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.

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

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".

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.

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?

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.

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?)

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 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)".

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.

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.

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...

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"?

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"?

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.)

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.

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

THE DICTIONARY?!?!??!

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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. We're at an impasse.

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.

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