Can a film director have more than 1 'Masterpiece'?

'Masterpiece' is such an overused word. It's like this century's 'genius'.

Traditionally, it meant "the greatest work of a person's career". But with film, it's more nuanced because movies have different 'interhcangeable' genres. Art masterpieces for instance are more easier to categorise due to artists' normally having one type of art movement / subject (E.g Turner and landscapes). In my opinion, Kubrick had a science fiction masterpiece and a horror masterpiece.

So I say that a Director CAN have more than one masterpiece.

But what say you MOFO?

I don't believe in objective masterpieces in film. Film has so many component arts included within it. One man's masterpiece is other man's trash, innit?

Coppola: Godfather 1 & 2, Apocalypse Now (arguably: The Conversation)

Scorsese: Taxi Driver, Goodfellas (arguably: The Last Temptation of Christ)

Kubrick(!): Paths of Glory, 2001, Clockwork Orange, Shining (arguably: Barry Lyndon, Eyes Wide Shut)

KUROSAWA: Rashomon, Ikiru, Seven Samurai, Throne of Blood, The Bad Sleep Well, Yojimbo, High and Low, Ran.

Yeah... that settles that.

Have to agree with Saunch regrading Kurosawa...undoubtedly the filmmaker with the highest number of great films...I would like to add "Red Beard" though in that outstanding list of Kurosawa films already mentioned...

__________________
To Suggest Is To Create, To Name Is To Destroy

Yes.

So by definition then, all those Kurosawa films that were named are rated the same? I.e. 10 out of 10 or 9.5 out of 10 etc?

Because a masterpiece is the best example of a person's career work.

I use the term "masterpiece" to refer to any film that I would consider sublime, one of the greatest films I have ever seen. This is regardless of whether or not another masterpiece had the same director. Besides, film is mostly a collaborative art, the director might be the captain of the ship but he isn't the only artist involved.

When I mean to say a director or filmmaker's greatest work, I usually use the term "magnum opus."

All 10 out of 10. Would watch again.

Is right. The point is highlighted by the fact that I wouldn't have a Kurosawa film in my top 50 films. I would however have 2 or 3 Scorcese or Tarantino in my top 20

__________________
"I don't want to be a product of my environment, I want my environment to be a product of me" (Frank Costello)

Yeah, Bergman's got like 20 of them.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

"Masterpiece" is so indefinite between parties that I don't see how you could argue otherwise. I do see people call something a "major" or "minor" work. I think that's fair and easy to get behind.

__________________
Letterboxd | ReverseShot | SlantMagazine

I've always read masterpiece to be a creation of a master-level artist (by whatever measure defines a master in context) in whatever medium that individual is a master of. I have a hard time resolving a singular piece or work as the one-and-only possible masterpiece made by an artist in that judgment and application of that label in this sense is so subjective. From my perspective at least, any creation by an artist that has successfully mastered a craft can potentially be a masterpiece by the very act of masterfully creating a thing through a measurable understanding of skill and demonstration through practice and knowledge. Then again, the assignment of the "masterpiece" label is also based on audience and critical perception of what that work is or is not, relative to other works and contexts.... so. eh?




To the OP: Yes? lol. I think an artist can successfully have more than one masterpiece, from the perspective that the term masterpiece is defined by a master's understanding and application of a medium.

/end ranty rantish rant. <---my ranty rantish rant, i mean!

I only use 'masterpiece' when wanting to annoy the debbie downers on imdb.

Can't argue with that.

This brings me on to my next point. Which is something that I was planning on starting another thread about anyway, it' sthe point that "favourite" is different from "best".

That is....films you watch time and time again are your favourite but pioneering masterpieces like that of Kurosawa, Kubric, Tarkovsky etc are the best.

Those 8 or 9 Kuosawa masterpieces are 10 out of 10s. But would everybody have them all in their top 10 movies of all time?

I agree that my favourite films are not necessary the best films.

But best is subjective. So many highly rated films that I don't rate.

I was going to say this, but I've been beaten to it.

I agree with this as well. My favourite films are not necessarily the ones I think are the best.

__________________

I agree on both counts, and Blix's comment re Magnum Opus is spot on for me.

I rarely ever call a film a "masterpiece". I really only use this to describe my favorite movies. All film is subjective so I don't really think any one film can be considered a "masterpiece" unless it is universally loved, which no film is loved by everyone. Despite what many think there are people out there who don't like films like the Godfather, Shawshank Redemption or even Pulp Fiction. I believe Steven Spielberg has created multiple masterpieces. The man transcends genres. Sure he's had a few stinkers but overall a lot of my favorite films from the past couple decades have come from him. You could argue for Tarantino, Scorsese, Coppola, Kubrick, Darabont, etc.

__________________
https://t.me/pump_upp

I agree, Adam. Millions of people around the world think War and Peace is a masterpiece. I thought it was tripe, but loved a lot of Tolstoy's other works. The Mona Lisa is regarded as a Masterpiece. Would I hang it on my wall? Nup. Same goes for film. I would probably call Avatar a masterpiece simply because it was a technological breakthrough in film. Did I love the cameron pace fusion camera system in the cinema? Hell Yeah.