I would address this question in terms of burgers. (I may be hungry.) The individual film succeeds or fails on the basis of its patty and bun. The place in a director’s oeuvre is more like the condiments. Its adds a bit of spice (i.e. deeper understanding) to the proceedings, but this only matters once the meat of the film has been established.
I often talk about Robert Altman in terms of how his films relate to each other, which makes them all just a little better, but McCabe & Mrs. Miller (to pick one of many examples – vote for it in the Directors Cup on 7/17) also stands on its own and can be appreciated even without having seen other Altman films. Yet discussions of community become richer when it’s put into the larger Altman context.
ahh you started the thread.
Here is a better illustration, Den on You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger
What is interesting is something like You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger. Stranger is the first Allen film where the May-December thing seems off putting, where a quick crush doesn’t lead to an affair and where mysticism is looked at with sympathy instead of derision. As an Allen film, it feels like he grew up somehow with his themes and I was most impressed by Judy Punch who is his most sinister leading lady that I can remember. With all this in mind, it is one of my favorite Allen films and I gave it 5/5. If I saw it without any context though, it might have gotten 3.5/5; that is fair I think since directors earn leeway with themes. I suspect Tree of Life would be less interesting if the exact same film did not come from Malick.
I don’t think the filmmaker is always the one that allows the film to have a throughline. Sometimes actors do this, as with the the Beatty example or an Eddie Murphy film or an Adam Sandler film, Punch Drunk Love is a Sandler film that uses his angry repressed persona for drama (as is Reign into Me, both interesting films). Films like Star Trek or On the Road will be seen by me with eyes toward Kerouac’s place within the thing or the new films place within the other Star Trek films (not as a Salles or Abrahams film per say).
I watched Madem’s Room for Rome recently without knowing it was Madem, walked in about 4 mins late so even tho I ranked the film 5/5 it was more interesting once I found out and could place it within that context. I think a great film can exist without an interesting context but a clasic has to be placed within a filmography in a way that makes it utterly unique
“but McCabe & Mrs. Miller (to pick one of many examples – vote for it in the Directors Cup on 7/17) also stands on its own an can be appreciated even without having seen other Altman films”
sure it can but it is far more interesting as a piece of Beatty’s continual screen persona.
It has to be both . . . or at least the potential for either. Negative capability, baby!
A film is it’s own thing, but sometimes you can see things in an oeuvre that you might well miss film-to-film (this was part of the point of auteur theory).
I like burger analogy, Brad! (But I’m getting hungry, too, so…:)
I just want to reiterate a point. If the condiments make a film “better” do we mean better in the sense that we enjoy it more or better in terms of its success as a work of art? In other words, can we see a film is great based on its relation to the entire oeuvre? Or to go further, must does a film’s greatness depend on the way it relates to the oeuvre? If the latter is true, that puts a whole other dimension to determining a film’s greatness (at least in the way that I’ve thought of it so far).
>>can we see a film is great based on its relation to the entire oeuvre?<<
Slightly adjust the wording of this, Jazz, and I agree with it. Can we see a film’s greatness INFORMED by its relation to the entire oeuvre? To that I’d say yes, but it is not based on or dependent of it. After all, one must always begin looking at an oeuvre with one film.
What exactly do you mean by “informed?” Let me put it this way. Suppose a film doesn’t offer anything interesting in relation to entire oeuvre, does that hurt the film in terms of its greatness? In general, I think this variable has little bearing on a film’s greatness. On the other hand, it can greatly enhance one’s appreciation and enjoyment of the film. Bu this should be confused with the qualities that make a film great, imo.
One slight caveat. The film’s relationship to the entire oeuvre can determine, or at least reveal, that a film is a masterpiece. Comparing the one film with the others can show the way a filmmaker is developing and finally arriving at the full expression of the filmmaker’s interest. On the other hand, I think such a film would be good, if not great, even if you didn’t see other films in the oeuvre.
Comparing the one film with the others can show the way a filmmaker is developing and finally arriving at the full expression of the filmmaker’s interest.
This is true, not only within the filmmaker’s oeuvre, but also in terms of all the films that exist (which we have seen). I don’t subscribe to the apples and oranges argument, everything is compared to everything. Ultimately, they must stand on their own for the most part, however. The oeuvre is mostly useful, to me, to prove to naysayers that the filmmaker knew what they were doing and that the things the detractors point out as mistakes are purposeful. This doesn’t make them good, however. Just because Dario Argento, to pick a random example, knows exactly what he’s doing doesn’t make what he’s doing worth a damn.
Jazz, I love ya, but you are the most rules seekin’ art lover I’ve ever known. Appreciating a film can come from whatever the viewer brings to the work. There are no rules or “right” answers, just principles that may apply to more people or less and/or which can be more or less readily explained to others. In this instance, one can “get” a film on its own, or one can potentially find more of value by comparing the film to others from the same director, actor, writer, cinematographer, production designer, or whoever, or one could even find more value in comparing the other to others with similar themes or from similar genres or that remind you of other works of art or events in real life. Any of these are entirely applicable and reasonable to use to bring out the most a film can offer you if they shed some light on something noteworthy in your mind. Convincing others of your thinking requires you to be able to translate your understanding and explain it, but that isn’t required for your own pleasure, just for the larger understanding of the film by interested parties.
I assume you would agree that it would be beneficial to your understanding of the Godfather II to have seen the Godfather since it is a sequel. In that case the sequel is known because the characters and situations are a continuation of those from the previous film. But that isn’t the only sort of sequel, there are so called thematic sequels like Bergman’s Silence to Winter’s Light and Through a Glass Darkly, or L’Eclisse to La Notte and L’Avventura where the themes from one film inform the concepts of the others. One can enjoy the films individually, but some will find the works better as a group. Beyond that, there are loose sequels or films that may be informed by previous works but which aren’t grouped in the same way. One can argue that Bring Out the Dead is more rewarding when viewed in the context of Taxi Driver for example, or that Gardens of Stone can be understood differently once one takes into account Apocalypse Now. Going beyond that, one can look at a film like The Shootist in the context of John Wayne’s career and even his life off screen to gain a different understanding of it, or look at how Touch of Evil may have influenced Psycho or how All About Eve may have influenced Opening Night. One can go another step and look at the way a film like Black Narcissus deals with some ideas that are also dealt with in Renoir’s The River or Tourneur’s I Walked with a Zombie while also comparing it to Jeanne Dielmann for how it handles some of its other concerns.
None of these things are absolutely necessary to do, one can respond to the film on its own or simply to any part of it or even the idea of it if that floats your boat, but the more you can bring to the film the more the film can potentially give back to you, even, and this responds to your other recent post, even if that means it becomes somewhat harder to find films that are as completely fulfilling as it was when you first started to watch them and everything seemed fresh and new. The more knowledge you have about films or even life in general the more depth you can potentially find in any given work, but the more difficult it is to find what you may think of as truly exceptional works since that is what the knowledge you have gained has brought you, that is experience and learning. This is why so many of the most popular critics aren’t that interesting to read for many people here. They are responding to films on a more basic level. They are writing for those without experience or knowledge, a lack of knowledge they often share. More informed critics can bring more to the film and provide a better or deeper understanding of it, but doing so may not be meaningful to many viewers since they don’t have the same base from which to respond to a film. It isn’t that there is some sort of concrete hierarchy of films where one moves from Twilight to eventually reaching Tree of Life, the individual can respond positively or negatively to any film no matter their level of knowledge. The key is in how they respond, what they take from the film, not the thumbs up or down or some banal judgment they issue about it. A simpleton can like Tree of Life ’cause its purdy and they think Brad Pitt is a dreamy hunk while a more knowledgeable watcher could find larger thematic interest in Twilight. There is no rule book or right way to watch a film, it is all in your relationship to it and what each can bring to the other.
@Greg
I don’t have much time to respond now (and I had too much wine tonight, so I’m not in the best frame of mind). But I just wanted to make a quick response. I think the difference in our views can be traced back to our different take on “like=great.” They aren’t necessarily equivalent to me (as they are to you), and because of that I’ve been seeking a way to distinguish the two. I think this explains the reason that rules for judging art seem so important to me. I’m trying to identify rules and procedure that determines whether a work of art is great or not. Of course, if you think that what you like is the same as what is great, there really is no need to determine a process or rules. That’s it for now. I’ll try to add more later.
I suspect you are probably right about that drift of thought Jazz, although I likely wouldn’t phrase it in quite the same way. To my way of thinking rules are necessarily limiting and as such they can’t hold when it comes to art so they shouldn’t be looked at as being something to apply before the fact. After the experience of a work, or large body of works, one can make connections and seek some guidelines, but those guidelines have to be able to be dropped the moment something challenges them by presenting an experience of emotional or intellectual depth if that experience can’t be fit within the bounds of previous knowledge. Greatness is simply the accumulated understanding of a work that can be shared and understood by many. To find or begin the accumulation there has to be individual acts of understanding and explanation and those things need not and often cannot be set into already existent rules which is why there can be the “shock of the new” or we can be surprised by our reaction to something. If it was accountable by the numbers art wouldn’t provoke such strong reactions, it would simply be bookkeeping.
“. The oeuvre is mostly useful, to me, to prove to naysayers that the filmmaker knew what they were doing and that the things the detractors point out as mistakes are purposeful. This doesn’t make them good, however. Just because Dario Argento, to pick a random example, knows exactly what he’s doing doesn’t make what he’s doing worth a damn.”
This, pretty much.
Matt’s point rings true too. It’s neither one or the other, and the potential is there for both, depending on the film, or the film maker, in question. The danger of the ‘oeuvre’ driven approach, however, is that it can often lead to an exaggerated appreciation of lesser films, justified entirely by their connection to previous ones, thus validating the creative ‘genius’ of the auteur. It’s a deadly trap that most cinephiles fall into at some point, and it’s best to avoid it imo.
having said that, some films do ‘open up’ once they are closely examined within a larger framework of interpretation, so it’s not necessary to resist the ouevre/auteur analysis entirely, one just needs to be careful in applying it.
To answer Jazz’s question more directly, in terms of generalities, i’d say it’s ideal for a film to stand up on its own terms, without reference to a director’s vast body of work, but situating a film within the context of an ouevre is a useful reading strategy, and can certainly increase one’s appreciation of a film.
The OP example is talking about a narrative/character throughline – not sure why the ‘what’ would be used instead of the ‘how’ to determine greatness.
…we could never really call a film or filmmaker great until we saw all of their films.
Auteur/oeuvre is about style/cinematic language. I think learning their style makes the films more accessible,
thereby more enjoyable for some.
film relates to a filmmaker’s oeuvre be the basis for its greatness?
Artists tend to see the oeuvre as important. Isn’t that how a ‘masterpiece’ is determined?
A film should stand alone, but can add to the greatness of a film makers oeuvre.
Kieslowski’s Blue, White and Red can stand alone even as a part of a informal trilogy, but not only do the three films inform upon each other, they are informed upon by all of Kieslowski’s previous works.
Are they better if we are in full knowledge of the previous works? I don’t know, but I would say Kieslowski became a better film maker because of his previous works and the three films were a culmination of a life in film.
@Greg
To find or begin the accumulation there has to be individual acts of understanding and explanation and those things need not and often cannot be set into already existent rules which is why there can be the “shock of the new” or we can be surprised by our reaction to something.
But generally those explanations (if I’m understanding you correctly) depend on criteria (e.g. originality) that is intersubjective (or objective, but I don’t favor that approach). Moreover, a general approach to the application of these criteria would also be important, imo. In my own approach, I tend to use these criteria in relation to what the film is about and what it’s trying to accomplish. Anyway, without an approach that others find reasonable and criteria that people agree on, I’m not sure the explanations would be so compelling. (Of course, if you believe like=great than an explanation that others find compelling might not be so important.)
Btw, I do agree that criteria and the process to apply them isn’t scientific or fool-proof method for identifying great films. There might be films that escape the process, but still manage to be great. Still, if the criteria and application is sound, it can be a useful way of identifying great films—especially as a way to distinguish between what one likes and what one thinks is great.
@Joks
The danger of the ‘oeuvre’ driven approach, however, is that it can often lead to an exaggerated appreciation of lesser films, justified entirely by their connection to previous ones,…
Exactly. Den seems to argue that an interesting connection to previous films—alone—can make a film great. I think that goes too far. Again, these connection certainly make the film more interesting and satisfying; they can even shed light on the film and the filmmaker. But, generally speaking, they don’t make a work of art great.
@Robert
Artists tend to see the oeuvre as important. Isn’t that how a ‘masterpiece’ is determined?
Argh. You might have gotten me there. Well, let’s consider what you say. Is knowledge of the entire oeuvre necessary to determine whether a film is a masterpiece? On one hand, I think this is the case since I understand masterpiece to mean, in part, the full realization of an artist’s vision and the best expression of their style. Can one know this without knowledge of at least a few of the artist’s work? It seems unlikely.
On the other hand, masterpiece also implies (at least to me) a kind of perfection or near perfection. A film is a masterpiece if a) each of the elements (e.g., editing, cinematography, etc.) are, by themselves, perfect or close to perfect; and b) the elements seamlessly work together to achieve the desired objectives. In this sense, I don’t think a viewer would need to see the other films of the filmmaker.
But I think Den is speaking about something slightly different, too. He’s talking about the way the oeuvre sheds light on a specific film (or filmmaker—like an actor), making the film richer and more interesting. Den’s specific example of You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger focuses on the variations from other Allen films. Seeing the other films brings these variations to light and makes the film more intersting, I agree, but those things don’t make the film great. (Then again, Den equates really liking a film with greatness, so if these details make him love a film then, for him, the film is also great.)
“Seeing the other films brings these variations to light and makes the film more intersting, I agree, but those things don’t make the film great. (Then again, Den equates really liking a film with greatness, so if these details make him love a film then, for him, the film is also great.)”
one does this with authors all the time, since many others stick to variations of previous themes. Take Phillip Roth. One following Roth could say, I love the May-December topics and the wit, just wish he was more political and a bit less prone to easy cultural sterotypes or pat philosophizing that would be great.
Then he writes The Human Stain and it has all you like and none of the stuff you do not. The author has stayed on a course, improved and has written his magnum opus (Personally I think The Breast and Exit, Ghosts are the two best Roth books but that is not the point). When people complain about Salinger’s Hapworth 16 1924, they are doing so because it lost the grace of the other Glass stories, the selflessness if you will but if the thing that kept you into Salinger was the precociousness of the style, you would be all over Hapworth.
I must say i don’t share Den’s interest in the star driven project. Too often they are just vanity pieces and nothing more, and merely reflect the power of the star in question at a particular point in time. As a result of this, they can only be used to gauge the creative direction of a project rather than the quality of it, although it is not entirely without merit i suppose, especially when the star has good ideas, like Beatty.
stars never go out of fashion imo.
the ones that reflect fading power were never stars (even David Caruso had imput for a short time), stars create and cultivate a career
“I don’t know, but I would say Kieslowski became a better film maker because of his previous works and the three films were a culmination of a life in film.”
Having seen all of the full length features of Kieslowski, I’m entirely against this analogy since the Trilogy from where I stand shape-shifts and alters into a tapestry of either useless information or gravitated ideas which never come to life and only in the last part of the Trilogy you glance beneath the flaws of the previous 2 the magic wand and the details similar to the eeriness and spirituality of his pre-Trilogy works.
No, he didn’t become a better filmmaker, he gradually declined and established a more cosmopolitan version of the original Kieslowski but I can accept the culmination of a life in an opus like the Trilogy, albeit an incomplete portrayal of Kieslowski the director. Rarely a director’s latest series of works elevates into a higher level from his previous decades of aptitude and exploration for something “new”. The Trilogy isn’t even a great Kieslowski work but I believe it can be a starting point for anyone who wants to take a peak into Kieslowski’s embryonic conceptions before they enter into the big guns of his filmography.
Ultimately, it has to stand by itself, but with interesting directors knowing their other films can increase your pleasure and what you get out of any given film by them. Things like deliberately planned trilogies and such have a different intent from the get-go, so those are enriched by being taken in sum total their full effect.
Jazz, no, those criteria simply begin with an individual’s response to a film. The celebration of an artwork as being “great” begins with the feeling or understanding of that work by an individual who finds something profound or meaningful within a created work of some sort. They are moved in some fashion by the work and address that feeling by seeking to further investigate or explicate the ideas or emotions the work produces and how it provided those feelings. The intersubjective is the accumulation of many people’s responses to a work that accrues over time and gathers enough mass to solidify the status of the thing being looked at to “art”.
This gives rise to the cultural understanding of something as being art or significant art or what have you, so we can refer to something as a important work of art in a cultural context as we can recognize the history of the thing and the role it has played in art, cultural, and intellectual history. This is looking at the work at a remove and simply acknowledging its label within history and isn’t directly about the work itself anymore in that way of referencing. For that to happen though, there first has to be the reaction of the individual, the fulfillment and expansion of communication being the work and the viewer. The individual response then is the signal event as it initiates the process and as it is the only way one can really understand the work since if one doesn’t “feel” the work as being art, then in a very real way it isn’t to the individual and it only is art by secondary reference to cultural norms.
One’s feeling about a work needn’t be shared by others of course, indeed much of it won’t be, this simply means there will be no accumulation and thus no intersubjective understanding of the work being art. It doesn’t invalidate the individual experience though. Not all individual experiences will work towards a larger understanding equally either. Knowledge, expertise, and the communicative abilities of those that seek to explicate the works will play a larger role in determining the future status of a work. The response of a ten year old to a film is less meaningful in a larger cultural context than the responses of those who study art who can better communicate what they believe the importance or “meaning” of a work is. We can therefore, after the fact, look at what concepts are being discussed in relation to art to try and develop a set of guidelines about what may or may not be of particular relevance in having a work acclaimed, but that endeavor will always fall short against what has yet to be made as those works will challenge the ideas that have come before.
The oeuvre helps determine the importance of the artist, the importance of the artist and the attention given to them helps to better understand and better attend to individual works, so the oeuvre can help make an individual work be seen as a more significant work of art as the attention paid to the artist helps to explicate the meaning of the individual object. This doesn’t mean that it is necessary to know of the body of work to acclaim an individual object as a “masterpiece”, but the more one knows of the artist and of art and cultural history the more weight one’s opinion carries and the more one can bring to the discussion regarding that work much of the time, the more “meaning” the work itself will carry as it can be seen as no longer simply referencing itself but some larger sets of ideas. This is why some people who are particularly attuned to the works of specific artists may see something in a work that others less attuned do not. It isn’t that they are making things up or responding to something not there, they are responding to a larger set of ideas than can be held in a single work. This isn’t something that is only at issue when it comes to an oeuvre, it is also how one can gain a greater understanding of a work by knowning more of an outside set of knowledge as art responds to other art or to culture or history or any number of other things. The more you know about any or all of those things might allow for a greater response to the individual work, so art is often valued for something beyond itself, it could hardly be otherwise as that is what makes art important in many ways. One can value an individual work on its own or as part of a body of works, but in the end it is what the individual can bring to the work that matters, even if that means relying on what others say about the work to help you see more for yourself, however, I would still suggest that the without “feeling” the experience of the work, the work isn’t really art to the individual in a sense, it is only a recognition of signifiers allowing the individual to speak to its cultural context via the response of others, which is fine, but is something very different than experiencing a work on one’s own.
Oh, and I’m well aware there is something of an apparent circular argument when it comes to oeuvre to artist to artwork, but that is because people can recognize the ability of an artist without necessarily having a specific work to refer to as important. It is only through the body of work that themes or ideas becomes apparent or develop an emotional or intellectual value. This is something like what the arguments about Bay or Scott are relying on, the evident ability of the artist as shown through a body of work and then looking back on the individual units of work to more fully express the appreciation of the artist even if the individual works on their own may not be seen as especially significant works when viewed out of context.
This is something like what the arguments about Bay or Scott are relying on, the evident ability of the artist as shown through a body of work and then looking back on the individual units of work to more fully express the appreciation of the artist even if the individual works on their own may not be seen as especially significant works when viewed out of context.
Did you mean Mann and Scott?
Interesting assertion – in Jazz’s pursuit of the greatest of the great in terms of greatestness,
he can skip entire artists because they don’t produce that singular ‘great’ work.
In the visual arts that might mean Caravaggio, David, and others that don’t have a singular piece that jumps out at you. The ones that do are the masterpieces and were derived from the oeuvre. The Renaissance pieces that jump out are the intersubjective ones and they were carried through most of history by religion, not art (market).
As a concept, the greatest of the great in terms of greatestness, is a house of cards.
Mondrian I imagine would be someone who fits that definition pretty well.
I did mean Bay though as a shout out to the Mubi Notebookers on-going reassessment of his work, particularly in regard to its visceral qualities, which is something I neglected to mention earlier but has some connection to thinking about painting and other more purely visual arts.
I figure Mann has more or less achieved the recognition necessary to be considered now as being a significant artist, if not he is so close that I suspect it is almost a certainty soon, while Scott is still on the outside looking in, but with growing support and interest. Some of this is almost certainly a by-product of having a career of enough length and notice to have people become familiar with the work and the overriding style and ideas, so at some point longevity is a reward in its own right. (For film directors that is as the level of craft in the system is such that a director can survive and be seen as having a recognizable style in a slightly different sense than would be true in some other less collaborative media.)
So, yes, greatness isn’t something one can measure in any absolute terms as it can be seen as being acheived, inter-subjectively, through numerous paths and there isn’t a clear set of rules surrounding it other than some people find the works valuable and that belief eventually becomes “true”.
A film should stand by itself. Judging it in the context of a filmaker’s oeuvre is interesting but it says more about the filmmaker’s career and evolution than about the film itself. At the end of day we should judge a film as a standalone piece.
Robert said, Interesting assertion – in Jazz’s pursuit of the greatest of the great in terms of greatestness,
he can skip entire artists because they don’t produce that singular ‘great’ work.
Judging the greatness of an artist depends on looking at their entire oeuvre—so, no, I don’t think I can skip entire artists because they don’t produce a great work.
Who are some great filmmakers that never made a great film?
……define ‘great’.
< g >
For what it’s worth, there is a school of criticism that dedicates itself to analyzing only the text itself, without reference to the artist or even things like the historical setting it was created in. Later on, structuralism sort of took that role over but structuralism is actually pretty useful for auteurist theory too—Antonioni is very distinctive in the specific way he composes his shots, as well as the themes, characters, etc. Nowadays with the information age it’s actually rather rare for people to see pieces of art in a void—everything is juxtaposed and informed by everything else. James Gleick points out that the measurement of information is the same as the measurement for entropy—information is always increasing. It’s really difficult to watch a movie without being aware in some way or another how it fits in with other movies, especially for people like us.
—PolarisDiB
two of my favorite directors are cronenberg and lynch. but i think it’s because of their overall output, not one or two particular films.
@Robert
I know you’re joking—but I’ll be happy to oblige you, but I expect you to stick around and participate if I do. :)
(Hey, where are you going?)
Jazzaloha
Can the way a film relates to a filmmaker’s oeuvre be the basis for its greatness? That’s the question that came up in a conversation between Den and me. Den mentioned films that he thought were great specifically because of the way it dealt with recurring ideas and elements from the filmmaker’s previous films. I agreed that these type of details can be exciting and make the film more meaningful. However, I don’t think that these factors, by themselves, make a film great or not. Let’s give some specifics. Here’s Den on the film, Bugsy:
I am not sure Bugsy would be a classic (in my eyes) if Beatty had not played both the cad and the optimist for years and the marriage of the two here, along with the aged pretty boy and everything else Beatty stands for made the film classic.
As a viewer familiar with Beatty, this might make the film more interesting and enjoyable, but can this really make the film great? If so, that would suggest that we could never really call a film or filmmaker great until we saw all of their films. In other words, we couldn’t (or shouldn’t) judge a film by itself. Somehow that doesn’t seem right to me. I’m interested in hearing what others have to say.