" I just loved it personally and that’s all that mattered"
that is all there is or should be for a best film list. Everything else is just pretending
its a doc right?
dp
love goldsworthy and love the film.
and dennis brian is correct
your list – should you choose to make one – doesn’t need to be defended.
See, I’m not approaching it that way. This list won’t necessarily be the same as my favorites of 2000s list. For example, I really loved The Incredibles. But I honestly don’t feel like it was a great film, or my love for the film depends more on subjective reasons. For example, I love super hero movies. I also love well shot action sequences. Finally, I love when the superheroes use their powers in clever ways to defeat the enemy—particularly when a group of superheroes uses these powers in a coordinated fashion. This particular film does that better than any of the other super hero/comic book adaptations so far, imo.
But I honestly don’t think these criteria should be the basis for a film’s greatness. See what I’m saying?
@Robert
Yes, it’s a documentary.
I disagree with your criteria or fail to understand it.
Roger Ebert is a huge fan of Scorsese (for example) and most of Martin’s films end up making Ebert’s best of lists. In my mind, there is no way that half of Scorsese’s films are good (let alone best of the year) but if I had a longtime connection or interest in Scorsese obviously I would feel different. You are obviously knowledgable about what you are into if The Incredibles is a great comic book adaptation and you are partial to them and know that this is better than the ones you have seen then it should make your list.
“But I honestly don’t think these criteria should be the basis for a film’s greatness.”
well, that begs the question: then what are the criteria for film’s greatness?
i think if you love a film you love a film.
Okay and you didn’t see disk two where in a drunken rage he beats his wife senseless while his children scream and cry?
Seriously now, it isn’t the film, it is the idyllic lifestyle you are reacting to, right?
So maybe on a list of lifestyles of the famous this would be #1?
That I get. Honestly, is that his life or was it a promotional piece?
dp
What makes a film great is having an ‘important topic’ and being very, very respectful of it, and loading it with pathos.
@Den and Brian P
If Ebert relationship with Scorsese allowed him to appreciate and understand Scorsese’s film in a deeper way, I think what you’re saying is valid. That’s not the case with The Incredibles in my situation. I happen to like super hero films. I also like when the super heroes work as a team. I find this cool. Many of my friends don’t.
So what am I looking at instead? I’m looking at whether the film is complete or if it has significant flaws; do all the pieces of the film come together in a way that is effective and makes sense; I’m looking if the film succeeds at what it’s going for (eg. to entertain or to present a vision or profound insight). If a film does that and also manages to do something original or fresh, I’ll give extra points to the film. For example, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon or Hero might make my list for these reasons. Or a film like Irreversible. Finally, I’ll also try to determine if the film can be compared favorably with the greatest films of all-time.
@Robert
My appreciation for the film has nothing to do with Goldsworthy lifestyle (the wife beating scenes ruined that :), but everything to do with the man’s art . I love the way it looks, but I also love the concept behind it, namely the way Goldsworthy almost works hand-in-hand with nature when making his pieces. His pieces are dynamic and they exist in time; as time goes on, the change. There’s a dramatic and effective example of this when Goldsworthy makes a piece by stacking stones on the seashore. He works for a long time, and then when he’s about half way through, the whole piece falls apart. (He doesn’t use man-made substances to hold the work together.) This element gives the work a kind of latent energy that is thrilling; there’s also a risk element that reminds me of jazz.
@Leaves
_ What makes a film great is having an ‘important topic’ and being very, very respectful of it, and loading it with pathos._
Not sure if I agree with that. I think the topic doesn’t have to be important (at least not for me).
I’m not sure what you mean by “being very, very respectful” and “loading it with pathos.” This seems to leave out any consideration for the artistry and skill of the filmmaker.
You should also make a list of films that aren’t your favorites and aren’t the best but that you in some strange way prefer more than both other lists. Call them ‘Superlative films’. Then make 30 other lists. Then in 5 years realize that it’s all just your own subjective opinion.
Okay, the struggle is what makes an artist doc worth watching.
I think The Station Agent was a perfect drama for its year due to lack of pathos.
What a film The Visitor too (that director’s second film)
@Robert
You’ve never seen the film? I’m not sure what your preferences in visual art are, but I think you might like this. The film captures the process of him making his art, but the art continues to be dynamic and evolve after he makes it. (The film does a pretty good job of capturing this, too.)
But if someone doesn’t care for the art, I can’t see how that person could like the film. Well, maybe there would be a way…
@Den
Didn’t care for Station Agent. It had nice moments, but seemed to be a film with interesting characters, interesting scenes, but lacking a strong, overarching story. I did really enjoy, The Visitor. That has potential to make my list. (Certainly, it has potential to my favorite list.)
Leaves brings up a good point about the need to make lists. Why do people feel the need for making “best of” lists? I’m not sure what the answer is, but maybe it has to do with our ever growing need to manage the information. Without list making and other types of processes like that, people can feel overwhelmed by the information out there—overwhelmed to the point where it’s hard to find meaning and sense in the information.
But I also am fascinated with a best films list because I love great art. I love trying to understand what makes something great, too. There’s something thrilling about experiencing great art, and making these types of lists are a way to communicate that and also find ways to find the wheat from the chaff so to speak (oh dear, all these cliches I’ve been using…)
The joke, if you haven’t figured it out yet, is this nonsensical divide between best and favorite. They’re both your opinion and nobody else’s. Make whatever convoluted justifications you want, but there’s no inherent difference, only some after-the-fact construct that you then slap a ‘best’ on. Instead of saying ‘favorite’ say ‘favored’ and you realize that it simply means ‘to elevate above others for some reason or another’, same as best.
@Jazz
Yes, I saw it.
If you feel you should include it, do it.
I’m always more interested in the “best of” lists that seem personal. I get bored with ones that look like the AFI or Sight and Sound lists. Don’t actually trust them.
I think the lack of a story is what elevates The Station Agent.
The older i get (I’m 32) the more I hate plot and the more I am inclined toward a stream of nice moments over a “story” (Joel Hopkins is a superb new director, Last Chance Harvey, Jump Tomorrow, who really excells at this)
If you don’t feel it’s worthy to be called one of the best, don’t include it. Everyone will tell you that whatever you love is great for you but we know that isn’t always the case, don’t we? We love a lot of stuff that’s bad for us just because it reminds us of something or it appeals to our baser natures. Don’t allow your love for some nonsense to cloud your judgement about what you think is best. The reason everyone is telling you that none of this matters is because they’ve given up on the idea of thinking carefully about things before making wild pronouncements.
Be better than that.
I have heard people on this site admit they put films in thier best of list they have not even seen because they assume it is good enough. All that there is is our base natures and we ought to listen to them (because they are more reliable then a “carefully thought out”, read wishy washy, way of going about things) just an opinion
@Robert
You saw it, and I assume you didn’t care for it? OK, but just remember that doesn’t count as a strike against me. :)
@Johnny
I’m always more interested in the “best of” lists that seem personal. I get bored with ones that look like the AFI or Sight and Sound lists. Don’t actually trust them.
I hear what you’re saying, and I feel the same way. But I’m not talking about completely blocking out my personal feelings about the films. I am trying to separate (here’s where the discussion runs into a lot of semantic pitfalls) very personal preferences from evaluating a film (at least for a greatest films type of list). What do I mean by “very personal preferences.” My reasons for really liking The Incredibles are very specific to myself. Moreover, these preferences should never be used to judge film in an objective sense. Should a film be penalized because it’s not about super-heroes? I might not like it as much, but it would be ridiculous of me to say the film wasn’t any good because it didn’t have super-heroes or well executed action sequences, etc.
@Leaves
See my response to Johnny. I’m also wondering if you really think there isn’t any difference between films you really like versus films you think are great? I understand that a film can be both, but always? That’s not the case with me—whether we’re talking about films, novels, music, etc. There are art/artists that I respect and admire, but don’t particularly enjoy or I don’t find that their work resonates with me in a personal way. At the same time, there are films, etc. that personally resonate with me in a very strong way, but I don’t necessarily think is great.
@Den
It’s not just plot, but cohesion. How do all the scenes fit together, and do they make a complete whole? Unless the film intentionally and creatively creates a feel that feels fragmented and incomplete, I generally think that’s not a good thing. (I liked Dustin Hoffman’s speech in Last Chance Harvey. I didn’t think Emma Thompson was very good in this, and I didn’t buy her relationships with Harvey.)
@Mike
None of what you say applies to my feelings of Rivers and Tides. I don’t think it’s “bad” for me in any shape, form or size. I think I have a hard time judging this film because I like the art in it so much and the approach to the art; and I don’t think I’ve ever analyzed whether the art was good or great in a more objective sense. Also, I feel a little funny about calling a documentary about an artist a great film. Perhaps, I could say that if the filmmaking was incredible, or the artist herself was fascinating and the film revealed interesting and profound insights into the artist and their art. I don’t think this particular film does these things (although it might). I have to think about this more.
But the criteria I do use to judge films are also subjective, too. They’re my opinion, not fact (for the most part). For example, I like to judge a film’s “wholeness.” That’s going to be at least somewhat subjective. But not subjective in the way that I like super-heroes using clever ways in well-executed fight sequences. See what I mean?
Moreover, these preferences should never be used to judge film in an objective sense.
Describe for me something that you objectively feel about a film.
- Citizen Kane is usually an undisputed “Great” movie.
- I happen to absolutely love Across the Universe.
- I thoroughly enjoyed seeing The Sorcerer’s Apprentice.
But I wouldn’t call either of the latter two “great” movies. Still, should they make my list of the best of the year because of how much I enjoyed them? Or should they fall short based on other things like artistic merit, technical craft, etc. (or lack of if I didn’t like them)
For another example, I would probably list Barry Lyndon in an All-Time Great Movies list (if the list was large enough), although it is not particularly one of my favorite films. I would not list Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban in that list, although I adore that movie.
It seems to me that “Favorite” denotes strong emotional response and perhaps fond memories of a film… whereas “Great” seems to recognize a technical and artistic aspect of the quality of a film. Either of them, to me, is a legitimate reason to put something in a Best-Of list.
And don’t forget, a big reason we make these lists is in the hopes that someone else will read them and watch some of them based on our recommendations. Would it not make sense then to be able to share your favorites as well?
It all boils down I think to sticking to your opinion.
I think people confuse the word ‘subjective’ with ‘pathos’ and ‘objective’ with ‘everything outside of pathos’.
@Doc
I’m specifically defining “best” as “great” in the way you use the word above. I plan to make a list of my favorite films, but I like keeping the two lists separate.
@Leaves
Describe for me something that you objectively feel about a film.
An objective assessment would be something like evaluating a film based on what it sets out to do and how well it succeeds in realizing these objectives. Another criterion that I use is the wholeness or unity of a film. Do all the parts come together in an unified, organic way?
As I pointed out evaluating these criteria aren’t technically objective, but I use the term to distinguish them from criteria that is more personal or specific to my preferences (i.e. I like super hero films, etc.) Doc’s post above also illustrates the differences between films that one likes for strictly personal reasons versus films that one appreciates for reasons that aren’t dependent on personal preferences. (Again, this discussion is difficult due to the limits of language or my lack of skill in using language.)
Jazzaloha
I’m going through my list of the best films of the 2000s, and this is one of the potential films that might make my list. I really loved this film, but what I’m trying to sort out is if the film is really great in an objective way or mainly a film that hits me personally. So I thought I would start a thread where I could do my thinking out loud, as it were, and also allow others to contribute to this thought process.
No doubt, I love the film because I love Goldsworthy’s art—not just the aesthetics of his work, but also the concept and approach behind it. I think the film also does a very good job of capturing the work, something not necessarily easy to do.
So what’s preventing me from listing it as one of the decade’s best? I guess if I could make an argument to the greatness of Goldsworthy’s art, I could make a case for the greatness of the film. But I never really considered or cared if Goldsworthy’s art was great ,in an objective sense; I just loved it personally and that’s all that mattered.
Any thoughts?