Higher values and incredible artistry in how you pick top films?

Agree on all counts.

I realize I'm not contributing much by just publicly thumbs-upping this, but what can I say, I wouldn't change a word. It's all dead-on and appropriately limited (IE: saying they do not need to be linked, not that they shouldn't or cannot be).

I particularly like the distinction about including a complex moral message. A lot of films I love and admire have clear points of view, but they almost invariably have the thoughtful and elegance to make their message relatively timeless, and broad enough, that it doesn't feel overtly topical or axe-grindy.

I think that the paintings of Van Gogh were born from a pretty intensely felt philosophy about life.


I think there seems to be an attitude that for a work to contain something 'philosphical', it just be being preached or spelled out overtly.


Nearly all great works of art are linked at the hip with philosophy. And, not to get too far in the weeds with semantics here, the act of individualistic creation in and of itself is a philosophical stand.


Basically, I think the word philosophy here is getting a bad rap.

Yeah, there's the message and philosophy IN the film and then there's the message and philosophy AROUND it.

Dog Star Man is an avant-garde film that does not spell out what it does to the medium of film. But if you think about it and compare it to other films, you'll find that Brakhage tried to make this film separate from other arts by simply discarding the elements of other arts. For example, there's no sound in this film. The lack of sound is a commentary on the art of filmmaking in and of itself. It's also a commentary on how when we have both visuals and sound, we focus less on the visuals. When we have just the visuals, we're not distracted and see more.

The 'feel' part is an important thing to note, and while I think it can be separated from the message, or higher values as I call it in the original post, I don't think it can be entirely separated from incredible artistry, the second factor I speak about in my first post. If something makes you 'feel' something, it can just as well make you feel some simple emotions. But when you feel DEEP things, then there must be something special there. I also noticed that the message/worldview's importance is inversely proportional to the film's artistry. The greater the film's artistry, the more we are willing to forgive the message we disagree with (let alone one that isn't personal to us).

I do think, however, that one's favorite films always orbit around whatever that person champions, be it on moral or artistic grounds.

__________________
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.

How would I pick my "Top 20"?

I'd just rattle off 20 names, based on my first impulse. The whole idea of best 20 movies is a dubious one, so why not just be arbitrary and impulsive. Whatever pops up in my head, is IT. It's probably an OK list because it means that something about that movie stuck in my brain. What separates the top 20 from #21 or #121? I have no idea. For it to have any meaning at all, I'd need some decision criteria and a comprehensive list of the movies I've seen.

At some point in my twisted past, I did keep a log and ratings of what I'd seen. Then I transferred it to a spreadsheet, then I deleted the spreadsheet. I've felt better since then.

That sounds like my definition of some Twilight Zone type hell. I don't log my movie watches either, it just seems torturous to do so.

Maybe just pick 20 movies. Then remove reason and accountability.