Does a movie have to be re-watchable to be great?

Cafe Society
41

Different people seem to be defining re-watchable in different ways, so I’ll try to be clear in my answer.

I took the OP to be defining it as not too difficult a subject matter to revisit. In that sense, as the OP and others have said, I think there are a number of films that I’d consider great, but that I can’t really work up the emotional stamina to sit through again. I’d put Saving Private Ryan, The Revenant, Room and possibly Quills in that category. All of those films had a pretty profound impact on me, but I have no desire to relive some of the feelings I had while watching them.

Someone else talked about re-watchable meaning that there is something to be gained from watching the film more than once, and in that sense, yes, I think a truly great film is such a work of art that it would be impossible for most people to take in everything great about it on the first pass-through. I suppose that can be any of several aspects of the film, including the subtlety of dialog, the significance of scenery and background, or a number of other things. But something that the viewer might gain a new or deeper appreciation of during the second viewing, based on having the context of the full film in hand.

42

I think it depends on what the film is going for. As others mentioned, a film like Schindler’s List, or for a more recent example, 12 Years a Slave, doesn’t need to be rewatchable. In fact, I would go as far as to say that fact that I don’t want to rewatch them to be a sign of their greatness. Those are well made films covering very heavy historical topics. I knew it would be moving to watch them, and having experienced that so fully the first time, it would be difficult to do it again. If I felt I missed some aspect of the story or emotional impact and NEEDED to watch it again, I think that actually detracts from it’s greatness.

There’s also other types of films that aren’t meant to just drag us emotionally through the mud, but rather take us on a wonderful journey, the type of journey we want to take again and again. A great example of this would be Shawshank Redemption, it’s a drama, but I love the characters, I love their interaction, and I leave at the end of the film feeling better.

What about non-dramas? Well, a good comedy ought to be rewatchable, it may not be as funny the second or third time, but it needs to have that staying power. Sometimes a comedy is very topical, and it ages poorly as a result, but even those can be great if they can make that topical humor transcend whatever the particular reference is to still be funny. And maybe a shock joke will lose some punch, but some jokes get funnier and funnier every time I see/hear them, and they’re endlessly quotable.

Even popcorn flicks can be great, maybe not worthy-of-an-Oscar great, but the type of film that has a lasting impact on our culture. Of all types of films, these MUST be rewatchable. Consider Jurassic Park, it’s greatness is precisely why Jurassic World made so much money last year, and that film is rewatchable. Or the upcoming sequel to Independence Day, I have no idea how much it will make, but I know many who are excited for it, and that film is endlessly rewatchable too. There’s plenty of other popcorn flicks that even do well, but they’re quickly forgotten and no one claims they’re great, or they’d want to watch them again.

So, yeah, I think it just depends on what the goal of the film is. An art film, a heavy drama, maybe highly topical stuff, probably only need to be watched once, and possibly even best when they aren’t. For the rest, yeah, I think rewatchability probably helps the case for making it great.

43

Which is funny, because Unforgiven was one of the ones I thought of as “Great Movie; but I’m not very eager to go through the experience again” (along with, say Pink Floyd’s The Wall; and since **Sam Lowry **showed up, maybe Brazil)

44

It’s so odd to me to see Schindler’s List considered great but not rewatchable. I have seen it a second time and found it considerably less than great. It’s a powerful story that was too little known at the time, but we are familiar with the broad strokes, Stephen. Do we really need three anvilicious hints that the train is going to Auschwitz before Schindler spells it out for those in the back?

It is a great story with phenomenal performances and cinematography, but the directing was just too ham-handed.

45

I’ve re-watched very few movies in my lifetime, and I doubt any of them were great. While I’m sure I’ve seen a few great movies once.

46

Wow…couldn’t disagree more. The scene in the club was directed perfectly. The clearing of the ghetto was shown as brutal but not as an orgy of violence. SL was directed almost perfectly.

47

The Sting comes to mind. I’ve watched that movie probably a dozen times, and every time I watch it, I see something I missed the first few times. Watching that movie only once is missing at least 50% of it IMHO.

48

Technically, this could mean that the editing was cheesy but the direction of actors was great, or something. And depending on how involved Spielberg was with the editing process it might have little to do with him.

But, I’d probably agree that Schindler’s List is, overall, a great story, but not necessarily much more than a perfectly reasonable telling of that story. Spielberg’s Munich is probably a little more nuanced and, I would probably argue, his best attempt at trying to do something beyond straightforward and perfectly reasonable - though still not necessarily a marvel of cinema for its time. But I do like it.

49

“Re-watchable” and “great” are kind of unrelated. A movie can be both (A Few Good Men), a crappy film can be eminently re-watchable (Pretty Woman), a great movie can be easily avoided even on cable (Gandhi) and of course plenty of movies are both bad and un-re-watchable (Iron Man 2).

I’m not sure why I’ve watched Rocky Horror twenty times and Dangerous Liaisons once, but I have.