Artists are the only ones trying to master the media.
The "medium"? You can be an artist without ever mastering the medium, and you can acknowledge that as well.
Originally Posted by Zotis
They are the ones devoting their lives to it without regard for financial profits.
Professional artists, as the ones MOST LIKELY to master their talents usually depend on the income their work generates. Ever heard of a "starving artist"? They're dedicated to their skill, but let's not pretend that they have no regard for profit.
Starving artists don't even need to be good, they can also be stubborn talentless hacks.
Originally Posted by Zotis
They are the ones who go where no one else dares to go.
This is similar to what banality said, it makes the most sense to retroactively interpret it as a compliment to innovators by calling them "artists", but taken the way it seems to be intended it begs the question of what qualifies as an "artist".
Originally Posted by Zotis
Acting is a part of technical mastery because there is technique to acting that must be mastered.
There's technique to writing too, but you insisted that that was "meaningful content".
Originally Posted by Zotis
Like being able to cry without a cut or fake teardrops. What they are acting out is the content. In a great movie not only what they're doing must have deep meaning and multiple layers, but it must be done in a way that shows mastery of the art form.
Why?
Why can't a movie simply be an experience and tailored to suit that particular experience? Some experiences work best at multiple levels, but others are more straightforward. Some experiences demand the extent of what their medium can offer to produce their intended effect, but others need very little and can be effective without needing to flex their apparent credentials.
This insistence on "deep meaning" and "multiple layers" damns numerous fine movie experiences simply by failing to achieve these specific virtues you set out for it, even though those virtues were never the intended goal of the movie.
You can simply say that you
prefer these aspects in movies, and I'd concede that, but by insisting that they be mandatory qualities any movie should have to be great... frankly I'd sooner side with the "if it accomplishes what it set out to do then it's great" guys, and I've already said what I feel about that sentiment.
Originally Posted by Zotis
Acting is only impressive when the actor is an artist, not as a profession, but as something intangibly more.
That "intangibility" is what muddies up your idea of objective greatness (or "true greatness" as you put it).
As an aside, do you still insist on purely objective "greatness"? Cause as I mentioned, it clashes with your previous admission that movies are most effectively judged through both objective and subjective lenses.
You also made no comment on when I disagreed that movies can't be great if they're flawed.