WHAT MAKES A MOVIE "THE GREATEST"?
WHAT MAKES A MOVIE "THE GREATEST"?
Inspired by AJDaGreat, I'd like to know what everyone's criteria for judging greatness are. I'm going to list some of my own below, and add whichever you think are important too. I'd like to know, so when we talk about great, we know what we're talking about.
Some qualities I consider when determining greatness, to get people started:
Is the message clear/important/universal?
Is it well acted/well written/directed/edited, etc.?
Is it beautiful or artful?
Does it affect people emotionally/spiritually?
Does it affect people intellectually?
Does it stand the test of time and not seem overly dated?
Would it be equally as appealing to people of different cultures, races, genders, backgrounds, etc.?
Do you consider any of the above, if so which? And what other things do you consider when looking at greatness as opposed to your favorites?
Let's have a big discussion (I hope). Oh yeah, and remember to see Bowling for Columbine. I mean it!
"Is the message clear/important/universal?"
To be honest, I don't think the 'message' necessarily has anything to do with a film's (or work of art's) greatness. It can, especially as it is worked into the aesthetics of the piece, but to elevate the message so highly is frankly to lower art to the level of propaganda, which I have little tolerance for.
Other than that comment, I'll try to steer clear here, since my thoughts on this matter are very well documented elsewhere on this site (for the record, excepting purely nontextual elements (ie, nostalgia, you were watching the film when you first fell in love, etc. etc.) I find any attempt to divide 'favorite' from 'greatest' silly and futile, usually either a) overvaluing the opinion of others over your own or b) using some basis for judging a work beyond the simple (yet complicated) question of 'does it work?" Great acting and directing mean nothing if it don't add up to something.).
Oh, and I LOVE Citizen Kane, and not because I admire how it was made (though I do), but because I love the film. That's why I think it is great.
MHO, natch!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
As you noted, I know we've discussed this extensively elsewhere, but I can't find those discussions! Do you remember where they are?
Um, now that you mention it, no, I don't.
I'll dig a bit and see if I can find anything...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Does it affect people emotionally/spiritually?
When I think about greatness, I try to remain objective. Sometimes it's hard to decide whether a movie is really emotionally moving or just specifically appeals to me.
Does it stand the test of time and not seem overly dated?
I don't think datedness should really be an issue. I don't like when a movie is criticized as being dated because it captured the essence of the time period it was made in. It's not like the moviemakers were really thinking about predicting how the world will change in the future.
Well, that's my two cents
As far as datedness goes, I find it to be very important. If something is truly great, I don't tihnk it ever feels date. Think about books - something like The Gilgamesh Epic, centuries old, and yet it's theme and content still seem so relevant. What's the point of a movie that won't be relevant to another age? You can watch it as history, but can you still watch it as entertainment or art?
I usually try to stay away from these type of discussions as much as I do cucumbers. I hate cucumbers. but I am feeling a little adventurous tonight.
I am a firm believer That personal favorites and greatness have to be the same thing. Of course all of it; personal favoritism or greatness, is a completely subjective decision. What is great for me has so much to do with what I believe and what I have experienced in my life.
So Lbangs is correct when he says message should have nothing to do with it but he is also wrong if that message touches the viewer in some way that viscerally, emotionally or intellectually that viewer is effected then it has to be great for them. But another viewer could be left unaffected. Ultimately a movie that attains true greatness touches many.
As to Citizen Kane and the "sterile" feel of it. Jen you are correct that is one of the effects Welles may have been seeking as ultimately Kane's inability to connect is his undoing but the vibrancy of that story is what I have always loved about it. Somehow I think all the camera techniques that have been ballyhooed these many years has in some ways made the script and the characters underrated. If that is possible.
Ultimately almost anything can make a movie great. The performance of Peter Lorre in M. The musical soundtrack of Goodfellas. The Theme song to High Noon. Hell the Dog in Umberto D. made that a great movie for me.
So greatness seems like it should be an objective discussion but I have never been able to reconcile the true subjective nature of any artform with that reasoning. Ultimately I guess as a good determining factor for greastness may have to be how objectively it appeals to the most subjective opinions. That which can touch the most viewers without selling it's soul is probably great.
I knew this topic had the smell of a cucumber to me.
y'know, slice the cucumber up, put some ranch on it, shroud it in iceberg lettuce and you have a palatable dish.
i'm just sayin', is all.
"but he is also wrong if that message touches the viewer in some way that viscerally, emotionally or intellectually that viewer is effected then it has to be great for them. "
Well, not exactly. When the message enters into the emotional impact of the film, it enters the aesthetics, and as I said, it then can add or detract from art. Take the message from many early Dylan songs, and you spade the songs. Why? The message is sown into the fabric of the art.
When people start claiming that a piece's message can make it great or lessen it in and of itself, I always ask them what message their favorite symphony has, or what exact messages architecture attempts to communicate.
And yes, this is all *very* subjective. I fear too often attempts to separate 'favorite' from 'great' is an attempt to find objective truth where, in the matter of taste, there is no objective cold-stone-hard truth. In that realm, the best we can do, I believe, is construct a list of the most 'important' or 'influential' films, which is what I think most people are heading towards when they speak of 'great', although the two are not the same. The original Jazz Singer, with its sections of spoken dialogue, is certainly one of the more influential films ever. As for great, er..... No.
Despite the lack of objective fact, I still feel our commoness allows us to discuss, debate, and often communicate very well about matters of taste, about the strengths and weaknesses of a particular piece of art. More than most post-structuralists would admit to, that's for sure. It is all symbols, but most of the symbols have been shared for centuries, and we have much more cultural inheritance in common that most people realize. Language and art may be incredibly slippery, it may be a miracle we ever communicate at all, but regardless, that miracle occurs to some degree a trillion times every day. That's sorta how I feel about talking about art - subjective, sure, but we share more territory than we think, and thus discussion, debate, heck, even critiques are still pretty valuable.
So, I think (I could be wrong, but I think) you and I are closer here than it may appear.
And I also think I'm beginning to babble...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
No Mr. Bangs I agree we are very close in our opinions. Personal favorites inherently must be considered the greatest or you are not being true to yourself. But ultimately greatness is measured by the collective or the more people who consider a movie great in some way determines the success of an artistic endeavor. Unless the audience is not meant to be the collective.
Now I know I am babbling.
I may just be entirely too pompous to go with that, or maybe I've just read to much Soren K. :)
I mean, most of the work usually consider truly great (and this goes for literature, art and music, as well as other art media) still only is loved by a small number of people in practice, though by a great number of people in lip service. Do we narrowly define the audience that determines greatness, and won't we largely end up including people more like ourselves anyway?
If only the critics liked Mulholland Drive, does that count? If The Breakfast Club is consider the greatest film of the 80s by most of the folks in my peer group, does that count?
Honest questions with no dagger in cloak...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Kierkegaard ..ahh beware of those existentialists. A certain recipe for pomposity.
I say Mulholland Drive is great irregardless to the critic's community opinion. (Not to mention, I think there are many non critics who loved this movie.)Ultimately great has to be a personal subjective decision. I love Mulholland Drive not because the critics love it but because it is a movie that touches the film freak in me and it was a visual smorgasboard.
Breakfast Club too can be be great for some. It did do a reasonably good,if not trite, job of disecting High School life. And the best thing about it is I suspect that disection is universal in place and time.
I certainly do not dismiss others opinions on the merits of art but I guess with age comes a certain feeling of self worth that maybe I can not do a great job of defining greatness but I know it when I see it, or hear it, or read it.
Good answer.
I should also add that I do not discount the opinions of others. They often alter my own, and regardless, even though I hold to my opinions on matters of greatness, I am usually humble enough to accept the possibility of being wrong.
In other words, I believe wholeheartedly, but I'm just barely wise enough to realize I could have it all wrong, even though I don't think I do (or else I would believe differently).
That comments pretty much applies to all my religous and philosophical beliefs (accepting aesthetics as a branch of philosophy)...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs