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

Tools    





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):

Coppola: Godfather 1 & 2, Apocalypse Now
Correct.

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

Kubrick(!): Paths of Glory, 2001, Clockwork Orange, Shining (arguably: Barry Lyndon, Eyes Wide Shut)
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.
__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019



Nolan:

The Dark Knight
Interstellar
Memento
Inception
__________________
This is the land of wolves now



John Landis

Animal House
An American Werewolf in London
The Blues Brothers
Trading Places

Yes, I do believe they are masterpieces, just a different kind.



John Landis

Animal House
An American Werewolf in London
The Blues Brothers
Trading Places

Yes, I do believe they are masterpieces, just a different kind.
Michael Jackson's Thriller was another one. He directed that, too.



I don't actually wear pants.
I'd say so, but that doesn't mean you can just throw it around at everything. That defeats the purpose of the term. I'd say Spielberg has two masterpieces - Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Saving Private Ryan.

Now, I will qualify that by saying a director can only have one film considered his masterpiece, but he can have multiple masterpieces in general. Does that make sense? Like with Spielberg, Raiders of the Lost Ark is his masterpiece, but Saving Private Ryan is still a masterpiece in and of itself. Sorry if that's confusing, but my brain isn't firing on all cylinders today.



I'd say so, but that doesn't mean you can just throw it around at everything. That defeats the purpose of the term. I'd say Spielberg has two masterpieces - Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Saving Private Ryan.

Now, I will qualify that by saying a director can only have one film considered his masterpiece, but he can have multiple masterpieces in general. Does that make sense? Like with Spielberg, Raiders of the Lost Ark is his masterpiece, but Saving Private Ryan is still a masterpiece in and of itself. Sorry if that's confusing, but my brain isn't firing on all cylinders today.
You haven't even mentioned Spielberg's best film (Jaws), which goes to show how subjective this all is.



John Landis

Animal House
An American Werewolf in London
The Blues Brothers
Trading Places

Yes, I do believe they are masterpieces, just a different kind.
Switch Trading Places with Coming to America and you have yourself quite the list.



I don't actually wear pants.
You haven't even mentioned Spielberg's best film (Jaws), which goes to show how subjective this all is.
I would rank Jaws as Spielberg's #3, but I whole heartedly agree that it's all subjective. It's up to the viewer to decide how many masterpieces someone has, but he can only have one "best" film (which is what I tried to say earlier).



The answer to this forum is yes. Since it is subjective, there cannot possibly be a definitive "masterpiece" for any one director.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations.



Interesting discussion, but all engendered by the misconception that the definition of masterpiece is "a person's greatest piece of work." That's only one of several definitions and, depending on the dictionary you consult, not even the first one. More common is "a work done with extraordinary skill." The two are oddly inconsistent. I think Michael Bay's best work is "Armageddon," but it ain't no masterpiece.
__________________
Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain ... only straw. Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain? Scarecrow: I don't know. But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't they? Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right.