People use the word "masterpiece" too much. According to IMDb, I've seen well over 3000 movies but I'd only consider maybe 7 of them masterpieces
shareZero
shareThat's harsh.
shareI think masterpiece is reserved for works of art that will stand the test of time. For a multitude of reasons, I'm not sure it's possible for a movie to ascend to that level.
Think the statue of David, the Sistine chapel, the mona lisa, even Notre dame in it's current state, the statue of liberty...things that will last.
Gone With the Wind? I wouldn't consider it a masterpiece, but people think every frame is like a painting and people still talk about it now.
shareI see what you're saying...but even a movie like that I dont see being talked about in say, 100 years. Basically I think all movies are too confined to time & place to have any real legacy.
I think in the future people will watch movies on holograms or whatever and old movies like that...nobody is going to care except for maybe archeologist that specializes in 20th century film.
I feel a word like "masterpiece" should transcend all that.
Everything is ephemeral to one degree or another though so how/where do you draw that line? We still read The Tale of Genji and it's around 1,000 years old. It's still relevant, important and influential even though it reflects antique circumstances. Why is film inherently different?
shareBecause people won't be watching film in a couple hundred years. Too many films also; market too flooded with crap.
Film is too limiting. It never aspires to be anything but ephemeral.
You think any of this woke crap that has ever been filmed is going to influence anybody in 50 years?
It's all woke crap, going all the way back to george melies.
I think ultimately film will play no part in future culture or psyche, except as an antique curosity.
Because people won't be watching film in a couple hundred years.
Too many films also; market too flooded with crap.
Film is too limiting. It never aspires to be anything but ephemeral.
It's all woke crap, going all the way back to george melies.
I think ultimately film will play no part in future culture or psyche, except as an antique curosity.
I think that in the distance future people will watch holograms (as I stated in an earlier post). In that case people will view 2d films like we currently view drive in theater and the movies they stereotypically show. I believe in the future people will view all movies shot in 2d the same way people now view drive in cult classics. Nobody remembers "black cobra"(its a shot for shot remake of the Stallone flick with black actors)...
Also movies are too specific in content. The statue of david...it has no explicit meaning...
Also, classical art is usually the vision of one person, or a limited number of people.
I dont think any studio movie qualifies as art, since the primary motivation for creation is monetary.
Just random thoughts
We still read and study literature because nothing has directly superseded it. We dont go to the drive in theater anymore, because, I guess, home video "directly" superseded it.
There is no direct comparison with literature.
The holograms (or whatever) will supersede 2d film.
Ok there's a lot to unpack here.
First, whether you're at a drive-in, theater, home theater or watching on your phone doesn't change the intrinsic content of the film itself, so we can just speak in terms of the films themselves. That said there are still drive-ins, and though we can stream about anything we want anywhere anytime, people are still going to theaters. So that issue isn't really pertinent. We still respect, love and watch black and white films and silent films even though we have color talkies.
Nobody remembers "black cobra"(its a shot for shot remake of the Stallone flick with black actors)...
The holograms (or whatever) will supersede 2d film.
(cont'd)
Any new hologram media, (Hypothetically how are we imagining this? Is it VR? Is our point of view fixed etc?) will bring new parameters and qualities by which the works will be made and interpreted, but will necessitate a tradeoff of corresponding lost parameters particular to film. And wherever something is lost, rather than objectively only better, there will always be a place for that original medium.
Also movies are too specific in content. The statue of david...it has no explicit meaning...
Also, classical art is usually the vision of one person, or a limited number of people.
I dont think any studio movie qualifies as art, since the primary motivation for creation is monetary.
Let me put it this way: I'm shit, you're shit. Everybody who was ever born was shit. Everybody who will ever be born will be shit. Anything anybody has everproduced is shit. Anything anybody will ever produce will be shit.
Humanity sucks; let the "lesser" animals have the earth.
Still feel like debating this with me?
LOL, ok I don't entirely disagree there. I see where you're coming from. So it's overstating basic human value to praise our own output at all. As cynical as it gets, but fair enough. π
share[deleted]
Using a fairly strict interpretation of the word "masterpiece" I would say the following:
Rebecca (1940)
The Innocents (1961)
Three Days of the Condor (1975)
Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979)
The Man in the Moon (1991)
The Remains of the Day (1993)
Freeway (1996)
ππ― The Innocents (1961) π―π
Coincidentally, I just watched The Man in the Moon again for the first time in years. It struck me then as now as extraordinary in a quiet and small film way.
I like your list and now have to go look up Freeway, which I've never heard of.
Yes as you say 'The Man in the Moon' is a small but beautifully made film. It was the last film directed by Robert Mulligan who also directed 'To Kill A Mockingbird'. And 'Freeway' also stars Reese Witherspoon in a polar opposite role that she hits clear out of the park. She was never more completely possessed by a character than she was as Vanessa Lutz in 'Freeway'.
"It was the last film directed by Robert Mulligan who also directed 'To Kill A Mockingbird'."
Very interesting! His direction on To Kill A Mockingbird was brilliant. I'd have never guessed he was the same director but now that you mention it, I can see it.
Just checked and Freeway is on Prime so I'll be seeing that one soon. I like Reese Witherspoon.
Freeway is such an underrated film.
sharethere's lots of things about film making that i know absolutely nothing about, so i'd say i'm not the guy to be making that claim for any movie.
that said, i think these films are perfect in my own private world and i wouldn't change a thing about them.
tokyo story certainly
singin' in the rain probably
beyond the valley of the dolls
mulholland drive
brand upon the brain
a separation
pan's labyrinth
wild strawberries
aguirre
sunrise
close up
I think that's a nice amount. It should be rare that we see an actual masterpiece.
sharei wouldn't say that those are my favourite films, either. to use an old, maybe trite line, there's a real difference between favourite and best, & there are lots of films that are flawed, probably not even very good on some level that i really love & rate more highly than most of the films listed above.
shareMaybe 5 or 6.
shareWhat would be the 5 or 6 films that you would consider masterpieces, Andy?
shareWizard of Oz
2001
Children of Men
Planet of the Apes
Star Wars
I agree with Wizard of Oz, 2001, and Star Wars. Planet of the Apes is good, but I don't personally consider it a masterpiece I'm not a fan of Children of Men and was disappointed by i5, so I would definitely not consider it a masterpiece myself.
shareSo what would be the 7 films that you consider masterpieces, samoanjoes?
shareCity of God
American Beauty
The Shawshank Redemption
Cria Cuervos
Psycho
Seppuku
Incendies
Maybe I'd throw "Fargo" in there. And I haven't seen "Cats" yet.
I agree with American Beauty and Psycho. I like Shawshank Redemption, but I feel it is a little too generic, derivative and predictable to be a masterpiece. I was underwhelmed and disappointed by City of God. I loved Cria Cuervos and might consider it a masterpiece. I haven't seen Seppuku or Incendies yet. Fargo I would definitely consider a masterpiece and Cats I would definitely not consider a masterpiece, even though I had fun with it.
share
Offhand, I'd say one: 2001: A Space Odyssey.
π
Yo if you could only pick one, this is not a bad choice at all.
shareIt's a near masterpiece for me.
share2001 has awful pacing and some laughable special effects.
share[deleted]
π
share
What are you laughing at, zc?
π
This cat owes you $9.29, Movieman.
share
WTF are you babbling about, zc?
π
He owes you $9.29, for the Grand Slam you served him. π
share
You're full of shit.
π
Welcome to Denny's, my name is Movieman, I'll be your host, and we're serving up Grand Slams all day, breakfast lunch and dinner. π
shareLooks like I hit a nerve.
The monkey suit effects are bad even for its time. It just looks like a dude in a suit. And the pacing issues are inarguable. A masterpiece should have no fundamental flaws.
I can't really believe you care this much about 2001, a crappy movie. Why not tell us about a movie that you really think is a masterpiece? I think that would be more fun and productive.
share[deleted]
No joke here but I think you have to think with heart not your head. Just imagine yourself sitting down on Saturday with a warm blanket and the best beer ever.. What 3 movies do you want to watch again. You don't get up to do anything else. The movie has your complete attention.
share
I am thinking with my head. 2001 is the only film I've ever rated 10/10. Perfect. The greatest film of all time by the greatest director of all time. And the three movies I'd love to watch again are:
2001
2001
2001
π