Reply to Topic
I want to talk about this without entering the objective vs subjective debate. I've been thinking a lot lately about movies like Star Wars, Starship Troopers and Saving Private Ryan. Compare them with Blade Runner, Come and See, and Stalingrad. People enjoy movies for all kinds of reasons, and most of the time they don't even know why they liked it or didn't like it, and the reasons they come up with are either dishonest or ignorant. I find it a challenge within myself to identify why I like or dislike something, and I try to be honest with myself, and I try to learn and grow. Sometimes I say "the cinematography was great," but I don't really know much about cinematography or what makes it great. And I see so many people saying some movie is great while other people say it's bad, and even people who have similar taste don't agree about a lot of movies.
What I was thinking about Star Wars, Starship Troopers, and Saving Private Ryan is that these are three movies a ton of people adore, but I usually find that the people who's taste and knowledge of cinema I respect the most hate these two movies and write them off as garbage. These are people who if you mention Godard, Ozu, and Tarkovsky will say, "Oh absolutely, they're magnificent." And as I've been exposing myself to more of these great arthouse directors I've been starting to feel the same way. So what makes Stalingrad a great movie if Saving Private Ryan is crap? I watched The Empire Strikes Back a few weeks ago after having not watched it for years. I used to love the original Star Wars trilogy so much up until now. When I watched it last I just couldn't help but notice how implausible some scenarios were, and how the dialogue was nice and pleasant but never dealt with anything particularly meaningful. A Wampa sneaks up on Luke even though it's a huge noisy creature. A Tauntaun dies from the cold in it's natural habitat before it's human rider, and instead of going through hypothermia it just drops dead instantly. Luke, Han, and Lando become generals with no explanation or military responsibilities. There are a lot of things like that which make no sense at all. Now I know that a lot of people would say that's nit picking, and you're just supposed to have fun and not think to much about it. Well, that's fine, but you can't call a movie truly great when it has so many flaws and little merit beyond "it's entertaining." For some people entertainment is all they think movies are. Those people probably think that art is just something you see in museums.
Consider Star Wars to be a movie that people love because it's entertaining and has a certain production level that makes it visually appealing to the untrained eye. What sets the par for excellence so high that Star Wars does not even come close to reaching it? Alternatively consider how Stalingrad portrays war and the lives of soldiers. Star Wars is about war, but we see nothing of the agony of the wounded and dying, or the trauma of veterans, the fear of death, the moral dilema of killing, survival, etc... Star Wars is a childish concept of war and an unrealistic fantasy of adventure. I've heard so often from people who were in the army that they joined with foolish ideals of adventure and the reality of war was shocking and sobering. But Star Wars is about a kid who dreams of joining the army and going on an adventure, and instead of being surprised by the reality of war it actually turns out to be that his childish dreams come true. It's like the fanfiction of a child who has no grasp on how the real world works.
The two main areas of importance that I see so far in my understanding of cinema are technical mastery and meaningful content. Technical mastery includes directing, cinematography, acting, etc... And meaningful content refers to how it's subject matter is handled, how events transpire, how characters behave, what kind of things they talk about, and whether all of these things are reflected in a meaningful way. Realism is not the only portrayal with merit. Anyone can write that a character accomplishes a task, it's not impressive if the character does what's in the script because it's in the script. The real question is whether what's accomplished is done as it would have been done in real life. Other forms besides realism, like surrealism, find merit in how they make the viewer reflect, or how creative they are.
I'm still learning a lot, and since joining movieforums.com my most exciting growth in cinema has been exposure to arthouse. But I think that arguing about quality with people like Miss Vicky, Iroquois, and Omnizoa has been extremely unproductive and even stressful. I prefer when I get a sense of clarity and reflect on other people's perspectives and sharing my own with those who are interested instead of cramming my personal opinions down other peoples' throats and trying to force them to adopt my perspective.
So I'm curious to hear what insights you guys have into what makes a movie great. Where are you guys at in your personal growth, and where are you striving to be?
What I was thinking about Star Wars, Starship Troopers, and Saving Private Ryan is that these are three movies a ton of people adore, but I usually find that the people who's taste and knowledge of cinema I respect the most hate these two movies and write them off as garbage. These are people who if you mention Godard, Ozu, and Tarkovsky will say, "Oh absolutely, they're magnificent." And as I've been exposing myself to more of these great arthouse directors I've been starting to feel the same way. So what makes Stalingrad a great movie if Saving Private Ryan is crap? I watched The Empire Strikes Back a few weeks ago after having not watched it for years. I used to love the original Star Wars trilogy so much up until now. When I watched it last I just couldn't help but notice how implausible some scenarios were, and how the dialogue was nice and pleasant but never dealt with anything particularly meaningful. A Wampa sneaks up on Luke even though it's a huge noisy creature. A Tauntaun dies from the cold in it's natural habitat before it's human rider, and instead of going through hypothermia it just drops dead instantly. Luke, Han, and Lando become generals with no explanation or military responsibilities. There are a lot of things like that which make no sense at all. Now I know that a lot of people would say that's nit picking, and you're just supposed to have fun and not think to much about it. Well, that's fine, but you can't call a movie truly great when it has so many flaws and little merit beyond "it's entertaining." For some people entertainment is all they think movies are. Those people probably think that art is just something you see in museums.
Consider Star Wars to be a movie that people love because it's entertaining and has a certain production level that makes it visually appealing to the untrained eye. What sets the par for excellence so high that Star Wars does not even come close to reaching it? Alternatively consider how Stalingrad portrays war and the lives of soldiers. Star Wars is about war, but we see nothing of the agony of the wounded and dying, or the trauma of veterans, the fear of death, the moral dilema of killing, survival, etc... Star Wars is a childish concept of war and an unrealistic fantasy of adventure. I've heard so often from people who were in the army that they joined with foolish ideals of adventure and the reality of war was shocking and sobering. But Star Wars is about a kid who dreams of joining the army and going on an adventure, and instead of being surprised by the reality of war it actually turns out to be that his childish dreams come true. It's like the fanfiction of a child who has no grasp on how the real world works.
The two main areas of importance that I see so far in my understanding of cinema are technical mastery and meaningful content. Technical mastery includes directing, cinematography, acting, etc... And meaningful content refers to how it's subject matter is handled, how events transpire, how characters behave, what kind of things they talk about, and whether all of these things are reflected in a meaningful way. Realism is not the only portrayal with merit. Anyone can write that a character accomplishes a task, it's not impressive if the character does what's in the script because it's in the script. The real question is whether what's accomplished is done as it would have been done in real life. Other forms besides realism, like surrealism, find merit in how they make the viewer reflect, or how creative they are.
I'm still learning a lot, and since joining movieforums.com my most exciting growth in cinema has been exposure to arthouse. But I think that arguing about quality with people like Miss Vicky, Iroquois, and Omnizoa has been extremely unproductive and even stressful. I prefer when I get a sense of clarity and reflect on other people's perspectives and sharing my own with those who are interested instead of cramming my personal opinions down other peoples' throats and trying to force them to adopt my perspective.
So I'm curious to hear what insights you guys have into what makes a movie great. Where are you guys at in your personal growth, and where are you striving to be?
Last edited by Zotis; 06-23-16 at 02:34 AM.
