Ok, we all have our own lists of fav movies. Some of them may not even be really good movies, we just like them for any reason and can't help putting them in our favs list. But most are supposed to be good or very good or even great movies in our opinions.
Now my question is:
which movies do you consider to be plain masterpieces? And what does the difference? I mean, what does it need to tell a very good/great movie from a masterpiece?
Looking forward to reading what your thoughts are.
My masterpieces list. Very short one. I'm rather strict....
(no particular order, cannot make up my mind)
The Godfather I and II
A streetcar named desire
Sunset Boulevard
Casablanca
Gone with the wind
Schindler's list
Posted By: Turi Giuliano
Re: Cinema masterpieces - 03/20/06 11:53 AM
I'm no film geek but I know what I like (to adapt a cliché). I'd actually have trouble distinguishing what I consider masterpieces with what I consider my favourite films. Are the two mutually exclusive? For example Super Troopers is one of my favourites but I'd never consider it a masterpiece.
A few that I would put in both catagories:
One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest
Godfather I and II
Once Upon a Time in America
Battle Royale
Dawn of the Dead
The Shining
The Shawshank Redemption
Posted By: svsg
Re: Cinema masterpieces - 03/20/06 05:24 PM
I think my favorites are all masterpieces.
The top 3 from the list
Apocalypse Now The Redux
Godfather
Godfather 2
Posted By: Enzo Scifo
Re: Cinema masterpieces - 03/20/06 07:08 PM
GF I
GF II
Apocalypse Now Redux
Raging Bull
Schindler's List
Once Upon a Time in the West
(A Bronx Tale)
Posted By: Don Vercetti
Re: Cinema masterpieces - 03/20/06 07:16 PM
A masterpiece is a masterpiece. Some are better then others. Here are the ten greatest films ever, in my opinion.
8½ (Federico Fellini;1963;Italy/France)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanely Kubrick;1968;UK/USA)
Citizen Kane (Orson Welles;1941;USA)
The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola;1972;USA)
Once Upon a Time in America (Sergio Leone;1984;Italy/USA)
Le Samouraï The Samurai (Jean-Pierre Melville;1967;France/Italy)
Det Sjunde inseglet The Seventh Seal (Ingmar Bergman;1957;Sweden)
Short Cuts (Robert Altman;1993;USA)
Taxi Driver (Martin Scorsese;1976;USA)
A Woman Under the Influence (John Cassavetes;1974;USA)
Again, absolutely no objective truth as to what can be "considered" a plain masterpiece over a personal favourite. Mine are one and the same. The following is a list of all the films I rate with four stars. That is, a list of outstanding works which have changed my life, or are changing my life.
À bout de souffle / Breathless (1959)
Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes / Aguirre, Wrath of God (1972)
American Beauty (1999)
Blue Velvet (1986)
Conversation, The (1974)
Don't Look Now (1973)
Eraserhead (1976)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
French Connection, The (1971)
Krótki film o milosc / A Short Film About Love (1988)
Lost Highway (1997)
Lost In Translation (2003)
Manhattan (1979)
Samouraï, Le / The Samurai (1967)
Stalker (1979)
Taxi Driver (1976)
Week-end / Weekend (1967)
Everything, in how we judge a film, is shaped by our desires and our memory, whatever they may be. And I think many underestimate the power of the unconscious connection which memory fulfills.
Some think there's a kind of objectivity which can be placed on it (perhaps there is, though nobody's convinced me yet), whereby you can get this and that out of a film. "Look at the cinematography, and the direction", etc. But even on an individual level, the way we see subjectively rate whatever element of Cinema it is, is going to be influenced by our memory, by the abstract, unconscious levels of connection.
If SC, for instance, considers King Kong the best film ever made because of personal connection to it, because of the emotions it conjures up in him every time he watches it, I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I'd encourage more criticism like it.
The most ridiculous paradox ever was something I read along the lines of, "It never hit me emotionally, but I thought the cinematography was amazing." Amazing? In order to think that, it must have connected some way on an emotional level, no?
Just because it can't be voiced in words, doesn't mean it doesn't exist:
"Cinema has a language of its own, and it's a damned shamed to have to translate that back into words." - David Lynch
Citizen Kane (1942) - Orson Welles
Journal d'un curé de campagne (1952) - Robert Bresson
À bout de souffle (1960) - Jean Luc Godard
Le Samouraï (1967) - Jean-Pierre Melville
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) - Stanley Kubrick
A Clockwork Orange (1971) - Stanley Kubrick
Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes (1972) - Werner Herzog
The Godfather (1972) - Francis Ford Coppola
Chinatown (1974) - Roman Polanski
The Conversation (1974) - Francis Ford Coppola
The Godfather part 2 (1974) - Francis Ford Coppola
Apocalypse Now (1979) - Francis Ford Coppola
Once Upon a Time in America (1984) - Sergio Leone
Blue Velvet (1986) - David Lynch
Krótki film o zabijaniu (1988) - Krzysztof Kieslowski
Dead Man (1995) - Jim Jarmusch
Originally posted by Capo de La Cosa Nostra:
Everything, in how we judge a film, is shaped by our desires and our memory, whatever they may be. And I think many underestimate the power of the unconscious connection which memory fulfills.
I totally agree, Mick. In fact I was talking about "our" masterpieces lists. There ain't no absolute truth, no given dogma in a most subjective issue like that.
Originally posted by Capo de La Cosa Nostra:
The most ridiculous paradox ever was something I read along the lines of, "It never hit me emotionally, but I thought the cinematography was amazing." Amazing? In order to think that, it must have connected some way on an emotional level, no?
well, as for the technical sides, I guess there can be some kind of objectivity though. Technics don't necessarily imply emotions. You can use technics to stress the emotional issues, but you can do it even in a neutral way, if you know what I mean. A movie plot can be shallow, or a plain bore, or lousily acted, still the cinematography can be technically perfect and I don't see why it shouldn't be recognized.
Originally posted by Capo de La Cosa Nostra:
Just because it can't be voiced in words, doesn't mean it doesn't exist:
[b]"Cinema has a language of its own, and it's a damned shamed to have to translate that back into words." - David Lynch [/b]
I agree with both you and David Lynch. In this order...
How can cinematography be "technically perfect", though? As long as any camera set-up captures what it is meant to film, that to me is pretty much perfect. In that sense, if we were to discard emotional connections from the whole process, I can't see how the cinematography of The Godfather could be objectively proven to be more perfect than that of Bad Taste. One is meant to have a period look and succeeds, the other is meant to look cheap and is. So which one's better, all emotions aside?
Should an artist have more then one Masterpiece in their body of work ?
There are directors that have more then one film on some of the lists presented here but if we use the word masterpiece is that not a work that is perfect or close to perfection. Can one artist have two works of perfection, or would one have to be considered more perfect then others?
Posted By: Mad Johnny
Re: Cinema masterpieces - 03/22/06 12:54 AM
I have a long list of films I like, but a recent masterpiece is the Hungarian film "Kontroll." Its actually very good.
I'm going to add
Brokeback Mountain to my list.
I thought I should have waited the test of time before, but following Mick's ideas about what criteria we should use to judge a film (that is, basically, our own emotions), I don't need it anymore!
