The Elements of a Great Film

[fyodor]

Katy's prolific actor thread immediately got me thinking about what makes a movie great.

I have always been of the opinion that it all hinges on writing. Good writing can overcome mediocre acting, or uninspired directing, but if the writing is bad, nothing is going to save this movie.

Ok.. so you're still only going to end up with a good, not great movie. I understand it's when all elements come together that a film really shines, but do you think one element is more important than the rest?

[MrMon]

Definitely writing, but it's more about the story rather than the dialogue. Always underrated, but you can't do without it. Star Wars is a great story, the dialogue is mediocore at best. But what a story!

[pryor15]

really, for a film to be great, it can't just be one thing. greatness in film requires a multitude of things to go right, plus a little bit of luck, plus a lot of ambition to begin with (your basic Adam Sandler movie could never be a "great" film, regardless of how good it is, because it lacks that ambition, among other things)

you have to have writing, directing, acting, and a bunch of other things, but i'd say directing is the most important. there has to be something clear and cohesive that ties all the elements together

[Blarg]

Art must challenge. That's what separates it from mere craftsmanship.

So a truly great film will add something different to the mix. It doesn't have to be flashy or stylistic; as you note, good writing can do it. Even in the most mundane and limited surroundings. Merely being odd doesn't do it, though it might signal an attempt to be great. Preconceptions and limitations should somehow be challenged.

Flashiness in the service of nothing in particular, then, can masquerade as art, but isn't it. It can actually be quite expected and conservative in its way. A good example is how often we see "shaky cam" or MTV-style quick cutting almost everywhere these days, even inappropriately, unnecessarily, or to the point of distraction within a piece.

If a work of art, however beautiful, doesn't attempt to somehow challenge one, I'd rank it more as a work of good craftsmanship. Which is probably ironically undersung in the rush to call everything art these days and use the word "genius" for the likes of a moderately talented sitcom star.

[John Cole]

Consider films that have no writing--or almost none. Examples: Ralph Steiner's H20; Brakhage's Dog Star Man; Maya Deren's films. Also, consider what a great director can do with little to no dialogue; look, for example, what Hitchcock does with the opening of Rear Window or Bresson manages in Pickpocket. Seek out all the films of Jacques Tati to see what a great director can do with image and sound.

I've been mesmerized by films with only a few intertitles: Sunrise, City Lights, The lodger.

Then again, direction certainly has something to do with great films that seem to be all dialogue: My Dinner with Andre by Louis Malle.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
Art must challenge. That's what separates it from mere craftsmanship.

[/ QUOTE ]



So Michelangelo was just a pretty good sculptor, but not much of an artist? What's challenging about "David", other than the fact that it would be a challenge to look like him?

The notion of that art must challenge or "shock" in the more modern sense is vastly overrated. If it fails to challenge or shock, and it once did, is it no longer art? No, there's something more to it than that, because modern art that does nothing but challenge is generally just crap made to challenge.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
Consider films that have no writing--or almost none. Examples: Ralph Steiner's H20; Brakhage's Dog Star Man; Maya Deren's films. Also, consider what a great director can do with little to no dialogue; look, for example, what Hitchcock does with the opening of Rear Window or Bresson manages in Pickpocket. Seek out all the films of Jacques Tati to see what a great director can do with image and sound.

I've been mesmerized by films with only a few intertitles: Sunrise, City Lights, The lodger.

Then again, direction certainly has something to do with great films that seem to be all dialogue: My Dinner with Andre by Louis Malle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't mistake writing for dialogue. 2001 has almost no dialogue at the end of the film, but there's a heck of a lot of writing going on there. Same with silents, it's just that the writing is translated into image rather than spoken words.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Art must challenge. That's what separates it from mere craftsmanship.

[/ QUOTE ]



So Michelangelo was just a pretty good sculptor, but not much of an artist? What's challenging about "David", other than the fact that it would be a challenge to look like him?

The notion of that art must challenge or "shock" in the more modern sense is vastly overrated. If it fails to challenge or shock, and it once did, is it no longer art? No, there's something more to it than that, because modern art that does nothing but challenge is generally just crap made to challenge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say it didn't have to be good. In fact I specifically said that challenge for challenge's sake was NOT good. That's about as clear as you can be.

If you cannot find a way that this statue challenges your perceptions of what is possible in sculpture, in representation, in meaning, then yes, to you it will be merely brilliant craftsmanship. Which, as I said, is probably underrated in the effort to call nearly anything that is a craft "art" by definition or approbation.

Seriously, craftsmanship is not some lowly or dingy thing that needs apologies to sustain its worth or accomplishment. Many artists are in fact poor craftsmen(and many excellent craftsmen are hardly artists). As an example, I'll suggest a couple of artists, one I don't care for, and one I do, whose craftsmanship is at least questionable on some fronts, but whose artistry is commonly hailed: Janis Joplin and Bob Dylan.

Good craftsmanship is well worth celebrating, and not necessarily common in the least. But that doesn't necessarily make it art. Art occurs when things are kicked up to another level.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Consider films that have no writing--or almost none. Examples: Ralph Steiner's H20; Brakhage's Dog Star Man; Maya Deren's films. Also, consider what a great director can do with little to no dialogue; look, for example, what Hitchcock does with the opening of Rear Window or Bresson manages in Pickpocket. Seek out all the films of Jacques Tati to see what a great director can do with image and sound.

I've been mesmerized by films with only a few intertitles: Sunrise, City Lights, The lodger.

Then again, direction certainly has something to do with great films that seem to be all dialogue: My Dinner with Andre by Louis Malle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't mistake writing for dialogue. 2001 has almost no dialogue at the end of the film, but there's a heck of a lot of writing going on there. Same with silents, it's just that the writing is translated into image rather than spoken words.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, and again a number of Hitchcock sequences illustrate that.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
Consider films that have no writing--or almost none. Examples: Ralph Steiner's H20; Brakhage's Dog Star Man; Maya Deren's films. Also, consider what a great director can do with little to no dialogue; look, for example, what Hitchcock does with the opening of Rear Window or Bresson manages in Pickpocket. Seek out all the films of Jacques Tati to see what a great director can do with image and sound.

I've been mesmerized by films with only a few intertitles: Sunrise, City Lights, The lodger.

Then again, direction certainly has something to do with great films that seem to be all dialogue: My Dinner with Andre by Louis Malle.

[/ QUOTE ]

John: I think you're confusing "writing" with "dialogue." Just because Sunrise doesn't have any dialogue (it's silent!) doesn't mean it's not a film with great writing. Someone had to still write the film, even if there is little or no dialogue.