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

I have plenty of perplexing claims and they're all important so listen up. I'm talking about the vocabulary. Orson Welles said it before and I'll verify his testimony. If the cinema wasn't fashioned by poets it'd still be no more than a mechanical curiosity occasionally on view to clean house. The cameras more than a registering apparatus; it's a means by which we receive messages from the other world. It's the beginning of magic. Hope you killas understand me.

I wonder if there's a less snobbish way of saying that.

This all still depends on what qualifies as a "poet". A poet can either be an artsy-fartsy compliment or simply refer to someone's occupation, but since the distinction is in the good and bad produced through that occupation I can only assume you mean "poet" in the pretentious sense.

Sick own.

CAN you absolve that? All you've said is "A film is never really good unless the camera is an eye in the head of a poet.", but so long as "poet" is this indefinite elite status which only you, yourself, as you've said, can arbitrarily define, then you're not really saying anything of actual consequence.

Is this an actual rule of yours you want taken seriously, or is it just a relevant quote you like to repeat? Cause all it's really saying is "good things are made by good people" which even, as I've pointed out, is questionable.

"Great, so if this a good movie?"

"Well, that depends, is it made by a poet? "

"I guess it depends on what you mean by 'poet'."

"Pff. Pleb."


It honestly probably just makes the most sense to interpret the quote retroactively by suggesting that "someone who makes a good movie is a poet" as opposed to "good movies are made by poets" which presents an entirely different connotation.

It was just a reply to most movies don't depend on much more than a competent cameraman and editor anyway with some fire & brimstone.

Artists are the only ones trying to master the media.

They are the ones devoting their lives to it without regard for financial profits.

They are the ones who go where no one else dares to go.

Acting is a part of technical mastery because there is technique to acting that must be mastered.

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.

Acting is only impressive when the actor is an artist, not as a profession, but as something intangibly more.

Maybe you say that because you are thinking of mastering the medium in a different context. I wouldn't call that mastery though.

What is this need of yours to be so precise in labelling it with words? Words are inadequate. When you see true greatness then it becomes clear, but there is no way to measure it.

I don't still insist on purely objective greatness. I don't even really understand it. What does objective mean, and what does subjective mean?

Can you, Omnizoa, understand what it means to reflect without arguing? Stop picking at words.

Don't pretend that some money grabbibg scheme can be just as good as sheer brilliance.

But I'm curious, what do you think the greatest movie of all time is?

I think the same principle applies to writing as acting. If I said otherwise before then I retract it.

That's why I don't pay attention to most critics and ratings. There is value in reflecting for personal growth, but anything can be criticised and anything can be ridiculed. Just because a criticism is made though, doesn't mean it's valid.

A person's concept of greatness is usually defined by the greatest thing they've experienced so far. My standards may just be higher because you haven't seen what I've seen.

I think it is just a matter of attitude. Instead of taking what another person says and telling them they're wrong, share your thoughts in a more neutral way.

You just need to be more aware of what's out there. Sample more spheres instead of watching movies from mostly one sphere (Hollywood). Sample more countries, more decades, and research what styles are out there. Last year I learned about Hyper Realism, Fench New Wave, Chinese New Wave, and I'm constantly expanding. I watched all of Tarkovsky's feature length movies (except his documentary), and he is probably the greatest film maker who ever lived. His movies raised the par for excellence to places I never knew before. You have to do that too in order to even really participate in the conversation. Otherwise it's like going into a scientific debate about the stages of matter without knowing what plasma is.

Of course you can, but you can't call those movies just as good as movies that have that plus deep meaning and interpretable layers.

I could say the same. You never did comment on my review of Ikiru. Did you consider that a flawless movie?

I haven't seen it yet. I'm avoiding spoilers, so I didn't read your review.

That's Return of the Jedi and he specifically rejects it.

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?

That's because Star Wars is not supposed to be realistic in any way. The basic premise itself is totally far-fetched and nothing to do with actual science. By involving lightsabers and hyperdrive, the film is begging the audience from the start to suspend all disbelief, so why even expect realism from such an attitude. Star Wars is childish but it isn't so because it intends to shut itself out from reality. It's purpose is to put imagination and creativity into minds of children, and provide nostalgia and a nice break for adults. Star Wars is not a war film. It is a remarkable action (and somewhat sci-fi) film praising bravery, friendship, and love. If Star Wars had, let's say, imagery of soldiers lying around with pain, would I have been able to pick up my Star Wars lego set and have my own original adventures? No other movie has had such an effect, and it's why it's brilliant. So you can dislike Star Wars for not having a portrayal of events that are considered worthy of praise, but you can't deny it's quality by comparing it to Stalingrad or The Thin Red Line.

IMO... 'in my opinion' is something that a lot of people don't understand. They state their 'opinions' like it's a 'global truth' for all. If we're debating facts, then there might be only one 'truth'. But when it comes to something subjective as a movie, then there's no one right opinion ...and it's BS for anyone to claim their opinion is more valid than the next guy.

For any movie ever made there will be people who love it and hate it. And often it becomes in-vogue to feel one way or another about a film. Even at MoFo meme-isms influence how some people feel about films. I've noticed it's the cool thing to knock critically acclaimed Hollywood big pictures like Saving Private Ryan, Star Wars or Titanic (1997). People often try to make themselves look smarter by panning popularism, and then endorsing more obscure stuff. It happens with aficionados of wine, travel, literature and even film.

So, IMO what makes a good film...is when the film achieves what it sets out to do and it then resonates on some level with the viewer. That's it.

Isn't that the common bond of all he great movies we loved, that we become invested in the characters?

Was anyone emotionally invested in any of the characters from Monty Python's Holy Grail?

There's more to movies than that.

Well... I'd hope we'd differentiate between story driven films and comedy driven films. In one genre the story is there as a priority... in the other the story exists to house jokes to make people laugh.