What Makes a Movie Great? (reflection, not debate)

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.

__________________
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.

Yeah, I'm in the process of changing my perspective on objectivity vs subjectivity.

The main thing I can't stand is that steriotypical 16-year-old jock response, "the movie sucked" to a great movie just because for whatever reason they didn't like it. Or when people say "quality is subjective" to justify praising whatever they like as good without any grasp of what actually makes a movie good or bad. Like someone who doesn't notice wooden acting still insisting their beloved movie has good acting.


But yes, I do tend to err on the opposite side trying so hard to find technical reasons for what makes a movie great.

I know you can't be completely objectice and you can't be completely subjective either. I think you have to have balance, and so in that sense there is no point in arguing objectivity vs subjectivity because the two really need to be married.

At least that's how I'm starting to see it. But also I just didn't want a whole bunch of pointless arguments.

The main thing to take away from my religious fervor I guess would be that no movie has compelled me so much on a spiritual level, and that's something I never knew cinema was capable of. That reached so much further than camera work and acting, but it also required the highest level of mastery in order to have the strongest possible impact.

Among people who actually appreciate art films I often find they will not even talk to people about cinema who think Star Wars is a great movie. They just say "it's crap, read a book." And I am more inclined to agree with that camp because they have so much more film knowledge and experience than me. But I still give Star Wars a lot more credit then that. But people read way too much into it. As Alec Guiness said, "It's a very simple movie for all ages, very pleasant, no horrors, people die and they fall down."

But I also tend to forget other people's perspectives. It wasn't that long ago when I was going around saying Star Wars is great.

Ive seen a few. The one that springs to mind wasnt the best martial arts, but was hilarious. I cant remember the name of it. In the movie there was a Cannibal Cook, and he was....well I dont want to spoil it. I cant remember if it took place in hotel, but the end-fight was in the desert.

Karate Bullfighter is a pretty good seventies Karate film. Sonny Chiba is like the Japanese Bruce Lee, but his movies have much better acting and cinematography.

Interesting point.

As I told Citizen Rules, there's still objectivity in that. Whether you think it stills "needs" one thing or another, the degree to which it accomplishes it's apparent intent is a scale largely independent of the viewer.

I've always thought of it this way: It's one thing to say you don't like something, it's another to say it's bad. It's totally fine if you love, say... Hook, I know I do, I think it's a blast to watch.


But I'd be nuts if I said Hook wasn't a pretty mediocre story, or worse, tried to elevate it to some grand transcendent piece of cinema. It's simply not. It's a movie beholden to it's narrative and it's narrative collapses in on itself by the third act.

It's a mediocre movie (objective) that I enjoy (subjective).

__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel

I think it's entirely fair to say that Star Wars is a great movie. It's certainly flawed, like any movie, but it's not great in the same way as other movies, you know?

Like I said, it's escapism rooted in wanderlust and power fantasy. They're not the same goals as 12 Angry Men which trades escapism for social commentary. Even so, I'd say they're both fantastic in what they set out to do. Whether what they set out to do is your thing or not is when it becomes a subjectivity deal.

You have a point here, but you don't necessarily have to think a movie is of great quality to like it and you don't necessarily have to think a movie is crap to dislike it. I abhor La Strada, because I couldn't stand it, but I acknowledge it may be a masterpiee. The problem is that since it annoyed me so much, I was unable to see much in it. I haven't seen Captain Hook, but Glend or Glenda may be a great example of a great film whose greatness roots in its terribleness.
Don't mix art film appreciators with snobs.

Did you just call Alec Guiness a snob?

Guinness. No - "some alleged" art film appreciators.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Alec Guinnes was the one who I was quoting when I said, "It's crap, read a book."

I read this post this morning, and I've been thinking about it all day. I think most people will agree that there is always that one film where you feel like you are actually talking with the filmmaker. It's a conversation really. If the movie helps you realize something about yourself, others, the world or existence then in your mind it's always going to be a great movie. I think the more standards we place around the idea of a great movie the more restrictive that dialogue becomes. Every generation tries to make these standards for a great film, but if every generation didn't also have filmmakers who were constantly breaking those standards the dialogue would become as stale as a conversation with your great uncle about the boil that's been developing on his back...worst family reunion ever.

What if a movie makes you realize that life is futile, you'll never succeed at anything, and the only solution is to kill yourself?

That's a great point, but I kinda disagree. I think it definitely commented on society at the time. True Star Wars is absolutely escapism, and you definitely hit the nail on the head when you said it was rooted in wanderlust and power fantasy, but in the 1970's people needed a power fantasy. People felt powerless during this time and became very complacent. The 1970's was one of the most corrupt times in American history, and people just accepted it like it was the way things were supposed to be(Network quote), like Uncle Owen or Han Solo they just didn't understand the point of standing up to a corrupt government and the resulting society. Star Wars is about a boy responding to a call to action, and the best part is it was a call to action that people of all ages could hear. That's what makes it a GREAT movie, and people young and old are still hearing the call.

I'm not sure im 100% following you here, but if we are going to go with this EXTREME HYPOTHETICAL situation, I guess It would depend on the person and if they were comforted by the idea of suicide as an escape from the futility of life. I've never felt the need to seriously contemplated suicide so I really wouldn't know. But I do know that not every good conversation is a happy one, and not every great movie has a happy ending. Not sure if any of those two statements answered your question.

You and I have a very different idea of what constitutes corruption.

"It's not what a movie is about that makes it great, it's about HOW it's about it that makes it great"

Roger Ebert

Regardless of your definition of corruption the point's still kinda standing. Afterall, Umm Watergate? Also the 1970's was the decade the Knap commision was formed. It's sole task was to uncover New York police corruption. Oh yeah, fun fact, Serpico testified at that commission. speaking of great films. It might not be your idea of corruption, but it was for a lot of people who lived through that time. Anyway corruption was only a small part of the malaise of the 1970's. America lost a war, the kent state massacre, The terror attacks at the Munich olympics, the energy crisis, Jonestown...the list goes on. Point is people felt powerless, many grew complacent, and a movie was made with a not so suttle message that even if you are just a whiny farmboy from tatooine the force will be with you, always^^

Mmyes, as we all know, illicit government surveillance doesn't happen anymore. It's much less corrupt now.

I don't think i ever said that corruption doesn't exist anymore. I did say that Star Wars contained a message of hope in ONE OF THE darkest times in American history though

Glad to hear it's brightened up. Must be all the lightsabers.