There's an excellent discussion regarding this topic here.

The word "great" itself is subjective, there is nothing that is universally accepted as "great". Being subjective, it reflects a bias, a personal preference and an individual perspective. Much like "favorite". If I were to make a distinction between these, it would just be an academic excercise from my side, some sort of pedantic exploration, not an honest list of films. In short, though these two words have different meanings, in the context of films, I cannot make a distinction.

...and I would have to agree with everything you just said.

it's the same with music or literature or anything else you can think of - it's easy to admit an album or a book or band or author, or in this case a movie or director or actor, etc., is technically better in terms of influence, innovation, creativity, acting & everything that makes a movie great. does that mean you personally enjoy watching it more than another film? absolutely not. there's a distinction between the two. for example, i think technically the godfather is the greatest movie ever made & while i enjoy watching it, i enjoy watching pulp fiction (which is my favorite movie) alot more.

of course there's a difference

On what terms is The Godfather a better film than Pulp Fiction?

while they're two completely different films & therefore nearly impossible to compare, it's moreso a comparison of which films fulfills its promise more. it's hard to compare comedies with dramas & horror films with romance films, etc., & even though these are both crime films, the styles & personalities are vastly different so it still makes it rather difficult. it's not so much as comparing two films, because they obviously have different characteristics, but comparing how they execute what they're attempting to. the godfather has more depth than pulp fiction, & while it pains me to say that, it's true. i love pulp fiction for its style & dialogue & the chemistry between the characters, & while i love those aspects of a film, that doesn't make it the most important. it just makes it the most entertaining to me.

it may have made it easier if i were comparing one film i saw as flawless compared to another film i saw as flawed, seeing as i look at the godfather & pulp fiction both as masterpieces making it a little hard to compare films without much to pick apart from.

but just because i enjoy watching one film more than another doesn't make it more meaningful or deep or innovative than another film. it just means i like it more. favorite means how much you enjoy something - "the greatest" or "best" implies influence & creativity, in my opinion.

it really has more to do with your interpretation & definition of the words than anything else.

Here's two parts of my arguement from that link.
---------------------------------------------
Well, first off, I don't think Lawrence of Arabia of Arabia is the best film ever, just one of the best.

As for my favorites, I don't consider them guilty pleasures. A guilty pleasure for me would Old School for instance. A poor comedy, although I enjoy it in the popcorn way. I don't base my opinions at all on other sources, although I guess having two lists might give that impression. When I saw Lawrence of Arabia, I thought it was one of the most ambitious epics I'd seen. It's cinematography was breathtaking and the cast was great, as well as it's other aspects. It's a grand example of an epic. However I didn't have a huge interest in that particular piece of history, which affected it entertainment-wise I guess. And it varies from film-to-film.

For instance, Last Days would definitely make my top 50 favorites or possibly even 25, but nothing much happens during it. My entertainment came through my fascination with it. Both Last Days and Dead Man seem to be American Romanticism-esque films in their connection with nature, which I oddly get entranced in. Perhaps I have some sort of attraction towards loneliness being depicted in cinema, which is evident in other movies I like, such as Taxi Driver or Open Your Eyes.

I can't just say this is strictly entertainment and this is the best and entertainment lacks appreciation of art, because some aspects of art strike me more than others, and lead to entertainment. Some aspects of art I respect, but lack being entertained, and some I don't respect, though it can be considered art. You can say that Clint Eastwood makes art. He believes America's original pieces of art are Jazz and Westerns. Pale Rider was a poor remake of Shane. It's poor art, however I find entertainment in it through Eastwood's presence and the fact that I have an attraction towards westerns. Bringing Out the Dead is art to me, but I didn't think it was a good film.

It's difficult to describe, because entertainment can come from anything, even things that bring a film down, like predictable jokes that still cause laughs. It could come from a setting, mood, acting, whatever.
----------------------------------------------
I'm not going to be closed-minded and grade films based on entertainment, which is, as I said, too shallow an emotion to rate films. Man On Fire entertained me, because I like revenge films, but it was a horrible attempt that felt like an MTV music video. Does that mean I can't watch it again? No. Eraser entertains me, but it's horrible.

If I used entertainment as a grading emotion, then I'd have over three times as many four star films.

Also, when did I mention "other people"? My opinion has nothing to do with other people, but I do count influence in many instances. Even in music, I praise The Beatles for amazing positive influence. You're off target on your perception of my rating style.
------------------------------------------------

THE BEST - Alphabetical Order (Italics aren't for sure yet)

8 1/2
Citizen Kane
The Godfather
Lawrence of Arabia
Once Upon a Time in America
Le Samouraï
Short Cuts
Taxi Driver
Vertigo
A Woman Under the Influence

FAVORITES
----------------
Le Samourai (Jean-Pierre Melville;1967)
Taxi Driver (Martin Scorsese;1976)
Collateral (Michael Mann;2004)
Memento (Christopher Nolan;2000)
Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino;1994)
Mean Streets (Martin Scorsese;1973)
Dead Man (Jim Jarmusch;1995)
Citizen Kane (Orson Welles;1941)
Heat (Michael Mann;1995)
Raging Bull (Martin Scorsese;1980)

What do you want me to say? Le Samourai, Taxi Driver, and Collateral are the three best films ever made?

Since Michael Mann is one of my five favorite filmmakers, is it strange none of his films are on my ten best list? Maybe they are so entertaining to me because I have a particular attraction to his style and talent in films, not to mention I love crime films. Does that mean his style is one of THE best? No.

Yes.

I acknowledge what I believe to be great films, and most of those that I consider to be great are also films that I like. Sometimes even like a lot.

But many or most of the films on my long list of favorites are not what I would consider to be great as well.

Actually, I'm not even sure that I know enough about what makes a film great to be presumptuous enough to even create a list of films in the first place ranked by their "greatness."

*cough*Mafia!*cough*

Hey, what can I tell you.

I think it's a funny movie.

It doesn't crack my Top 50, but it may make my Top 100.

Yes. A favorite movie must have the potential to be watched over and over again. Many movies that I consider to be great in my non-professional opinion on movies, have had twists and you could watch them only a few times. There wouldn't be anything interesting left in them when you've seen the movie and know what is going to happen.

But doesn't Pulp Fiction fulfil its intentions just as well as The Godfather? Doesn't it set out to be a mega-mix of style and surface matter? Why should we place a bias on the serious over the comic, the tragedy over the comical, the drama over the light?

Why does The Godfather have more depth than Pulp Fiction? While I agree that, personally, I find more reward exploring the relationships and themes of Coppola's film than Tarantino's, why should it pain you to say that? The Godfather sets out to construct an explorable environment, whereas Tarantino wants to make an enjoyable homage to his own favourite films. Pulp Fiction fulfils this goal just as well as The Godfather fulfils its own respective goal. While the former is perhaps admittedly more light-hearted in the audience's interpretation of it (I don't know many, if any, people who want to find hidden intentions behind character motivations), respective intentions of the directors are just as serious as the other.

Okay, so "best" implies influence and creativity. Influence on whom, or what? Pulp Fiction has influenced, in some way or another, an immeasurable amount of filmmakers since it came out. It is also very creative. The same can be said for The Godfather. So, The Godfather is an older film, and has therefore had more time to conjure a bigger fanbase and inspire more films. Does that make it more influential or creative?

i place more virtue & value on dramas over comedies (in most instances), not necessarily because they're better made films, but to me any type of art is conducted by how well you can convey your emotions to an audience. &, in my opinion, i think it's alot harder to convey something darker, something heavier & more dramatic, than something lighter & more comical. fact or opinion? just my opinion - but i think it holds water. let me use music as an example: it's alot harder to write a song about the tragic death of a close friend or family member than it is to write a song about partying. it's all about how you convey your emotions - & i think it's much easier to convey an emotion as light as humor than something as dark & transcending as drama, tragedy, etc.

& since we both agree that the godfather is a better film for more or less the same or similar reasons, i won't get repetitive & argue that point anymore.

...why should it pain you to say that?

because pulp fiction is my favorite film - it's difficult to mention something you love is inferior to something else. while it's tough to do, i can admit it. i enjoy watching pulp fiction more than the godfather, but i believe the godfather to be a better made film, overall & all-around.

So, The Godfather is an older film, and has therefore had more time to conjure a bigger fanbase and inspire more films. Does that make it more influential or creative?

yes. i believe that time has alot to do with determining how great a film is - how well does the film age? will the themes & views still hold water 10 years from now?--50 years from now? let me use music as an example again: alot of 80's music sounds very time-period without a steady footing as to having a lasting impact - the music simply doesn't hit you the same way it did 20-25 years ago. that's why the 1980's are the only real decade with music that's consistently referred to by when it came out - because you can immediately tell when & where it's from specificaly by the sound of it, because it hasn't aged well. same thing with movies: how it ages & continues to influence determines, to me, personally & in my views, how well made the film is. the godfather has been inspiring & influencing for over three decades now, & that holds alot of water over how well made the film is on its own. while pulp fiction has aged very, very well over the past decade, & while i personally believe that it will do a fine job aging over the next 10-20 years, only time will tell us for sure. we can assume, & predict, but waiting will ultimately tell us in the end.

a film can be very well made, technically, but if it has no depth & doesn't really hold interest, value or merit ten years down the line, what's the point other than for good entertainment? entertainment alone doesn't make a movie great. that's a characteristic of a favorite movie, not a great movie - to me - & it's up to us to decide what movies entertain us enough to be our favorites.

but then again - this is all personal opinion - it's your own opinion on what's great, on what's "the best," on what's your "favorite," on whether the words have different meanings to you, on what their definitions are. it all depends on what your own definition of the word is. we can discuss this until we're blue in the face, but in the end it comes down to your own opinion.

I am entertained only by great movies.

If the little details all come down to such subjective opinion, why should the big details be so impersonal?

If everybody else thought The Godfather was a load of bollocks, you'd think very differently, I think, about its so-called influence. But its personal influence on you will have remained (assuming you'd seen it despite critical bashing), and thus will be your favourite -- or at least a "guilty pleasure."

My point? People's terms of "greatest" (that is, when the person has two divided lists) are formed by external value systems, not your own.

And my definition of a great film? One which endures, and evolves because of, repeated viewings, by me.

If everybody else thought The Godfather was a load of bollocks, you'd think very differently, I think, about its so-called influence.

if no one else liked the film, there would be nobody to be influenced & thus no influence would emerge - & a film that does nothing to move people, to me, isn't a great film. & while opinion is a subjective word, & as i've used it to explain myself quite often - let's face it, if millions upon millions of fans & critics over three decades praise a film, it's not garbage. it takes alot of hard work & depth to make a film that that many people will enjoy & praise to the death over such a long period of time. a general thesis is usually a strong incentive & indication on whether something is - in a mutual opinion - great & what is not.

I'm not disputing The Godfather's greatness. But just because it has a massive fanbase doesn't make it a great film, to me. It makes it a popular one. It is a great film, though, I feel, because it hits right home with me, as a filmwatcher, when I'm watching it. That's all that really matters.

Consider this: I haven't seen Catwoman but say it's the worst film ever made. A friend of mine has seen it, and defends it in terms of the honest, personal response it conjured in him when he watched it. Whose value of the film do you rate more (forgetting, for now, that Catwoman may well be a bad film in your eyes - whether it is or not I have no idea)?

And let's also suppose that Catwoman, a film whose box-office failure stunned even its producers and scared them off, spawns a number of cheap, tacky action films dedicated solely to high-entertainment value and B-movie standard. Hasn't it, then, inspired a whole new wave of filmmakers? Haven't they seen in the film a creative spark worthy of exploiting? Would that render it a great film?

i would value the opinion of someone whose movie opinions i regard similar in contrast of what i believe to be true more than someone whose opinion obviously & often strays from mine.

& if a bad movie is spawning more bad movies in the vein of cheap tackiness, then i think that speaks for itself. there's many aspects that make a film great - & if it has no depth & is inspiring more movies with the same lack of depth, then it obviously isn't great.

I think this is completely based on what someone's perception of entertainment is. Capo, what entertains you? What you consider great films. I can be entertained by a variety of different things. Hell, sometimes a film being dated can entertain me. To Live and Die in L.A. is a decent at best cop film, but it's corny, 80's-ish atmosphere, as well as the cast and action can entertain me.

Sometimes if I have nothing to do I'll watch a made-for-TV movie, most of which are corny, melodramatic, or just unrealistically poor. But I can just sit back, and enjoy the ride. I remember a while back there was a big debate on Art vs. Escapism.

I watch films to escape sometimes.
I grade films based on their greatness.
Why do I love films so much? Because out of every medium of art from literature to music, this is my favorite.

And my feelings can't all be put into words, but everything from a corny gunfight to some types of great art can entertain me. Just because I might not have a heavy personal attraction to it means I can't respect it?

I'm not a fan of Jerry Lee Lewis, but I respect him as a musician.

I find this to be an endless debate, because no matter how anyone feels, someone else will have a different perception of what greatness and entertainment is.

I can be easily entertained by an Adam Sandler or Vince Vaughn comedy. Does this mean they're all good? No.

A few final, conclusive notes; make what you like of them.

To judge a film by its effect on others is to place it in the hands of the audience; this immediately has a great bias on populist, mainstream films: The Godfather being one of them, to stay with our examples. What of lesser known films that got run over in distibution deals? What of non-English-language directors, full of depth and meaning, such as Tarkovsky?

I find the comparison procedure, whereby judging a film is to judge all other films, is an exhausting, inconsistent way of rating films, and also impersonal, since you're more or less, whether consciously or not, going by an external system of values, which even determines what you watch in the first place. (Example: you only seen The Godfather because everybody else said it was great. If nobody hadn't, you wouldn't have cared.) At the end of the day, it's more or less putting it into concrete: saying that The Godfather is "technically" the greatest film ever is to imply there is a known, set, concrete, mathematical, scientific procedure to this.

And there isn't. It's just art.

I judge films by their sole, intrinsic value.

Entertainment doesn't have to be light-hearted laughs by any means. Great films entertain all sorts of my needs: my visual appetite, philosophical, my need to yearn, my need of memory, unconscious exploration, and intellectual satisfaction. And in entertaining my personal needs, I class them as great films. It's why you'd find Die Hard on the same kind of great films list as The Godfther, if I ever posted one (which I won't, because it would be too long).

But then we'd be getting into a discussion on what defines entertainment, which I'd rather not get into it.

Do you separate your "favorite" films from your "greatest" films?

Yes.

I view my favorite films, as I do my favorite books or favorite songs, as works not only unto themselves but also as remembrances of times or events in my life. In other words I make certain associations with those (favorite) movies that add to their personal level of satisfaction.

Most here know of my love for the original "King Kong". I won't bore you with all the details of why its one of my favorites but suffice to say it has to do with the first time I saw it (and watched it with my brother). Is it a great movie? Yes. Is it one of the greatest movies ever made. Thats arguable.

I have other favorite movies that simply make me feel good, or simply make me enjoy watching them. They may be technically flawed or cheaply made BUT they're still on my list of favorites because I can watch them over and over again and enjoy them.

Quite frankly, I think if someone limits their favorite movies to those he/she considers the greatest movies is something of a snob. But, thats just me.

To judge a film by its effect on others is to place it in the hands of the audience; this immediately has a great bias on populist, mainstream films...

that's what this is all about - the audience, & what we think of it. of course there's bias - that's what an opinion is, & that opinion comes from the audience in question - the audience judging these movie. opinions.

but you're also missing my point & minimizing what i'm saying to a much lesser scale. i am not judging the godfather, or any other film for that matter, solely on the influence or reaction of the audience. there are many different aspects, to me, that make a film great - & while i'm not retracting my point that influence has a small or great deal of measure on whether a film is great (depending on the film itself), it wasn't & isn't the sole reason i look at a movie as great. there are boundless other aspects that make films great, but the influence & impact it has on the legions of filmgoers that see these movies cannot be ignored; nor can its lasting effect on cinematic fans everywhere.

What of lesser known films that got run over in distibution deals? What of non-English-language directors, full of depth and meaning, such as Tarkovsky?

see, the reason this topic is so difficult to discuss is because there are thousands of sub-contexts in each reason that can reflect or determine on the quality of a film. i'm basing these influences on scales. if five million people see a film, & a wave of influences burst through vividly for 20 years - the influence is immense. obviously, the same scale cannot be used on a film that, say, twenty thousand people saw. but how many of those people were influenced? was the influence sufficient & substantial enough to effect cinema in any way? let me use music, once again, as an example. i consider the velvet underground to be one of the top five greatest bands in musical history - for their innovation, for their strong songwriting, for their influence, among many other reasons. the velvet underground were not a very popular band in the beginning, or for even the decades following their disbandment. but was their influence felt in music? yes! there was once a famous quote by a music critic who said, "if a thousand people picked up that first velvet underground album, every one of them started a band." there's this little thing called word of mouth that has done wonders in every form of art. if your film/music/art is brilliant enough to spread through influence in even the smallest of circles, it doesn't matter how many people you influence or even hear your music or see your film.

...you're more or less, whether consciously or not, going by an external system of values, which even determines what you watch in the first place.

i'll once again echo that external values aren't the only prospects that i use to judge films - but the outside influence a film has on its audience cannot be ignored or even deprecated.

But then we'd be getting into a discussion on what defines entertainment, which I'd rather not get into it.

that's basically what me & DV have been trying to get across - our definitions of entertainment & how it differs from what entertains us & what enlightens & impacts us is vastly different. entertainment is the key here; entertainment is what seperates what we see as our "favorites" & what we see as the "greatest" - how can we be told we're wrong because we simply have a different opinion on what entertainment is to us? that's our point - you can't, & we're/i'm not telling you that you're wrong; i'm telling you that because of my difference in expression of what i see as entertainment & what i see as essentially brilliant are two conceptually different calculations that largely change our definitions of these two words.

I see both as arguable, actually. But to me, your love for the film, and your personal connection with it is fully justified, and I have no problem in agreeing with you that King Kong is one of the best films ever made for that reason.

Let's say, I think Eraserhead is my favourite film. But then I look at Gone with the Wind and say, actually, that is a better film. How can this be so? It hasn't anything to do with shallow entertainment value or anything; Eraserhead strikes up an emotional, aesthetic chord in me which Gone with the Wind could never even begin to hold. There is no technical, scientific way of proving Gone with the Wind is a better-made film.

My point, SC, is that there is no best. Only what is best on a personal term. Snobbery does not come into it; I just don't see how you can disregard your own personal love for something in favour of something you render deeply impersonal in comparison.

It's one thing to stamp your opinion over everybody else's, but patronising your own opinion is just as bad, don't you think?

Do I need to separate?
Do I need to call a film names, be it great or whatever, to watch and enjoy?
When the film is not good enough, I just won't spend time on it. If it is, I'll watch it if I enjoy it, or it's interesting. If it isn't interesting, why tell me should I try to watch it despite my irritation just because someone considered it great? Someone might have a perverse apprehension of greatness.
If a film is a masterpiece, it will not offend my taste or reason. But I can't think why should I spend a single effort to define, to say that this good movie is 2 inches greater that that one, and 1 inch more favorite of mine than GWTW?

Resurrecting this thread to throw another question into the debate.

Note, I am not necessarily talking about the 'greatest' or 'best' but at least a film that you would classify as 'good'. Till now (as you can see from my response in the beginning of the thread), I have been maintaining that the basis for classifying a movie as good should be entirely based on your subjective opinion and the effect the movie has on you rather than some third party metric of what constitutes a technically well-made film or critics' view or popularity of the movie and such. But lately I am questioning my view and want to introduce the 'creativity' and 'originality' aspects in the discussion. I give a couple of scenarios to explain my point:

1) Mr X madly loves chinese martial-arts movies and he will watch any number of no-brainer movies from that genre with great interest and will never get bored. Mr Y in Hollywood is a genre-leading producer of hongkong based martial arts movies, one indistinguishable from the next (except probably by an avid fan like Mr X). Mr Y releases yet another kung-fu movie this year and Mr X promptly watches it and is all praises for the movie.
Now Mr Y has done nothing great, just rehashed the formula from his database of martial arts movies to come up with yet another predictable film. The bottom line is lack of creativity (not marketing wise, but with respect to the medium). Now if I were to go by my original theory, the effect on Mr X is great, so he will classify it as a good movie (not necessarily great/best) regardless of the actual merit of the movie. Don't you think something is wrong in this scenario? No creative effort whatsoever from Mr Y, but his film is hailed as a good one by someone. You can extend this concept to die-hard fans of some director/actor/actress/whatever who will praise a film regardless of its actual merit.

2) Mr Z is a script writer who watches an old and obscure movie with a great concept from some not-so-famous country/language and rewrites it to great critical acclaim. I am not talking about subtle influences which everyone is subject to, sub-consciously, but an active 'lift' of concept. Again originality and creativity wise, no points should be given. But somebody might be greatly influenced by this movie and term it excellent. Isn't something wrong with the judging criteria again?


Do we need an objective measure (if at all it is possible)? Or at least a standard set of subjective measures that includes creativity and originality? If so, what should be those subjective metrics used. Some have mentioned 'rewatchability' and 'lasting effect'. What else?

1) The scenario between Mr. X and Mr. Y is being judged already: you called those films "no-brainer movies". On whose terms are they no-brainer movies?

2) My problem with remakes is that they rarely add anything personal or new. Like Wet Dog on the film board, I'm not against the process of remaking a film, but I more often than not will approach one with caution, because from experience they hold very little merit. Jackson's King Kong was fantastic and rare: it updated the effects and action by CGI, but also showed a rare enthusiasm from its director towards the original, with self-reflexive action and intertextual dialogue thrown in for good measure. Scorsese did exactly the same with Cape Fear. I think the Bond movies are in need of a lot of remakes too. Now that Casino Royale has been finally been given justice, I'd love to see the makers remake the series in the order Fleming wrote them.

I think a lot of people have a problem with originality. Originality to me essentially means creating something which strikes one as new, as having not been experienced before. I value it greatly, but often overlook it at first. I might even be put off by it. People forget that Cinema itself is original, it is still a very new medium. People also forget that there is so much more potential to be had from the whole idea of using a camera, of not only recording reality but producing it. They forget that what they're watching is an illusion. That's how powerful Cinema is, but it's overlooked on a mass scale. People value stories and characters, I think, more than anything. Like I've said before, there's nothing particularly cinematic about stories or characters. But as an example I've experienced many times before, I've asked a lot of people what they thought of Lost In Translation, and they've said, "It's boring, nothing happens." What they mean is story-wise; Coppola, its director, belongs to that misunderstood category of "Art Cinema", and her films are often successions of repeated situations in order to develop character. The film itself is one of the best films I've ever seen; it has a fine sense of not only narrative rhythm, but evokes loneliness through framing compositions and volume levels, not to mention creates a fine sense of place through sound and cinematography.

But I think it is important to note that originality is often dismissed; a lot of people find it repulsive. When you think about the term originality, what it really means is going against what we already know; I'm not sure if it is transcending traditional value or rejecting it - either way, original works are often misunderstood. How many times, for instance, have you read or heard somebody call Lynch, Jarmusch or Greenaway (to name but three very original directors with very individual styles) "pretentious" or "weird just for the sake of being weird"? I got into quite a heated verbal debate with someone recently who said Lynch was pretentious because he considered himself above his audience. When I asked how that was so, the answer I got was that he dismissed story in his films, and even took pleasure in making them confusing.

There are three fundamental questions I think everybody should ask themselves after every film has finished:
a) Why do I watch films?
b) How would I define Cinema?
c) How original was the film I've just seen?

These three films help you be objective in your opinion - that is, as honest as you can be inside your own perishable, subjective bubble.

Question 'a' helps you to understand why you're even watching the film in the first place. If you come to the conclusion that you're watching it to pass the time, then the likelihood is you're going to be easily pleased. If you're watching it to know the meaning of life, the chances are you're going to be dismissive of a lot of films, such as "no-brainer comedies". (I say that not because the meaning of life cannot be found in such films, but because the kind of person who seeks such frivolous and objective answers in something as abstract and subjective as Cinema is not the kind to be open to something as "irrelevent" as a Will Ferrell film. He's approaching Cinema with an agenda that limits and restricts his opinion and chances of enjoyment, not to open him to more pleasures.)

Question 'b' helps you to know how well the film fits to your perceptions or definitions of Cinema. How cinematic it is, how relevant it is to bringing you closer to enjoying or appreciating the medium - that is, how well you enjoyed the film as a work of Cinema. And I think it is important to be aware of the medium you're watching. I've met many people on my film studies degree recently who have turned their noses up at the likes of Battleship Potemkin, and their reasons showed quite a disdain for Cinema itself...of course without them knowing it. In my opinion, you shouldn't be judging films about how "morally acceptable" or how "socially relevant" they are, because that places works of art in a cage, in a time vault, which limits their impact across what John Fowles called the "horizontality of time". You should watch films and judge films by how closer they bring you personally to your love for the medium itself - and story and character is rather quite irrelevant to the medium. The primary window through which I engage with a film, for instance, my first connection with a film, when the lights in the cinema go down and the celluloid strip is projected onto film, is either (and most often) the image. The image, the frame, the illusion, of what the camera has captured, of what we are being allowed to show. If it isn't the image, it is the sound. Images and sounds, and the way they are edited together. It is convenient to edit such images and sounds together so as to create a coherent, accessible story. Stories interest me little, but I am fascinated by narrative - narrative is the way in which stories are told, or the way in which films unfold. I go into this further here.

Question 'c' is pretty much self-evident. I value creativity, and being creative, the process of being creative, lends originality to a work. How original you rate a film will depend on how many you've seen, and how many you've seen that are like it. But original films are often those which make more use of the fact they are being made with, or because of, a camera. But when people are sitting in a darkened theatre, they'll nevertheless forget the fact, or ignore the fact, that they're watching something only because of a camera. People are rarely interested in the visual, in the image.

If you know what you're interested in, if you know what drives you personally, what fascinates you and excites you, I think you can offer analysis of and elaboration on films with a lot more conviction and sophistication.

These three questions, as I've said, help you know yourself, or your interests and tastes, on a much deeper level... but of course a lot don't ask them because they are afraid that the answers might conclude that they in fact are repelled by Cinema, by the medium of Cinema, by the whole notion of being "cinematic"...and how else would they pass their time?

I'll pose a question to you, now (and anybody else who might be reading): What would you be more interested in reading, the AFI's Top Ten, or the individual AFI members' choices?

I found this to have more resonance here.

On terms of a person who does not have a blind allegience to a genre, like Mr X. Or to a director, actor, actress etc. On terms of a person who is not prejudiced (how is it different from taste? This question just get more and more complex )


What about my original example where only a select few experts know the (obscure) source of a brilliant idea used in a film? The viewer is going to be affected genuinely by the film and would term it great, but an objective originality metric will immedietely disqualify the film from being anywhere near good.


I agree. I have put some of my thoughts on the abstractions in another thread in Film Board(Musings - Emptiness of Story). I would like to see your response to that. All the films that play with the entire potential of this medium are not appreciated enough and sometimes ridiculed. That might change with time.


It is one of my favorite films as you might have known from my review.



I like Jarmusch's movies (Seen only Dead man and Broken flowers both of which are amazing) very much, but didn't enjoy Lynch's movies (Seen only Mullholand Drive and The lost highway). Jarmusch is exploratory and inconclusive and deals with great themes, so I think about them so much after viewing the film. I really want to see Broken Flowers soon. Lynchian movies are great visually, but both the movies I saw had the basis in either dreams or fantasy or some other mental disorder etc which IMO are easy tools to show random stuff and then say that the whole thing is left to audience interpretation. My question is does he have an interpretation? Doesn't look like from his interview. Vercetti once gave me a link to the popular interpretations of Mulholland Drive. It is ok for me if the audience interpret something different from what Lynch intended, but I want him to talk about what he thinks. If he doesn't, then your friend is right about Lynch. Note that I have nothing against his originality.


I agree.


I have replied with my opinions there. Though I agree with you that 'social/moral relevance' is of little relevance to cinema, I disagree with you on your definition of the medium. I think you are one of the purists. Why include even sound? There are people who think that a silent movie which is a purely visual medium is great cinema. Some think that playing a sad music for a sad scene and happy music for a happy occasion etc is manipulative and so on. There is no end to the level of purity one would want to achieve in a medium. But my view is more flexible and inclusive. I like visual, dramatic and literary aspects of a film. For example, as a pure visual thrill, I like a very long scene in Rambo, where he makes weapons inside a cave, with no dialogue whatsoever. Alternately I like some nice exchange of dialogue between Matt Damon and Robin Williams in 'Good Will Hunting'. What appeals to me is different in each film.


How about Memento. The trick was in 'time'. Not the audio-visual part or the story. I treat 'time' as a great tool in cinematic medium. Or in other words editing.


Thanks for the two 'musings', I have been thinking about these questions for some days now.

I'll pose a question to you, now (and anybody else who might be reading): What would you be more interested in reading, the AFI's Top Ten, or the individual AFI members' choices?
I don't know how the AFI top 10 is compiled. Is it not some statistical result of the choices of individual members? My answer will depend on that.

I'm not so sure. One of my favorite films is My Cousin Vinny, but it is far from what I believe is a great film as I consider the Godfather to be. Conversely, Citizen Kane is a great film, but it is not one of my favorites.

I'll do a Capo and ask you, why don't you consider 'My Cousin Vinny' great?