In Reply to: Do they really know? posted by Alex Yakovlev on March 22, 2004 at 10:59:29:
I like to go back to Jaws and also of rating genres. Tom Cruise is a STAR not an actor. As STARS go he is a good actor. Being a Star has an instant problem because you can't escape your image. Schindler's Worked because it had a bunch of nobodies as household names but high quality stage actors in Fiennes and Kingsley who both largely dissapear into their work. I also find it interesting that when Fiennes attempted Maid in Manhatten he bombed because playing a nothing character for a character actor he found impossible to do it right...and he didn't. Which was why he commented that what Cary Grant did was not as easy as people think. Being light and credible in a romantic comedy is extremely difficult to do and Ralph, being one of the best stage actors of the last 30 years is credible discussing acting.I talk about genre because horror is considered a step below everything else and basically a step above porn. Nevertheless we can find great horror movies...that doesn't mean the BEST in the horror genre will be viewed the best overall film of all time or even crack your top 100. This is why I discuss Jaws. There is a reason MOST people consider this to be a masterpiece as I have stated numerous times already. Of course certain people won't like it.
The point you made is correct that just because a large body calls it a masterpiece doesn't make it great...but a small body calling something great carries even LESS weight.
I hated 81/2 Victor hates Jaws. Both films have HUGE followings in critical circles and the latter also happens to do well amongst the masses. Jaws is as good as that story can be told IMO.
Then you look at Ebert and he has BOTH films in the great 100. Here is my point. BOTH films are considered masterpieces. Not everyone will agree on each selection.
For a masterpiece in literature such as the works of Shakespeare or Dickens it has to remain worthy in following generations. Both are still stables in the literary world 300 years later. The MASSES still read them they influence today's movies. Chaucer only manages to stay alive because of the Lit historians.
This transfers over to film...Jaws has succeeded in standing time by both art critics and the masses. And whether we "Like" the film or not the bottom line is it has met the objective criteria for a what a masterpiece is. I say objective criteria because artsy fartsy people like to try and make art objective and then turn around and dismiss their own rules because they dislike a particular film from being there.
Spileberg I compare to Shakespeare in many ways. The artsy fartsy critics of high class washed their hands of the inept Shakespeare. Same with Mozart. Salieri was the MAIN composer - Mozart was considered a hack. The people spoke and now Mozart is considered a genius. That movement will eventually occur for Spielberg...the people and most critics have figured it out already.
Saving Private Ryan is not nearly as good as Schindler's List - but it's also a helluva lot better than some people gave it credit for. I was one of the people who did not like SPR when it cam out...I have seen it twice since then and the so called story after the opening beach sequance is quite smart from a hoistorical perspective ... too smart for a first time through though because the opening sequence is so strong that nothing after could live up to that...on second and thirdviews in fact the following is much better. There is commentary on the ridiculous American Propaganda, an internal story of fear in war and what it truly means to be a MAN, conscienceness in war, what a hero really is.
It's not perfect but much smarter and even-handed than it seemed when I first saw it.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Do they really know? - RGA 11:43:08 03/22/04 (2)
- Re: Agree except on one point - rico 12:11:42 03/22/04 (1)
- Re: Agree except on one point - RGA 12:25:35 03/22/04 (0)