KANE is the greatest film of all time is that ho ell this film was made at the time when it was first released and later became an arthouse classic because Welles was so talented and how his styles along with acting & directing still stands out today for which it also has a complex mystery in the story, which Welles’ later works artisticly unqiue (according to his quote: “Create your own visual style. Let it be unique for yourself and yet identifiable for others"). Every film fan, or critic, or filmmaker, says it is so good because how artistic it was made before and that Welles became expierimental on making films when RKO first offered him. It’s pretty simpe to say that why I consider it is the greatest of all time because how genius this film was made. Same for SATANTANGO or CACHE (perhaps).
@Christopher
I think we’re on the same (or similar) page. (Btw, I wish a free six hours to watch Satantango :(
Trois Couleurs: Bleu
As Konnan would say: “Yo yo yo, let me speak on this!”
Not really about the one greatest film but great films in general: how many “great films” do you take with you in your everyday life? That is to say, how many provide life lessons or factor in to what you do every day?
First reason why people watch films: to be entertained.
But what is entertainment? What is the next step? I think the next step, if not a replacement for the first, is to be enlightened.
So we look for films that entertain and enlighten.
Thus we search for ideas and ideals.
So a lot of “great” films may make you say “Wow, such beautiful imagery…ooh, look at that edit…gee, isn’t he dashing? Ooh, such a beautiful dress…I really like that dissolve…blah blah blah”.
One notices this a lot with art films. Or people shall ramble about the supposed Freudian implications of certain character interactions, scenery, what have you. But these things do not necessarily a great film make.
Much more difficult than choosing the “great films” is first deciding what “makes” a great film.
@Jazz
It would be difficult to select only one as the greatest of all time since I would be neglecting several others that also take the cinematic dimension to its most elevated heights.
I would, however, select 4 films. Here they are:
@Graveyard Poet
Great selection!
I love SOLARIS and PARIS,TEXAS. Haven’t seen ether SHADOWS OF FORGOTTEN ANCESTORS and/or THE TREE OF LIFE, but those both are on my watch-list. :)
I’d say PARIS, TEXAS is perhaps the greatest road movie of all time, in my words, because the film deals with finding who you really are. Harry Dean Stanton & Nastassja Kinski had wonderful performances while Wenders’ direction & styles made him on the map of road movies. Another great Wenders film you should watch is UNTIL THE END OF THE WORLD as well THE STATE OF THINGS and WINGS OF DESIRE.
Jazzaloha
I’ve been (and I am) interested in being able to indentify great films for myself, but I’m not really interested in selecting one film as the greatest of all time. I think identifying a group of films that achieve a high level of artistic excellence is possible and meaningful, and I guess to some extent one could rank these films. But my feeling is that these rankings are somewhat arbitrary and imprecise. Personally, I’ve never felt confident about one specific film being artistically superior to any other film. (I guess, if someone forced me to choose, I could do it, but making this selection doesn’t really interest me much.)
I’m interested in hearing from the people who do find the question interesting and also have selected one film as the all-time greatest movie. How do you make that choice? What makes the selection interesting? (Actually, if there were a way to identify the greatest film, that might be interest me, but I guess I feel that there really isn’t a way that I find very compelling or meaningful.)