“A Corner of nature seen through the temperament”–-French novelist Emile Zola about great literature.
We all love different movies for different, often very personal reasons. But is there a more dispassionate, not to mention objective way, of how to define a great film.
Phrased differently, what requirements or elements a particular film should meet in order to qualify as a masterpiece?
A great film made anywhere in the world is always to some extent a triumph over the adversary conditions of production.
We all love different movies, albeit for what may be different, often very personal or contradictory, reasons.
Nonetheless, we should ask whether there is a more dispassionate, not to mention objective way, of how to define great films.
Phrased differently, what requirements or elements a particular film should meet in order to qualify as a masterpiece?
The French filmmaker Jean Renoir made many good films but why do we always go back to “Rules of the Game” (1939). Ditto for Fellini, a master of many talents and impressive body of work, but “I Vitelloni,” “La Dolce Vita,” ”81/2,” and a few others are on another level. Antonioni’s “L’Avventura” in on a league of its own, even among his superlative works. And so are “Rashomon” and “Seven Samurai” among the many grand works made by Japanese maestro Akira Kurosawa.
The work of filmmakers who are great artists follows a logical and progressive development, showing evolution of their thematic concerns and technical skills. Which means that Hitchcock was indeed an artist of the first rank. My ranking of Hitchcock’ American films, suggesting that “Shadow of A Doubt” (1943) is his first Hollywood masterpiece, and “Notorious” (1946) is his second, launched a huge debate among our readers of what’s a great film, a masterpiece, a masterwork. In other words, why is “Notorious” a masterpiece and “Spellbound” is not?
Working definitions of great films (masterpiece)
1. Great films work on a number of levels simultaneously, whereas unsuccessful movies don’t even work on one.
2. Great films call for active participation on the part of viewers on any number of levels, intellectual, emotional, spiritual, sensual.
3. Great films are ahead of the viewers at all times; when the viewer is ahead of them (in terms of narrative, plot, ideas), it’s no good.
4. Great films are multi-layered and coherent works that amount to much more than the sum of their individual parts.
The late distinguished film Andrew Sarris, my mentor at Columbia University, who, among many qualities, introduced auteurism into the American context, holds that great films must have hidden meanings, different levels, different layers.
5. Great films provoke strong emotional responses, and the more meaningful the emotion, the better the film. That said, all great works constantly change their meanings or reveal new ones. There is a dynamic relationship between the work s and the historical-cultural contexts within which they were created and the contexts in which they continue to be perceived.
6. The late Canadian critic-scholar Robin Wood has suggested that great works are statements about the human condition and about life, but statements that are essentially self-contained and self-sufficient. Great art strives, explicitly or implicitly, toward the realization of values and norms. It’s not a matter of whether the film is optimistic (upbeat) or pessimistic (downbeat); it’s a matter of the nature of the creative impulse. These works enable spiritual exaltation, offering transcendental experience, even if it’s a momentary one, akin to other sensual and spiritual (religion) experiences.
7. A successful work of art must be self-sufficient, its significance arising from the interaction of its parts.
Psycho is the best example for that, a well-made, well-constructed system.
8. Great films are marked by dramatic and spiritual qualities and the highest level of technical skill. In great works, such as Orson Welles’ “Citizen Kane” or Hitchcock’s “Vertigo,” mastery of technical skills (visual brilliance), narrative poignancy, and emotional meanings are inseparable
9. Great films are the product of their artists’ logical and progressive evolution, in terms of theme and style
10. Great films deal with subjects and themes that would be just as interesting if they occurred in real life.
11. Great films continuously and constantly change their meanings, evoking different responses from their viewers, contingent on the socio-cultural contexts in which they are made and viewed and reviewed.
12. Great films are art works in which narrative, technique (style) and emotion are inseparable.
For example: Jean Renoir’s Rules of the Game (1939).
13. Great films are usually not planned or calculated as such. Rather, they just happen through some unusual confluence of talents and qualities.
The French filmmaker Jean Renoir made many good films but why do we always go back to “Rules of the Game” (1939). Ditto for Fellini, a master of many talents and impressive body of work, but “I Vitelloni,” “La Dolce Vita,” ”81/2,” and a few others are on another level. Antonioni’s “L’Avventura” in on a league of its own, even among his superlative works. And so are “Rashomon” and “Seven Samurai” among the many grand works made by Japanese maestro Akira Kurosawa.
The work of filmmakers who are great artists follows a logical and progressive development, showing evolution of their thematic concerns and technical skills. Which means that Hitchcock was indeed an artist of the first rank. My ranking of Hitchcock’ American films, suggesting that “Shadow of A Doubt” (1943) is his first Hollywood masterpiece, and “Notorious” (1946) is his second, launched a huge debate among our readers of what’s a great film, a masterpiece, a masterwork. In other words, why is “Notorious” a masterpiece and “Spellbound” is not?
Here are some working definitions of what constitutes a masterpiece
1. Great films work on a number of levels simultaneously, whereas unsuccessful movies don’t even work on one.
2. Great films call for active participation on the part of viewers on any number of levels, intellectual, emotional, spiritual, sensual.
3. Great films are ahead of the viewers at all times; when the viewer is ahead of them (in terms of narrative, plot, ideas), it’s no good.
4. Great films are multi-layered works that are much more than the sum of their parts.
The distinguished film Andrew Sarris, my mentor at Columbia University, who, among many qualities, introduced auteurism into the American context, holds that great films must have hidden meanings, different levels, different layers.
5. Great films provoke strong emotional responses, and the more meaningful the emotion, the better the film. That said, all great works constantly change their meanings or reveal new ones. There is a dynamic relationship between the work s and the historical-cultural contexts within which they were created and the contexts in which they continue to be perceived.
6. The late Canadian critic-scholar Robin Wood has suggested that great works are statements about the human condition and about life, but statements that are essentially self-contained and self-sufficient. Great art strives, explicitly or implicitly, toward the realization of values and norms. It’s not a matter of whether the film is optimistic (upbeat) or pessimistic (downbeat); it’s a matter of the nature of the creative impulse. These works enable spiritual exaltation, offering a transcendental experience, even if it’s momentary one, akin to other sensual and spiritual (religion) experiences.
7. A successful work of art must be self-sufficient, its significance arising from the interaction of its parts. “Psycho is the best example for that, a well-made, well-constructed system.
8. Great films are marked by dramatic and spiritual qualities and the highest level of technical skill. In great works, such as Orson Welles’ “Citizen Kane” or Hitchcock’s “Vertigo,” mastery of technical skills (visual brilliance), narrative poignancy, and emotional meanings are inseparable
Great Films: Definitions
Crowther, Bosley, The Great Films (Vintage Films).
The work of great artists follows a logical and progressive development. There is evolution of his thematic concerns chronologically
Vincent Canby (N.Y. Times, Feb 2, 1986):
Good films work on a number of levels simultaneously
Unsuccessful movies don’t even work on one.
To enjoy these movies, we must actively participate in them. We can’t tune in and out at will, which one can do while watching the Rocky movies, without missing anything important.
A good movie is ahead of the viewer at all times; When the viewer is ahead, it’s no good.
A work which is more than the sum of its parts
A film succeeds if it provokes emotion. The more meaningful the emotion, the better the film.
A test for movie: Is this movie as interesting as the same things would be happening in real life.
Emil Zola: “A corner of nature seen through the temperament.”
All great works constantly change their meanings or reveal new ones, as a result of the dynamic relationships with the historical/cultural situation within which they are perceived.
Robin Wood:
Great works are statements about the human condition, about life and they are essentially self-contained and self-sufficient.
A successful work of art must be self-sufficient, its significance arising from the interaction of its parts.
They enable spiritual exaltation–the momentary intimation of the transcendent (like orgasm and religious experience).
Great art strives–however implicitly–toward the realization of norms. It’s not a matter of whether a work is optimistic or pessimistic. It’s a matter of the nature of the creative impulse.
All great films are fed by a complex generic tradition, reflecting the fears and anxieties, and aspirations of the whole culture, and transcending their directors (once they are made), though they would be inconceivable without this particular director.
Example: Shadow of a Doubt, expressing genre, Hitchcock’s personal vision, and societal anxieties and aspirations.
Andrew Sarris:
Great films have to have hidden meanings, different levels, different layers.
David Edelstein (Village Voice, Nov 27, 1984):
As in all masterpieces, technique and emotion are inseparable.
David Thomson’s Great Films:
Birth of a Nation
Bonnie and Clyde
The Deer Hunter
King Kong
All monuments worthy of some shame and much exhilaration.
World of art made out of noveletta:
Daisy Kenyon
Imitation of Life
Letter from an Unknown Woman
Mortal Storm
Shanghai Express
Shop Around the Corner
A Star Is Born
Sunrise
Great American Pictures
Blue Velvet (grows larger with time)
Citizen Kane
Night of the Hunter
Vertigo
Pauline Kael, the late influential critic of the New Yorker, had showered unqualified praise for a relatively few movies, including:
Ingmar Bergman’s Shame
Carol Reed’s Oliver!
Bellocchio’s China Is Never,
Jean-Luc Godard’s Weekend and La Chinoise
Other films Kael had championed include:
M.A.S.H., and McCabe and Mrs. Miller, both by Robert Altman;
The Garden of the Finzi Continis by Vittorio De Sica
Alan Pakula’s Klute.
Kael’s list of the greatest films ever made:
D. W. Griffith’s Intolerance
Buster Keaton’s Steamboat Bill Jr.
Jean Renoir’s Rules of the Game, Day in the Country, and La Grande Illusion
John Huston’s The Maltese Falcon
Marx’s brothers’ Duck Soup
John Simon has singled out:
Rules of the Game (Renoir)
I Vitelloni (Fellini)
L’Avventura (Antonioni)
Here Is Your Life (Jan Troell)
One Fine Day (Olmi)
David Thomson
Thomson in his Film Dictionary has pointed out that great films combine both shame and exhilaration, as is manifest in Birth of a Nation, King Kong, Bonnie and Clyde, and The Deer Hunter.
Blue Velvet
Citizen Kane
Night of the Hunter
Vertigo
Great novels made into good films with their own art worlds:
Film Theory: Great Films–Approach, Definitions by Critics, Andrew Sarris, Pauline Kael, John Simon, David Thomson, Robin Wood
Research in Progress, June 16, 2024
“A Corner of nature seen through the temperament”–-French novelist Emile Zola about great literature.
We all love different movies for different, often very personal reasons. But is there a more dispassionate, not to mention objective way, of how to define a great film.
Phrased differently, what requirements or elements a particular film should meet in order to qualify as a masterpiece?
A great film made anywhere in the world is always to some extent a triumph over the adversary conditions of production.
We all love different movies, albeit for what may be different, often very personal or contradictory, reasons.
Nonetheless, we should ask whether there is a more dispassionate, not to mention objective way, of how to define great films.
Phrased differently, what requirements or elements a particular film should meet in order to qualify as a masterpiece?
The French filmmaker Jean Renoir made many good films but why do we always go back to “Rules of the Game” (1939). Ditto for Fellini, a master of many talents and impressive body of work, but “I Vitelloni,” “La Dolce Vita,” ”81/2,” and a few others are on another level. Antonioni’s “L’Avventura” in on a league of its own, even among his superlative works. And so are “Rashomon” and “Seven Samurai” among the many grand works made by Japanese maestro Akira Kurosawa.
The work of filmmakers who are great artists follows a logical and progressive development, showing evolution of their thematic concerns and technical skills. Which means that Hitchcock was indeed an artist of the first rank. My ranking of Hitchcock’ American films, suggesting that “Shadow of A Doubt” (1943) is his first Hollywood masterpiece, and “Notorious” (1946) is his second, launched a huge debate among our readers of what’s a great film, a masterpiece, a masterwork. In other words, why is “Notorious” a masterpiece and “Spellbound” is not?
Working definitions of great films (masterpiece)
1. Great films work on a number of levels simultaneously, whereas unsuccessful movies don’t even work on one.
2. Great films call for active participation on the part of viewers on any number of levels, intellectual, emotional, spiritual, sensual.
3. Great films are ahead of the viewers at all times; when the viewer is ahead of them (in terms of narrative, plot, ideas), it’s no good.
4. Great films are multi-layered and coherent works that amount to much more than the sum of their individual parts.
The late distinguished film Andrew Sarris, my mentor at Columbia University, who, among many qualities, introduced auteurism into the American context, holds that great films must have hidden meanings, different levels, different layers.
5. Great films provoke strong emotional responses, and the more meaningful the emotion, the better the film. That said, all great works constantly change their meanings or reveal new ones. There is a dynamic relationship between the work s and the historical-cultural contexts within which they were created and the contexts in which they continue to be perceived.
6. The late Canadian critic-scholar Robin Wood has suggested that great works are statements about the human condition and about life, but statements that are essentially self-contained and self-sufficient. Great art strives, explicitly or implicitly, toward the realization of values and norms. It’s not a matter of whether the film is optimistic (upbeat) or pessimistic (downbeat); it’s a matter of the nature of the creative impulse. These works enable spiritual exaltation, offering transcendental experience, even if it’s a momentary one, akin to other sensual and spiritual (religion) experiences.
7. A successful work of art must be self-sufficient, its significance arising from the interaction of its parts.
Psycho is the best example for that, a well-made, well-constructed system.
8. Great films are marked by dramatic and spiritual qualities and the highest level of technical skill. In great works, such as Orson Welles’ “Citizen Kane” or Hitchcock’s “Vertigo,” mastery of technical skills (visual brilliance), narrative poignancy, and emotional meanings are inseparable
9. Great films are the product of their artists’ logical and progressive evolution, in terms of theme and style
10. Great films deal with subjects and themes that would be just as interesting if they occurred in real life.
11. Great films continuously and constantly change their meanings, evoking different responses from their viewers, contingent on the socio-cultural contexts in which they are made and viewed and reviewed.
12. Great films are art works in which narrative, technique (style) and emotion are inseparable.
For example: Jean Renoir’s Rules of the Game (1939).
13. Great films are usually not planned or calculated as such. Rather, they just happen through some unusual confluence of talents and qualities.
The French filmmaker Jean Renoir made many good films but why do we always go back to “Rules of the Game” (1939). Ditto for Fellini, a master of many talents and impressive body of work, but “I Vitelloni,” “La Dolce Vita,” ”81/2,” and a few others are on another level. Antonioni’s “L’Avventura” in on a league of its own, even among his superlative works. And so are “Rashomon” and “Seven Samurai” among the many grand works made by Japanese maestro Akira Kurosawa.
The work of filmmakers who are great artists follows a logical and progressive development, showing evolution of their thematic concerns and technical skills. Which means that Hitchcock was indeed an artist of the first rank. My ranking of Hitchcock’ American films, suggesting that “Shadow of A Doubt” (1943) is his first Hollywood masterpiece, and “Notorious” (1946) is his second, launched a huge debate among our readers of what’s a great film, a masterpiece, a masterwork. In other words, why is “Notorious” a masterpiece and “Spellbound” is not?
Here are some working definitions of what constitutes a masterpiece
1. Great films work on a number of levels simultaneously, whereas unsuccessful movies don’t even work on one.
2. Great films call for active participation on the part of viewers on any number of levels, intellectual, emotional, spiritual, sensual.
3. Great films are ahead of the viewers at all times; when the viewer is ahead of them (in terms of narrative, plot, ideas), it’s no good.
4. Great films are multi-layered works that are much more than the sum of their parts.
The distinguished film Andrew Sarris, my mentor at Columbia University, who, among many qualities, introduced auteurism into the American context, holds that great films must have hidden meanings, different levels, different layers.
5. Great films provoke strong emotional responses, and the more meaningful the emotion, the better the film. That said, all great works constantly change their meanings or reveal new ones. There is a dynamic relationship between the work s and the historical-cultural contexts within which they were created and the contexts in which they continue to be perceived.
6. The late Canadian critic-scholar Robin Wood has suggested that great works are statements about the human condition and about life, but statements that are essentially self-contained and self-sufficient. Great art strives, explicitly or implicitly, toward the realization of values and norms. It’s not a matter of whether the film is optimistic (upbeat) or pessimistic (downbeat); it’s a matter of the nature of the creative impulse. These works enable spiritual exaltation, offering a transcendental experience, even if it’s momentary one, akin to other sensual and spiritual (religion) experiences.
7. A successful work of art must be self-sufficient, its significance arising from the interaction of its parts. “Psycho is the best example for that, a well-made, well-constructed system.
8. Great films are marked by dramatic and spiritual qualities and the highest level of technical skill. In great works, such as Orson Welles’ “Citizen Kane” or Hitchcock’s “Vertigo,” mastery of technical skills (visual brilliance), narrative poignancy, and emotional meanings are inseparable
Great Films: Definitions
Crowther, Bosley, The Great Films (Vintage Films).
The work of great artists follows a logical and progressive development. There is evolution of his thematic concerns chronologically
Vincent Canby (N.Y. Times, Feb 2, 1986):
Good films work on a number of levels simultaneously
Unsuccessful movies don’t even work on one.
To enjoy these movies, we must actively participate in them. We can’t tune in and out at will, which one can do while watching the Rocky movies, without missing anything important.
A good movie is ahead of the viewer at all times; When the viewer is ahead, it’s no good.
A work which is more than the sum of its parts
A film succeeds if it provokes emotion. The more meaningful the emotion, the better the film.
A test for movie: Is this movie as interesting as the same things would be happening in real life.
Emil Zola: “A corner of nature seen through the temperament.”
All great works constantly change their meanings or reveal new ones, as a result of the dynamic relationships with the historical/cultural situation within which they are perceived.
Robin Wood:
Great works are statements about the human condition, about life and they are essentially self-contained and self-sufficient.
A successful work of art must be self-sufficient, its significance arising from the interaction of its parts.
They enable spiritual exaltation–the momentary intimation of the transcendent (like orgasm and religious experience).
Great art strives–however implicitly–toward the realization of norms. It’s not a matter of whether a work is optimistic or pessimistic. It’s a matter of the nature of the creative impulse.
All great films are fed by a complex generic tradition, reflecting the fears and anxieties, and aspirations of the whole culture, and transcending their directors (once they are made), though they would be inconceivable without this particular director.
Example: Shadow of a Doubt, expressing genre, Hitchcock’s personal vision, and societal anxieties and aspirations.
Andrew Sarris:
Great films have to have hidden meanings, different levels, different layers.
David Edelstein (Village Voice, Nov 27, 1984):
As in all masterpieces, technique and emotion are inseparable.
David Thomson’s Great Films:
Birth of a Nation
Bonnie and Clyde
The Deer Hunter
King Kong
All monuments worthy of some shame and much exhilaration.
World of art made out of noveletta:
Daisy Kenyon
Imitation of Life
Letter from an Unknown Woman
Mortal Storm
Shanghai Express
Shop Around the Corner
A Star Is Born
Sunrise
Great American Pictures
Blue Velvet (grows larger with time)
Citizen Kane
Night of the Hunter
Vertigo
Pauline Kael, the late influential critic of the New Yorker, had showered unqualified praise for a relatively few movies, including:
Ingmar Bergman’s Shame
Carol Reed’s Oliver!
Bellocchio’s China Is Never,
Jean-Luc Godard’s Weekend and La Chinoise
Other films Kael had championed include:
M.A.S.H., and McCabe and Mrs. Miller, both by Robert Altman;
The Garden of the Finzi Continis by Vittorio De Sica
Alan Pakula’s Klute.
Kael’s list of the greatest films ever made:
D. W. Griffith’s Intolerance
Buster Keaton’s Steamboat Bill Jr.
Jean Renoir’s Rules of the Game, Day in the Country, and La Grande Illusion
John Huston’s The Maltese Falcon
Marx’s brothers’ Duck Soup
John Simon has singled out:
Rules of the Game (Renoir)
I Vitelloni (Fellini)
L’Avventura (Antonioni)
Here Is Your Life (Jan Troell)
One Fine Day (Olmi)
David Thomson
Thomson in his Film Dictionary has pointed out that great films combine both shame and exhilaration, as is manifest in Birth of a Nation, King Kong, Bonnie and Clyde, and The Deer Hunter.
Blue Velvet
Citizen Kane
Night of the Hunter
Vertigo
Great novels made into good films with their own art worlds:
Daisy Kenyon
Imitation of Life
Letter to an Unknown Woman
Mortal Storm
Shanghai Express
The Shop Around the Corner
A Star Is Born
Sunrise