From: a0s5108@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Neal and Mara Priestly)
Subject: What makes a movie good (*LONG*)(was: Re: why i watch movies)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:21:42 GMT

>MC>    If movies are so bad - then what is good?  I mean take a
>MC>    look at Shakespeare if you want gore, idiotic mistakes and
>MC>    lame plot lines.  How much better could movies be?
>
>
>MC>    And the final question - What would you regard as a GOOD
>MC>    movie - one that fulfills all the standards you set for it.
>
 
I'll try to hit both of these at once since 'what is good' should probably
be backed up with examples drawn from films THAT I FELT were good.  Note
well the emphasis...you are about to see OPINIONS.

The motion picture as a medium is not by its nature bad.  Many movies
made in Hollywood (and NY,NY Toronto, Florida, Etc, Ad Nausuem....) are,
in execution and failed intent, bad.  Too many films are made by money
hungry opportunists trying to cash in on some other success before the
public and the public's disposable income move on to the 'next big thing'
and so are done with more haste than care.  The perfect example is a
number of post _Star Wars_ space operas.  The Cut and Paste of the TV
series _Battlestar Galactica_ released in the theatres is the case-in-
point that springs unbidden to mind.

As to what makes a good film, the first criterion is simple.  I think 
it was a good film if I became enjoyed the film.  For me, Gene Kelly's 
film _Singing In The Rain_ was a good film.  I enjoyed the music, the
singing, the dancing...especially Donald O'Connors comedic turn in the
'Make 'em Laugh' sequence...I was entertained for 103 minutes each and
every time I watched it.

Another thing that makes or breaks the 'good film' label for me is 
INTERNAL consistancy.  _Highlander_ may have been a bit unreal, but
it is consistant within itself on the bits that are unreal.  True,
there is no explaination of why the immortals exist, but Ramirez is
consistent in his explainations of what he knows and states quite
clearly '...why does the sun rise in the east?  Or are the stars only
pinpricks in the curtain of the night?  WHo knows?'  After 2 milenia
he has no answer to the question of their common condition, so I felt
no need for this to be explained within the 400 year span of the film.
There were a few blunders in the film (a clan is named in the battle
scene in the Highlands, yet the tartans don't match...there are two
men shown as being among the Fraziers wearing Royal Stuart colors)
but they don't take away from the whole.  They are errors which seem
to be due to non-omnicient film makers or faulty editing of a scene
here and there.  (as an aside, I only noticed the tartans because I
am a Scot and happen to be able to trace my ancestry to the Royal
Stuarts...and missed it the first few times I watched the film.)

Another Criteria for the film to be considered good is the ability to
care for the characters, which generally flows from good characterization.
In this I felt that Empire was the best of the _Star Wars_ films,  I
could put myself in Luke's shoes as he fought against himself while 
dueling with Vader/Anakin before the emperor.  The acting was important,
but it was the development of the character which truly pulled it off.
You got to know Luke and his motivations, predjudices and reactions.
Instead of just having to suffer through yet annother swordfight, I
could almost feel myself in the postition, I cared about whether Luke
could come through the battle both with his skin and soul intact.
Another good example was _Scrooged_ and Bill Murray's transformation
at the end.  They didn't just turn Frank Cross around with just the
ghosts intervention.  There was a hint or two here and there about
how he was changing tiny things during the course of the visitations
and the end result was not some white-washed goody goody, but a very
believable emotionaly matured version of the man who had posted in
his office the definition of his last name 'something people are nailed
to.'  (recall he references the Kama Sutra during his monolog at the
close of the film...)

The last criterion is that the film has to do what it set out to do.
Take _Presumed Innocent_ as an example, it set out to be a mystery/
suspense film.  How many times did you flip-flop over your opinion
of who-done-it?  I suspected Ford on and off through the film, and
was convinced that I knew for sure what had happened three different
times.  And hadn't guessed right.  It worked for me.  Hitchcock's 
_Arabesque_ (sp?) was an even better example for me.  I was shocked
at the end the first time I saw it, then about an hour later was
wondering why I hadn't seen the pattern and the bits that were extras
earlier.  _the Princess Bride_ was another film that fit this example
as it was supposed to be an overwrought fairy tale come to life and
worked perfectly, even after reading the (much better, because it was
unlimited by time constraints) wonderful book it was taken from.
Heros, pirates, evil nobility, fair maidens and true love made even
bigger than fairy tale life and taking you along for a ride...I
went willingly.  (I liked the book so much that I *PAID* to see this
film at the theatre of 'the enemy' even though I knew it would be
showing at my theatre in two weeks time.  And I felt it money well
spent.  From me that counts as high endorsement.)

There are a few other things that can add or detract from a film for
me.  Cinematography and editing for example.  The scene changes in
_Highlander_ are great and they added to my enjoyment of the film.
The smooth segue from the aquarium in present-day New York to the
boat in the middle of the loch in 1400s Scotland was the sort of
work you can't help but admire and enjoy.  Well, okay, I can't help
but enjoy it anyway... :)

Sound is another example...the menacing tones of the Imperial March
as the Death Star looms before our heroes, the use of surrounds in
the completely unremarkable _Fletch Lives_, or the innane 'the person
on screen is about to die an impossibly horrible death' noise you hear
in all the Freddie and _Friday the 13th_ films.  Done right the sound
can almost become another character for your enjoyment, done badly it
can be a good laugh.

Guess this turned into my $2.00...it was really only meant to be about
$.20  :)

-Neal Priestly, The theatre manager who only watches movies at home.

'Don't you mean The Virgin Connie Swail?'