Favorite/Best Films

An update of the thread.

Favorite Films
Taxi Driver (Martin Scorsese;1976)
Collateral (Michael Mann;2004)
Le Samourai (Jean-Pierre Melville;1967)
Buffalo '66 (Vincent Gallo;1998)
Dead Man (Jim Jarmusch;1995)
Heat (Michael Mann;1995)
Memento (Christopher Nolan;2000)
Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino;1994)
Mean Streets (Martin Scorsese;1973)
Citizen Kane (Orson Welles;1941)

Best Films (Alphabeticle Order)
8½ (Fellini;1963)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick:1968)
Citizen Kane (Welles;1941)
The Godfather (Coppola;1972)
Once Upon a Time in America (Leone;1984)
Le Samouraï (Melville;1967)
The Seventh Seal (Bergman;1957)
Short Cuts (Altman;1993
Taxi Driver (Scorsese;1976)
A Woman Under the Influence (Cassavetes;1974)

A new angle to an old debate...

What makes The Seventh Seal a better film than Buffalo '66?

Seriously, can we do one of these threads without getting into the same fucking debate with the same words over and over?

I've since abolished my ways of seperating the two. One, easy list, that just completely speaking to me emotionally and recreationally.

Fight Club (Fincher; 1999)
Taxi Driver (Scorsese; 1976)
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (Gilliam; 1998)
Being John Malkovich (Jonze; 1999)
Once Upon a Time in America (Leone; 1985)
Mullholland Dr. (Lynch; 2001)
Il Buono, il brutto, il cattivo (Leone; 1966)
Requiem for a Dream (Aronofsky; 2000)
The Graduate (Nichols; 1967)
Rebel Without a Cause (Ray; 1955)

What does a list do? What is its purpose? So I can simply look at yours and say it's pretty and so you can simply look at mine and say it's also pretty?

What's the point in this thread, anyway? There's no real change to your last list, to your tastes the last time round. There's no room for give and take, but just to list a few films we already know others know we like. There's no real vouching, no real effort, no real taking steps back and saying, "Hey, I like this film, I like that film, but I don't know, I'm not too keen on that one". And it's only from those kinds of questions that you get to find out why you like something, and thus become, in my opinion, a lot closer to your declared loved ones (the films on your list, in this instance).

Since your "update" is anything but a revision (really, I see one film that wasn't there before), you're lending yourself to a wide-open debate on the difference between favourites and best.

So you don't want to use the same words over and over again. I agree, that'd be pathetic. But I'd like to think that as film enthusiasts we can and are able to discuss the same debates with fresh approaches, to shed new light, to illuminate new truths, in order to understand where others come from... no, to understand where yourself is coming from.

Which is why I specifically started my post with the words, "A new angle to an old debate". Because to my knowledge my question hadn't been asked before. And I find it all the more intriguing because it has been met with silence.

I didn't make this thread to discuss. There is no deep or philosophical meaning in it at all. It's just a top ten list. What are your favorite and/or best movies ever? Time has gone by and opinions have changed on films. This has nothing to do with how one ranks a top ten.

To discuss this double list again is nothing more then redundant.

But your tastes haven't changed.

At all. I see the same usual suspects as last time you posted a list. And posting a list for listmaking purposes seems redundant to me. It should be a starting point for discussion. Otherwise, what is the point? Boredom?

Whatever, though, I will assume your refusal to acknowledge my question is more to do with the inability to even contemplate it.

Minor changes made. If you wanna know why I'm a compulsive list-maker, then I can't answer that. I guess you can compare me to John Cusack in High Fidelity, only with films.

And my refusal to acknowledge your question has more to do with the fact that I've debated it more then 5 or 6 times in the past. My responses have not changed, if you want my arguement, search for the old threads.

But I asked a new question, a very specific question, and you're refusing to answer it.

What makes The Seventh Seal a better film than Buffalo '66?

By the way, I wouldn't say you're a compulsive listmaker.

You've only posted a top ten best and favourite film, and you're recycling it every few months or so.

One list. Maybe two. Hardly compulsive.

1. Stalker (Tarkovsky; 1979)
2. Journal d'un Cure de Campagne (Bresson; 1951)
3. Vivre sa Vie: Film en Douze Tableaux (Godard; 1962)
4. Dead Man (Jarmusch; 1995)
5. Paris, Texas (Wenders; 1984)
6. Chinatown (Polanski; 1974)
7. Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes (Herzog; 1972)
8. Sans Soleil (Marker; 1983)
9. Le Samourai (Melville; 1967)
10. A Woman Under the Influence (Cassavetes; 1974)


...maybe.

The Seventh Seal is a film that best shows the significance of death, and while it seems to be a pessimistic film through the whole journey of it, like many people feel in life, it ultimately sums death up as something not to be feared. It also sports some of the most memorable images in cinema. While I haven't seen any other Bergman, this really made me wanna see more, as the direction is excellent and carries no tangents in my mind.

Buffalo '66 is a different film. I like to think of it as the loser or degenerate's romance film. It depicts a down and out life many can relate to and while it seems like a Scorseseish film at times, mainly with the subplot, it ends off unexpectedly upbeat, but without any corniness. I think it's an excellent film and one of the best of the 90's, but not one of the best ever. Both have impacted me in different ways, but I think The Seventh Seal is a more important film both cinematically and in it's meaning.

As for my list-making, keep in mind that these boards aren't my whole life. I make many lists among friends on movies and music and pop culture in general. I'm not gonna post all of them. As for your annoyance with the presence of this thread, I guess 50% of it could root from boredom. Then again, very little excites me about this board in general anymore.

What, my crappy boring-ass song lists don't cut it anymore?

I don't like you, so yes.

1) Scarface (Brian De Palma; 1983)
2) Kill Bill Volume 2 (Quentin Tarantino; 2004)
3) Raging Bull (Martin Scorsese; 1980)
4) Goodfellas (Martin Scorsese; 1990)
5) The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola; 1972)
6) JFK (Oliver Stone; 1991)
7) The Usual Suspects (Bryan Singer; 1995)
8} The Big Lebowski (Joel Coen; 1998)
9) Scream (Wes Craven; 1996)
10) The Boondock Saints (Troy Duffy; 1999)

HONORABLE MENTIONS
-Schindler's List (Steven Spielberg; 1993)
-Memento (Christopher Nolan; 2000)
-Fight Club (David Fincher; 1999)
-Snatch (Guy Ritchie; 2000)

Fav Film
Goodfellas
Bronx Tale
Pulp Fiction
Casino
T2
Star Wars
Indiana Jones
Plus Many More


Best Film
Godfather Part 1
Godfather Part 2
OUATIA
Shawsahnk Redemption
2001
Raging Bull

Well, I'm going to say that I still find amusement in these lists, because I can see where each of us have formed our own niches in particular styles and genres and stereotypes of film. It's humorous.

exactly,we all have our own choices and opinions we don't all study films religousley(sp)like some people so lists will be differant..

My Best:

"Godfather" 1-2 & 3

"Walk The Line"/ Joaquin Phoenix/Reese Witherspoon

"The Other Side Of Midnight"/1977 / Marie France Pisier/John Beck/ Susan Sarandon

"Body Heat"/ William Hurt/ Kathleen Turner

"The Notebook"/ Rachel Mc Adams/ Ryan Gosling/James Garner/Geana Rowlands

Y...yeah... Thanks for rephrasing...

High five?

Deep Throat (1972)

You kids and your Watergate-humor.

So, De Niro, It think those lists are good. But why is 2001 one of the best ever but not one of your favourites?

so wheres your list.

Best Movie EVER!
Plan 9 from Outer Space

Here is the list of my favorite films:
1. The Godfather Trilogy
2. Raging Bull
3. Mean Streets
4. Goodfellas
5. Apocalypse Now (and Redux)
6. Laura
7. It's a Gift
8. Bride of Frankenstein
9. Duck Soup
10. Seconds
11. Nosferatu (Murnau)
12. Metropolis
13. True Confessions
14. Chinatown
15. The Thing (Carpenter)

My list of greatest films doesn't mean that my favorites aren't "great," it means that I recognize the following as great films but don't enjoy watching them as often as my faves:

1. Citizen Kane
2. Sgt. York
3. Greed
4. Gone With the Wind
5. Double Indemnity
6. Asphalt Jungle
7. The Wild One
8. Viva Zapata!
9. Nights of Cabiria
10. Open City

But Turnbull, what sort of attributes are you looking for in films to deem them great as opposed to "re-watchable"?

I think people use the terms "greatness" and "importance" interchangeably, and wrongly. Indeed, they often define greatness by importance. But this is wrong, I think, since the term importance is endlessly problematic. Important for, and to, what, for instance? Generally important? Socially important? Do they tackle grandiose, universal themes to become important? People often attribute Citizen Kane as the most important film in Cinema History, and often (because of that) the greatest, too. It includes some wonderful cinematic techniques, narrative devices, many shots of self-evident and -contained beauty, but in using it in case studies academics and critics and fans and whatnot often overlook other films that did the same thing before it... depth of focus, for example, had been around for years, and so had ceilings in shot compositions - neither are solely attributable to Welles or Toland. It seems to me that Kane is a sort of compendium of cinematic tools, the same way in 1941 as Amélie (2001) is today: you can use both films to introduce academics to almost every shot in the filmmaker's vocabulary. In that sense, Amélie is very much in the same vain as Kane, but since it is also in dazzling colour, does that make it even more important?

Hollywood films are problematic too, since a lot of the time they are or were made solely for profit, for pleasure by means of a commercial aesthetic (read Maltby, Hollywood Cinema, 2nd ed.). And so, important films within the vertically integrated studio system are probably best assessed by the most commercially successful (that is, made the most profit - the top five, when adjusted for inflation, reads: Gone With the Wind, Gone With the Wind, Star Wars, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Titanic, Jurassic Park.

But since that list is measured by concrete figures, and in turn those figures reflect an industry designed to make profit, if you were to term "greatness" by commercial profit it would be a lot more preferable than universal themes. "Universal" is after all another term which begs definition: love and hate are probably the only ones that have been around since the beginning, and memory binds the two as the two themes move linearly through time. Still, even if we were to set such a definition of universal in stone, how well the film tackled it would be up to interpretation.

Gone With the Wind might be a great film as it combines an important time in American history (the Civil War) with a universal story of love or passion or whatever; but I don't think it does it in a profoundly cinematic way. It's not adding anything new to what the original novel covered; most of its delights are contained in the "literariness" of the one-liners and general discourse of the narrative. I count one or two shots in Gone With the Wind which are of any especial visual merit. It is interesting in the context of Hollywood's studio system in 1939, an interesting case study for filmmaking as a collaborative process, but leaves me emotionally indifferent - I've seen it twice now, once on the big screen, and have no real desire to see it ever again.

What of The Birth of a Nation (1915), for instance? Is that not just as important as Gone With the Wind? It covers the Civil War again, is of historical significance in terms of both its social values of the time (racism in and within the film) and cinematic innovation: Griffith's putting all kinds of techniques together to form a cinematic language more coherent and weighty than anything Gone With the Wind might conjure.

What of Don Juan (1926), the film credited as the first film released with pre-recorded sound? Isn't that a technical innovation in itself?

I find it interesting that the top ten lists popping up here exclude the likes of Hitchcock, Ford, Griffith, Eisenstein, Godard, Bresson, Ozu and other such widely regarded directors. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but stress the absurdity in such "objectified" lists when those are left out. I think Hitchcock, with Rear Window (1954) and Vertigo (1958) (and many others) is responsible for some of the most cinematically profound films ever made. (That is, they all are profound explorations of the notion and obvious themes arising from a visual medium.)

Eisenstein, a director and film theorist, is a key figure in Soviet montage cinema, from which an "important" editing pattern and technique stems. But why isn't Battleship Potemkin (1926) on the list?

Lighting might play an important part in Cinema, and so where are the German Expressionists? I don't see Weine's The Cabinet of Dr.Caligari (1919) on there at all.

If Cinema is a medium whose real artists are the directors, the auteurs, then why not make account for important films within certain directors' oeuvres, regardless of general critical acclaim? What of, for instance, Dune (1984)? It's David Lynch's wort film, I think, but might be his most important, because he said himself that when he made it he vowed never to make a big-budget studio film ever again. Or you could perhaps claim Blue Velvet (1986), which he made immediately after Dune, with great personal risk following such commercial failure, to be his most important - and, since Lynch is one of the most important cinematic figures in Cinema, either or both of those films are the most important films in general, and ths the greatness. And why might Lynch be important? Because his recurring themes all find significance in the recurring patterns and images of his medium - there is something intensely erotic between the logic of dreams and the presentation of his films. Our reception of Cinema, of the perpetuality of the camera, might not be so different from how we relate to our own dreams and the sensations within them..the way we lend meaning to them from outside the form, the way we remember them afterwards, the way we connect otherwise irrational moments and fragments to a conveniently cohesive whole.

I'm rambling here, but my point is the absurdity between favourites and best. I'm not saying you're saying your Top Ten Favourites aren't great, Turnbull, but I am dubious over your definition of greatness in general. I'm not even disputing that those Top Ten "Best" films are great (they might be); but my point is that those best films are being judged in the same way that the favourites are: how they pertain to your own definition of each.

I think, then, that it is considerably important to define "best" and "favourite" if you're going to distinguish a difference between the two. Only Turnbull attempted this, but even then I find a contradiction, a tension between subjective and objective aims.

When, for instance, does a film go from "re-watchable" to "great"? When you've seen it, say, five times and you're stillgetting stuff out of it? I thought,Turnbull, that you'd seen The Godfather over a 1,000 times. Is your experience of it dead, then? But I thought you posted new questions and considerations still. To me that means the film is still living and evolving, producing new meanings and new contexts for meanings inside of your mind, it's still connecting with you on a thematic or formal or aesthetic level.

And what might "thematically important" mean? Themes can be found anywhere, in novels, in newspaper stories, in philosophical essays, in paintings, in anything. Depends on our interpretation, or on how well (some might argue, not so sure about it myself) the author communicates the theme or meaning or message.

There's nothing particularly cinematic about thematics, not unless it was Cinema itself. What is cinematic, (that is, unique to the medium we're listing texts from, here) is the presentations of such themes. Gone With the Wind might present a theme of faith and passion, of love and war, and pit the two against each other very well, but like I said in my previous example, most of that stems from its literary origins. The theme might well indeed be universal, but it isn't anything which the novel hasn't taken up.

It seems a shame too to be measuring the value of texts by their ability to teach us, by how widely accessible or how profoundly penetrating they are. Usually, this celebrates melancholy and tragedy and neglects comedy and popular works. There is often little room for popular opinion, even though that is in itself a popular (and reductive, dangerous, destructive) notion put forward by critics and academics.

Cinema is unique in that it takes on all of the potential for profundity found in other previous arts and makes it immediately accessible - you don't need to sit for hours reading a hundred pages to exposit characters, because you can tell what characters are like by just seeing them kick a cat or stroke a cat or something, in the opening scenes of a film. Basically (in the conventional sense, there are of course exceptions), you know where you are by the end of the opening credits, in terms of character association, mood, tone, rhythm and where it's generally all leading. Cinema is unique in that it can simultaneously tackle "problematic issues" and be seen by all; it was born little over a century ago, and I don't think its any coincidence that the 20th Century saw the gulf between high culture and low culture decrease, and black and white became grey. I don't think it's any coincidence that criticism has been turned upside down. It seems a shame then to maintain some sort of highbrow approach by saying what is educative or insightful and what isn't.

Poetry doesn't teach us about anything but its own poetics; novels, once we've read enough of them, do not teach us anything but about their own novelistic form or approach or style; films are not qualified to teach us about anything other than Cinema. What you can find in Gone With the Wind you can find in historical textbooks, surely. Apart from moving images, or narrative rhythm... which is what I'm judging it by, and which is why I don't rate it all that highly.

With that said, I think the following films might have influenced me most in my appreciation of Cinema. Ideally, for me, great films are formally, thematically and aesthetically of interest. I'm grading them by how resonantly they connect with me over multiple viewings. That is, how deeply or consistently they form meaning from their aesthetic, formal and thematic presentation, and those in term are graded by the evolution across several (at least three, often more) viewings. If I were to break down those three into individual definitions, I'd go along with this: aesthetics are the primary elements unique to cinematic language, first and foremost the image, and running alongside that, often appreciated and intended subconsciously, is sound; formal qualities is the cinematic form (as opposed to language), the form which the images and sounds take, the narrative shape if you like, the way the narrative unfolds; thematically is what the film says to me, what (not how) I might extract in terms of meaning from the film.

In short, I suppose in a way you could say these have taught me most about the medium I love.

There are twelve films, because I cannot bring myself to leave out two. In chronological order:


Persona Ingmar Bergman (1966 / Sweden)
Weekend Jean-Luc Godard (1967 / France)
Don't Look Now Nicolas Roeg (1973 / UK)
Taxi Driver Martin Scorsese (1975 / USA)
Eraserhead David Lynch (1976 / USA)
Manhattan Woody Allen (1979 / USA)
Blue Velvet David Lynch (1986 / USA)
Kárhozat Béla Tarr (1987 / Hungary)
Éloge de l'amour Jean-Luc Godard (2001 / France)
Irréversible Gaspar Noé (2002 / France)
Lost In Translation Sofia Coppola (2003 / USA, Japan)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Michel Gondry (2004 / USA)

Mick, I'm no cinematic deep-thinker. My views are strictly subjective. The films in my "great" list are films that I thought were great in my viewing--great looking, great themes, great execution, direction, acting, etc.--not because they represented important milestones in cinema history, or because the critics attached tremendous significance to them (although some were critics' choices). I like them all, but the ones in the "favorite" list are those I watch time and again.

So you wouldn't value "re-watchability factor" at all? What makes you go back to The Godfather for instance, but not Gone With the Wind? If you'd rather watch the former again more than the latter, aren't you connecting with its "look, themes, execution, direction, acting, etc." a lot more than you're connecting with Gone With the Wind?

I don't know; when I love something it makes me want to watch it again. What makes Citizen Kane a "greater" movie than The Godfather Trilogy, for instance?

Great post, but you could've just said "anyone who separates best and favorites is a fucking idiot" and left it at that.

Or DVC is a fucking idiot. Yeah, I like that better.

I still don't have two categories, though I am inclined to reconsider my view if someone puts forth a convincing argument.

My Favorites:

Apocalypse Now Redux
Shawshank Redemption
The Godfather 1 & 2
American Beauty
Requiem For A Dream
Vertigo
Dead Man
The Fountain

Favorites pending re-watch for re-evaluation:
Raging Bull (confident of making it back)
Taxi Driver

LAWLZ

Is it that hard to understand why some people make a distinction between favorites & best or favorites & greatest?

It's clear in any dictionary, really.

That's about as convincing as saying, "I disagree".

By those words having different definitions, it is no wonder
some people have a different list for favorites and a different one for best.

Sure they do, and I've been trying very hard to deconstruct that notion and the reasons behind it with several points... none of which have been countered.

Best and favourite do have different definitions according to the dictionary, but dictionaries are dangerously restrictive to something as subjective as Art. And like I've said, I've been trying to eradicate the gulf between the two terms.

Give me the definition that your dictionary gives the term "best".

Why are you trying to deconstruct the difference between the meanings of two words?



Just because the topic is a subjective one doesn't mean definitions cannot hold. If definitions can't be held, then what is language for?



Best - excelling all others

And because someone holds a film in high regard means that it has to be excelling in some area(s)?

Or, if one sees a film as excelling in some area(s) then it has to be a favorite?

Because meanings are in themselves very subjective; they change over time, across cultures, etc. But here, specifically, I find it difficult to distinguish between the two terms, because the reasons behind "best" lists are in themselves subjective.

If there was some kind of mathematical, definitive measurement by which to judge the "Best" films ever, fair enough. The only one that comes close is box-office figures for Hollywood films, which gives a fair notion of which films are making the most money in the society they're catered for.

Don't forget that different filmmakers make films for different reasons. Tarkovsky wanted to explore what he found most fascinating to him and his life, and so his films are very personal, and whether you connect with them or not depends on what kind of things you like to explore.

Hollywood in its "classical" studio system period, however (the 1930s, say), produced films on a mass basis in order to make money. They were meant to be non-political (so as not to piss anybody off, so they could make more money), invisible in their form (so the form does not intrude upon the meaning), and highly profitable.

Much of Kane's status has been so long-lasting because Welles himself was brilliant at self-promotion. He promoted it as the best film ever made, and critics fell for it... and with critics comes a knock-on effect.

Say, if Citizen Kane hadn't accumulated the fame it has, if it had fallen into obscurity early on, been rejected, would it still be the best film ever made?

Ideally, "Best" can only ever be valid if everybody has seen absolutely every film ever made. And since that is impossible, the closest we can get to it are by listing which films we are closest to, from which we get the most personal satisfaction. (Because nobody rates dissatisfying films, right?)

Language to me is a means of exploring language, of exploring what we know and how we know it. By know I mean what gives us pleasure and what doesn't, and why that is. Language is a means of communication; my favourite language is cinematic language. It is the most revealing, the most exciting, the one which can exposit situations and bring finality to them at the same time.


But excelling all others at what? Turnbull says "direction, cinematography, acting, etc." but (and I'm asking you here), what makes Citizen Kane's directing better than The Godfather's? If you'd rather watch The Godfather again and not Citizen Kane, what has Kane got that attracts you - attracts you into not wanting to watch it again... or as much as you would The Godfather. How do you even measure good directing?

My point is that I'm not actually disputing the definition you've given, in my opinion the twelve films I listed excel all others. What I'm questioning is the means by which you measure how they "excel all others".

There seems to be an unfair, reversely proportional correlation between "liking" (that is, finding something pleasurable) and "rating" (that is, thinking something is good, and in this case, thinking something is good that you don't enjoy as much as that which you "like").

If somebody holds a film in high regard, it must be doing something right. It must be speaking to you, you must be finding yourself on the same wavelength of what it has to offer. There must be some kind of connection between what you're asking for and what the filmmaker is giving you.

I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but you're introducing the words "in some area(s)" to a definition you gave from your dictionary. The definition you gave says Best is "excelling all others." Now you're saying "excelling all others in some area(s)".

Gone With the Wind probably excels all other films in production design; its cost and scale mirror the events it depicts.

The twelve films I listed excel in all areas in the sense that what I love about them outweighs what I don't love about them, and so the result is a film that I connect to more than all other films.

Yes, all words have that potential to have its meaning changed, but do you seriously think the definition for "best" will change dramatically or will become archaic in 50 years? Extremely doubtful.



See. THAT is the thing! Because some people make a distinction between favorites and bests, you're assuming a subjective/objective dichotomy. NO. Nobody is saying a film in a best category is decided upon by using universal standards/criteria. No one is saying "best" means it's objective because it's their opinion; thus, subjective.



No. "Best" can also be valid using one's own total experience. One doesn't need to listen to every single rock album ever made in order to think "Revolver" is the best album to that person. "Revolver" is just that - the best that they've heard. "Best sex I've ever had" (does one need to have sex with everyone in the world to think that?); "Best soft scrambled eggs I've ever had;" "Best movie I've seen;" etc. Again, subjective. Not something universal or indisputable.



It's up to the person. I have my criteria, Turnbull has his, my friend has his, etc. We don't need a universal criteria in order to use the word, "best." Does it pose problems for people with different criteria for the same subject? Yes. But, you can discuss it with that person if you want; no one is stopping you. And it's just that...it's/they're that person's best. Nothing scientific, mathematical, objective or universal.



No. Someone can regard a movie with favor even if it doesn't excel all others. It can have plain cinematography, stock characters, classical construction (editing and shots), tried-and-true plot, over-familiar story and yet that person likes it. My mother doesn't make the best fried rice (I've tasted far better ones) - it's ridiculously oily, sweet, and mushy - but it's my favorite because it's my mother's and there's something endearing. And it's endearing because it's mediocre, but it's my mom's. And yes, it's not total crap. There are some stuff to like about it.

The same goes for movies. "40 Year Old Virgin" is one of my favorite movies of whatever year it came out. I love parts and I hate parts. A lot of the jokes are homophobic, classless, and insulting. The story is predictable (guy meets girl; obstacles; guy gets girl). The direction is inexpressive, sloppy for classical continuity style, and pedestrian even Judd Apatow says so on his DVD commentaries. But, despite such drawbacks, it's a favorite. Now, "Bringing Up Baby" that is a funny movie and masterfully created. I think it's the best comedy. 40 YOV is not sniffing the top 5 of best comedies for me.



I wasn't saying that is the definition. I was simply applying the word to use (instead of using the word, I used the definition in its place):

best in some area(s) = {excelling all others} in some area(s).

Why did I mention "in some area(s)?"

To illustrate the fact that "excelling all others" is up to the individual - excelling in "what" is up to the individual (whether it's just an element or a handful of them - "in some area(s))."

Something doesn't have to be the best, period, or best in something in order for some people to like it.

I think that was my point, but you're turning it around and using it against me. "Best" is a subjective term, that's what I've tried to establish here. At least, it can never be anything but subjective, even though the notions behind the word itself suggest otherwise. Don't you think that "best/favourites" lists conjure the image of somebody saying, "Well, these are the movies I personally like, but these are the movies I'm supposed to like"?


Right. But what makes 40 Year Old Virgin your favourite? There has to be some kind of attraction there for you to connect to it, you must be understanding it on a whole other level to somebody who dislikes it. What makes Bringing Up Baby the best? Because it's "a funny movie and masterfully created"?

It's fine to say the means of definition changes from person to person, but if that's the case, what are yours? What are you grading Baby on that 40 Year Old Virgin isn't? And, if you're asking for something from 40 Year Old Virgin that makes Baby so close to the "best", why is it not giving you it, and because it isn't, how do you still claim it to be a favourite?

And you've not answered my question. If The Godfather is your favourite film (and let's pretend it is), what makes Citizen Kane's directing better than it? (Let us also pretend you judge films' value by directing alone.)


So, I'm going to take this example and apply it to my favourite director, Jean-Luc Godard. From what I've seen, I think Godard's worst film is Les carabiniers. My review of it reads thus:

A few isolated moments of interest: the keener soldier of the two orders a woman to undress, and walks away to take a seat, with the camera following him instead of showing her…and then later, the same brute visits a picture house and can't fathom why the flat image won't show him the naked woman inside of a bath. Otherwise, minor Godard, made in the same year as Le mépris.

But because Godard is otherwise my favourite director, should I add this sentence on the end?: "It's not very good, but I like it because Godard made it."

That's like saying you love your mother because she is your mother, because of obligation, because of the tradition which teaches us to love our parents. Not because you genuinely love her.

Also, I'd love to read your list(s).

Okay then, we agree that favorite and best are subjective. But, eventhough they're both subjective there still is a difference between the two words, which is why I defend people who make the distinction.



No. Because a "Best" list for a person can have a film that isn't widely accepted in the canon or isn't regarded that highly...or, it can be a total head scratcher to some. Why? Because it's that person's judgement of what belongs on a Best list. You're assuming that a favorite/best dichotomy would mean that the best list would contain the widely-accepted canon in every situation.



Despite its mediocrity and drawbacks I mentioned earlier, I think it's funny in many parts and I love Carrell and Rogen. But, what I was saying is it doesn't fit my bill of what I consider a movie that belongs on a best list, but I still like it and view it with favor.



Exactly that. Exactly what I said.



Seriously. I see no relevance of asking me this to my contention that there is a distinction between two words, "favorite" and "best," other than to further illustrate a point that we both agree on - "best" is subjective. Perhaps you can fill me in how it has anything to do with invalidating the differences in the definitions of "favorite" and "best."

To me, fictional-narrative feature films have three aspects:
1) storytelling/narrative
2) acting
3) art and craft (image/sound) - expression, decoration, pictorialism

"Bringing Up Baby" has all three done as good as I think can be done. And in addition, it stimulated my body (laughter and excitement); mind (piecing together the story; thinking about characters; themes); and soul (feelings).

On the other hand, 40 YOV:
It had the first and second aspects done well (narrative and acting). But the third, was sorely lacking. Again, I already stated it's pedestrian inexpressive and unimaginative direction and its sloppy classical continuity construction. So, it strikes out badly on 1 out of the 3 aspects. And all three are, in my mind, necessary to be considered a film that excels all others. There are numerous comedies that have all three in imaginative, expressive, or exceptional ways (I'm not saying those are the only three qualifiers I use to judge the 3 aspects).

So, why is it a favorite? Again, it has #1 and #2, done really well. I think the story is charming, highly relatable, funny, and interesting despite it being conventional and predictable. I cared about Carrell's character. I liked his friends. Apatow did something right. Because I know many movies that have an interesting story on paper, but it comes out short. Here, it's interesting on paper and interesting while watching. Some of the dialogue and events are hilarious despite a lot of classless jokes. The actors are believable and I felt nothing was forced...the performances, to me, were authentic. Sure, #3 is pedestrian and lacking. But it has other stuff that I like about it eventhough it doesn't have all three areas done like I believe a movie-on-a-best-list should.

In short, it has a lot I don't like about it, but it has a lot I do like. Enough so much that I've watched it several times and enjoy it despite its "flaws."



I can't answer this question because I think none of those things. But, the thingking can be: directing determine's a film's value - my opinion says that Welles was better than Coppola for whatever reason - thus CK is better - but GF has things I prefer or like for whatever reason - but since that's not the criteria - then CK is the better film while it is not a favorite.

Subjective, yes. Distinction, yes. What is so hard to understand?



If that's the reason why you like it thinking that it's not very good (via whatever criteria you use to say a movie is, "good"). Yes, say it. It's your reason not mine. In that situation you choose to have a distinction.

Way to take a quote out of context. I did state also that it's not total crap and there are things to like about the fried rice despite its flaws. So, I wasn't saying it's my favorite fried rice strictly because it's my mother's and out of obligation. This means you're taking my example and applying it wrongly to my mother and your JLG example.

How do you go from me saying I like my mother's flawed fried rice as a favorite because it's not crap, fairly good somewhat (in that there's some stuff to like about it), and endearing because it's made by her (with her hands, effort, and pure altruistic intention) to saying it's done out of obligation and that I don't genuinely love her? Wow. Seriously, wow.

*Sighs*

Favorite - (1) one that is treated or regarded with special favor or liking; (2) preferred

Best - (1) excelling all others; (2) excellent

It's possible to like or prefer something that isn't the best.

You're using the fucking dictionary to defend separating best and favorites? You've gotta be kidding me.

THE DICTIONARY?!?!??!

I forgot, the dictionary is a conformist novel written by morons. Real indie people examine the non-existent depth of every word.

Common sense, man. Different words have different meanings.

Otherwise, what's the purpose of language? Our whole fucking communication system is obsolete then.

What's the purpose of having a dictionary?

Why do poets, novelists, journalists, or any writer choose the words they do? You didn't know that?

Look, yes the object (movies) is a subjective arena, but because the object is subjective doesn't mean the words to discuss them have meanings that are useless.

Common sense. Read the dictionary and TELL ME that FAVORITES and BEST are the SAME. It's NO wonder some people make the distinction. What don't you get?

I didn't even want in on this debate after the numberous nights I've spent defending one side or the other on these boards. But I feel compelled to respond to your over literal explanation with an over literal response; In order to excell all others, would you not have to excell beyond all other competitors and/or nominees in your class to a particular stand-point in which no other could deny beyond a reasonable doubt that you most certainly did excell beyond all others?

For example, in a grade-school science class of twenty, if one student were to score an A+ on a test, three others were to score an even A, two others an A-, four were to score in the B range, five in the C range, and another five in the D range, is it arguable that he/she who scored the A+ is, without a reasonable doubt the absolute best of the class. Did he/she not excell all others?

What I am getting at is, in order to be the best, in order to excell all others, you would have to convince each and every single person who had indeed experienced the variable of debate to be the best variable of its class. It's not open to opinion to determine whether something excells all others or not. It either visably does or does not. And if there is no "for-sure" way to grade an assess art, as it is purely subjective, than there are no "best" pieces of art. There is important art, profound art, thoughtful art... All sorts of art. But who is at stake to say that a particular film excells all other films ever made. I sure haven't seen every film ever made. Have you?

I'd say that a great number of members of this community would contest to their death that The Godfather is the greatest film ever made. In my eyes, it's pretty damn good, but I've seen others that I found more enjoyable, emotionally relatable, and more profound in my life and interest in film.

Separating best and favorites is anti-art. People who do it don't approach cinema as an art form, but rather something that should be boxed in, patronized, and judged by some predetermined standards of what's good and what's bad.

Those grades are based on largely (except stuff like essay writing) definite things like math, science, grammar, or facts (e.g., who was the first U.S. president).

With movies, it's subjective, there is no definite standard like 2+4 = 6 or the physics equation to determine power.

So, really, I'm not pushing "best" in an objective/absolute manner because the object of discussion movies doesn't fit that. It's "excelling all others" on opinion.

Exactly my point.

But, you cannot excell all others on opinion. Every opinion is different, so therefor, Taxi Driver doesn't excell all others anymore than 2001: A Space Odyssey. So, on that basis, it doesn't actually excell all others... You just regard Taxi Driver or 2001 with special favor or liking. It is your favorite.

Not acknowledging the difference between two different words is ridiculous. How is acknowledging words' definitions anti-art?

And your rants and reviews about what makes a movie good over at the FCM boards isn't juding films on your predetermined standards?

It's one thing to disagree over art (e.g., you on why Boogie Nights is not a good film). It's totally another thing to disregard definitions.

I think one can. Because when one calls Movie A the best movie he's seen, it's just that...for him...by calling it best, he's not saying the best for everyone as well.

We're at an impasse.

Your argument here is so ridiculous I can barely bring myself to reply. The definition of best and favorite become one in the same when you're talking about art. How can you not realize that? We're talking about an art form here, and you're talking about the fucking dictionary. I can't even believe I'm having this discussion right now. I wish you people would stop trying to box everything in, and let your emotional reactions dictate what's good and what isn't.

But, it does not in my own mind. I can't do much with your response but rephrase the end of my last statement in that to regard something as subjective as art as an all holy masterpiece that excells all others, when others obviously disagree and save the same response for other pieces, would just be to favor it.

An impasse indeed.

It cracks me up seeing all these convoluted, irrational responses to Capo's simple question: What makes (film on "greatest" list) better than (film on "favorites" list)? He's asked the question 100 times, and not a single person has been able to come up with a reasonable response.

"Favorite" and "Best" is used to talk about someone's reaction to a piece of art. It's not defining that art work.

Burn your dictionaries, people. Burn 'em. Words have no meanings when "discussing" art.

My thoughts on "Stalker" - alfjwdl jfjfjfjfi ioejjfijgziw4ew4ef jf

Words and definitions cannot be used to talk about art.

Yeah, because my rationale between 40 YOV and Bringing Up Baby doesn't set forth a thesis. Give me a break.

Those are my thoughts on Stalker too.

People should spend less time talking about art, and more time experiencing it, and creating it too.

Yeah. Kind of like hardcore illegal needle-drugs and cheaply purchased sex.

"Cinema is not the art of scholars, but of illiterates."
- HERZOG

I can talk about Eraserhead all I want, but the best way to sum my thoughts up on it would probably be by jumping off a cliff and flying to the moon.

I think verbal language is more restrictive than productive; in fact it limits us socially more than we could ever know.

So I'd probably go along with your profound insights on Stalker, 24frames.

As another question, if somebody sets out to make the worst film ever made, and you agree with their intentions by responding with, "Jesus, that's the worst film ever made", does it then become the best?

Uh...

what?

No, because people would reward it with good reviews and standing ovations in public theaters, ala Snakes on a Plane.

Separating best and favorites is anti-art.

Uh, no. Pretentiousness like the above is anti-art.

Well said Capo.

24fps, Turnbull and Vercetti,
Even though you say that you are not making a claim of objectivity or universal metric, I would like you to respond specifically to this comment.

This thread is so pompous I want to fucking puke.

Someone stick a fire cracker up DVC's ass...hurry.

By the way, I think I might have mis-read you, but I think you've mis-read me.

I don't like Les carabiniers. Why? Because it's not very good.

Why is it not very good? Because I don't like it.

There's probably a sentence in the middle there that I forgot, such as (for mere example): "As a whole, I do not connect with it on an aesthetic, thematic or formal level; it has its moments here and there, but its lasting impact on me is lacking."

And as to why that is the case, or what those moments were, read my review of it again.

On a sidenote (though one which bears at least some relevance); has anybody ever looked up a word in the dictionary, and found themselves having to flick back and forth to define other words, and other words further still?

No, it's my way of thinking. If there was a set list of films I thought I was supposed to like, I wouldn't piss on any film that had overall positive reviews. My best list would simply be a copy/paste of AFI or IMDB.

The problem is Capo is viewing something from our mind through his train of thought, and that is why this never fucking dies. I acknowledge that I enjoy some films for reasons that have nothing to do with what I consider great. Goodfellas might be up there because living in a heavy Italian family I could see a lot of similarities outside of crime I relate too, and thats a big part of it. It has nothing to do with the movie's greatness. Entertainment is separate. If a film about a pregnate woman is made, I mgiht think it's great, but it might not be nearly as entertaining to me purely for it's subject matter. So this in itself is a bad movie just because the subject matter doesn't appeal to me? Give me a break. You think the way you think, let me think the way I think. I'm tired of everything completely over analyzed on these boards.

I don't actually see it as a problem, I see it as a potential for bringing myself closer to my own convictions, or a chance to migrate to somebody else's. Don't forget that I used to take pride in compiling two separate lists. I've not been stubborn from the start. I'm still not. I guess I am perhaps trying to persuade people to take steps back from their assumptions, because I see in them a great limitation on the possibilities to enjoy so many films.

But perhaps "enjoyment" shouldn't come into it when valuing "greatness"...

That has to be one of the most tragic things I have ever read. But it says so much about how melancholy, morose, depressed and generally wasted our generation looks likely to become. Because they're never going to be happy with themselves; they're going to keep on looking down upon their own tastes and values. What a whole lot of good that's going to do for self-pride.

Actually, this is genuinely interesting, because it implies that the problem isn't between great and entertaining, or best and favourite, but between form and meaning, or form and content, whatever.

Like best and favourites, I have problems seeing a difference between form and meaning. My appreciation of an apple includes the skin and the core; both are at a loss without the other.

But if you're sick and tired of over-analysing things, and if I believe that you can never over-analyse Art, or our analyses of Art, then I guess we're on completely different wavelengths; and I have perhaps been incredibly naive in thinking people were in for the love of it.

I addressed it in an earlier post. No, for me it doesn't. I can't say the same about everyone else.

I have plenty of self-pride. I have no sad feelings towards my opinions in films. Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant?

I don't so much think I misunderstood you as I misunderstand you.

Anybody else find it ironic that we are all using words here to effectively stress our failures in communication?

So much for language.

You fucking baffle me Vercetti. You have two personalities; one that allows you to make intelligent observations and provide meaningful insight about things, and another that makes you act like an inconsequential retard and post baseless, unfounded bullshit like this.

I agree. The list I posted is my favorite list, not the greatest movies ever made

Wow Vercetti, we actually agree

Good God, has this been going on all along and I just never noticed over the past three and half years? This debate over Best vs. Favorite? This is such a funny debate to me. I especially love all you word-smiths out there and how you use the English language to make points.

I'm probably just adding to the chaos here by stating my point and probably not making a NEW point, but I feel Best and Favorite are one and the same.

If I were to say The Blues Brothers was my favorite move of all time, wouldn't I also consider that to be the best? I mean if there was some "Almighty God of the Best of the Best" that sat around and TOLD us what was best and we couldn't argue or we'd be hit by a bolt of lightning then I would say FINE! But to me in order to say what your 'favorite' or your 'best' movies are takes some personal opinion. If they are both a matter of opinion then to me they are one and the same.

Maybe I should just post my movie list:

Blibbleblabble's official Favorite/Best movie list:

1. The Blues Brothers
2. The Unforgiven
3. SLC Punk
4. Back to the Future Trilogy
5. Pulp Fiction
6. Saving Private Ryan
7. Serenity
8. Lord of the Rings Trilogy
9. Braveheart
10 Eternal Sunshine of the Soptless Mind

I really, really, like the Muppet Movie(seriously). Ya know, Kermit, Ms. Piggy, Gonzo, Fozzie the Bear(whacka whacka whacka ) I would MUCH rather watch The Muppet Movie than Citizen Kane. But am I going to argue that The Muppet Movie is greater/better than Citizen Kane? Of course not.

I like hearing Bob Dylan sing waaaay more than Luciano Pavarotti*. But I'm not going to try and argue that Dylan has a better voice than Luciano just b/c I personally would rather hear him sing.



Point being.....There is a technical science to both music and movies that has to be considered. Singers who have better pitch, tone, harmony, rhythm, etc, etc are said to have better voices. Films which are better looking, have better themes, have better execution, better direction, better acting, etc are going to be considered better films. There IS a science to it. Just b/c someone personally likes watching porn and listening to Roseanne Barr sing the national anthem does not mean that they have any logical argument in saying that pornos are the best movies and Roseanne is the best singer.

*Edit--Actually, I love Pavarotti, but you get the point.

Hey I agree with you on THIS point. In fact, I should probably modify my list so that Muppets from Space is somewhere in the top ten because it is also one of my favorites/best.

I don't consider what I said retarded, I consider a pointless generalization like yours retarded. You used to have two lists, now that you changed all of a sudden you're above it and it's ANTI ART!111 to use two lists. That's pretentious to me.

All you're bringing to this debate at all is your impugning opinions of how something is "so ridiculous." Capo is at least making a point.

People seem to be underrating entertainmment, or personal pleasure, here, and I really don't know why. For those of you tired of this debate, I'm talking specifically to Ice, here, though if you want to inject some flavour, feel free.

I think, Ice (and others), you're approaching Art or Film as if everybody should have the same intentions when creating something. As if in order for something to become truly valuable and everlasting and universal it must cater to a certain, set and specific value that has always been around. Tastes and judgements are formed (or realised) after the event, not before it. But there's a disgusting prejudice which diseases Art that says, "This is noteworthy, but this will never be." It's often seen in casual dismissals of comedies but emphatic praise for tragedies. It's slowly disappearing, but there are ugly remnants that still pop up, and they're as conservative as ever. They are probably at their highest peak in history when you look at Literature, and the literary canon; a lot of that has to do with who had access to books, and therefore education. Who could be taught (who could read) and hence who could teach. It's a knock-on effect of conservatism, and it's still around, in some cases worse than ever (in the light of high-culture being out-dated), especially in academic circles.

I don't really like audience studies that much, but the truth of it is, especially in an industrialised, commercial commodity such as Hollywood, films cater towards different ages, cultures, tastes and values. They are made with an audience in mind.

The Muppet Movie might have been made for six-year-olds, and you happen to like it. Nothing wrong with that. But it seems that your enthusiasm for it, your willingness to watch it again, means that it has won you over, it has succeeded - perhaps exceeded - in its intentions in satisfying your demands. Citizen Kane for whatever reason (you haven't given any) doesn't do that; it has failed to communicate to you, you have consciously chosen to reject it, there is a failure of engagement there. Not necessarily a complete failure, just a comparative one next to Muppets.

I find both voices entirely appropriate to the lyrics they sing. The form is entirely suitable to the meaning both invoke, and both can bring and have brought me to tears. So in one sense, it's a bad example because we both like both of them, but say, I didn't like Pavarotti's singing; the reason why I didn't would be because it didn't hit my heart, it seemed to go in my ears but failed to go anywhere else. It does nothing for me, let's pretend, and Dylan's does. "Nessa Dorma" I appreciate, let's pretend, with complete indifference. How then, am I supposed to go about defining how his voice is better than Dylan's? It might reach tones and pitches that Dylan's never could, but "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll" never was supposed to be sung in Italian Opera. Don't you see the contradiction there? Dylan wrote and sings his songs not within the limits of his own voice, but within the potential of his own voice.

I think it's incredibly limiting, reductive and even dangerous to expect anything from films other than personal satisfaction. Or even excellence, for those who see the two as the same thing (like me). There's still an awful lot of room for negotiation there; people might think it's a narrow-minded view, but I like all kinds of films, and the more I see the more I want to see, it's like an obsessive quest to meet the most people, to make the most friends (because films are mirrors of yourself, of people, of possible friends or interesting strangers, but that's for an entire different thread altogether, perhaps).

If you dive into Art with pre-defined assumptions of authorial intent, whereby films have to adapt to your meaning of excellence, instead of you having to adapt to their way of meaning, then your favourites are forever going to be overshadowed by unconscious conservatism.

People always bring up pornography in Art debates, and I don't know why; to me it's a commercial commodity in itself, and a very successful one. There might be room within its own industry for certain leading figures or favourite directors or whatnot (probably more to do with the stars, really), but if you're wanting something "deep" (by deep I mean your own definition) from something intending to give you a hard-on, you're missing the entire point of it. Pornography manipulates its audience by prostituting itself to audience demands. You might be able to use "Hollywood" there instead of Pornography, but that's something else.

You've surely got to take into account extra-textual aspects, though. Aspects such as what the author put in, what the author wanted to be brought out, what was intended, what you wish to be intended, what you want, and if you're in the mood to want it.

What you wish to be intended from a text shouldn't be narrow and pre-defined, but open and embracing.

When I'm in the mood I might jerk off to some pornographic video and then watch Eraserhead straight after it. Both satisfy my needs, both are very very deep, of substance. Because to restrict depth or substance to thematic relevance to the moral upkeep of the world is, I think, something which makes the existence of Art essential. Art is beyond any moral solutions; in fact surely it should create problems, in the form of subversion, transcendence, and questioning by means of varying schema, to shed new light on established order, to slant out perceptions this way or that. If you have a concrete, solidified meaning of depth to be universal relevance, you're never going to be fully appreciative of certain texts. That's why a lot of people dismiss form unfairly; and they shouldn't, because form is the means by which we engage with meaning or content. I don't like criticisms of Kill Bill which say, "It's all style over content". That's ridiculous; Tarantino concentrates on form, it's his most charismatic and recognisable ideology, and so why should we judge it and criticise him for a lack of something beneath that surface? Why can't stylebe deep in its own right? Style speaks to the senses in a much more abstract way than meaning; because we comprehend meaning through words, words form meaning, but in translating that meaning back into words, we're giving it a new context altogether, a new style in which it can exist.

What, for instance, would be a "better theme" to you? In his book Hollywood Cinema, Richard Maltby argues that Hollywood should not be judged by conventional artistic worth, but, because it is an industry designed to make profit, should be approached as so. He says, for example: "Thematically, Singin' in the Rain is banal, but its self-reflective playfulness also makes it a complex aesthetic object."

I'm not saying you'll disagree with that, but I'm trying to highlight the absurdity of a "science" to appreciation. There's a subjectivity to it, a personal perception, a focalised value, but not an all-encompassing logic. There is a tendency, perhaps, to lean towards conservative means of what is good or not good, but hardly an external science.

I think it is possible to find the masterpiece that lies in every single film ever made. You need to adapt to its approach, its way of speaking to you, and what it has to say. Films shouldn't have to adapt to us, to our way of thinking; films can't do anything but exist, but be there. If an aesteroid wiped out humanity today, there'd be reels of films still existing in steel cans. They're concrete, and our perceptions and receptions of them are completely plastic. I can get along with people if I adapt to them; but what gives me the right to judge whether or not they're a good person, though? The only thing I have to go by is how much I like them, or get one with them. Getting on with somebody is all about embracing their faults or overlooking their faults, and extracting the good from them. The same goes to film criticism too. Somebody who's influenced me very much on the Film boards, said that there is never "badness" in films, just an absence of "goodness", and we must seek to negotiate (personally satisfying) meaning from it whenever we can.

Returning to depth and substance and what it means to be "good"... Persona is very deep to me because it speaks to me on so many levels, which at my own discretion I assume is what Bergman intended (due to the nature of his other films and the recurring preoccupations within them). But pornography is also deep to me because it does exactly what (again, I assume) it intended to do, to get my penis hard and to make me excited enough to masturbate and finally ejaculate.

I've meandered about a bit there, but I would genuinely like to know what everybody else thinks about that. Hopefully I've hit upon some points that give you enough to talk about.

This is a great debate, it is an age old one that continues to this day.

The voice example is not a very good point for your side though. There are certain standards that qualify one voice over another, just the same way there are certain standards that qualify one athlete over another. Just b/c I think you are a better quarterback than Peyton Manning does not make it so. There are SPECIFICALLY DEFINED attributes of a voice that excel it over others, just like there are specifically defined attributes that excel one athlete over another. Some voices can do waaaaay more than others, just like some athlete's legs/arms can do waaaay more than others.

However......I must admit that with movies I tend to agree w/ your side more and more. I might find certain themes in The Muppet Movie more worthy than that of Citizen Kane. Therefore, to me, it's a better movie. And who's to say that I can't decide the acting in one movie is better than another? Atter all, this is art, not organic chemistry.

Beauty IS in the eye of the be-holder. Hmmmmmm.....

EDIT-BTW- The Muppet Movie was NOT made just for 6 yr olds. Like most kid's movies it's themes apply to the adult world. The movie co starred peeps like Bob Hope, Mel Brooks, Steve Martin, Richard Pryor, Elliott Gould, Milton Berle, Telly Savalas, and Orson Welles. Did you read my thread about the Wizard of Oz representing a parable on populism? (Here)Often stories that we take as being strictly for children actually represent adult world themes.

If there were "specifically defined" attributes, or a "science" behind such grading, how the hell is it an age-old debate? If there's a way of grading it scientifically or mathematically, then I'm defeated; I'm out; it's no longer an Art form; and I shall leave highly disappointed.

Athletes perform for the sole reason of winning, for succeeding; they are judged by how many medals they are winning/have won.

Singers shouldn't compete to see who can perform the widest range of vocal pitches; they should be entirely invested in evoking the emotion suitable from what they are singing.

So you're agreeing with me about the whole Best/Favourites thing?

I said it might be. I was speaking hypothetically. Its makers made it with kids in mind. They didn't make aesthetic choices based on how an elderly old African man might respond to it.

The Wizard of Oz might or might not be a "parable on populism". That's an interpretation, and one which somebody has made the conscious decision to extract or form or construct.

What themes don't? Themes are common denominators which bind human beings.

People talk about themes as if they're only for the privileged, the educated, the elite. And because of that, for adults. There's nothing cinematic about a theme. Themes develop from anything; they're self-contained tumours that sprout when we wish to find them. Thematic fabrics are very much as much a product of audience interpretation as authorial intention.

You've skirted over many of the other points I brought up.

It can still be art, but there are certain parameters and qualifications that define good art that have been declared and passed down by the generations. These parameters do however change, and a good artist will continue to re-define them and offer their own interpretations of them.


Ya, sort of, keep reading.



There are plenty of kids movies that intend only to teach kids about not taking money from strangers. The Muppet Movie on the other hand is an adult movie that happens to have imaginary characters that appeal specifically to children.



Again, not all 'kids movies' have themes that apply to ppl over the age of 10. Not ALL themes are universal, some themes of life are only relevant to someone who is in their teens. Or, some themes are only relevant to someone in their last yrs of life. Not every theme is a common denominator b/c different themes can apply to different ppl in different situations. You may encounter a theme that brings zero relevance to you personally, but may at the same time change my life.<----This is why I sort of agree w/ you about the whole best/favorites things.





Again, I somewhat agree w/ you about the whole best/favorites thing. But like most things in life, my awnser is gray.

I DO however think there are certain films that should be considered universal masterpieces by all. Such as, Citizen Kane(for example) even though I personally don't really enjoy it. B/c as I said earlier....'there are certain parameters and qualifications that define good art that have been declared and passed down by the generations.' You(Capo) don't agree w/ this, and that's where we might differ. You are saying that there are no set guidelines or qualifications that make good art. Well, of course you are not completely right or wrong in that assertion.

But my recurring point, which nobody has yet even acknowledged, is what "certain parameters and qualifications" does Citizen Kane account for?

This seems to be a contradiction. So basically, we're told and brought up to "know" what good and bad Art should be, but the basis for that knowledge can change?

What do you think about my argument that we should adapt to excellence on the film's individual and intrinsic terms, and not expect films to adapt to ours? We shouldn't be narrow and specific and elitist as to what makes a good film.

I would awnser yes to both bolded questions. Might I say that the second one is beautifully put. We most certainly should adapt to excellence on the film's individual and intrinsic terms, and not expect films to adapt to ours.

Im thinking this right now.....

We KNOW that child molestation is bad. We can't prove it though. We can't prove what great art is, but we as an art community do have some standards. Usually these standards are what comes natural to our feelings and emotions.

Take Woody Allen. He is great, right? He was funny(i.e witty and logical) and was hugely popular B/C his art offered interpretations of everyday, real life situations. Now to me, that is great. Someone might disagree,(and that is there right b/c there is no truth to anything, LIFE/ART IS AMBIGUOUS)but we as a art community just KNOW that Woody was a great artist, Mona Lisa is a great painting, and Casa Blanca is a great movie.

Any mathematician will tell you the universe is infinite. They can't prove it, they just have faith. Mathematicians have discovered that numbers eventually drop off into sheer chaos. Well, ideas are as infinite and chaotic as Math. So...there is no definition of greatness, b/c there is not really a defining term for ANYTHING. To me there is ABSOLUTELY NO REAL TRUTH in the world, except that, I know child molestation is bad. So...there seems to be some resemblance of truth after all. And if there is resemblance of truth/absolutes then that means there can be truth/absolutes in art. But...ideas and the universe are simply infinite, right? I mean, the universe doesn't just stop. You can always keep going. So....in my opinion here in lies the greatest question of man, is there a God. Is there any other way to explain the sheer infiniteness of free thought and ideas yet also explain something as restricted and confined as child molestation? I kind of think there is a God since we know that child molestation is bad, I mean we KNOW it's bad, but we can't prove it. We just believe it. We also KNOW Woody Allen is a great artist.* We just know it, but we can't prove it. We just believe it.

*(But I'm not going to take that definition of greatness and use it to measure every other comedian that comes along.)


EDIT--WHEW!!! I'll have to take a recess after this one!!!

Not to hijack this thread w/ my own personal blatherings but I think I have finally gathered my thoughts on this one.

SCENARIO 1

Favorite films are NOT best films b/c no one can say that Rocky V is better than Citizen Kane. If they do then they lack a certain maturity, experience, and wisdom that comes with experience in life. My 14 yr old brother may honestly feel that some crap pop teen movie is waaay better than Casa Blanca but we have to consider the source.

SCENARIO 2

Favorite films ARE best films b/c once we as an art society decide what constitutes good art(honest, educated, experienced, etc)at that point defining greatness any furthur or establishing lists that rank greateness becomes strictly subjective to who is making the list. EXAMPLE--Casa Blanca and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. Two movies that always make the film critic's top 50. I love them both, but for me, SBSB is better b/c of the music and dancing. It adds a certain something to my experience that CB does not have. I would also take another musical like Singin in the Rain over CB even though I love them both. But....I can't argue w/ someone who thinks Casa Blanca is greater, they are both accepted as great films.

**************************

So....I think as long as the art and the art critic are both educated, experienced, and honest with themselves, the art potentially becomes great. Therefore, if we establish certain guidelines about what has potential to be great(CasaBlanca, Kill Bill, Citizen Kane) and what doesn't have potential to be great b/c it lacks original or in-depth and educated thought(Rocky V, Michael Bay movies), then at that point, personal favorite movies and greatest movies become one in the same. Distinguishing rankings of greatness for 'collectively accepted' great movies like Godfather, Casa Blanca, Citizen Kane, Kill Bill, Goodfellas, etc, becomes subject to the personal opinions of each educated and honest art critic.

Sounds like an interesting argument by Maltby. I haven't read the book, but I have a few questions.

The same shall apply to Scorsese, Tarantino, and PTA who are financed by and make their movies within the Hollywood studio industry? The same shall apply to Hitchcock, Ford, Hawks, Walsh, Coppola, Altman, Soderbergh, Wes Anderson, Sofia Coppola, Woody? We shouldn't judge or appreciate these works by conventional artistic worth? I mean even unabashed money makers like Cameron and Bruckheimer can still be evaluated for their films' aesthetics - do they continue or break filmmaking practice, form, etc.? Interviews and commentaries by both show they make artistic decisions, which are of the same concern of Scorsese and his "ilk."

I'm not sure what Maltby's point is (of course I haven't read his book, so I don't know) with Singing In The Rain. Is it that Hollywood is driven by profit so they make movies that aren't challenging but dumbed-down to appeal to as many as possible?

The thing is, though, putting a barrier up against your emotions creates that best/favourite disctinction. One is decided by personal emotional response, the other is...well, I still don't know how people are defining "best" because nobody has attempted beyond what the dictionary tells them. They're taking it for granted without questioning what it might actually mean.

Don't forget too that you're dealing with child molestation from the viewpoint of how you have been brought up. Regardless of good, moral intentions of the people nurturing us, we are conditioned into that moral assumption. Molestation might be the most selfish, honest thing somebody could ever do. I don't ever feel the need to molest a child, because I've been conditioned into that moral reckoning which frowns upon it. That's the culture and times I live in, have been brought up in.

But we're mixing metaphors or at least concepts here. I made a point earlier that Art is beyond morals. You're talking about molestation as good and bad, but what you mean is morally right and wrong; Cinema or Art shouldn't be restricted or regulated by means of moral reckoning... how else would it be honest, personal, expressive?

I think he is. Somebody else might not. Humour's always hit-and-miss anyway. A lot of people love certain TV shows for their humour, and I watch and just fail to understand it.

When an artist unburdens himself of the idea in his head, it's like a contagious disease which is passed onto us. He's made himself naked and is allowing his disease to roam freely. In order to get the fullest potential out of that disease, that idea, we also have to become fully naked, and assume the same vulnerability and sense of emotional honesty. There's nothing more convincing than an honest criticism. Somebody on the film boards slammed The Godfather Part II and his reasons were critic-proof in themselves, because how can you ever dismiss personal responses?

Why not? If somebody wants to see a boxing film, a triumph over adversity narrative, a Sylvester Stallone film, chances are they're going to be disappointed by Citizen Kane. Welles' film isn't going to speak to them one bit; it has failed to engage them, there is a failure in understanding, in connection.

I think Home Alone is a much better film than Gone With the Wind, because Home Alone is meant to be enjoyed as a Christmassy, family action film, and I enjoy it as a Christmassy, family action film; Gone With the Wind tries to seduce with spectacle and give me a lesson in the history or narrative of the Civil War - I don't think it fulfills its potential with that. I can relate to the masterpiece in Home Alone, but cannot relate to the masterpiece in Gone With the Wind... whereas some people miss the masterpiece in Home Alone but find the masterpiece in Gone With the Wind very attractive indeed.

Accepted by whom? A collective establishment? A social hierarchy? A canon?

I'd rephrase what you said, and say this:
"I can't argue with someone who thinks Casablanca is a better film because their response can be nothing but honest."

(Ideally, speaking, of course.)

They have, I like to think, made themselves naked in order to catch the disease, the masterpiece inside of the film, but they didn't catch it; it wasn't for them, they were immune to its genes, and failed to connect with it, to understand it, etc.

I think every text has a potential. I think a film I can't stand (it's very rare that I hate a film, and I can't really think of one now) has unfulfilled potential, but it's unfulfilled because I haven't drank the glass that it was in; or perhaps I have drank it, but didn't like the taste, so spitted it back out into the glass. Either way, it's a full glass, waiting to be drank by somebody else. And somebody else comes along, drinks it, and loves the taste, they want more of the same, please, and so that film has found its full potential.

Sorry 24fps, I should have been so specific.

Maltby is talking about the vertically integrated system, whereby studios basically ran everything from production to distribution to exhibition; it was an industry designed to make profit by having people buy not so much a ticket to the film, but to buy time (leisure), the attendance in the theatre (social pleasure) and the film projection equipment (resulting in spectacle or aesthetic/emotional pleasure). He's talking of the era where the producer controlled things, and the job of the director was simply to translate the (marketable) script from page into moving images.

Hollywood has completely changed now due to the US Supreme Court ruling 1948 that the major studios had an illegal moonopoly over the industry; producers these days simply finance more than anything, with the creative input coming from (first, commonly) the scriptwriter, then focalised through the individual expression of the director.

It's a great read, I recommend it; it's allowing me to appreciate Hollywood films I would have otherwise neglected, on their own terms. Saying that, I find it fascinating and exciting to watch the likes of Public Enemy the other day in the context of the self-regulated production code and the star system, and yet find very little in it. I'm trying to overcome the prejudice I'm placing against such films though, because I'm looking for something that perhaps wasn't intended... that is, individual, personal, artistic expression.* I'm having to try hard to adapt to the film's proposition of excellence, but with a little more reading and studying, it will become more natural, and I shall open up a lot more and embrace a lot more films with open arms.

Not that I dislike Hollywood "because it's mainstream" or anything. On the contrary; I don't even dislike Hollywood; I find it either largely neglected and overlooked, or worshipped on a level which it doesn't deserve. But I don't want to get into that.

* I also find it fascinating to watch or see films from directors from the studio system who were hired on a regular basis for what producers wanted to be the main features of that year or the best or most profitable films. Michael Curtiz, for example, who might have had very little thematic input, but it's interesting to see an in-demand "craftsman" use his tools to create recurring rhythms, motifs, images, contexts, meanings, etc. And there are, of course, exceptions to the rule; Hitchcock, for instance, was never going to be anything but an artist in the sense of having control over his own expression.

I'm getting off-topic, perhaps, but hopefully it is of interest.

Very well posted Turnbull! Took the words right out of my mouth!

Hawks, Ford, Walsh, Preminger, Lubitsch, Lang and lesser known directors were personal artists within that system described by Maltby. They are as much "Hollywood Cinema" as the guns-for-hire.



Not true. There are still powerful producers who shape a film considerably (as much as or sometimes more than the director) - producers like Harvey Weinstein and even in the "indie" world, Christine Vachon.

Not all directors working in Hollywood have final cut power or total power in casting decisions. Some argue that it's still a producer industry. But like back in the day (the time Maltby seems to be focusing on), we have our Tarantinos, Andersons, Soderberghs, etc.

Addendum:

I appreciate the time and effort it took summarize the book.

No problem.

Have you been reading the other posts, too? And has your stance changed at all?

What are your thoughts on my response(s) to that quote, though? The argument has developed quite a bit since that post. I've expanded on several points. Would you like to consider them?

(By no means feel obliged).

Coming back to this; sorry:

Definitely. But let's not forget that some, especially Lang, were well-established directors before they went to America. I was talking about lesser-known directors, though, who are perhaps overlooked because the films they were hired to direct were so conventional or standard.

But there's definitely been a visible change, you'd agree? I'm not talking in absolutes here; it's a trend that film historians have widely noted.

True but Ford, Hawks, Walsh, etc. were all prolific taking on B-assignments from the studios - learning the craft of filmmaking for years before their regarded artistic breakthroughs. So many like Lang were well-established.



No, I don't think much has changed other than the fact that it's a freelance business as opposed to directors, writers, crew, and actors under contract. Some stars sign contracts with studios today, but that is not the norm. Other than that, I know working screenwriters and producers who say the producer is strong now as was then.

One can't help but notice director interviews and dozens of accounts of studio/producer meddling today. One can't help but notice director-cut DVDs today (though no doubt a healthy percentage of that is just to get people to double or triple dip on DVDs).

Per my stance on everyone's favorite two words. No, my stance hasn't changed. My rationale sketched b/w 40 YOV and Bringing is reasonable, methinks. Anyone can disagree, but I'm disappointed some can just outright dismiss it - one can disagree and still understand the other's stance ("Okay, I see. I disagree, fair enough.")

Really, I'm not the only one in the world who thinks that way. Crtics/reviewers often say, "So-and-so has made better ones, but this is my favorite" (not those exact words but the same idea).

Sports fans, too. No doubt fubol fans have a favorite player that isn't the best on the team. I think it's pretty safe to say that Michael Jordan was the best basketball player on the Chicago Bulls, but fans wear Pippen jerseys and cheered for Judd Buechler. Fan favorites get thunderous applause eventhough they're bench warmers and enter the game in the last 2 minutes or so.

Jasmine Trias was many people's favorite on American Idol she moved on while far better singers were eliminated (anyone who is not tone deaf could tell).

And yes, these examples are subjective like movies. I don't see what's the big deal.

I favor some Asian-American films because of their stories and the fact that I'm an ethnic minority so I can relate to the cultural/generational issues, but they have terrible acting, terrible lighting, are didactic, etc. I'm not gonna say they're some of the best movies ever made.

But you're still not addressing the fact that films are catered for different people, are made for different reasons, and that we need to assume and adapt to that catering. A film shouldn't have to be filtered through our pre-defined assumptions and expectations. It's often natural to feel disappointed or pleasantly surprised with a film, but it's dangerous to approach it with an overly concrete and very stubborn opinion as to what it should give in order to be great.

Why is entertainment value or personal pleasure being belittled here, why should greatness overshadow it? Doesn't enjoyment account for anything?

Perhaps your Asian-American films were made in order to be enjoyed by Asian-Americans. If you enjoy them, they have fulfilled their intention, their promise, their potential. Why shouldn't they be critically acclaimed, then? Why should they be critically dismissed for not being something they never intended to be?

I originally replied to the Jordan reference, but frankly, I think peripheral metaphors disguise actual potential for head-on logic.

You're assuming because I have those 3 criteria for a film on a best list that I have those criteria in mind prior to and while watching a film for even the first time. I never ever said that. And, for the record, I don't do that.

Whenever I apply those three criteria (which I have every right to do because it is my way of including thought into my engagement with movies along with emotions and feelings), it is after I have watched the movie or after several viewings.

For one, emotional reaction isn't the only reaction to film. Everyone knows that we also can engage things and people through intelligence and thought, as well.



You're assuming again. I cherish and I value those films I consider favorites far above those that I think are some of the best cinema has to offer.



They can be. I'm not saying they can't.

I don't see what the point is anymore with continuing this discussion. I've layed out my piece. Respectfully I ask, what's your purpose?

There has been an exchange of ideas. I've learned something, you've learned something. I think I've been clear on my stance as have you.

What, these criteria?

1) storytelling/narrative
2) acting
3) art and craft (image/sound) - expression, decoration, pictorialism

Fair enough; but you're not telling me how those three are graded, and how you distinguish by an enjoyable aspect and a great one. To me, I don't see much if any room in your approach for personal connection; you said as much with the Asian-American example. In order to think a film has GREAT "storytelling/narrative" technique, you must be connecting with it somehow. If you're not, tell me the formula by which you're measuring it exclusive from your personal enjoyment.

You're rejecting my assumptions but you're not offering any logical alternative. You're evading my points but disguising any reasoning or rationale in your own.


I am moved by intellect; I think intellectual engagement is an emotive process. Perhaps that is the core of where we differ. I find moving beauty in Eraserhead's sound design, say, and you might merely find "technical excellence" in it. (For example.)

Again, I have trouble differentiating between films that move me and films that intellectually engage me; "technical excellence" stirs me very much. That's why I sigh at reviews that say, "Technically, very good, but with little emotion." Especially since I count emotional drive of a narrative as a "technicality" alongside visual composition... because emotional drive often stems from visual composition, for me.



But say if they were critically acclaimed; why critically acclaimed. Why would that be? Because somebody emotionally (that is personally) connected with their technical excellence. Again, I mean technical excellence to encompass emotional core or drive.

Again, if the Asian-American films are just trying to help Asian-Americans connect with their own background or culture, and they do that with you, haven't they accomplished success on their own terms? How haven't they? And if they have, why shouldn't be classed as good films?

I'll also ask another question that I asked before but nobody answered. If there was a movement formed that consciously wished to make shit films, shit in the form of "technical execution" and there was an ideology about it, would they forever be destined for critical failure?

I emboldened those because I'd like you to answer them.

How tragic. I find the discussion fascinating, often frustration, but never dead.

The recurring conclusion from this post, though, seems to offer a summary of our different approaches: you separate emotional connection from technical excellence. You have one for main meal that keeps you alive, and then a dessert that brings sweetness to your tongue. I, on the other hand, like to devour the whole thing and take pleasure in the thing that keeps me alive.

That might come across as patronising or condescending, but I do not mean it to be. Interpret it as I have intended; adapt to the author's intentions. I think there is some truth in it.

I'll also ask again, since you didn't answer me the first time round, what your lists would be. I am genuinely interested in seeing them, outside of this debate.

I didn't write a definitive essay. Primarily with those criteria, I'm thinking about what I find to be the most exceptional, exciting, whatever, etc. (it's unlimited) - arrived at by assessing my total reaction (mind, body, soul, and whatever encompasses us as human beings). I'm sure you would define a film's narrative differently than I would like how people argue over what is plot and story and if there are, if any, differences. So we'd only be going back-and-forth.



I did say that I engage with a film in more ways than emotional reaction (i.e.; mind, body, soul). They are not mutually exclusive. I never said they were, ever. You ASSUMED. There you go again taking the favorite/best dichotomy to be of a subjective/objective dichotomy (or rather I should say, in the form of a emotional-personal/intellectual dichotomy; or better put - personal/impersonal or attached/cold-distanced dichotomy) - I've already addressed this before. You know, by writing on a virtual message board; not intending for my stance to be communicated as a thorough and definitve essay; and using examples about the "how" of films, I can see why you assumed. I address more further down.



I have no formula. I never did say I had one. And how dare you assume that I don't connect with it somehow. It's my opinion; my mind-body-soul reaction according to me only...not what a critic or filmmaker says. ME...how is that not connecting?



I think I did. I Control-F'd the following words on all three pages of the thread: assume, assumed, assuming. And all the instances in which I used those words, I feel I wrote enough to refute you or backup what I was saying. No logical alternative was needed...I felt.



Thanks for assuming. Again, you think my three criteria is solely an exercise using my intelligence and thought. I already addressed this above. And forgive me for not writing a definitive essay on my three criteria. I do take into account my reaction to the story, the characters, etc. (the what). I can see how what I wrote makes it seem that "the how" only mattered. No, it's not the only thing; I take into account: what, how, when, where, why, etc. (both within the story world and the whole film work).



Again. I don't separate them. Reactions of the mind-body-soul all intermingle.



No, I disagree. Someone can react emotionally to mainly the story (I've had actual people tell me so when discussing a movie; and I've felt that way numerous times, as well - are you gonna tell us we're wrong?). Because they reacted to the story doesn't mean they reacted favorably to how it was lit or staged or cut.



I never said they weren't good films. I said they were favorites, but I don't think they belonged on MY best list. It's possible for someone to think something is good despite some stuff lacking - it's just that: good not the best. M'kay? Gosh, you assume and put words in my mouth constantly.



Honestly, I don't remember that question being broached. Anyway, it possibly can be viewed as a critical failure; I say, "no," on "forever be destined." Godard's political essayistic films have an ideology about them and some people think some of them aren't good works (whatever that means to them; no, don't ask me but what do they mean by, "not a good work"). It's still up to the audience to decide for themselves whether or not they feel something works. And just to be clear, no, I'm not saying:

Godard's political essay films = shit technical execution

Also, I agree with you about meeting a film halfway and/or viewing the film on its own terms. However, still doing so, an individual can still think the work is lacking or whatever. After all, it is their opinion and the audience is a part of the film viewing act. And to think about it, the spectator can only guess or, at best, take the filmmaker's word as honest, on what the filmmaker's intentions were. We can only do our best to meet it halfway or view it on its own terms - our opinion becomes a more informed one by considering filmmakers' intentions. Someone can still think a work is lacking or whatever.



Notice I haven't questioned your stance, if at all, in my last two posts. I'm only answering questions posed by you attacking my stance. I've accepted the fact that you think favorites and best are one and the same; and I don't. Can you?



Again, assuming; putting words in my mouth. I don't separate them. My emotional connection/reaction (because it is a part of the body-mind-soul) to "Bringing Up Baby" plays a significant role in me saying it's the best comedy TO ME.



I don't know what you think my "main meal" and "dessert" are/what they refer to. And, when you say "devour the whole thing," "whole thing" is what? - a meal and dessert?

I honestly see no difference between what I do with lists (i.e., thinking about movies) and what you and your FCM friends do over there - ya know, the thinking about movies (star ratings; yearly top-tens) and directors (ranking their films); ya know, all the discussions, ratings, rankings, rants, philosophizing over at the FCM boards. I know, I lurk.

Honestly, what's wrong with enjoying film and then, in addition, thinking more about the artform (using mind-body-soul)? If what I do is ridiculous, then what Maltby and other historians, scholars, theorists, etc. do (think about movies; ask questions and try to answer them) are ridiculous.

To me, there is a difference between A) film reviewer/critic (more review and evaluation with a pinch of critique) and B) a scholar, historian, theorist, or critic (not reviewer, but critic).

And yes, the roles can/may/do bleed into one another, but some people are decidely more than another in their respective works (i.e., Critic McCritic can write film reviews for a paper and for a book do a critical analysis of Welles' mise-en-scene, and in another book do a fine-scoped history of experimental cinema in New York in the years 1962-1965).

Please don't turn this into another "favorites" and "best" thing - i.e., how can a critic not be a reviewer or a historian not a critic, or a scholar not a reviewer, etc. There are countless discussions between those people in newspapers, magazines, journals, papers, conferences, books, etc.

The majority's approach to movies is mainly "A," IN MY OPINION. Me? I'm a movie fan with interest in both. My "favorite" I think falls in line with "A;" my "best" falls in line with a mixture of "A" & "B" (a mixture; not exclusively B). I also, have lists where it's largely an intellectual/critical enterprise (of which, my "best films" list is not). Film scholars/historians do it - and there are bits of evaluative comments thrown in of course, but through critical/intellectual rigor (an informed opinion with "evidence" or reasons). Yes, I go on my pseudo-scholarly projects for fun and earnest curiosity and passion (to better connect with movies and understand them).

And seriously, if one doesn't see a difference between A & B, then that individual hasn't read an insightful scholarly, academic, historian, or theoretical work yet and has just been exposed to Ebert and Time Out and others in that vein...or...think that the Ebert/Time Out Guide/others in that vein way is THE way to engage with cinema.

And there's nothing wrong with an engagement with movies through intelligence and critical and/or investigative thought irregardless of personal or emotional or physical connection. Film scholars/historians do it. Do you disagree with that? I'd hate to think that a scholarly work on the Occupation-era Japanese cinema (industry, social/political environment, technology, exhibition, distribution, styles, genres, films, filmmakers....and passages on the major,seminal, or influential works in that era) is that scholar's largely personal/emotional connection and reaction.

Such intellectual/critical enterprises can lead to a better connection (of mind-body-soul) to movies or appreciation.



No, I won't (but I will say there are differences and some appear on both) because you said (in fairness, it was said to Vercetti, not to me):



So, you ask for my lists because you've never seen mine, but I highly suspect after seeing my list, you'll only ask me stuff like you asked De Niro:



No, thanks. I'm not interested in spending more time posting, this time, thorough analytical/essays because if I don't then there will be more-and-more questions broached because you'd take issue with something or am curious to how it would stand up to your rigorous questioning. I highly respect that, but this is not an academic conference. I don't have the time nor interest to push this further.

And my whole critic/reviewer/scholar/historian/theorist thing is not a definitive essay. So, I'm not interested in pursuing it any further (I don't have the time nor the energy). But, I think the gist is clear.

Again, I think my stance is pretty clear and I have a right to keep it because I think it's highly reasonable to go by a reasonable source (a criteria/parameter-setter, if you will), a dictionary, to back up my stance that I think: favorites and best are different concepts. I don't think that's nonsensical.

And I am using a dictionary to define the words, "favorite" and "best." I'm not using the dictionary to define cinema or a specific film. The dictionary does not have an entry that says, "Best film - ........" I decided on my criteria and I decided on what qualities I use to inform my opinion via my body-mind-soul reaction and connection.

In closing, I believe favorites and best are different concepts. You don't. I am a movie fan who watches movies, enjoys them, and also, to further connection and understanding with and of movies, plays the role of reviewer/critic/scholar/historian (taking aspects of each and melding them together from time to time) for fun and out of an earnest appreciation of movies.

I lost interest with the "M'kay". Perhaps that was a sign of your having lost interest as well.

I find it mildly amusing that you talk about wanting to meet an author's intent halfway and then assume that I am not genuinely interested in seeing your list.

What, by the way, was the point in that last paragraph? All big font and emboldened and stuff. And the content of it... Your background shouldn't add any weight to your argument at all. I'm not going to read the words "reviewer, scholar, historian, critic" and think any more or less of you. It's irrelevant to me. We're just two people who happen to be on a message board.

Never mind. End of discussion.

You should post over at FCM. Lurking can get boring after a while.

This is the problem with virtual message boards - can't hear tone of voice and facial expression. M'kay was not a smart-ass response from me. I'm sorry you took it that way. People use it so sometimes, but I wasn't.

And to stop reading because of that is a cop-out and you know it because you want to avoid addressing my examples of how film scholars and historians approach cinema. You know how I know that you're copping out and avoiding my points?...

Becaues my FCM comments came much much later in my post after, "M'kay." So you didn't stop reading. You're avoiding.



I quote what I "said":



As you can see I was talking about meeting a film halfway not all authors.



Indeed. I'm done.

YAY!!!!!!!

Hey, my meeting a film halfway sentiment comes much much later in my post after, "M'kay."

Exhibit B.

And I highly doubt that you read my post backwards or piecemeal jumping back and forth and skipping/reading some. So unlikely that that would be another instance of Capo copping-out. I should say, "Capo-out."

THE END.

Don't blame me, Capo, brought up the subject again when he asked me if my stance had changed.

I said I'd lost interest; I didn't say I'd stopped reading. I'd refer to my dictionary for a definition of the two, but shan't; yours seems comprehensive enough.

On a conclusive side-note, I happen to think that my decisions regarding favourites and best both come under your "B" category. I don't enjoy anything less than excellence.

You might have missed my edit to the last post, though:

What, by the way, was the point in that last paragraph? All big font and emboldened and stuff. And the content of it... Your background shouldn't add any weight to your argument at all. I'm not going to read the words "reviewer, scholar, historian, critic" and think any more or less of you. It's irrelevant to me. We're just two people who happen to be on a message board.

"Again, assuming."

Touche. I admit a mistake on that. I'm an ass on that one, but still "losing interest" is Capo-ing-out (ducking on the issues I brought up later).



Same reason why some directors use close-ups or lighting or whatever to emphasize a point.



I brought them up because you don't think it's possible to engage cinema largely by an intellectual/critical approach with less of an emotional/personal connection. There are people like that. And I also brought them up to point out where some of my approaches come from. That's all.



So what was the point of me trying to back up and explain where I'm coming from if you just take what I write as irrelevant. Then this whole exchange has been pointless and irrelevant (which includes you constantly asking questions).

Literally, I will not write another word *addendum* (in this thread, that is, I should've specified.)

Your credentials outside the fact we are film fans. That's irrelevant. What you have to say is of much worth. I'm not interested in what you class yourself as in regard to this debate. It shouldn't make a difference. If an argument is persuasive enough, I don't even need to know who wrote it.

You don't really want to drop out of the thread, though, do you? Not really. If you did, you wouldn't be posting shit like "Capo-ing out".

"Literally"...? "I will not write another word" is just a disguised form of taking some kind of moral high ground. It's a way of covering up so that next time we "end" the discussion you can say, "Hey, don't blame me, Capo brought it up again when..."

Why am I even getting a bitter vibe, here? Is it just me? From both parties, perhaps. We seem to be dragging each other down into something unnecessary. We're discussing Cinema. Not names. "Capo[-out]" shouldn't even come into it.

Apocalypse Now Redux
The Godfather Part I
Raging Bull
Cidade de Deus
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
The Usual Suspects
The Blair Witch Project
The Godfather Part II
Schindler's List
The Matrix
The Virgin Suicides

Enzo, looks like we have similar tastes in movies

Man i hate Matrix,its just so overrated for ME,i not in to it at all.But some good film on the list

Enzo, any particular reason why you chose "Redux" over the original?

And if you had to knock one off to make your list ten, which would it be?

I never saw the original, so I can't judge it.

I made a top eleven on purpose because I believe they all should be in there. Obviously I rank some of them higher than others (Apocalypse Now Redux) but none of them is less good than all of them.

Also notice that this list can vary. My mood and the certain aspects of one film I coincidentally 're-feel'/remember at a certain moment, determine my view on this top 11. Tomorrow three films in the list might be replaced by other ones.
A constant factor though, is that none of the films will ever dissapoint me, at least not in the near future.

Yeah, I'm the same.

Films come in and out of my life, but the medium itself is here to stay.