Another 'Greatest Movies' list

pmc100

pmc100

Faux Guitarist
This ones a little different. Some guy on Reddit combined scores from all the major sources and came up with this. Pretty decent list IMHO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/3evqxx/using_the_average_scores_from_imdb_rotten/

For a taster, the top 10.

1 The Godfather 1972 Francis Ford Coppola
2 Seven Samurai 1954 Akira Kurosawa
3 The Godfather: Part II 1974 Francis Ford Coppola
4 Pulp Fiction 1994 Quentin Tarantino
5 12 Angry Men 1957 Sidney Lumet
6 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly 1966 Sergio Leone
7 The Shawshank Redemption 1994 Frank Darabont
8 Sunset Blvd. 1950 Billy Wilder
9 Schindler's List 1993 Steven Spielberg
10 Spirited Away 2001 Hayao Miyazaki
 
Any list that doesn't contain any entertaining (e.g. comedies, musicals, etc.) takes itself too seriously to be taken seriously...
 
Among the 10 are quite a few of my favorite movies.

As in all art, there is no greatest or best. Just subjective feelings about how much someone enjoys (or despises) the art.
 
Tig said:
As in all art, there is no greatest or best.
Click to expand...

Disagree, honestly, to some degree.

But, at the very least, I do feel that everyone who takes the question of greatness seriously ought to be able to agree on a few basic criteria: influence, originality, technical innovation, ambition, etc.
 
Flamencology said:
Disagree, honestly, to some degree.

But, at the very least, I do feel that everyone who takes the question of greatness seriously ought to be able to agree on a few basic criteria: influence, originality, technical innovation, ambition, etc.
Click to expand...

I get that, but to over analyze art is to miss the entire point of art.
If this isn't clear, then there is nothing else to be said on the subject.
 
Tig said:
I get that, but to over analyze art is to miss the entire point of art.
If this isn't clear, then there is nothing else to be said on the subject.
Click to expand...

Define 'over-analyze'.

I get that some people don't enjoy taking things apart to figure out how they work, and that's their prerogative.

But it's impossible to gain a full appreciation and a critical eye otherwise.

It's like how stand-up comics aren't laughing hysterically while watching other comedians. It doesn't mean that they aren't enjoying it, just that they're seeing it and appreciating it from another perspective.

At any rate, I do feel that the idea that there is one single "point of art" is, at best, naive.
 
Flamencology said:
I get that some people don't enjoy taking things apart to figure out how they work, and that's their prerogative.
Click to expand...
"I" think that's the point of "art". You can't take it apart and see what makes it tick. If you approach art like you approach something mechanical then you are missing the point and I think that's what critics do far too often. For instance take rotten tomatoes and compare the critic score to the audience score. There will movies that the critics destroy but that the audience loves. Again just my opinion but I pretty much ignore what professional critics say about films because i find they way too often applaud pretentious bullshit that nobody gives a fuck about. But fuck, what do I know, I'm one of the lowbrow unwashed masses.
 
Alex W said:
You can't take it apart and see what makes it tick.
Click to expand...

And yet, that's exactly what Scorsese, Hitchcock, John Ford, Tarantino, the Coens, PT Anderson, Wes Anderson, Robert Altman, David Fincher, etc., did their entire lives.

There is no art without criticism. There is no good art without good criticism. And they are not mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:
Flamencology said:
And yet, that's exactly what Scorsese, Hitchcock, John Ford, Tarantino, the Coens, PT Anderson, Wes Anderson, Robert Altman, David Fincher, etc., did their entire lives.

Ther is no art without criticism. There is no good art without good criticism. And they are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Completely disagree. I don't need a critic to tell me what I like to watch, eat, drink, listen to, etc. Despite the critics some things just work. There is art without critics, there are no critics without art.
 
Sorry, but at no time does any art form not exist, be it "good" or otherwise, because it is not criticized. Art independent of critique and analysis exists on its own. Yes, it should be shared to all that enjoy it, but Rembrandt, Bach, or even my own is still just a beautiful regardless of the audience containing a single critical observer or none at all. If the artist is the audience, is it any less a masterpiece? Judgement is optional.

"Over analysis" could be easily defined as when the criticism over powers and interrupts the enjoyment, as in not seeing the forest for all the trees. The art remains on it's own merit, regardless. There is no "single" point of art, but the overall point is enjoyment, not wasting ones life dissecting the grains of sand to propel intellectual discussion.
 
Tig said:
Sorry, but at no time does any art form not exist, be it "good" or otherwise, because it is not criticized.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that.

Art independent of critique and analysis exists on its own.
Click to expand...

Just because it isn't consciously analyzed, it doesn't mean that it isn't analyzed. Regardless of your intent, your brain will analyze.

Criticism is about articulating your personal response.

Also, criticism needn't be 'critical', as the word is commonly used.

Yes, it should be shared to all that enjoy it, but Rembrandt, Bach, or even my own is still just a beautiful regardless of the audience containing a single critical observer or none at all. If the artist is the audience, is it any less a masterpiece? Judgement is optional.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I was speaking in terms of performance art. That is basically a Schrodinger's Cat. Or a tree falling in a lifeless forest. No, it isn't art until you put a metaphorical frame around it. 'Masterpiece' has a little historical bit of historical baggage; by definition, it must be evaluated.

"Over analysis" could be easily defined as when the criticism over powers and interrupts the enjoyment, as in not seeing the forest for all the trees. The art remains on it's own merit, regardless. There is no "single" point of are, but the overall point is enjoyment, not wasting ones life dissecting the grains of sand to propel intellectual discussion.
Click to expand...

I don't really agree with that. Partially, yes.

But I'm with Aristotle in that the purpose of art is to "delight and to instruct". In our pop culture, we tend to ignore the latter. I'm also a fan of the sentiment of the cliché that art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable. Etc.

But what I was really getting at is that all good artists are critics themselves. And that many artists are influenced by criticism (and I don't mean criticism of their own work, though that does happen.)

Artists know their shit. Great filmmakers, great writers, great composers, great choreographers, great visual artists, etc., are keenly aware of the history of their art, are aware of the history of criticism, and many are inspired by it.

No need to take my word for it. Read the writings, interviews, etc., with countless artists.

You need to have a critical mind to be a great artist. Like Godard said, "the best way to criticize a film is to make another film."
 
The lengthy overly analyzed response... I rest my case. :facepalm:

Life is too short to waste over this.
 
Thinking about this a little more. I have been listening to this Captain Beefheart trout mask record because people who know a lot more than I do about this type of thing consider it to be a very important or interesting work. I'm slowly coming to appreciate it, though I'm not going to put it on at a party anytime soon. If I only went by my gut I would've turned it off halfway through the first song. But I want to understand why it works, what makes it good, what makes it different from any other pile of noise. I used to bristle quite a bit at the idea that art was objective and could be analyzed much like you analyze a math problem or an engine design. But the more I learn, the more I grow to appreciate those things. And knowing how things tick, so to speak, makes the enjoyment of them so much deeper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top