I don't understand how someone can "love" a film, yet not think it was "good."

Because I can just enjoy the ride. Sometimes I can enjoy watching a shitty popcorn movie like Eraser. I liked The Recruit mostly for Pacino's acting in it, but it's no good film.

I think people are being a little too uptight if they can't just sit down and kill time with a B-movie that might entertain them a little. I have a boxset of four Spaghetti westerns, none of which are any good. They are rip offs of Leone's films, but I still enjoy watching them.

And no, I don't look down on my own opinion.

God am I sick of this debate.

Well, not all films have to connect with me on an intellectual level for them to be good. However, as I said before, I'm not shallow enough to consider my favorites the best, especially since what makes me enjoy a film entertainment-wise varies to weird things at times.

Dirty Harry may be my favorite film of all time if Eastwood was my favorite actor and that was my favorite of his movies because of the iconic cop he played, but I would consider it very shallow to call that the best film ever just because it connects with one's love of the Eastwood films.

I think those who divide lists are being implied to have a feeling of self-cynicism that doesn't exist. If I used my favorites as a best list, I'd call myself close-minded.

My favorite band is Nirvana, but they are not the best band ever.

There's nothing sophisticated about film criticism. When it comes down to it, whether you like a film or not depends on the basic connection with it. This connection can not really be put into words, it's just a gut feeling in the emotions.

How can you hold The Godfather on a pedestal as the best film ever when you admit to enjoying others more? It's that traditional high-brow bullshit, which, thankfully, with recent arthouse films pushing boundaries as to the indistinction between art and porn (to name one example), is withering away.

My best films are my favourites, and I don't have a problem with that. That way, my Best list is admittedly based on a pure, personal response to the art I'm viewing, and it should go without saying that they're only the best films I've seen. By holding some films close to your heart, but admitting others are "better" implies that the critic is pressing his nose up against the window of highbrow criticism, the very concept of which is quickly becoming outdated.

To come back to the original sentence, there's nothing sophisticated in film criticism. You can go on and on about how fantastic the cinematography is in The Godfather, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's good. Say, a review says: "The cinematography is one of the best ever examples in cinema." Then the reader of that reviewer is left thinking, well, why? How is it brilliant? You could write pages and pages on how The Godfather is the best film ever because it has this and that, but at the end of the day, if it doesn't strike an emotional chord with you, it isn't a great film. It does with me, so that's why I regard it as a masterpiece. I don't regard it as a masterpiece because it "has the best acting or direction" ever, but because I connect personally with the way Brando gestures to Barzini, or how Cazale drunkenly introduces himself to Kay and Michael. This is where it gets iffy and difficult to go beyond that, because Cinema has a language of its own, too profound and aesthetic for words. Which is why too many "professional" critics, for me, get too caught up in trying to review a film with words, and end up sound pretentiously impersonal and elitist because of it.

Eraser is supposed to be an entertaining action film. If its action entertains you, then, it is a good film. Perhaps not to me, because perhaps I find it unentertaining. Therefore, it isn't a good film. In short, a film which is to be enjoyed is good when it is enjoyed. If you don't enjoy it, it isn't good.

Good and bad, the two basic adjectives in art appreciation, do not exist beyond a personal scale. As soon as they're applied to a text outside of one's own judgment, they lose their value, for me. Vercetti, I'd appreciate it if, in order to change a little direction in this very fascinating discussion, you told me why Eraser is "shitty". But feel free to respond to other parts of my argument.

Thanks for reading.

Capo, my argument will only repeat my previous post. We see it differently, and ultimately like you said, it's hard to put into words, but I'll compare it to music.

I am not a fan of Jerry Lee Lewis' music, but I consider him a great rock and roll musician, because although he may not apply to my tastes, I'm not close-minded enough to say he sucks like the metal-heads at my school call Nirvana "gay." You don't like Bob Dylan but judging from your proview on the Scorsese film, you must've appreciated something beyond the direction.

Now, with Eraser, it's a horribly acted movie with unbelievable action like as I said numerous times, Ah-nold falls from airplane height into a car without damage. However it was my first favorite movie ever, and I can still enjoy the ride. I'll punch line it by saying there really isn't anything to praise, but can still enjoy the ridiculous action scenes to pass time.

Now focus on here. If I put down my favorites, it would noticeably have a nucleus of mob films and westerns because I have that special taste for those genres. I don't consider my favorites list the best ever because my tastes are just that, personal tastes that I am entertained by more so because I may like a certain actor very much, or a certain like of movie. My best ever list puts everything into perspective for me by ignoring favoritism to certain genres.

I can't think of anything more to say that I haven't already. In fact, I've said nothing new. Everything here can be found in the other three or four threads about this.

As for The Godfather, it's been a while since I've focused on my best list. I'm planning on rewatching it soon but I don't know if I do consider it the best ever. Ask that to Lombardi, who I think already answered his feelings. I do consider it one of the three best ever, and if you want my feelings on it, feel free to visit my MFA review of it from way back, or wait for my proview, which should be after I revisit Michael Mann's films.

And one final thought. Capo, don't you alter your best-ever list to have one film per director on it? Otherwise it would have more then one Godard film and so forth. How is that different from what I'm doing? If you think Godard made three of the best movies ever made, throw him on it.

Well, thanks for putting your thoughts forward, Vercetti, unlike the others, who seem stumped :p .

Two things to consider: a death in Eraser is as superficial as when Vito kills Fanucci in The Godfather Part II. As long as a film grasps you and you can unknowingly suspend your disbelief while watching it, I think it should merit praise. To go a little further: it doesn't really matter that Arnie's acting is horrendous in Eraser, for it isn't really a film which begs for amazing acting. His acting in Terminator 2 is just as bad, but that film's a masterpiece. To judge Eraser by its acting is like criticising The Last Waltz for not having techno music.

I mean know disrespect by this, but I think yours, and others', way of approaching films is biased, without your being aware of it. You approach a film with set pre-conceptions as to what it should offer you--good acting, cinematography, etc. Take Plaw's example, for instance: he doesn't like Schindler's List because it is "depressing." I actually find it a very hopeful film, but that's besides the point; for the sake of argument, let's say I agree. Isn't the film supposed to be depressing? I mean, chances are, if it was a comedy, he'd hate the film, and wouldn't even appreciate it on a "greatness" level. I can't think of a more depressing film than Eraserhead, for instance, but find it a visually striking, thematically compelling and strangely beautiful film, with which I connect to in a profound way. Does this make it a better film than Schindler's List? Certainly. But on whose terms? My own; taking both films for their sole intrinstic value, Eraserhead has more of an effect on me.

Not to bring others into this fascinating (or tiresome, if you're not me) affair, but Lombardi said The Godfather has to be the best film ever made because over time, society has said so time and time again. So its influence must account to something. Well, not necessarily. IMDb has it at #1, but you have to contextualise that information: firstly, the only people voting for that film are ones with access to the Internet, which means they're all from developed countries. And so and so forth. Click on this link, and see the demographic breakdown of the voting. Note the huge difference between males and females voting for the film, and the age gaps too.

My point? That there are far too many contradictory contextual factors contributing to the universal term of greatness. And that, therefore, makes the whole concept of a "best list" bullshit beyond a personal scope. If Eraser passes the time for you, then perhaps that is all it aspires to do. Why, then, should it be disregarded because of biased preconceptions as to what make a film great? It fulfills its own terms quite adaquately, you connect with the film, and therefore it's a good film.

This is where I stop, because I feel like it's turning into repetition. I do, however, think I raised some new points in the previous paragraphs.

Thanks for reading.

PS> As for my Top ten, the reason why I limit myself to one film per director is simply for diversity reasons: all of the films on the list do actually deserve to be there. If I had, say, three more Godard films on there instead of four others, I still value them just as much.

It is irrelevant "if you value them as much" in the context of a top 10 list. Quantitative measures are just that. They force an artificial if not arbitrary gradation among items that are not necessarily comparable. You cannot compare two films strictly speaking. Not every director/writer speaks about what they intended to portray in the first place. All we have is the finished product. We judge them just based on their influence on us, though the artists motive must also be considered if you really want to put numbers against their work. So quantitative judgements are in most cases dubious. Nevertheless, we have embarked on many such lists here and in your movie site as well. Diversity in terms of directors is meaningless here. Top 10 just means top 10. By anyone. If it means some of your favorites not finding a place in the list, then so be it.

If I used my favorites list, I'd consider myself biased. The problem is you're making too much of it. This isn't something I put a large amount of thought to. I like some movies better then others but find others more important. I don't think The Godfather is a great film because many people love it. I never base my opinions on other people, especially critics.

You keep ignoring my music examples, which I feel perfectly explain it. The Last Waltz has great music, but I think it's one of Scorsese's masterworks because it's more then a great concert. It's an excellent rockumentary and if I had to put it in words, a celebration of the musicians love for music. Like a great gathering of these diverse, excellent musicians. If the music was bad, like Ah-nold's acting, I wouldn't rate it four stars.

I don't care how diverse people's perception of greatness and art is. All I know is what mine is. Pulp Fiction is one of my favorites, that works on a dramatic level as well as entertaining. However I consider several films better then it. Why? Because I consider their overall purpose or message to be more significant, even if it's not one I'm not focused on. Otherwise I could say Lawrence of Arabia sucked because I don't care about the Arab struggle back then, which to me would be biased and close-minded. Keep in mind my Top Ten best ever isn't even complete yet, because for me it's a lot of thought to call a film one of the best ever. I'm not gonna throw an action movie that may be mediocre on there just to fill the list.

Collateral = #3 on favorites
Short Cuts = In top 10 best

Both films have messages I respect. The latter is a very long multi-person drama, the former an intelligent crime/drama. The crime atmosphere of the former makes me enjoy more due to my love for crime related films. That means I have to call it a better film because I may lean towards crime more then other genres? I consider Short Cuts message more important, and a little more relevant (both are relevant, however). However this doesn't double-back and mean Drama is superior to crime/drama. As you recall I consider Collateral to be better then Million Dollar Baby.

By your rationale, if I'm a teacher grading papers, the stupid little Timmy may write a crappy paper on The Civil War, but it's mediocrity might entertain me, and even be cute. For this I should give the idiot an A? I have no problem with your way of grading, because I can see it's what you love the most that you put on top, but I feel you're looking at my rating ways in the wrong light, by over analyzing it, and making it sound like I go to Ebert to decide a rating.

Grumpier Old Men is a scrambled version of the first Grumpy Old Men. The sequel just switches the situations on the characters. I enjoy the sequel for the similarity to the first, but I don't rate it the same, because it's not creative at all. It's the same plot turned around character-wise.

It really isn't that hard to sit down and enjoy a B-movie, and I'm really running out of things to say. I'm saying the same thing with different examples.

Pale Rider is a macho remake of Shane. I like watching it, why? Because I love Clint Eastwood westerns. Is it good? No.

Well, no, because that's an academic discipline, and, like I've said, Film watching and discussion to me should be of raw, pure, gut feelings. Writing an essay isn't about connecting with an audience. Sure, you have to make a good argument and such, but you can do (and most people do) in the most boring, uninventive way, and still pass a grade. Cinema, or Art in general, has no such external goals; it just is, and people, I think, feel uncomfortable in that assumption. It was centuries ago when Art had to carry a social "message" in order to be classed as Art.

Yeah, and so you should; I consider myself biased, too. But it's a kind of pure bias, since I'm dealing only with the way the film affected me. Your way of rating is informed by external values. Not by Ebert or anything like that, but that, say, if you watch a film which you already know is considered great, you might say "well, I didn't enjoy it, but it's a great film." Why should it still be considered great? By this assumption, there is a set list of great films which we should all adhere to. Sadly, this isn't just the case in Cinema, and is even more prevalent in Literature studies, where you can only study stuff like Shakespeare and not pulp novels, because the former has been around for years and it would be scandalous to admit that it's irrelevant now. (I'm not saying it is, though.)

Sorry to have ignored these examples. I too rate The Last Waltz a great film because it does exactly what it wants to do and communicates that to me, allowing me to connect with it: as you say, celebrate the musicians' talents, and their passion for what they do. That came across in the film, therefore, to me, it is a great film. I don't know what you would consider "bad" music, though. Say, a documentary on techno music, which I know you don't like. If that showed the same passion for techno as The Last Waltz did for rock, I'd rate it a great film too.

Again, this is carrying the assumption that in order to be considered great, films must carry a wide-ranging, "significant" message. This automatically relegates more humble works out of the masterpiece category. Buñuel's films, for example, carry no real social message.

Yes, it would. I'm not interested at all in the real-life history either, but rate it a masterpiece because of its cinematic qualities. But I must ask, according to your assumptions of the greatest ever, what "message" does this film carry? It's a four hour epic, at the end of which, we know no further insight into Lawrence's character. He remains an enigma. What, then, does the film carry in terms of a message? That this guy was an enigmatic hero? I'm not sure if that message would apply as world-widely signficant.

But on this assumption, surely Million Dollar Baby's "wider message" is more important than Collateral's? The former is a film all about regret and determination and measuring success by happiness when it comes to the death bed; the latter is a collision of two male egos from different backgrounds with the closing "message" of how insignificant we as human beings are. Now, why do I rate Collateral a better film than Million Dollar Baby more? Because it is by far more compelling to watch.

It isn't hard to make one either. Which, to me, is why I can't enjoy a lot of them. They seldom offer anything worthwhile watching, and therefore I rarely enjoy them. Perhaps, when it comes down to it (and again, this is just an observation, not a criticism), you're more easily pleased than me.

I gave Pale Rider no stars, and my Proview reads (I haven't seen Shane): "No different from High Plains Drifter, which was both more lively and superior in most other aspects." Is it worth watching? No, not for me. Eastwood fans would see it anyway, though. But that's fine, because my rating system doesn't allow for specific fans of anything, so I write those little résumés with the assumption that Eastwood fans would see it anyway, and look past my criticisms of it (which weren't of Eastwood, but of the film).

Quote:

Top 10 just means top 10. By anyone.

Yeah, a "Top Ten by anyone" is. But my Top ten isn't. That's why I deliberately state that, for diversity reasons, I limit it to one film per director.

Again, no. This is something you won't take "no" for an answer. The last film I saw, Cinderella Man was supposed to be Howard's great masterwork from what I heard, including Omar, who I remember liked it. I gave it one star, as in decent. Again, I do not base my opinions on other people or critics. If you really knew me, you would know that I have an intense hatred for what I call "popular opinion," which I consider to be wrong many times. The picture I sense you're painting of me is that I read and read and read, find out about a film, look at it's IMDB ratings and Ebert review, and automatically decide before seeing it that I'm gonna give it a good grade or whatnot, as if I'm forcing myself to call it great. And with how I grade you can make this assumption over and over, but all I can keep saying is I don't do this. If it's one thing I hate doing, it's bullshitting myself, like I used to do in Grammar school if I hated a movie but praised it around others at school just to have something to talk about. As for Shakespeare, I consider him one of the greats as far as literature goes, but I wouldn't rule out considering a more recent example better then him, though I thought the whole Tupac/Shakespeare thread was stretching it a bit.

If it was a Nu Metal documentary with bands like Limp Bizkit, it would be bad music. If it was about Jerry Lee Lewis, and displayed the same great passion, then I would think it was great. I don't limit greatness to my preferences. Otherwise you can say only rock music would be good to me? No, even though rock isn't all I like. What if it was on Bob Dylan's influences? Remember the woman, Odetta? I'm not a fan of Odetta at all, but I wouldn't say it was bad because I don't like the music. You should also know I don't blast a whole genre of music. I can't say I listen to techno other then the song from the Collateral club scene, or Moby's music from Heat, but I wouldn't blast it just because I perfer rock. If you consider some of Radiohead's elements techno, then you have one more example I like.

I think the message lies in what we find in it. Though I worded that post wrong. I don't think all films require a message. I don't know what Gus Van Sant was intending with Last Days. For all I know it could've been him making implications about Cobain's death, but do I take it as that? No. Some thought it had a lot of religious implications in it's mise en scene. I called it a slice of life. I thought it was a portrayal of loneliness that looked both beautiful and depressing at times. There was no major message. Drugs are bad? No. Fame leaves you in a lonely place? No. But it was something beautiful and true about it that makes it the masterpiece I look at it as. Some films provoke you with a message that might not even be director-intended, some don't. The ones that don't can be mindless movies like Eraser, or wonderful films like Last Days. Interestingly enough, Last Days was a portrait without a main message while Elephant did have one, at least IMO.

Look above. For Lawrence of Arabia I don't recall any major message. It was a portrayal of an amazing man done wonderfully by O'Toole, but the film wasn't melodramatic, or a routine epic like any of Cecil B Demille's lesser films, like The Sign of the Cross. It felt more like a tribute to him, minus the corniness. Of course it's cinematic qualities such as cinematography and music are among the best. I haven't seen it in a while, but I can still remember the vast, mesmerizing landscapes of the desert, especially in that scene with the one man riding from the distance, partially blurred with a mirage. Sometimes you can sense how much care is put into making a film. Some historical epics end up average, forgettable pieces. Some like Lean's film, have a passion that is evident in what you see on the screen.

I think that's a somewhat pessimistic view on it. I think it isn't about the insignificence of humans, but that we can't procrastinate and bullshit ourselves into believing we'll fall into our dreams by destiny, but that we have to act on life, and strive to live for something. Vincent is a man of action, but unfortunately his self-serving, loner lifestyle alienates him from the world around him, like the out of place coyotes running across the streets of L.A., Vincent is disconnected from society, and in the end, what's his final thought? Who'll notice him? Who'll remember him? Though I guess the message we find depends person-to-person. I don't discredit your opinion on it, I just disagree with it's meaning, but then again we get different messages from different films. And I think it also depends on opinion which messages or purposes are more important then others.

No offense taken, I agree with you.

Well it can depend on an actor's iconic status, or even any actor that someone may love. I mean, I'm easy to please when it comes to entertainment. Give me Charles Bronson and a revenge film and I could be easily entertained with that, even if it has ridiculous violence.

We could go around and around with this for the next few days, but what it comes down to is someone's feelings and perception that simply cannot be translated into words of any language, especially dealing with film, which taps into every sense except smell (strong emotional power counts as touch to me).

This argument is very entertaining to me, which begs the question:

Message board discussions: Art or escapism?

Why?

On the Limp Bizkit documentary. You say it's "bad" music. I say it's good music, since I like it. The documentary itself may be bad, however. I would rate the film, not the music it depicts.

See what I mean? It's impossible to apply good and bad to art beyond any personal perspective. That's why I find it difficult to comprehend why people have separate lists, because their favourites are personal, and their best are impersonal, and have been filtered through a set contextualisation process, whereby films have to go through a kind of depersonalisation process, influenced by the assumption that art has to serve some kind of purpose. Which it doesn't.

When it comes down to social significance or world inlfuence, it's all bullshit, which is why I value your favourites list much more than your best.

But don't you also find films better than others due to your personal taste? It's impossible to be completely objective in art discussion. Everything we say is informed by our personal response to the work. Our whole lives are shaped by the way we respond to art.

And, for the sake of a side-argument and interesting comment, if you find Schindler's List overlong, then surely its editing is bad? Editing, being as important a cinematic element as cinematography, reduces its greatness, no?

That you find The Godfather a great film holds no objective weight whatsoever. It's still an opinion informed by your personal response to the work: if indeed you find the cinematography gorgeous to look at, or the writing profound, or the acting sublime, then you connect with the film, and therefore recognise its greatness.

If I laugh emphatically at Team America World Police, find its crude, profane humour enjoyable, I've connected with the film, and recognise its greatness. Every film has greatness inside of it. It's just a matter of whether you connect with it or not.

If there was such a thing as objective, universal truth as to what greatness was, it would be impossible for the term "overrated" to exist.

Keep in mind below when I say I don't listen to them that means I've heard their music but am not a fan.

I don't see a difference between criticizing the music and criticizing acting. If there was a documentary on Limp Bizkit, I wouldn't be giving it a big rating, because I consider them to be the single most disgusting thing to happen to rock. Horrible, macho lyrics with one of the most unlikable celebrities ever. This isn't to say I wouldn't pay attention to the way the film is directed, but that is a big part of it.

Now if it was a documentary on Charlie Parker, who I also don't listen, being a fan more of Miles Davis more, but respect heavily, I would consider the direction of the film and the content.

An upcoming documentary on Kurt Cobain is coming out, who you know I consider the best lyricist of 90's. Just because I love Cobain doesn't mean I'm gonna give it a big rating, because for all I know it's gonna be a mediocre, run-of-the-mill documentary that doesn't do anything new.

What are similar judgments? (last two are hypothetical)

Ray - Overrated film with a wonderful performance from Foxx.

Apocalypse Now - Starring a no name actor. Brilliantly directed and has great acting.

Collateral - Great direction but is brought down heavily by horrible performances from Johnny Knoxville and Vin Diesel.

Bottom line, great direction will be taken into mind, though horrible acting/music can bring it down in quality. It would take a great direction to make a great documentary about Limp Bizkit, perhaps like Cameron's to Terminator.

But, to come back to Eraser, do you think they employed Schwarzenegger for his acting abilities? Does the film require good acting in order for you to enjoy the film? No. If they wanted good acting in that role, they would have employed Robert De Niro. Schwarzenegger will sell more tickets, though, given the target audience of such a film. (The very reason genre films seek audiences means most of the time, they are mediocre.) Eraser is supposed to pass time, or be enjoyed; therefore, if you connect with this value, it is a good film on your own terms. Or should be, at least.

I don't like hardcore trance music. But I would like to think that I could appreciate a documentary on it for its own values (as, like you've said, you could too). But the difference between a documentary on "bad" music and an action film with "bad" acting is the former is the action, the latter is part of the action.

Do you agree with my post:
If there was such a thing as objective, universal truth as to what greatness was, it would be impossible for the term "overrated" to exist.

I never said there is a universal truth. There's only what I consider great, and we all differ in what we see as great, which is why these debates never end differently.

I don't care if Eraser is supposed to be a mindless action film. That doesn't mean I automatically have to give it a good rating. But to you, I have to, and that's the problem.

I can sit back and say to myself, feeling entertained, "It was a corny action movie with poor action and bad acting."

The problem is you see that as an impossible or dishonest emotion, and it isn't. Maybe for you to do it, it is. However for me that's my honesty, and I have a feeling you'll never really accept that. Showing a best-ever list with mostly crime and western movies is my dishonesty.

I can relate to Broken Flowers, and not to a story about a woman living under an abusive husband. Does that mean Broken Flowers is automatically better, just because I'll never be able to know what it's like to be a wife under an abusive husband? No, depending on the film's qualities, and that's all I can say.

Yeah, okay, fair enough.

When it comes down to it, then, you feel entertainment, or when a film is made to entertain for the sake of entertainment, it would be shallow for you to go along with that and therefore agree to its greatness on its own level. This whole discussion, in hindsight, has formed around that, and how I've tried to encourage you to think a little more about the films' own intrinsic values, and not the set measurements and preconceptions by which we judge them. For instance, you wouldn't set about analysing a poem in the same way you'd analyse a police document.

What makes Schindler's List a masterpiece and what makes Team America World Police a masterpiece depend on many different things, but the two films share the same greatness in that they connect with me personally, as I take into account their own values.

I judge people the same way. And, to me, a film, or any work of art, is basically a vehicle for communication between two people. Do I enjoy watching Schindler's List? Definitely. It's engrossing for me, and the depressing tone helps that. I'd feel uncomfortable watching it if I enjoyed watching it because of its humour. Do I "enjoy" watching Irréversible's graphic rape scene? Definitely. It is an horrendous, riveting, repulsive scene to watch, and its power grasps me and allows me to enjoy watching it. Forget the dictionary's definition of enjoy. It doesn't mean I'm sitting there with a broad smile on my face, but it means I'm engaging with the film on the levels I'm supposed to be. Connecting.

But I understand where you're coming from, and have actually all along; forgive me if I've come across as disrespectful. this is not the case, but I guess I've been trying to get you to admit there's no shame in enjoying films like Eraser on the level they're supposed to be enjoyed at. And what level's that? Well, whatever level at which you connect with the film.

Thanks, as ever, for the discussion, and maintaining an argument through repetitive times (though I find that, the more I write in these debates, the more I articulate my own thoughts to myself). I am, however, disappointed that I was debating only with you, for I know many others feel the same way as you.

You make it sound like I'm that FCM member who pisses on almost all non-arthouse films, as if I dismiss comedies and such from top lists. I don't. Hell, I consider the South Park film to be one of the great satires.

Again, I don't base my opinions on preconceptions or "set measurements."

The same with me. Entertainment doesn't mean joyful experiences. Both Last Days and Elephant are among my favorites, because they are engrossing to the point of entertaining me. Not in the sense that I enjoy watching a high school massacre or an alienated musician, but through fascination.

There is no shame in enjoying the movie. But does that mean that I think it's a good movie? No. That is an honest, gut feeling. It's not something I think hard about, I know it's nothing special, why should I lie to myself by inflating it when I know I don't think it's good?

Sure thing.

Why? [/b][/quote]Seeing both sides of a very difficult topic helps me sort out my thoughts.

All opinion is, by definition, subjective.

But I like to at least think that to at least some degree, here is a bit of "universality" in civilization's judgement as to what makes a great film, or a great piece of music, or a great work of art, and that whether or not it is enjoyed by the viewer or the listener, they can still recognize its greatness.

I think that when the vast majority of society's members recognize the music of the Beatles, or Beethoven, or Mozart as great when compared to Limp Bizkit, or that a film like The Godfather is great when compared to Men In Black II, or the work of Picasso or Rembrandt or Kandinsky (my personal favorite) is great when compared to the finger painting of a five year old, I believe that we can generally accept their judgement as correct.

This is where we differ. Say, a child is locked in a room for an hour, with nothing to occupy him. Then, when he is let out, he is told to draw the first thing he thinks of. That drawing produced is as pure a piece of art, as a projection of the unconscious, as is a canvas with splashes of random paint-to-music by Kandinsky, whom I also admire. I'm a firm believer in cultural relativism, and that, if Art is Truth (and indeed it is), then audience reaction to it, and interpretation of it, is the direct Mirror to that Truth. In short, if I think Limp Bizkit's music is better than The Beatles simply because it strikes more of a chord with me, and I engage with it on an intellectual level (a level which can be defined and justified by anything), then I am right. If you, Plaw, value The Beatles over Limp Bizkit for the same reasons, then you are also right.

We all know this, of course (hence the term subjectivity and opinion), but, when there's a distinction placed between best and favourites, it drowns the whole concept, for me, holding one close to you but another on a higher status. It's distinctively highbrow thinking, and one which, over the past year or so, I've grown increasingly distant from.

SVSG, in criticising my top ten methods, raised an important point, in that each individual text (work of art) is incomparable to the next, for the two reasons that both have different intentions, and both have different receptions. To even compare The Beatles and Limp Bizkit beyond a personal scale, then, is silly (to me).

As you can see from THIS post from another thread, I have been holding the same view as capo, although there could be differences in the reasoning. But now I play devil's advocate and ask this: I presume (I hope reasonably) that you must be enjoying watching porn movies. I am referring to no brainer xxx porn, not some erotic art movie. Eventhough you may be liking them very much, would you still put them in the great category?

Michael Winterbottom's 9 Songs is about as hardcore an art movie I've seen, and further pushes the boundaries between porn and art. The film weaves in an emotional core stemming from the erotic scenes; that said, in showing the relationship in such intimacy, it does in fact de-eroticise the whole thing, and the sex scenes become more like regular kissing scenes. Did I enjoy the film? Certainly. Does that make it great? Yes.

As for the "no-brainer" stuff you refer to, I don't enjoy watching it, and rarely do. It fails, therefore, to serve its purpose: to eroticise and excite me. I think that's my problem with porn in terms of categorising it as Art: it has a function, and is more of an industry than an artform; though there are, I believe, auteurs, of sorts, within that business. Art, however, serves no certainly definable function, really.

Capo, maybe I misunderstood you, but do you favor the indistinction between art and porn? Call me a traditional high-brow bullshit fan, but certain boundaries do exist and in my opinion they are to remain.

STANDING OVATION! My approach to cinema is in fact mostly an aesthetic and emotional one. I don't care too much for technicisms. I let myself be absorbed by a movie magic. That's why I absolutely agree with what you said about Schindler's list. It was meant to be depressing. It was meant to be upsetting.

I'm not going to repeat the lists many had already posted. I want to add one of my fav directors who hasn't been mentioned yet. Quite inexplicably, nobody here seems to estimate him the way he deserves.

James Ivory

The Remains of the Day (1993) a masterpiece!!!
Maurice (1987)
A Room with a View (1985)
Howards End (1992)
Surviving Picasso (1996)

Any other takers for my question above? No one enjoys watching porn ? Half of internet is dedicated to this

No, not exactly, for the reasons I posted in my last post; but I admire that some filmmakers are pushing the boundaries on certain taboos, and the distinction between acceptable Art and what many people look down upon. But, no, I don't think porn is Art...just yet, anyway.

I've been wanting to pick up on this, and you've reminded me to do so. To suggest that there is a certain way of establishing one film better than another based on "technicalities" is also, to me, a difficult and inconsistent way of "rating", or "comparing" films. It implies a mathematical reduction of a uniquely aesthetic form, where you can look at this and that and count up the pros and the cons, and then concoct a sum total of sorts, and thus rate the film. It's what MMTH does in his reviews, which I don't have a problem with exactly, as long as he feels comfortable with it. But to me, cinematography, directing, and all the other "technicalities" of Cinema are individual elements comprising a whole texture, and to dissect them into these technical roles is reductive to the whole filmwatching experience. Whenever I read my old film reviews from a few years ago, they did exactly this: one paragraph to the direction, one to the cinematography, etc. And, recently, I realised what a load of bollocks it is for me; you always find yourself repeating the same thing about every different text. Instead, now, I value the film more as a solid texture, one which is wholly different from every other one in existence.

So, to further my argument against you Plaw, there's no such thing as a "technically better" film. At the end of the day, if the film fails to evoke some kind of intuitive response in you, it isn't good. I agree that The Godfather is a better film than Men In Black II. But on what grounds? On the grounds that, when I watch it, I admire its meticulous design, am engaged by its plot of revenge, and am driven away by its Shakespearean narrative. I do not think it is a better film because it has a more elaborate design, or even because I am interested more in revenge than alien invasion, or because I value Shakespearean narrative more than commerce-driven comedy. I rate it better because Men In Black II, when I watch(ed) it, didn't make me laugh, nor did I find its action scenes exhilarating, and I found it exploitative and, because of that, repetitive of the first film. I don't rate it better because it has had more of an impact on Film, or because it has "stood the test of time" more, or because it's simply a more ambitious film. I value it more due to the very reason it resonates with me long after it's finished.

Lombardi said once he valued The Godfather higher than Pulp Fiction as a better film (though he liked Pulp Fiction more) simply, or at least when it came down to it, due to the fact that he thought writing drama was more difficult than the opposite of drama, whatever that is. This is limiting your filmwatching potential immensely, immediately putting a prejudice against comedy films, for example.

I think you, and others who think the same way, are in the thinking that, in order for a film to be considered "great", you need to watch it, extract its meaning and message, and thus solve the subtext to it. That is the general principle applying to all Art. But there are much more abstract ways of approaching Film, and responding to it, based more on the feelings they conjure up inside of you.

If SC said King Kong was the best film ever made, and gave his personal reasons behind that, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. He would, however, label that as "pompous", I think.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, if you're reading, SC.

.....and you were the one who criticized me when I regretted there was not enough sex in the GF movies!!!!! :p Just kidding, SVSG! BTW, do you really think anyone is going to admit regularly watching porn? Nobody will. Nobody but Part, of course!