A Masterpiece... you hate?

Already mentioned, but a film many seem to sing praises to that I literally want those hours of my life back for the false hope of being able to indulge in a masterclass of film and getting little more than sleepy overall - A clockwork orange. If they had just physically castrated Alex De Large at the beginning of the film it would have saved me a lot of time.
 
Not sure if Bable is regarded as a masterpiece, but it was one of those "I must say I like it in order to sound like I love film". I hated it. A Clock Work Orange and What's Eating Gilbert Grape as well, utter gash.
 
A little.


Here's my question for you all. Actually here are my three:

1) Are there works of art that cannot be disputed as beautiful, timeless masterpieces
(IE Sistine Chapel, David, the Mona Lisa, the Venus de Milo, Starry Night, etc.)?

If yes,
2) Do you consider Cinema the art form of the 20th century?

If yes,
3) Therefore, shouldn't there be some cinematic masterpieces that can't be disputed as such?
(and, just like Michelangelo's David, if you don't like it... maybe, just maybe it's you?)


Okay, so that was four. Would love to see them answered honestly, in any case.
 
@Noel,

See, I'd put Clockwork in the Picasso "Guernica" camp: considered a masterpiece, but far from being above dispute.
Likewise for 2001, Taxi Driver and (sigh) yes, even Star Wars.

But The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, Gone with the Wind, et al kinda fall more in to the Mona Lisa catalogue.

Can't be just me (though it sure as **** has been before.)

PS-
I honestly forgot that I had made similar arguments earlier in this one. I avoided it long and hard...
 
Breathless. I just can't. I try every two years. I just. Can't. Stand. That. Guy. And you learn a TON of stuff if u watch it like you're in school, but when i wanna kick back, i just can't enjoy it.

I dunno if one would call it a masterpiece.
 
CallaghanFilms said:
Here's my question for you all. Actually here are my three:

1) Are there works of art that cannot be disputed as beautiful, timeless masterpieces
(IE Sistine Chapel, David, the Mona Lisa, the Venus de Milo, Starry Night, etc.)?

If yes,
2) Do you consider Cinema the art form of the 20th century?

If yes,
3) Therefore, shouldn't there be some cinematic masterpieces that can't be disputed as such?
(and, just like Michelangelo's David, if you don't like it... maybe, just maybe it's you?)
.
Click to expand...

My honest 2 cents:

1) Are there works of art that cannot be disputed as beautiful, timeless masterpieces
(IE Sistine Chapel, David, the Mona Lisa, the Venus de Milo, Starry Night, etc.)?

There are works of art that are widely considered timeless masterpieces and exemplars of the form, but the experience of appreciating the work still remains subjective. Someone (some philistine, granted) may not respond or be moved in any way by the Sistine chapel or the Mona Lisa and would dispute that these works are the timeless masterpieces we all like to think they are. And that's okay too, generally speaking. Rejecting the perceived wisdom and coming up with alternatives is part of the creative process e.g. punk in the 1970s. However, that's not to say I don't react like an anti-christ when someone criticizes or dismisses a work I admire or which has deep meaning for me. Barbarians....

And this goes back to the point raised earlier in this thread, sometimes we are simply not in the head-space to appreciate a certain work of art at a given time but feel differently when we revisit at a different stage in life.


If yes,
2) Do you consider Cinema the art form of the 20th century?

Weren't you listening when McLuhan announced that "Advertising is the dominant art form of the 20th century"...? :)


If yes,
3) Therefore, shouldn't there be some cinematic masterpieces that can't be disputed as such?
(and, just like Michelangelo's David, if you don't like it... maybe, just maybe it's you?)

Afraid not. Everything can be disputed.
 
I think the problem is there are too many subjective elements to a film that a viewer can focus on. I don't think there is a film made that can be indisputable in the face of personal taste.

You can hate an actor so much you are incapable of acknowledging a great performance. Which is valid, their very face can engender such a reaction as to spoil the movie for you. Watching a movie is a commitment. It is totally understandable that the pacing of Tarkovsky is beyond the ability of many to appreciate, boredom making it impossible to take in what he is doing. Comedy by definition cannot be universal (although physical comedy genius the likes Chaplain or Tati might come close). Some find certain kinds of camera movement distracting to the point of throwing them out of the movie experience. Some cannot handle foul language no matter how good the film. Black and white precludes many people from even sitting down to a movie. Any experimentation with the form is the death knell for some viewers, mandatory for others. Foreign cinema by virtue of subtitles is beyond the appreciation of many. A film can be automatically offensive based on either the country of origin or political alignment. A soundtrack can clash with a viewer's individual connection to a piece of music, songs being very personal. My Dad can flip out if someone is wearing a watch or using a pen of the incorrect era!

People want different things out of film, some demand illumination of the human condition while others seek only entertainment and there are masterpieces in both camps. One man's Citizen Kane is another man's Dumb and Dumber!
 
CallaghanFilms said:
A little.


Here's my question for you all. Actually here are my three:

1) Are there works of art that cannot be disputed as beautiful, timeless masterpieces
(IE Sistine Chapel, David, the Mona Lisa, the Venus de Milo, Starry Night, etc.)?

If yes,
2) Do you consider Cinema the art form of the 20th century?

If yes,
3) Therefore, shouldn't there be some cinematic masterpieces that can't be disputed as such?
(and, just like Michelangelo's David, if you don't like it... maybe, just maybe it's you?)


Okay, so that was four. Would love to see them answered honestly, in any case.
Click to expand...


Good points well made, but perhaps we should be thinking of cinema not as an artform in of itself, but a combination of the art of cinematography and the craft of storytelling. A single image or shot (or even a series of shots) from a film may be indisputably beautiful or perfect in the same way a painting or sculpture may be, but I don't believe that a 90 minute film can be. In the same way, a novel can be brilliant and well crafted, but not indisputably so. In my opinion anyway.
 
Egg Born Son said:
I think the problem is there are too many subjective elements to a film that a viewer can focus on. I don't think there is a film made that can be indisputable in the face of personal taste.
Click to expand...

Among the unwashed masses there are any number of people who do not really appreciate The Masters of Art Canon that most 'informed' people accept (and accept despite not particularly liking the work for any number of reasons...).

Here's an example of someone who was listed as "America's Favorite Artist', Thomas Kinkaide...

gallerydirectart_2252_5134006602


I don't know about the rest of the readers here... but this artist just does not move me to even list him among the 'ok, I'll look at the work once'... category... Other than I use his works as examples of a class of 'art' I don't have any interest in...

But he did become very popular with the 'reprint art work' circuit...

In the case of film, similarly there are any number of yoemen spitting out 'acceptable works for entertainment'... There are some that are put into the 'classic' category, and studied for edification, whether one likes the work, wants to emulate the artist, or passes the 'classic' altogether...

As a note... I could accept the above work as an illustration for say, "Hansel and Gretel"... I'd expect the next illustration to have the Evil Witch done up in a similar style...

I like Maxfield Parish and often 'see' shots in films that are reminiscent of his style.
 
Last edited:
So, I nominate for films that are unquestionably great that (almost) anyone can agree on:
Strangers On a Train
Double Indemnity
Out of the Past (Jane Greer as Kathy is the cold bloodedest chick in cinema)
The Untouchables
M
Metropolis
The Best Years of Our Lives
Shane
Silence of the Lambs
Terminator 2
Casablanca
City Lights
Modern Times
Back to the Future
American Beauty
Paris, Texas
The Third Man
LA Confidential
All About Eve
Stalag 17
The Big Sleep
The 400 Blows
La Strada
Knife in the Water
The Ox Bow Incident
Red River
Some of these have flaws (the stupid wisecracks in Back to the Future), but you can watch any of them more than once and get something you missed the first time.
I'm with the Reverend in requiring that a film have a moral sensibility. So that leaves out spaghetti westerns and Tarentino. BTW, if you would like to see Tarantino without the violence, try Jim Jarmusch's Mystery Train.
 
Noel Evans said:
Already mentioned, but a film many seem to sing praises to that I literally want those hours of my life back for the false hope of being able to indulge in a masterclass of film and getting little more than sleepy overall
Click to expand...

That was Magnolia for me. I still get actually angry thinking about the wasted time.
 
I think some things have gone unmentioned. Art are artifacts, objects that communicate something. Communication is a two way street. The viewer brings his/her own life experiences to it. No two people will experience it the same identical way, as everyone is unique. The object remains the same, but the perceiver is always different, even from themselves at different moments in time. A five year old will have a vastly different experience than a 75 year old, as will a 75 year old who's already seen the thing several times before. It is completely subjective,with some potential general categories perhaps relevant. Is it a common form (a 2 hour movie)? Does it have major act segments? Does it use characters with language? There are an infinite number of ways to narrow it down, but the viewer's state of mind, cultural programming and expectations all come into how they will perceive it. You know -- obvious stuff.
 
This thread reminds me of something I've been reminding myself of as I work towards my upcoming narrative film project.

Sermon mode: ON

It's ok if some people *hate* your film (or song, poem, novel, painting etc.), as long as some other people *really like it* (honestly, as dispassionate outsiders, i.e. not just your mom, etc.).

You are probably in trouble if everyone (who's honest with you) doesn't like it. Ok, right, like, duh...

But you may also be in trouble if everyone sorta thinks it's kinda ok and all. Nobody hates it? Nobody loves it? You just might have yourself a nice 'American-Cheese-Sandwich' of a film that no one hates, but *everyone* ignores. Prepare to artistically die, slowly. Quietly. Very quietly...

But...a bunch of people hate your film? Hmm...that's interesting. Musta got their attention though, huh? Anyone love it? Yes? More than a few? Yes? Congratulations: you may now officially ignore the haters.

Virtually every historically significant and/or more modern, generally agreed-upon 'great' work of art has or has had *vehement* detractors. It's *part of greatness*. Strong artistic statements beget strong reactions. Van Gogh and others were initially ridiculed - loudly - by the art establishment. The very word "Impressionist" itself was actually an insult to their putatively careless, tossed-off style.

But history tells a different tale...

Sermon mode: OFF
 
Last edited:
If you were to find the ravings of an early 16th century ardent critic of Michelangelo's work, "history" would show him to be an a**hole or a jealous failure, or both.

I have just declared that to be my new family motto, btw; "Don't be History's a**hole."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top