From: malhotra@duke.cs.duke.edu (Manish Malhotra)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: What is a masterpiece ? (Citizen Kane, Raging Bull, etc.)
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:07:26 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Organization: Duke University Computer Science Dept.; Durham, N.C.

In article <0eydaeK00iV3I2B2gA@andrew.cmu.edu> dr3u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Daniel Read) writes:
>
>I cited Citizen Kane because it is the paradigmatic example of a "great
>film", at least in North America and England.  It has attained that
>status on the basis of a great deal of scholarly study, and
>long-standing popular and critical esteem.  Even if I knew nothing about
>Citizen Kane but that a large number of eminent critics regarded it as a
>masterpiece, then that would be a good reason for me to regard it that
>way (certainly not the BEST reason).  If you were a large number of
>eminent critics then I might be swayed by your claim that A Better
>Tomorrow is a masterpiece.  Absent that strong argument from
>multiple-authorities, I want other kinds of evidence.
>

This discussion brings up the issue of what makes a film
a masterpiece. Is ``unanimous opinion of critics'' a good criterion ?    
I wonder how many film-critics come up with their own original reviews.
(Is it not possible that their reviews are influenced (positively or
negatively) by what other critics have already said ?)
Maybe I would go to see a film that gets good reviews, but I base 
my opinions about a film simply on how much I liked it myself.
As I walk out of the theatre, I know whether I have just seen
a well-made film or not. What I am trying to say is that without
knowing details of camera movement, different styles of editing, etc.,
(i.e., without technically dissecting a film, which is what critics do),
but simply by considering the film as a single, whole ``experience'',
I will know whether it is a well-made film or not. For example,
a poorly edited film will leave a poor impression.   

For example, even though I had heard so many good things about
"Citizen Kane", I did  not enjoy the film. Similarly, "Raging Bull"
would not make it to my list of top 20 films of the 80s (both Siskel 
and Ebert rate it as their top pick of the 80s). In fact, I find 
a lot of similarity between these two films. Both these films 
describe the story of a person who makes it big. They also go on
to show how their lives continue in the post-glory era of their lives.  
I guess my opinion of these films will change when I reach the that
age myself and will be able to comprehend what these films are trying
to depcit and how successful they have been. Apparently, a lot of
critics are able to identify with these films and consider them as
masterpieces.  

To me, they are not, at least not now. I can identify with films
that describe stories of someone growing from childhood to 
adolescence. This is why, I tend to enjoy films like "Sugar Cane Alley",
"Cinema Paradiso", "The Great Expectations", "Oliver Twist", 
"Pather Panchali", etc. But then, there are so many films
which do not involve such personal ``identification'' on a viewer's part
and regardless of viewer's age (assuming that you understand the film),
these films leave a mark, such as "Gallipolli", "Paths of Glory",
"The Seventh Seal", "Casablanca", etc...     


Manish