I have seen Matrix as a kid (twice, I believe) and never watched it again, so I can't really say much about it.
Passion of Joan of Arc made me believe IN CINEMA, if anything, but it's alright if you have your beliefs. It's just that you made those claims so spontaneously and apart from the actual topic, that it kind of caught us all off guard, I believe. So, my pic had a similar aim and from what I've heard it succeeded. I never tried to offend you in any way and from what you wrote to me on PM, it didn't and you laughed at it, which makes me happy.
Okay, even though I'm busy like hell today, I can't get around to do anything, because I'm constantly thinking about this thread, so let me just get it off my mind and let me work on my thesis in peace.
I think that the question posed in the thread's title is a little bit off, not to mention the auxiliary info in the brackets. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel, but I have to say something:
You can't make art completely objective. As an auteur you always add some subjectivity to what you're creating. Even if we talk about blockbusters only made for money, you can still spot subjective choices made by directors/screenwriters etc. Some people tried making their art completely objective, but failed greatly. Since art itself can't be objective, the very approach to art can't be objective neither. That being said, it's quite impossible to simply state why a certain work of art is great. Not to mention its greatness may arouse from different elements for different people. Art is not science. If you have an implementation of a system, you can say all its faults, backdoors, but also advantages and if you back it up with valuable tests, it's almost impossible to disagree with you. However, if you write twenty books about how and why a given movie is so great, any person that didn't like it can reject all of this, maybe only because the person found that guy in chicken costume in second act to be annoying as hell and that ruined his or hers whole experience. Well, reject is maybe a wrong word, they may agree on the technical brilliance of the movie, but since for some reason they didn't like the film, it doesn't mean much to them.
The point is, it's even hard to say what EXACTLY makes a movie great. And that's because not all movies are your average films. I see people stating that great acting and screenplay is needed in order for a movie to be great, but what if we take abstract, or experimental cinema that doesn't have neither of these. Of course, people would say it implicates the movie is not great, but what if it is? What if I say it is? Subjectivity?
Look at Citizen Kane. No matter what's your opinion on it, it was very influential on many filmmakers. But... on that poll when it's always #1 (okay, Vertigo surpassed it, no difference), well the first spot doesn't necessarily mean all people who voted had it as number one. Perhaps NOBODY had it as number one, but it just appeared relatively high on a very big number of voter cards.
Now if you have movies like Matrix, Shawshank Redemption etc., always very high on popular polls, it makes you wondering why are these films praised so much, but I'm not even going to tackle this topic. It's too much to talk about.
The OP doesn't want to start the subjective vs. objective debate, but paradoxically it's impossible not to commence this kind of discussion. One of the reasons is, that moviewatching is a very personal experience. One person may love a film, because it touched him deeply in a very personal way and nobody else is going to know this feeling, because it only exists on the THIS MOVIEWATCHER - FILM spectrum. So, movies talk to us directly and that's why we can't really tell apart their objective and subjective greatness. "Great cinematography" is tricky, because even if you think it was great in a certain film, maybe somebody else thinks it wasn't, because that person doesn't like, say, long takes. And that may be weird, or stupid and maybe it is, but even if you have all this technical knowledge and know it was a deep focus wide shot, it still doesn't say much, because I may only think it's a nice picture, but still love it as much as you do.
So, you can of course say, Shawshank Redemption is number one of IMDb poll, because it's a film made with great awareness of an average viewer that makes sure it delivers everything that would make that average viewer fall in love with it. It doesn't get past that line of experimental, edgy, or weird to make sure it gets as many viewers to love it and it's also a well-written story, with good performances and tearjerking ending. But I wouldn't say I'm an average viewer, yet I loved it. That's number one. And number two is, if you said this, you'd be still subjective as hell. Just read through it again and see what I mean.
Star Wars is great, because it succeeds (again subjective, maybe you think it doesn't succeed, because it needs Jar-Jar raping everyone scenes) in what it is aiming to do. It never aimed to be a gripping anti-war film or a deep psychological drama, so that's why it never shows the terribleness of war.
Expand your knowledge, watch as many films as possible. Read about films as much as possible, but also try to make your own opinion. Stick to it, but if you see it's no longer true, or you don't feel honest voicing it, don't be afraid to change it. Discover new things, change your definition of what cinema is, if needed. Change your perception of things, if needed...I no longer know what my point is/was, but I guess I can finally focus on my work. Thank you.
Passion of Joan of Arc made me believe IN CINEMA, if anything, but it's alright if you have your beliefs. It's just that you made those claims so spontaneously and apart from the actual topic, that it kind of caught us all off guard, I believe. So, my pic had a similar aim and from what I've heard it succeeded. I never tried to offend you in any way and from what you wrote to me on PM, it didn't and you laughed at it, which makes me happy.
Okay, even though I'm busy like hell today, I can't get around to do anything, because I'm constantly thinking about this thread, so let me just get it off my mind and let me work on my thesis in peace.
I think that the question posed in the thread's title is a little bit off, not to mention the auxiliary info in the brackets. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel, but I have to say something:
You can't make art completely objective. As an auteur you always add some subjectivity to what you're creating. Even if we talk about blockbusters only made for money, you can still spot subjective choices made by directors/screenwriters etc. Some people tried making their art completely objective, but failed greatly. Since art itself can't be objective, the very approach to art can't be objective neither. That being said, it's quite impossible to simply state why a certain work of art is great. Not to mention its greatness may arouse from different elements for different people. Art is not science. If you have an implementation of a system, you can say all its faults, backdoors, but also advantages and if you back it up with valuable tests, it's almost impossible to disagree with you. However, if you write twenty books about how and why a given movie is so great, any person that didn't like it can reject all of this, maybe only because the person found that guy in chicken costume in second act to be annoying as hell and that ruined his or hers whole experience. Well, reject is maybe a wrong word, they may agree on the technical brilliance of the movie, but since for some reason they didn't like the film, it doesn't mean much to them.
The point is, it's even hard to say what EXACTLY makes a movie great. And that's because not all movies are your average films. I see people stating that great acting and screenplay is needed in order for a movie to be great, but what if we take abstract, or experimental cinema that doesn't have neither of these. Of course, people would say it implicates the movie is not great, but what if it is? What if I say it is? Subjectivity?
Look at Citizen Kane. No matter what's your opinion on it, it was very influential on many filmmakers. But... on that poll when it's always #1 (okay, Vertigo surpassed it, no difference), well the first spot doesn't necessarily mean all people who voted had it as number one. Perhaps NOBODY had it as number one, but it just appeared relatively high on a very big number of voter cards.
Now if you have movies like Matrix, Shawshank Redemption etc., always very high on popular polls, it makes you wondering why are these films praised so much, but I'm not even going to tackle this topic. It's too much to talk about.
The OP doesn't want to start the subjective vs. objective debate, but paradoxically it's impossible not to commence this kind of discussion. One of the reasons is, that moviewatching is a very personal experience. One person may love a film, because it touched him deeply in a very personal way and nobody else is going to know this feeling, because it only exists on the THIS MOVIEWATCHER - FILM spectrum. So, movies talk to us directly and that's why we can't really tell apart their objective and subjective greatness. "Great cinematography" is tricky, because even if you think it was great in a certain film, maybe somebody else thinks it wasn't, because that person doesn't like, say, long takes. And that may be weird, or stupid and maybe it is, but even if you have all this technical knowledge and know it was a deep focus wide shot, it still doesn't say much, because I may only think it's a nice picture, but still love it as much as you do.
So, you can of course say, Shawshank Redemption is number one of IMDb poll, because it's a film made with great awareness of an average viewer that makes sure it delivers everything that would make that average viewer fall in love with it. It doesn't get past that line of experimental, edgy, or weird to make sure it gets as many viewers to love it and it's also a well-written story, with good performances and tearjerking ending. But I wouldn't say I'm an average viewer, yet I loved it. That's number one. And number two is, if you said this, you'd be still subjective as hell. Just read through it again and see what I mean.
Star Wars is great, because it succeeds (again subjective, maybe you think it doesn't succeed, because it needs Jar-Jar raping everyone scenes) in what it is aiming to do. It never aimed to be a gripping anti-war film or a deep psychological drama, so that's why it never shows the terribleness of war.
Expand your knowledge, watch as many films as possible. Read about films as much as possible, but also try to make your own opinion. Stick to it, but if you see it's no longer true, or you don't feel honest voicing it, don't be afraid to change it. Discover new things, change your definition of what cinema is, if needed. Change your perception of things, if needed...I no longer know what my point is/was, but I guess I can finally focus on my work. Thank you.
__________________
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.
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.