I received an email today from a reader addressing a concern I’ve long had at the back of my mind, but I never really figured out a way to deal with it. In a nutshell, we discuss films early, generally before release around these parts, and when a large majority of you get a chance to have a look, the conversation ship has sailed.
I don’t want that, obviously, and I imagine it’s difficult to find a place to re-inject the talking points with our day-to-day topics running full speed, so I figured the best way to deal with it would be a general discussion post every weekend for you to cut loose about what you might have seen or what you’d like to discuss amongst yourselves.
It’s a no-brainer, really, but I just never got around to actually, you know, doing it.
So we’ll call it “Cinejabber” (I guess) and I’ll kick start the conversation this week, in case no one has any ideas (though I imagine there are those who’d like to discuss any number of films finally in release).
Reading Sasha Stone’s recent “hold your horses” item about the comparisons to “Citizen Kane” surrounding “The Social Network,” she noted peripherally, “When ‘Inception’ came out and was hailed as ‘masterpiece’ it angered critics, and viewers, that anyone would dare use a word like that to describe a big studio movie out of Warner Bros. Or maybe it was that the word shouldn’t really be applied to a film until a decade or so has gone by.”
It got me thinking about that word, which is really JUST a word at the end of the day. But I’m generally pretty careful about how I apply it because it’s a pretty solid definitive. It’s why I go with a four-star scale rather than five, because I feel like the latter gets into definitive considerations (to say nothing of the WTF 1-100 scale), whereas I’d prefer there to be larger gray areas. But if I were honestly asked how many masterpieces I’d seen in the last decade, I would say only two, the top two films on my best of the decade column, natch.
A masterpiece, to me, is another level and shouldn’t be tossed around lightly (and certainly not to make one feel better about a high opinion of a film, which is, I think, often the case). But what do you think? Should there be a time consideration before calling a film “masterpiece?” Personally, I think it can be an instant judgment because at the end of the day, it’s really just an opinion anyway. Granted, an opinion can mature and settle into different subtleties, but I tend to know whether I’ve seen something THAT powerful the moment I walk out of a theater. You just feel it.
Anyway, cut loose on that if you want or just address anything else you’d like to chat about with the community. Open thread. We’ll do it every Saturday.
[Photo: 20th Century Fox]
Comments
69 responses to “CINEJABBER: The “M” word”
If it wasn’t for people like Peter Travers the words like “masterpiece” would actually hold some meaning. People would still know that it’s the critic’s subjective opinion but it could still hold some weight as an opinion.
Even if dropped relatively frequently.
The problem becomes when a it is obvious that the crtic(s) in question use no discretion in using them and are simply quotewhoring. What’s worse is when bloggers start picking up those quote and start posting them everywhere. At that point it stops being an opinion. It becomes a news item. And that makes it difficult to discern how many people actually share that opinion.
I can name (small but respectable) number of films where I knew instantly I was watching a true masterpiece. What’s interesting is that for nearly all of those films, time did nothing to dimish my opinion on them.
Time may be needed to solidify a film’s reputation. Sometimes it is needed to offer additional perspective. But initial reactions are valubale too and should not and need not be dismissed just because they happen to me of a rather extreme nature.
I don’t get Sasha’s column. Who was comparing it to Kane? Maybe I don’t read enough hyperbole.
I think it is hard to declare something a masterpiece after first viewing. Our number one of the decade was the same, but after first viewing, it was not even my favorite of the year. It has continued to grow and expand in my mind. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and Werckmeister Harmonies are the only two masterpieces to me in the last decade, but they earned it in repeat viewings.
There are comparisons out there, and in most instances, they’re founded, at least as it pertains to narrative parallels. The problem is they immediately become quality considerations and people think that invoking the film is somehow comparing a true — ahem — masterpiece to a really good effort with similar beats.
While I don’t think anyone should have to wait a decade to declare something a masterpiece, I do agree that it’s not something that ought to be tossed around so easily. Maxim said it better than I did, it’s losing it’s meaning and weight when a critic blurts it out after a first viewing. A truly great film needs to be reflected on and rewatched before you should go about calling it a masterpiece, even if that’s your initial gut feeling.
I generally agree that the term shouldn’t be applied lightly, though I don’t think there should be any sort of arbitrary time requirement. Waiting for a second viewing probably makes sense, but I also don’t think that’s essential.
Personally, I’d label three movies to be masterpieces in the past four years (“Atonement,” “Inception,” and “Wall-E”), and for each of those films, my second viewing reinforced my perception.
Who’s to say what’s a masterpiece to someone? Bergman called Welles a hoad, and Citizen Kane a total bore. Are people going to say he doesn’t know about film? It’s just opinions at the end of the day.
I don’t think people give modern films, especially ones from Hollywood (really America) as much credit as they deserve.
“It’s why I go with a four-star scale rather than five, because I feel like the latter gets into definitive considerations”
5 is better because it separates films clearly:
1 terrible
2 not good
3 good
4 really good
5 great
I hate four stars because you can never really gauge the film. I read a review that seemed to hate the film yet gave it 2 and a half. Like how is 2 and a half stars a negative review? It’s the majority!
Saying a film is 5 stars is really no different than saying it’s 4 out of 4. It did all that it’s capable of , and needed to do.
To me Social Network is an A+, 5/5 whatever you want to call it. I’m not sure I would call it a masterpiece. I have to see a film at least twice before coming to that judgment.
I agree Jeremy, Wall-e and Atonement are masterpieces…but also El laberinto del Fauno (Pan’s Labyrinth).
I also agree that it takes multiple viewings to really judge if a film is a masterpiece. When I saw Bridge on the River Kwai for the first time, I was blown away and figured out why it was hailed as one. After my second viewing, I felt that (while a well-made film) I got nothing out of it, I didn’t discover anything new and I felt kinda “meh” about it.
A masterpiece to me is where a film can elicit a strong emotional response on multiple viewings. For me, those films are “The Lord of the Rings,” “Minority Report,” “Inception,” “2001: A Space Odyssey,” and “Amadeus.” Those are the only films that I can watch over and over and still stay emotionally involved in a strong way.
Oh yes, thank you tintin, Pan’s Labyrinth as well!
Passion of the Christ certainly evokes strong emotional response would you call that film a masterpiece
Will: It depends on how you feel after multiple viewings. Personally, I didn’t respond to it and it didn’t impact me in a profound way on the first or second viewings, so to me it’s not a masterpiece, but some people have seen it multiple times and have been emotionally moved by it and to them, it may well be a masterpiece. I don’t want to turn this into a review of The Passion, but the film can be manipulative and some people responded to it and some didn’t. All that matters is what the viewer takes from it, and if a film affects them in a profound emotional way on multiple viewings, then they may call it a masterpiece.
Kris is right, it is just an opinion and it really doesn’t bother me that the description is thrown around too much.
I don’t think a film has to elicit a strong emotional response to be a masterpiece. It can simply be funny or entertaining. Some Like It Hot does not elicit a strong emotional response and it is a masterpiece.
I would say there are about 25 or so masterpieces a decade.
I guess for comedies, the process of deciding a masterpiece is different. It definitely needs to entertain and it has to be funny. Hell I fall out of my chair laughing every time I watch Austin Powers, but I guess most aren’t quick to call it a masterpiece.
Rashad: I disagree, what can I say? And it’s when half-stars are thrown into a five star scale that I can’t keep up.
As for two and a half, I tend to reserve that for films that aim high and miss (but admirably), or films that aim lower and settle in nicely. Sometimes the latter falls into three. It could be construed negative or positive, depending.
One man’s masterpiece is the next man’s drinks coaster. I was struck by this notion after looking at those two movies of the decade that Kris cited. “Dogville” is one of my favourite pictures, if “favourite” is quite the right word to use for a picture you actually won’t be seeing again in a hurry, but “Jesse James,” which I own, is the most boring picture I have ever tried to watch. I have sat down to watch it at least half-a-dozen times, and I have really, really, tried to get into it. But every time the same thing happens: the movie plays for three hours. I check my watch: eight minutes have passed. I groan and hit the eject button. Different strokes, indeed.
Great picture of Nick Nolte you’ve got there. I watched The Thin Red Line last night for the fourth time this year. I’d call that a masterpiece.
Matthew Starr: 25 masterpieces per decade? Goodness. So, on average, there are two or three masterpieces a year? That seems like quite a tall order.
I think that too many people use “masterpiece” as a defensive mechanism against criticism. They feel that by using the word masterpiece, they shut down all criticism of a film, because if it’s a masterpiece, it is obviously immune to any and all critique.
For instance, while I apparently enjoyed Citizen Kane more than Bergman, I would say it’s a “good but not great” film. For me, thematically it is a (somewhat) stereo-typical morality tale about the isolation of power and egotism that never delves deep enough into the psyche of its characters. It also feels a bit self-aware at times, but it is nevertheless a superbly crafted film.
The other problem I have with the word masterpiece is that it feels somewhat arbitrary. For instance, if you have say five films that you labeled “masterpieces”, does that mean you could not rank one above the other because they are all “masterpieces”? Or is there still room to maneuver when judging masterpiece against masterpiece?
In this last decade, I personally could give the label of masterpiece to The Departed, The Dark Knight, and maybe Black Hawk Down and Little Miss Sunshine. These films though do not approach the same level in my mind as say The Graduate, American Graffiti, The Third Man, The Godfather Part 1 and 2, as well as others. Does this mean then I can not label The Departed and The Dark Knight as masterpieces?
I don’t know the answer to this question, but this is why I feel the word masterpiece is a somewhat futile (but fun) word to describe a movie.
I think people are too quick to review films or label them masterpieces. I personally wait at least 3 to 4 days before I grade a film.
While I don’t necessarily think you have to wait 10 or 15 years to call something a masterpiece. I’d definitely wait about 5 or 6, to see if it ages well. I mean I thought The Dark Knight was a great film, but after watching it two years later I don’t feel the same anymore.
All in All, it’s just words and opinions.
I am with Melissa on TDK. For some reason that movie and Slumdog Millionaire have gone down in quality for me. From what I have seen in the last few years I would label the following masterpieces – A Prophet, A Serious Man, Moon and The Wrestler.
To me, a masterpiece should be assuredly directed, acted, & written. It should have few, if no, lulls in pacing. It should be entertaining, as well as saying ‘something’ (I don’t care what it is, light & fluffy, or serious & moody). And I don’t think masterpieces necessarily come out every year.
Some examples of masterpieces, to me, include: Jaws (masterfully executed, and a pop phenomenon). Silence of the Lambs (ditto). Brokeback Mountain. The Assassination of Jesse James. Yeah, those are the movies I think of from recent times. Iconic, exceptional movies. I usually give 1 or 2 movies a 4/4 every year (on average). That doesn’t mean they’re masterpieces.
My own classification of what constitutes a film to be a masterpiece is due in part to the lingering effects of the film on my constantly clustered cinephilactic mind. For example there are a sparce number of films that I after watching a film harken back for either deeper understanding, to compare and contrast for better or worse, etc…
And these films such as 8 1/2, Persona, Pierrot Le Fou, The Three Colors Trilogy, Once Upon a Time in the West, Come and See, Mulholland Dr., Love Exposure, Breaking the Waves, 2001: A Space Odyssey, In a Year with 13 Moons, The Rules of the Game, The Red Shoes, The Alex Trilogy, Satantango, Persona, The Third Man, Celine and Julie Go Boating, Vertigo, Metropolis (soon to see restored version), Last Year at Marienbad, Rio Bravo, Lola Montes, Magnolia, M, To be or Not to be, 2046, Last Tango in Paris, Possession, Contempt, The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeousie, Berlin Alexanderplatz, Performance, Pulp Fiction, and um oh yeah Citizen Kane a doyeee!!
These films for me are my food they are my drink they define me they define the world they keep me pschotically talking to my self repeatedly and more importantly say it with me they define cinema. Notice how I kept bringing up the me factor, because at the end of the day all defining rules of what a masterpiece is goes away in the wake of the all knowing separate subjective minds that help differ and define person to person.
This is a good subject for a column, and a timely one. Like Kris I would call only two films masterpieces from the past ten years. (Mine are Mulholland Drive and Le Fils.) I’m not saying that there could never be more than two in a decade; what I am saying is that I reserve use of the word for (what I feel are) the very best films. There are all sorts of films I love, films I think are “great”, films which get me jumping for joy at what the medium can do, and so on, but to me a masterpiece is a work which can be held up as a supreme example of its medium, i.e. can be on a par with the Sistine Chapel, the Mona Lisa, Michelangelo’s David, Beethoven’s 5th Symphony, Melville’s Moby-Dick… And, to me, these just don’t come along very often.
For example, I don’t have a masterpiece from the 1990s. My favourite films of the decade include Unforgiven, Ring, Pulp Fiction, South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut, Everyone Says I Love You and Three Colours: Red – fine films all, I imagine many of you will agree, but I don’t think any of them is a masterpiece (although Red comes close).
To me, masterpieces are works which simply cannot be devalued. Which is why the term shouldn’t be devalued either.
I would rate Inception a four star film, but I’m not sure I would call it a masterpiece. Of the past twenty years only The Fountain sticks out to me as a masterpiece.
Saw “Never Let Me Go” today. It was not a masterpiece.
I liked it though.
in my opinion “Scream” is a masterpiece, but hay thats jus my opinion
im with devon
*fist bumps devon*
Scream is pretty fantastic. I wish Stu would have had a better fate, though.
1) If for someone a movie is a masterpiece, they should just say it. Why not if they feel that way?
Guy said The Illusionist is a masterpiece and we’re smart enough to get that it’s what Guy thinks. It’s not forcing an opinion, it’s just expressing it.
2) If I see the film, why is it so important that critic X might have been over the top in his/her review? My reaction will be the only thing that matters. Everything else is just getting to learn about each critic’s personality which might be interesting but irrelevant to what I think about the film.
3) I’ve had four different drinks and yet I’m interested in this? Wow!
I usually see one or two masterpieces a year. The only year in the last ten that had more than two was 2005 when I felt that Munich, Batman Begins, Brokeback Mountain and Crash deserved the honor.
To me, a masterpiece is a movie that I couldn’t bear the thought of never seeing again.
Well, obviously it’s completely subjective. But I think that when something really hits you, you know. It might take you (or me, anyway) a couple of viewings to really *get* it but you realize that you’re watching something that is going to change you somehow.
Case in point: I finished The Thin Red Line for the first time twenty minutes ago and I’m still sort of shaking.
I’m of the mind that we can only really call something a masterpiece after enough time has passed. I mean, critical reaction often varies wildly so stuff really needs to pass the test of time.
so that’s an interesting title…:-P
I knew there was something vaguely familiar about it but couldn’t put my finger on it. We’ll send you a check.
I think 2 titles per decade that you declare as masterpieces is reasonable. The 2 films that I saw this decade that I would call masterpieces are Million Dollar Baby and A Prophet. The former film, I’m not very sure now because I saw it quite early in my film-viewing career, so the bar wasn’t set very high perhaps. But no such misgivings about A Prophet, which I think is a bona fide modern classic, a statement I think you will agree with.
Before Million Dollar Baby, it was Toy Story.
I think in a 5 star scale, 5 ought to represent masterpiece, that’s why if I were to rate movies, I’d have 2-3 4.5 stars per year, 6-7 4 stars but about 2 5 stars per decade.
But then I again I am not a critic, so I don’t feel the need for quote-whoring. I wonder what do critics get out of quote-whoring? Surely they are not paid more when their quotes are used in trailers and posters. Or maybe they get paid to make those said quotes in the first place!
From my sentence I don’t mean that I agree with your choices but that I agree with the number – two per decade.
Completely off-topic, but I got around to seeing both Made in Dagenham and Let Me In tonight, and they were both quite excellent. Let Me In, especially, was great. Definitely echoing what’s already been said about how great that remake is.
If I had to pick ten films from the last decade I would call masterpieces (not counting 2010) it would be these
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy
There Will Be Blood
The Dark Knight
No Country for Old Men
WALL-E
The New World (Extended Cut)
The Assassination of Jesse James
Pan’s Labyrinth
Brokeback Mountain
Road to Perdition
Those are ten films that affect me so deeply on a personal level and no matter how many times I revisit them, hold up so well. But really, that gets at my idea of the term. If a film affects you deeply on a personal level and holds up to repeat viewings, to you, it’s a masterpiece. Everyone has different definitions. Why not embrace it?
Ironically, that image of The Thin Red Line brings up another film that I personally consider to be one of the top ten greatest films ever made.
It’s definitely a big word to be throwing around, but I hold myself to a more austere standard rather than protest its use and abuse by others. Time, I think, might be a significant factor here, and for some reason I’m far more comfortable calling older films like “La grande illusion” and “Hiroshima mon amour” masterpieces. “In the Mood for Love”, “Spirited Away”, “Amelie” and “Entre les murs”, are the films I’d most likely call modern masterpieces, but their flaws stick out much more, perhaps because they seem less venerable, making the final call all the more difficult.
Echoing ‘Scream’. Masterpiece? Well, if not one, then close to it. So freaking scary, so freaking funny, and a movie of the era. A movie of the moment. Nothing quite like it before or since; no matter how often people try.
Thank you for starting this thread kris! I think it is a great idea to give us a place to play catch up with movies when we finally get a chance to see them and I really appreciate it.
About the word “masterpiece” I think it should absolutely be used to describe a movie that someone likes IF they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is so to speak. I think masterpieces are released every year but they are definitely a personal opinion thing. I also think that you have to be careful when throwing that word out there especially in terms of a big movie that arrives with a lot of hype (like dark knight, avatar, and inception) bc after the immediate and collective euphoria fades you often don’t look at the film with the same high regard.
Honestly this year the only new movie I saw in theaters that I would call a masterpiece was gaspar noe’s “enter the void” which I just saw this past weekend in nyc. For me a film like that is such a rare experience and for it to surpass all of my expectations and cause me to actually have real and intense feelings even when so much of the film was synthetic can only be described as a work of genius. I know a film like enter the void will never get any type of awards consideration or high level of acclaim or popularity, which honestly makes me like it even more. I have rarely felt that the films that have recently won oscars for best picture have been masterpieces.
This is an interestingly timed discussion since I just watched Assassination of Jesse James… for the first time this past week. It makes me wonder if films can be masterpieces in parts. It’s a masterpiece of Cinematography, but on the whole, I think I’d only call it a very good movie.
And I think there may be something to waiting on calling a movie a masterpiece. The most recent movie I feel absolutely comfortable calling a masterpiece is LA Confidential. There are others in the past decade I almost want to name (LOTR, Black Hawk Down, Master and Commander), but I’m not 100% confident of making those calls yet. I mean, 10 years ago I might have called American Beauty a masterpiece, and now I realize that the story is complete crap, and that no matter how much I might still appreciate certain aspects of the film, it’s not really a good movie at all.
I reserve “masterpiece” for coming back to a film a year later or more, and seeing if it’s still as great as I thought. Personally, I prefer the use of “great” and “good” as at-the-moment designators.
It should be noted that Tapley himself only awarded 3 and a half stars when he initially reviewed Jesse James, which he now calls a masterpiece. It truly does take time for a film to build in the mind.
What an interesting discussion to have stemmed from what’s been written about The Social Network.
If you guys (esp Kris) are interested in how this film is regarded by the public, which I think you will be, they basically have no idea. I’ve told a handful of people in the last couple days about how well the movie is playing to critics, its Oscar chances, etc. and I’ve gotten somewhat surprised/not taking it seriously response. To the casual filmgoer, this movie is still “The Facebook Movie” and shouldn’t be any more than that.
Thought it was worth noting this divide in perception between writers and the public.
I generally find there are two true masterpieces a year. Sometimes this number is higher (i.e. in 2002, with “Adaptation,” “Bowling for Columbine,” “The Good Girl,” and “Signs” all deserving the distinction) or it can be only one (i.e. in 2006, when “Inland Empire” was the only one deserving it).
I’m extremely sparse with giving four stars to something. The last time it eclipsed five films was in 2003. I’m more sparse with proclamations of “masterpiece.” No year spawns zero of them, however. That’s my view.
MovieMan, I wish you wrote a blog. I never agree with a thing you say, but I want to read the method behind your madness.