What Makes A Film Great?

Started by modage, January 13, 2004, 05:10:02 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions

Pubrick

#15
January 13, 2004, 09:54:00 PM
Quote from: NEON MERCURYhonesly #3 ....can be nnonn--existence in cinnneam...and it would be peachy.....but i still enjoy watching films......that conveys  #3's part in this equatioonn......
there would be no Kubrick or Lynch without #3.

the thing no one thinks about is that the "subjects" are never purely topical, it's never "oh this was made in 1997 so it's about tupac"... subtext and meaning is way underrated, and in fact it's what makes a film stand the test of time. actually this leads to the truth about a great film, there are 2 types which resonate, those which are great entertainment (spielberg), and those which reveal sumthing about the human condition (kubrick). that is like the eternal conflict of cinema, and marrying the two has always been near impossible for critics and the public to digest.

so the question is what does Great mean, in anything, i would say it's the ability to recognize truth. the problem then is, for example, a film like 2001 is undeniably great, but u might not think so.. that's ur problem, because it is a fact, like the sun is a fact, that the film reveals a great truth about us. the difference is u may not hav recognized this truth in urself, so u don't think it's all that. that's what makes anything great. it's not as simple as "oh if u tell a good story" cos that's still using the word GOOD, what's a good story then? it never ends.

even great entertainment contains truth in it, Jaws and ET, are examples of the ability of cinema to stimulate "imagination" in even the dullest robots.. that's why they're so popular. it reminds ppl of that truth that they forgot "i used to dream about things, i wonder why i'm so boring now".
under the paving stones.

ShanghaiOrange

#16
January 13, 2004, 09:55:05 PM
Casablana has alot of #3 actually.
Last five films (theater)
-The Da Vinci Code: *
-Thank You For Smoking: ***
-Silent Hill: ***1/2 (high)
-Happy Together: ***1/2
-Slither: **

Last five films (video)
-Solaris: ***1/2
-Cobra Verde: ***1/2
-My Best Fiend: **1/2
-Days of Heaven: ****
-The Thin Red Line: ***

NEON MERCURY

#17
January 13, 2004, 10:15:17 PM
Quote from: P
Quote from: NEON MERCURYhonesly #3 ....can be nnonn--existence in cinnneam...and it would be peachy.....but i still enjoy watching films......that conveys  #3's part in this equatioonn......

there would be no Kubrick or Lynch without #3.


...that is true....but the subtext of kubricks film are more "grandiose" in scope i think...

both mulholland dr.  .....and 2001...rely heavily on their subtext.....but ...i believe that if we were to pull out all of the subtext  in both films 2001 is the bigger revelation.....

...and i do believe that films can be great if there was an abscence of number 3.....I PERSONALLY WOULD NOT LIKE IT TO BE THIS WAY.....but there are plenty of films that have nno presenc eof number 3 that are great universally ...like 2001 is a universally phenomenal film....and i agree w/ your assesment of 2001....

Sleuth

#18
January 13, 2004, 10:18:57 PM
But #3 is only there if you look for it
I like to hug dogs

NEON MERCURY

#19
January 13, 2004, 10:39:31 PM
Quote from: SlorgBut #3 is only there if you look for it

..thats true.....
i think it depends on the film in question....

examples...die hard...thats  blantant number 1 and 2..and the film relys on those only...(style and story.)
...but i'm sure someone could find elements of number 3 but.....it would be ludacris...(like my jaws analogy)......

another example is the thin red line....i have read the book and seen the flick..that film encompasses all three....style..story .subtext(mainly in the film)...... now someone watching this film..could just watch it for its "entertainment" value easily......but unlike die hard this film is more "welcomed" .....for its subtext......

..and lastly ....2001 .is purely a subtextual film......

all i'm saying is that some films required or are ingrained with subtext....and some are not.....you are right in that #3 is there if you look for it ...but i feel that certain films warrant such  examination.....and some films are not just...by that.....

Pubrick

#20
January 13, 2004, 10:43:51 PM
Quote from: SlorgBut #3 is only there if you look for it
it's the chicken and the egg.

i guess no one (cept maybe sickfins) agrees with my theories on truth.
under the paving stones.

BrainSushi

#21
January 14, 2004, 01:13:50 PM
This man behind the camera

Alethia

#22
January 14, 2004, 05:58:29 PM
you said it baby

Cerpin_Schulze

#23
January 14, 2004, 06:02:52 PM
more cowbell

cron

#24
January 14, 2004, 06:06:36 PM
Quote from: ewardyou said it baby

one huge modafuckin' ditto.
context, context, context.

Jeremy Blackman

#25
January 14, 2004, 07:40:29 PM
Quote from: NEON MERCURYboth mulholland dr.  .....and 2001...rely heavily on their subtext.....but ...i believe that if we were to pull out all of the subtext  in both films 2001 is the bigger revelation.....

...and i do believe that films can be great if there was an abscence of number 3.....I PERSONALLY WOULD NOT LIKE IT TO BE THIS WAY.....but there are plenty of films that have nno presenc eof number 3 that are great universally ...like 2001 is a universally phenomenal film....and i agree w/ your assesment of 2001....

But can't subtext also extend to implications? I would guess that 2001 has more implications than embedded subtext.

modage

#26
January 14, 2004, 07:40:44 PM
Quote from: BrainSushiThis man behind the camera
what the fuck is this? i try to start one serious thread, and you cant even read the first fucking page before posting something like this?  whatever.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Gloria

#27
January 14, 2004, 07:52:26 PM
Quote from: themodernage021. the STORY IT TELLS.  the story is something that is interesting, exciting, different, sheds some light on a subject that had never been illuminated before.  makes us laugh, cry, cheer.  the way in which the story unfolds, whether through plain ordinary photography and uninventive camerawork and editing have no effect on the subject of the film which is the story that is still getting across.

If I had to choose one out of the three, this would be it.  I mean, the second idea basically refers to style, and I believe that you can have oodles of style and still have a bad movie due to an uninteresting or cliche story.  The 3rd idea, with subtext, can really be a part of the actual story, but is not necessarily interpreted that way.  Such as someone can take aliens on a shuttle as just being aliens on a shuttle, where someone else can interpret them as outsiders in a confined society or something.  The story is important because it gives the movie structure and helps the movie unfold like a good book.  All the elements mentioned are vital parts of a movie, but just choosing one, story would have to be it because it identifies with the audience and they become involved.

Jeremy Blackman

#28
January 14, 2004, 08:00:34 PM
If I had to choose one, it would probably be 3, which should really be "the idea it conveys."

©brad

#29
January 14, 2004, 08:32:54 PM
Quote from: themodernage02
what the fuck is this? i try to start one serious thread, and you cant even read the first fucking page before posting something like this?  whatever.

relax. he's just adding much needed comic relief. it's healthy to have a laugh every now and then. besides, it is possible to learn and have fun at the same time.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions