For myself, I've very recently decided to grant every director a maximum of three full blood masterpieces and I haven't found an obvious exception to that rule yet since I've established it. I think that's about right too, by the way. I'm not sure if a human is capable of more than that. A masterpiece should be incredibly hard to make, even for the most brilliant artists. I always try to look at a director's filmography both objectively and subjectively to reach my conclusion.
It's possible by the way that I like other films by a certain director better than the films that I acknowledge to be his masterpiece(s), due to personal fetishes that make me more attracted to those films, but I'm able to rationally filter those fetishisms out when deciding which films I'll give the label of "masterpiece". I'll still gladly defend those other films with all my heart, though!
This way, I'm making sure that I don't overuse the term in the future. I want the word to hold its meaning.
I'm going to quote Saunch here and give my take on three directors he named (I'm not going to talk about Kurosawa here, because so far I've only seen 8 of the 31 films he's made):
Correct.
Taxi Driver, Goodfellas and possibly Raging Bull for me. I first want to rewatch the latter before I come to my ultimate conclusion about it.
2001: A Space Oddysey, Dr. Strangelove and Barry Lyndon for me.
Kubrick is probably the hardest director for me to apply this rule to, because I also adore at least four of his other films in an amost (equal) fashion as I love these three (especially The Shining and A Clockwork Orange).
To make the distinction I tried to look at the films more objectively and I filtered out my own fetishist enjoyments.
Most directors don't make three masterpieces, naturally, but those were three good examples of directors that have (in my opinion).
P.S.
This is all nonsense. Of course a director can have more than one or two or three masterpieces. It all depends.
It's possible by the way that I like other films by a certain director better than the films that I acknowledge to be his masterpiece(s), due to personal fetishes that make me more attracted to those films, but I'm able to rationally filter those fetishisms out when deciding which films I'll give the label of "masterpiece". I'll still gladly defend those other films with all my heart, though!
This way, I'm making sure that I don't overuse the term in the future. I want the word to hold its meaning.
I'm going to quote Saunch here and give my take on three directors he named (I'm not going to talk about Kurosawa here, because so far I've only seen 8 of the 31 films he's made):
Coppola: Godfather 1 & 2, Apocalypse Now
Scorsese: Taxi Driver, Goodfellas (arguably: The Last Temptation of Christ)
Kubrick(!): Paths of Glory, 2001, Clockwork Orange, Shining (arguably: Barry Lyndon, Eyes Wide Shut)
Kubrick is probably the hardest director for me to apply this rule to, because I also adore at least four of his other films in an amost (equal) fashion as I love these three (especially The Shining and A Clockwork Orange).
To make the distinction I tried to look at the films more objectively and I filtered out my own fetishist enjoyments.
Most directors don't make three masterpieces, naturally, but those were three good examples of directors that have (in my opinion).
P.S.
This is all nonsense. Of course a director can have more than one or two or three masterpieces. It all depends.
__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019