criterionforum.org

I like thought experiments, but it is still risky business. If any artist creates a significant body of work, he will have something to say each time.
Better to view our best talents as creating a series of masterworks and determining which have strengths or weaknesses as compared against the entire body of work.
I assume most of us have a favorite Altman film and we won't be agreeing on which one it is anytime soon. You never see literary critics comparing "Hamlet" unfavorably to "A Midsummer Night's Dream" based on the general agreement that the former has deeper themes and the latter better poetry. Do art critics look at a painters work and say this is his "single best oil on canvas"?

Plus, movies are such a collaborative medium, that sometimes my favorite director preference turns out to be, in fact and instead, my favorite screenwriter or DP.
And, before we even think of giving Michael Cimino a "one brilliant gem" award, we better read the long and revealing article in this months Vanity Fair which discusses "The Deer Hunter" and "Coming Home" in excrutiating detail.

domino harvey wrote:I would say it's a false assumption that a director will have a single masterpiece. I won't pretend to know everything about everything so perhaps this is common practice in Art History classes, but I'm sure you could find art scholars who abhor the practice.

To use a director mentioned in this thread, I think Bergman is one of the greatest of directors, but I'd be hard-pressed to single out a single film to explain why he's worth watching. Maybe ten would be an arbitrary if adequate number, I could give you ten films that act as a key to unlocking Bergman, or at least a running start. But if I give one film, that one film would only make sense in relation to the other nine and then really the entire oeuvre. So the "Pick One" game becomes a waste of time.

I agree. Unless we all agree that great directors have a single masterpiece, and also agree on the identity of a given director's single 'masterpiece', and this selection happens to coincide with king Prendergast's selection, there's nowhere for this discussion to go.

Going back to Bergman, who I have no great personal vested interest in, the following films at the very least have all been acclaimed as his defining masterpiece at various times and by various people: The Seventh Seal, Wild Strawberries, Persona, Cries and Whispers, Fanny and Alexander - and now Scenes from a Marriage. It's possible to argue that any one of them is either unique or representative within his greater body of work (hint: they're all both).

At first glance, my favourite Tarkovsky, Mirror, might appear to be quite different from his other films, but that's just an illusion that comes from looking at the work from relatively irrelevant perspectives (e.g. genre, structure) - it's much more Tarkovsky than it is anything else.

And even in the rare instances where there is a single work that acquires consensus masterpiece status, it's not necessarily the one those who know the body of work best would choose (the Sgt Pepper's syndrome).

There have been some good points made here, but some seem to be totally rejecting the notion of even the mere concept of the "masterpiece." Surely there are some examples that apply? I'm beginning to think that it may not be possible among the pantheon (i.e. Ozu, Ophuls, Mizoguchi, Ford, etc.), and indeed does them a disservice, but how about those in the second, third tier? There are such things as "masterpieces" to be found somewhere in the history of film aren't there?

King Prendergast wrote:some seem to be totally rejecting the notion of even the mere concept of the "masterpiece" totally.

I denounce and abjure the very notion of the "masterpiece" -- as you conceive it.

A totally useless artificial construct (as opposed to a useful artificial construct).

A masterpiece, historically, was a work that showed a highly skilled and experienced journeyman had, at last, established the level of accomplishment needed to be accepted as a full-fledged master in his guild. In this sense, the notion of a "masterpiece" remains valuable -- though one might differ as to _which_ work constitutes a director's masterpiece. For example, looking at Kurosawa, was it No Regrets, Drunken Angel, Stray Dog, or something else entirely.

Regardless of whether a director creates two uniquely treasurable works, or five, or eleven -- each is entitled to the appropriate level of admiration and respect. Even a so-called "second-tier" director might have considerably more than one such work in his (or her) catalog. Why arbitrarily anoint one as more special than the others?

(BTW -- I believe the proper formula is "renounce and abjure" -- but I have adapted it for present purposes).

King Prendergast wrote:There are such things as "masterpieces" to be found somewhere in the history of film aren't there?

Andrei Rublev

Michael Kerpan wrote:A masterpiece, historically, was a work that showed a highly skilled and experienced journeyman had, at last, established the level of accomplishment needed to be accepted as a full-fledged master in his guild. In this sense, the notion of a "masterpiece" remains valuable -- though one might differ as to _which_ work constitutes a director's masterpiece.

Someone knows how to use Wikipedia. The concept has evolved since ye olde European guild system.

King Prendergast wrote:Someone knows how to use Wikipedia. The concept has evolved since ye olde European guild system.

Wrong. I've been a fan of Richard Wagner's music for over 40 years. and I learned all about guilds, masters, journeymen and apprentices because of my fascination with his Mastersingers of Nurnberg.

Your notion of "masterpiece" (even if shared by others) is not evolved but devolved. It is a notion that is simplistic and misleading -- and ultimately utterly useless.

domino harvey wrote:Even Dwarves Started Small

It's Even Dwarfs Started Small. What you said is grammatically correct, but Herzog never went to grammar school.

I know, what a stupid, insignificant detail to point out! But this thread is pretty stupid too. ZING!

In all seriousness, terrible idea.

"Dwarfs" is the standard English plural of "dwarf". Tolkien, however, didn't like the look of this -- so changed it to "dwarves" for Hobbit and LOTR (etc.).

;~}

I've never even considered the idea of having a "masterpiece" in a director's oeuvre as it seems to limit through praise. But, some of the more interesting arguments I've heard about a particular film were those passionate enough to go that extra mile and claim this is this or that person's "greatest accomplishment". So I benefit from reading material that seeks to extrapolate what makes something perfect in another person's eyes even though I do believe it to be limiting. Ah well.

Michael Kerpan wrote:"Dwarfs" is the standard English plural of "dwarf". Tolkien, however, didn't like the look of this -- so changed it to "dwarves" for Hobbit and LOTR (etc.).

The Hobbit is clearly Tolkien's masterpiece; it dwarves the competition.

sidehacker wrote:

domino harvey wrote:Even Dwarves Started Small

It's Even Dwarfs Started Small. What you said is grammatically correct, but Herzog never went to grammar school.

My German's too rusty to judge the grammar of Auch Zwerge haben klein angefangen, but that's the title Herzog actually came up with.

Imagine if I'd typed "Gristly Man," we'd be on page four!

It seems to me that anyone who seriously refers to Andrew Sarris's "pantheon" and "second and third tier", clearly has trouble thinking for himself.

tojoed wrote:It seems to me that anyone who seriously refers to Andrew Sarris's "pantheon" and "second and third tier", clearly has trouble thinking for himself.

Unlike this thread, Sarris's thought experiment was useful.

GringoTex wrote:Unlike this thread, Sarris's thought experiment was useful.

Keyword -- "was".

;~}

I don't really have anything to contribute, but the wtf left-field awesomeness of including MANDINGO in that original post gets my approval. That movie is fucking tremendous.

This thread comes across as more journalistic in its approach to cinema, the way in reviews, a writer may use hyperbolic praise to draw attention to a film (as much as themselves) that the reader hasn't seen or heard about before.

I tend to feel the concept of a masterpiece should be used only in very particular circumstances, to use an example, believe I referred to The Idiot (Akira Kurosawa) as being a masterpiece for me on this board.

I hope the term put across my feelings of wanting to fully praising a film without caveat, in its entirety even if I may never see the film correctly, and that this was closer to my feelings than offering faint praise, a back handed complement. In that instance I felt the worse thing to do would be to allow such terrible studio butchery which AK played no part in undermine his great, personal accomplishment on said film, of which thankfully more than enough survives to get a feel for what he intended.

Perhaps a better way to have approached making this thread, would've been to ask people to discuss a film they feel represents the qualities they most admire, respect and enjoy in a particular filmmaker...

King Prendergast wrote:No, there is no practical application, it is merely a thought experiment, but thinking of artists in terms of their masterpieces is a convention of art history/criticism for centuries.

I agree, I think the concept of a masterpiece is perfectly fine and has been used for hundreds of years in many different forms of art, predating films easily. Also a masterpiece should be considered in relation to the artist other works, in fact thats kind of the whole point.

While the concept of a masterpiece is simple however, actually choosing the masterpiece of a given artist/film director may be considerably harder.

godardslave wrote:While the concept of a masterpiece is simple however, actually choosing the masterpiece of a given artist/film director may be considerably harder.

Care to cite any (credible) historical analysis that took the position that each great artist has one and only one "masterpiece" that should be uniformly acclaimed.

This whole thread is going a long way towards proving something thats been a sacred cow for me for a very long time: there is no such thing as a Valid Film Critic-- that is, in terms of assigning aesthetic value. We're all just fans. Some are just Really Really Big Fans and actually get paid to Take Their Personal Feelings Real Seriously. No "credible historical analysis" is worth anything for a person for whom it is not "credible". Beyond talking about your own personal emotional response to a film, "criticism" is a fools game.

Was Hendrix' "masterpiece" song Purple Haze?
Gimme a break!

Film Historian is one thing-- film "critic" is pure Ass Leakage and should be either an ever-rotating position in every newspaper or retired permanently in my (very radical I know) view.

HerrSchreck wrote:This whole thread is going a long way towards proving something thats been a sacred cow for me for a very long time: there is no such thing as a Valid Film Critic-- that is, in terms of assigning aesthetic value. We're all just fans. Some are just Really Really Big Fans and actually get paid to Take Their Personal Feelings Real Seriously. No "credible historical analysis" is worth anything for a person for whom it is not "credible". Beyond talking about your own personal emotional response to a film, "criticism" is a fools game.

Was Hendrix' "masterpiece" song Purple Haze?
Gimme a break!

Film Historian is one thing-- film "critic" is pure Ass Leakage and should be either an ever-rotating position in every newspaper or retired permanently in my (very radical I know) view.

But, a good critic can move beyond his personal emotional response and at least assign some kind of comparitive aesthetic value. Art critics and literary critics can do it, why not movie critics? The problem with the idea that we are all merely fans results in what I would call the "Netflix phenomenom" in which we all assign ratings stars to the movies we rent and end up finding that the latest slasher film gets a rating equal to "Casablanca". It is actually much too easy to criticise the critics and I find that when the majority of them agree on the merits of a film, they are far more often right than wrong.

And furthermore! The masterful Hendrix interpretation is called "All Along the Watchtower"!

Well hopefully we all can agree that rating a movie with any form of numerical value (stars, letter grades, etc) is perhaps the most marginalizing method possible of discounting and ultimately discarding any film.

domino harvey wrote:Well hopefully we all can agree that rating a movie with any form of numerical value (stars, letter grades, etc) is perhaps the most marginalizing method possible of discounting and ultimately discarding any film.

-nod-
Agreed.

Anhedionisiac wrote:

domino harvey wrote:Well hopefully we all can agree that rating a movie with any form of numerical value (stars, letter grades, etc) is perhaps the most marginalizing method possible of discounting and ultimately discarding any film.

-nod-
Agreed.

What happened to saying things like "this is a movie I really love -- and here are a few of the reasons why".
;~}