First off, at least, when I’m drawn to a film, I like to know how it’s shot; if a film, I find out, has some kind of visual flair to it (and for the right reasons, other than to just bshow off effects, or something), than I am automatically interested.
Now, to actually make my list is a different story. My list is filled with different kinds of films; basically, I like a film that challenges me, one that I would not see if I sat down to watch one hundred other movies, one that, one might say, has not been made before (although this particular one hardly happens). My favorite film right now is Synecdoche, New York. I love its characters, no doubt, but it is such a big film that absolutely made my mind whirl. I still don’t fully get it, even though I’ve seen it many times, but I love that, since I can go back to it and learn something different every time.
Now, though, my second favorite film is almost completely different. It is Lost In Translation. This is not to say that thjis film is like others, by any means, but rather that this film is not about its ideas, but about its characters, and I appreciate it and love it for that. The way it draws everyone, so that these people feel real, as though they could be your nextdoor neighbors – hell, that they could be you – it just so impressive to me, and the fact that it forms a unique and beautiful (and, if I may ay, adult) relationship between two people, one that is not based on sex, but rather that is based on affection for one another. It is one of the most beautiful films I’ve ever seen.
Of course, I am very often drawn to a film by how it is made; for insatnce, I bought 21 Grams based on one shot I saw in a kind of Focus Features teaser thing (a shot that, it turns out, was not even in the film), simply because of the way it was lit.
Really, and I think you’ll find this with most people, I think that I am inclined to like just what I feel at the time, or something; as far as I’m concerned, I don’t think there’s some kind of absolute criteria that I go by. I think that if a movie sits well with me, awesome.
Savvy
Tell a good f’in story.
Also (I forgot this), I like it when a director does what he intends to do; if it is, for instance, to merely tell a good effing story, then I want him to do it well. If it is to convey a message, I want that message conveyed. If it is merely to produce a kind of avant garde piece, then hopefully he is able to succeed.
Savvy
You just can’t live in Texas if you don’t have a lot of soul. Same with film.
Casey is right.
Tell a good story. That’s ALL that matters.
I accept each film on it’s own terms, so it is hard define a definitive criteria for what a masterpiece is. The most common quality, though, is that a masterpiece is usually very surprising. Meaning it eludes any prior notions of criteria one may have had. Masterpieces are the films that manage to escape criticism and therefore standards themselves.
Script. Actors. Photography. Editing.
The most basic factor in determining a masterpiece is first deciding whether or not the film succeeded in reaching its objective. To me the cornerstone for reaching that goal is a solid storyline – the film must have a declared starting and ending point with a sense of continuity in between. The film’s storyline must somehow be able to captivate my interest regardless if it’s something that hits home or explores new ground.
Now masterpieces obviously can come in all types of categories or genres and can have large budgets like Das Boot or a small budgets like A Man Escaped. I’ll start by examining what I consider to be the integral components of a successful drama. It all starts with the script – it must be believable and for the most part water tight. This leads us to a film’s content – it can be as original as The 400 Blows or can be a somewhat of a formulated storyline like The Wages of Fear, but it must be able to convey an illusion of reality. If a film’s subject matter is not original it must bring a fresh approach to the table; use WWII or love stories as an example here – there are many masterpieces on both. Next up would be character development – the script can be intelligent in two ways here. It can successfully give the viewer understanding for the characters starting from ground zero and slowly developing an interest, or allow the viewer to discover their character while he’s in mid flight throughout the course of the film – either way a connection or interest must be sparked.
Next component up would have to be the responsibility of the actor. An actor’s ability to come across as believable is crucial to the film’s success. He must identify with the script and be able to resonate those feelings to the audience. This is not only a paramount in the title character of a film, but also a necessity for the ensemble cast – having a weak link somewhere along the chain can certainly ruin the chances of a film becoming a masterpiece, regardless how well the title role is acted.
The technical aspects of the films come next for me. I have no working background in cinema, but have gained an appreciation for fine cinematography and the post production work of film editing. It’s difficult for me to expand on this, but I know when something works and when it doesn’t. A great film can sometimes rest on the works of the right cameraman and editor. Visuals are important to me.
Sound is another determining factor when a masterpiece is considered. An actor’s audio tracks can be recorded live or post-dubbed, it makes no difference to me as long as it works. Creative use of sound effects made popular by film noir are also characteristics of good audio. Innovation in sound by the likes of Kubrick’s 2001 or Kerrigan’s Clean Shaven come to mind. The most important part of a film’s audio however is the right injection of music. Music is not a prerequisite for a masterpiece, but if used it must be used properly. Like most everyone I would think, I prefer the film’s score to enhance the visuals and speech, not overpower them.
To recap this long winded post – the elements needed for a masterpiece fall in this order: storyline/script, acting, technical merit, and use of sound.
It is all film, it is all construction.
What about Silent films? No sound there.
I agree with Adam Cook. If a film hits me somewhere, be it the brain, the heart or the tear glands, I know it’s worked.
As soon as I can define the exact formula of a masterpiece, I’ll make it, but I probably will lose a bit of my cinematic curiosity in the process. It might be like learning the meaning of life. How melodramatic…
Point taken Casey. I’m a big fan of silents and while spoken dialogue is not essential, the best of those have good scores.
True enough.
To declare something a masterpiece means that you have to be pretty sure of your own criteria, if you have criteria. A masterpiece should stand the test of time, after all. You can have a feeling that something is really good but you can’t be certain.
The closest I have come to this feeling was when I first saw “L’Avventura.” It was so different and so shattering. “La Dolce Vita” was released at close to the same time. I loved that film, and all the decadence, but it did not get under my skin, the way that the Antonioni film did. I remember all of this because I reacted so totally to “L’Avventura.” It triggered things off in me that were never tapped before. To this day, I have never had such a reaction to any film. It has become, to a certain extent, the standard that I measure every other film.
Howard – I hear ya about L’Avventura – and for me it has that certain “intangible” element required to be deemed a masterpiece – it just somehow strikes a chord and doesn’t let go.
In a nutshell: It has to be good to great in every single department (if only a few – then it is a ‘failed’ masterpiece – doesn’t get the full five stars): great direction, story, acting, cinematography, sound, and at least a good score. Also, Roger Ebert has to really like it – it being his birthday and everything – ha! If I haven’t seen the film yet, it must meet the auteurs test to see if it is a candidate. That is, those people I respect on site must rate it very highly before I will give it a try. I like ’em in every genre, style, and time period – not just the art-house, but art-house is a plus (reminds me of a thread I read once…)
“It might be like learning the meaning of life”
Precisely
I agree with everyone on here, for the most part it’s pretty self explanatory- a masterpiece is a film that moves you to a place that you’ve never been, often times, emotionally. I can feel a masterpiece the whole way through, my stomach burns as I’m contorted into admiration. The score is what sets the mood for the soul, the cinematography for the dream, the performances for the heart, and the editing for the mind- editing is a very subliminal technique. With just beautiful images and good performances all you have is just that, but when a story is constructed with them, in a way that captivates a sort of streaming consciousness, we have lift off. A masterpiece is a film that carries weightlessly, and blackens the world around you for that intimate connection that is so strong, you want to keep watching it in fear that the feeling will end. It’s that film that is so good, you have to watch it a second time.
A masterpiece defines itself.
And as I mentioned, what do you all want to see more of, in terms of films?
Perhaps this is not a topic we would want to discuss, as it takes some considerable thought to articulate a definition; however, this is one of those terms that critics and fans toss around way too easily. Moreover, threads centering around question of a filmmaker’s masterpiece seem prevalent in the cite. So I think discussing what we actually mean by masterpiece might be helpful. If we can’t come to a consensus, we may be able to get a sense of where people are coming from.
I think one of things we need to do is distinguish a masterpiece from a very good. Is there a difference between a masterpiece and a great film or do people think of them synonymously?
I’ll think about this and share my thoughts later.
yes where has this thread been?
I want a masterpiece to have an effect on the historical flow of cinema; maybe define a genre
I want it to:
have layers of meaning and experience
take my mind beyond the concrete
have elements that produce a cohesive whole – that I can detect.
Even though I read that allegory, symbolism, and metaphor are passé I want it to have that too.
Robert,
So you don’t like talk of masterpieces and such?
A masterpiece does not simply tell a great story—-though it can. A masterpiece is a film that strikes a chord in the viewer. More often than not, for my favorite five films at least, masterpieces have a “higher calling” to them. A strong subtext or spiritual meaning.
Also, a great film can be enjoyed on two levels: narrative (the stuff of a good story), and mindfully (in the moment; the formal elements that combine together perfectly to create a bliss of the senses, like a great piece of music without lyrics). When those two elements synergize and play to each other well, it’s a masterpiece.
Uh, a list would be fine…..;-)
The problem I have with those saying that story or a strong narrative is a necessary ingredient is that excludes that aren’t narrative based, where the story is irrelevent or secondary.
^ yes. sans soleil an example
a great film and a masterpiece are not the same thing. for me, there is a separation. i also think a director can have more than one masterpiece. but maybe only one magnum opus.
as far as a definition of a masterpiece? borderline impossible, like defining art. i wouldnt even know where to begin. every masterpiece is probably so for a different reason.
Ensemble, story, challenging thought, authentic emotion, originality and authenticity. If the shots make me go “ooh” that’s a bonus.
A slow pan towards a picture frame on a wall.
Maybe the only true masterpiece in film.
Joriah Goad
What are the elements that make up a masterpiece (or even those great films that just make you happy)? I want to know as individuals, the elements of film that are most important to you. As viewers what are you most drawn to. What genre, mood, style, subject matter? What comes first? Characters, cinematography, editing, atmosphere? What do you want to see more of, and for that matter, less of?