The Criterion Collection

[mja345]

A masterpiece is a film, IMO, that one would rate 10/10, or perfect on whatever scale you want to use. There aren't a lot of films on that level. It should be reserved for films that one thinks achieve a transcendent quality. Obviously, it is subjective, but IMO a film needs to hit those kind of heights to be defined as something that is long-lasting, important, and defining of both a significant filmmaker and genre. I would rate "Once Upon a Time in the West", "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly", "The Searchers", and "High Noon" as masterpieces of the Western genre. "Halloween", "Psycho, and "The Exorcist" are masterpieces of the horror genre. That's how I view it.

"The Aviator" is good biopic, don't get me wrong. But to call it a masterpiece is a little too loose of a definition for me. It could have been made by numerous filmmakers, maybe not at the level that Scorsese made it, but it's a solid, if unspectacular biopic in my view. If you consider it a masterpiece, then I respect that, but it just doesn't clear my personal bar.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by mja345

A masterpiece is a film, IMO, that one would rate 10/10, or perfect on whatever scale you want to use. There aren't a lot of films on that level. It should be reserved for films that one thinks achieve a transcendent quality. Obviously, it is subjective, but IMO a film needs to hit those kind of heights to be defined as something that is long-lasting, important, and defining of both a significant filmmaker and genre. I would rate "Once Upon a Time in the West", "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly", "The Searchers", and "High Noon" as masterpieces of the Western genre. "Halloween", "Psycho, and "The Exorcist" are masterpieces of the horror genre. That's how I view it.

"The Aviator" is good biopic, don't get me wrong. But to call it a masterpiece is a little too loose of a definition for me. It could have been made by numerous filmmakers, maybe not at the level that Scorsese made it, but it's a solid, if unspectacular biopic in my view. If you consider it a masterpiece, then I respect that, but it just doesn't clear my personal bar.

My definition of a masterpiece falls pretty much along the same lines as yours. There's plenty and plenty of films (that I consider great) that I rate a 5/5 or 10/10 however one rates theirs but there are others that are considered straight masterpieces and are of a higher caliber than those other great perfectly scored films. For me, as long as a film set out to do what it meant to do and succeeded thoroughly in that area it's a perfect score and film for me, even if there might be a flaw here or there. I can forgive that if the film completely grabbed me and I'm not one who really ever notices flaws or plot holes or questions things that happen in a film anyways. That just completely takes the fun out of watching movies.

[joy-division]

Originally Posted by javy

I haven't seen those.

You need to then seeing as The Departed is a Western remake of it

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Yep. "Masterpiece" originated as a guild term. Using the term differently strips it of its intended meaning (and devalues it) then it merely serves as an overused synonym for something like "great film". That's my take on it.

Well, the original root of the word gets you to a literal definition of a work made a master. It says more about the person who made the thing than the thing itself. Not only could someone have more than one masterpiece, but by that original definition once someone is deemed to be a "master" (using whatever criteria is determined to be appropriate) *everything* they made would be considered a masterpiece regardless of any actual opinions regarding the thing itself.

The modern definitions seem to either be:

A. Art or craft that is generally deemed to be one of the greatest of it's particular art form or craft, or

B. The single best creation of an individual craftsman or artist.

I think my problem with the 2nd definition is that it means every artist automatically has a masterpiece since the only criteria is that it's that particular artist's personal best. I think that's even more devaluing since most artists never make what the A. definition would consider a masterpiece, yet every artist would have one.

Would you use a modified version of the B. definition? Like, the single best work of a particular artist, providing that artist has already somehow proven themselves to be one of the top artists of their craft?

[javy]

Originally Posted by joy-division

You need to then seeing as The Departed is a Western remake of it

I've been wanting to give it a watch.

[redrunner97]

Any word on Le Petit Soldat coming from Criterion? It's one of my favorite films and I'm kinda shocked it hasn't made the leap to blu-ray yet.

I know the French Godard collection includes it, but I'm not Region Free and I don't know about the subtitle situation on that set.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by mja345

A masterpiece is a film, IMO, that one would rate 10/10, or perfect on whatever scale you want to use. There aren't a lot of films on that level. It should be reserved for films that one thinks achieve a transcendent quality. Obviously, it is subjective, but IMO a film needs to hit those kind of heights to be defined as something that is long-lasting, important, and defining of both a significant filmmaker and genre. I would rate "Once Upon a Time in the West", "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly", "The Searchers", and "High Noon" as masterpieces of the Western genre. "Halloween", "Psycho, and "The Exorcist" are masterpieces of the horror genre. That's how I view it.

[Show spoiler]"The Aviator" is good biopic, don't get me wrong. But to call it a masterpiece is a little too loose of a definition for me. It could have been made by numerous filmmakers, maybe not at the level that Scorsese made it, but it's a solid, if unspectacular biopic in my view. If you consider it a masterpiece, then I respect that, but it just doesn't clear my personal bar.

What about The Baby?

It's a masterpiece yes?

...going by the criteria you laid out.

[Show spoiler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAb3J7WONhE

[Hoke Moseley]

At this point, masterpiece is a pretty subjective word. Is The Room not Tommy Wiseau's masterpiece?

[mja345]

Originally Posted by Hoke Moseley

At this point, masterpiece is a pretty subjective word. Is The Room not Tommy Wiseau's masterpiece?

It's obviously all a matter of semantics, but I just think there's a difference between good films, great films, and then masterpieces. There are a lot of good or even great films that I love that I would never describe as masterpieces. The word masterpiece, to me, connotes something that transcends a particular creative medium and, ultimately, defines the medium at its very highest potential both influentially and artistically. In fact, there are many good or great films that I would rather watch over certain masterpieces. Shit, I think I've seen the movies "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels", "Bachelor Party", and "Grosse Pointe Blank" 15 times a piece, but I've seen "Citizen Kane" twice. But "Citizen Kane" would be far closer to a masterpiece.

[javy]

Originally Posted by Hoke Moseley

At this point, masterpiece is a pretty subjective word.

How could it be anything but?

[joy-division]

One folk's trash is another's treasure

I can't stand The Shining because it derails so much from the book. That is not to say it is not a bad film, just a shyte adaptation.

But I know I am in the minority on my opinion on this horror masterpiece to others

[javy]

Originally Posted by mja345

The word masterpiece, to me, connotes something that transcends a particular creative medium and, ultimately, defines the medium at its very highest potential both influentially and artistically.

The Departed is a masterpiece, to me, because of the characters, the dialogue, the mannerisms of the characters, the cinematography, the direction. Jack Nicholson's character is legendary and phenomenal. DiCaprio is spot on. Wahlberg, Sheen, Damon, Farmiga, their all beautiful. It's a film with brilliant actors directed by a brilliant filmmaker. Every time I start this movie I am hypnotized by all the brilliance in it.

The Departed does define Scorsese, or if you wish, redefined. The Scorsese that made Taxi Driver, which is also a beautiful and brilliant film, is not the same Scorsese today. The man has grown. Each film he has made throughout his life has defined him.

Originally Posted by mja345

But "Citizen Kane" would be far closer to a masterpiece.

I'm not trying to make out who you are so please don't take me that way, but are saying this because that's the way you feel about it or because that's what everybody else says?

Myself, yes absolutely Citizen Kane is a masterpiece. Before I watched this film for the first time I read reviews about it. About how brilliant the cinematography is, the use of shadows, the acting, etc. Then I came across a review that said when watching Citizen Kane for the first it's best to forget all that stuff and not try to study the film but watch the movie. That's what I did. And I found it to be a masterpiece not only because of the direction, but because of what the film is about. Citizen Kane is a very touching movie. I've read that some people were disappointed by the ending, I loved it. I understood it.

[malakaheso]

My take on it is this: a masterpiece and a classic are not quite interchangeable terms. Most classics are considered masterpieces, but many masterpieces aren't classics. Classics usually have another component to them, like enduring cultural resonance, influence on the development of the medium, or on other film makers etc.

Citizen Kane is a classic of cinema, so is 2001. They raised the bar in their respective time and also happen to be superbly crafted films. The Departed is a masterpiece to many (definitely not to me), but it isn't a classic.

A 'classic' is less subjective than a masterpiece, but I agree with the posters who said that the word masterpiece is thrown around too freely.

I recall Coppola once claiming that Hollywood had only produced 2 masterpieces over the last 15 years. He said this in 2005. Goodfellas was one of them, and I've forgotten the other one. I agree there aren't many, and I tend to disagree with the choices that are generally made in this area. e.g There Will Be Blood etc.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by javy

I'm not trying to make out who you are so please don't take me that way, but are saying this because that's the way you feel about it or because that's what everybody else says?

Myself, yes absolutely Citizen Cane is a masterpiece. Before I watched this film for the first time I read reviews about it. About how brilliant the cinematography is, the use of shadows, the acting, etc. Then I came across a review that said when watching Citizen Cane for the first it's best to forget all that stuff and not try to study the film but watch the movie. That's what I did. And I found it to be a masterpiece not only because of the direction, but because of what the film is about. Citizen Kane is a very touching movie. I've read that some people were disappointed by the ending, I loved it. I understood it.

I do feel it's a masterpiece based on my viewing of the film. But I don't want to watch it that frequently. There are many films that are considered masterpieces that I don't personally love or want to watch that often, i.e. "Star Wars" or "Gone With the Wind". Not a big "Star Wars" guy at all, but I do acknowledge the importance of the films and the craftsmanship and how they completely transcended the medium.

It's clearly just a discussion of semantics and I think we've all gone down a bit of a rabbit hole here, so this is the last I'll say. I just think of how extreme the word masterpiece sounds in an everyday conversation. For example, I went to the film "Hell or High Water" last year with my buddy and our girlfriends. Walking out of the theatre, we were all saying, "That was a really good film" or something to that effect. If we'd walked out of the theatre going, "What a masterpiece!", it would sound extremely strange and hyperbolic. If I gave you a list of my 20 favorite films, not many of them would be considered masterpieces or incredibly important. But I separate my personal taste from using a term that, IMO, signifies great importance.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

My take on it is this: a masterpiece and a classic are not quite interchangeable terms. Most classics are considered masterpieces, but many masterpieces aren't classics. Classics usually have another component to them, like enduring cultural resonance, influence on the development of the medium, or on other film makers etc.

Citizen Kane is a classic of cinema, so is 2001. They raised the bar in their respective time. The Departed is a masterpiece to many (definitely not to me), but it isn't a classic.

A 'classic' is less subjective than a masterpiece, but I agree with the posters who said that the word masterpiece is thrown around too freely.

I recall Coppola once claiming that Hollywood had only produced 2 masterpieces over the last 15 years. He said this in 2005. Goodfellas was one of them, and I've forgotten the other one. I agree there aren't many, and I tend to disagree with the choices that are generally made in this area. e.g There Will Be Blood etc.

A film you have listed in your sig, "Hard to be a God", is one I would consider a masterpiece. Aleksei German set out to do something incredibly different, incredibly subversive, and ultimately accomplished something important in the landscape of modern filmmaking. It's a punishing watch, but that's a film that deserves to be tagged with that label IMO. I have the BD and need to pop it in to give it a second watch because, goddamn, is that a piece of filmmaking that took balls to make.

[malakaheso]

A case can definitely made. It feels both strangely anachronistic and strikingly modern, and the blocking is really extraordinary. He lets the light 'blow out' constantly too, which creates unusual effects. The camera moves relentlessly too and characters are constantly moving in and out of the frame, like Fellini on steroids.

As for daring and ballsy, absolutely. Directors like PTA are lightweight conservatives in comparison.

My only issue with it is the length really. It needed to be long to be immersive, but not sure if 3 hrs was required. Heh.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

A case can definitely made. It feels both strangely anachronistic and strikingly modern, and the blocking is really extraordinary. He lets the light 'blow out' constantly too, which creates unusual effects. The camera moves relentlessly too and characters are constantly moving in and out of the frame, like Fellini on steroids.

My only issue with it is the length really. It needed to be long to be immersive, but not sure if 3 hrs was required. Heh.

Yeah, 3 hours was punishing, but it's a fantastic film.

[Hoke Moseley]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

'blow out'

Now that's a masterpiece!

[Polaroid]

I saw a quote along the lines of Alien a covenant being a masterpiece of fear... I nearly died of laughter!

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by Hoke Moseley

At this point, masterpiece is a pretty subjective word. Is The Room not Tommy Wiseau's masterpiece?

That goes without saying. The Room is one of the greatest achievements in the history of western civilization.