I agree. I think The Godfather is perhaps the most perfectly un-dated movie ever made: there is absolutely no visual clue, that I have ever noticed in 10+ viewings, that the film was made in the 70s.
No visual clue, but the fact that it’s a literate, popular, American movie made for thinking adults kind of dates it as being from the 70’s, dontcha think? 
This actually puts it ABOVE most great movies. Now you’re getting into the super-great, the utterly transcedent. Even most great movies are pretty clearly of a particular time. You can tell “The Searchers” was not made in the 1970s. You can tell when “Casablanca” was made. And this is not just a product of the technical details… when they tried to make a 1940s tribute with “The Good German,” you can tell it’s a modern day movie, even though it affects the appearance of a 1940s movie.
When I suggested “The Godfather” as the movie standard for “Great,” what I had in mind were the number of memorable scenes. “The Godfather” has incredibly memorable, iconic images and scenes:
- The opening shot of the undertaker: “I believe in America”
- The wedding dance
- Michael telling the story of Luca Brasi and the bandleader
- Horse’s head
- Sonny being killed
- Michael’s murders in the restaurant
- Apallonia blowing up
- The final scene, of course
- The killings during the baptism
- Michael and Enzo outside the hospital
There are a dozen more. These are iconic images. Even people who haven’t seen the movie would get the joke if you spoofed them.
At first I wasn’t sure this made sense because I thought, “Well, course I remember parts of a great movie. You don’t bother to remember some piece of crap you saw once and hated.” But then it occurred to me that the striking image is one of the most important parts of cinema. The very last scene, as you have said, is perhaps the most important, but previous scenes too - you’ve got to be bringing the goods ON SCREEN, not just verbally (a la Juno, which we both disliked.)
You’re reminding me of Sullivan’s Travels - which is (in my opinion) a great movie. Joel McCrea plays a movie director who’s tired of making silly, unimportant comedies, and wants to make a movie about important things: “I want to hold a mirror up to life. I want this to be a picture of dignity! A true canvas of the suffering of humanity!”
Why does comedy always get such a short shrift? Why can’t comedy be great? This makes absolutely no sense to me.
I agree, capital G Great movie; made me forever think differently about the value of comedy.
If I go the entire movie without ever stopping to realize I’m watching a movie it’s great. If once or twice I’m taken out of the film because something didn’t make sense or wasn’t interesting it’s good. Three to ten and it’s average. Over ten and it’s crap.
Ironically, the movie he wanted to make was O Brother, Where Art Thou? which was the title used by the Coen Brothers 60 years later to make, what I consider to be, a great movie.
It had the color and lighting (that Zeldar spoke) of to set the mood for the time and place for the action of the film, though the movie itself (as RickJay pointed out) was timeless. It had excellent direction, great acting, funny scenes, good music…but most importantly, I can watch it over and over again and get something new out of it with each watching.
KneadtoKnow pointed out the importance of this last point, the re-watchability of a movie. In my opinion this is the single best thing about the movie. The cinematography can be great, but that alone doesn’t make an excellent movie — the director can be excellent, actors excellent, the script…whatever could all be there, but if I don’t want to watch it again, it’s not, in my mind, a GREAT movie.
Not ironically at all: the Coen Brothers’ movie was a response to Sullivan’s Travels.
Sorry for the confusion, lissener, I meant it was (in my opinion) a great movie as well, not that the link was unintentional. (Maybe my use of ‘ironic’ was more along the lines of Alanis Morisette very broad definition of irony.)
Howard Hawks once famously said that the simplest metric for a quality film is that it has three great scenes and no bad ones.
For my part, my definition is very short: A great movie reaches into me and makes a permanent change.
This change could be minor, or it could be significant. It could alter the way I perceive the world; it could be an addition to my emotional vocabulary. There are no real rules or limitations for what the change actually is. All that’s required is that the movie screws a hook into me where none previously existed and hangs itself there.
This also goes for books, paintings, songs, poems, and so on.
Just saw the thread, great question!
Nothing really to add, but I like the distinction between “favorite” and “great” movies. Obviously, both are subjective to a certain extent, but great movies tend to be far more objectively appreciated than favorites (although it’s always nice to have a movie that fits both bills).
I think one trait about great movies is that they’re always impressive in some way-- they do something that no other film does, or some combination of great things about them serve to awe you in some way. While it’s true that many great movies weren’t appreciated as great at the time (and many movies thought to be great at the time don’t seem all that good now in hindsight), the truly great movies are usually pretty obvious the moment you see them.
That said, there’s something to be said for the “test of time.” For example, I’ve long used the shorthand “flypaper movies” to describe those flicks that come on in the middle of a day or late at night, and the moment you come across them on TV, no matter where you are in the movie, you’re stuck, you HAVE to watch it. Doesn’t matter how many times you’ve seen the film, doesn’t matter if you have it on DVD sitting atop a dusty shelf, you just have to watch it (for it’s only special when it appears randomly on TV).
Now, not all flypaper movies are great movies-- stuff like Roadhouse, Caddyshack, the aforementioned Bill & Ted are all flypaper movies-- but most great movies are flypaper.
I like your idea about the ending. I think all of my picks for great films have this kind of ending. Of course real life doesn’t have neat endings that wrap everything up.
Except that The Magnificent Seven sucks donkey balls. It is less than a Kurosawa fart.
That’s a pretty good one too.
I’d be afraid that it’s just a little limiting, because sometimes you just can’t perceive that. “The Godfather” changed my understanding of what great cinema is, so that counts. But I’m sure, I’m sure, that “Back to the Future” was a great movie too - not “The Godfather,” and not great the same way, but great nonetheless - but I can’t think of how it changed me.
Does my THINKING it’s great constitute a change? I’m not sure.
If it helps any, I’ve been rolling this notion of being changed by a great movie around in my mind, and I’m not quite sure I buy it – for the very reason you’re expressing.
Sometimes, I will present, nothing really all that new or different or iconoclastic or broadening of one’s horizons is coming from the experience of seeing the movie. Sometimes it’s just a damn good job of saying something you already knew and understood in a way that puts a lid on it. It manages to say it more clearly, more succinctly or with fewer barriers to understanding or feeling.
So, to allow the notion of change to apply in this case, about all I can see being changed is maybe that it took x-number of words or pictures or images to say whatever-it-is before, now it takes x-minus-some-number and the result is even better.
Just as a case in point, if you’ll accept that I don’t say Bullitt is really a Great Movie, just a Good Movie, what it did was to get its point across in a dramatic way with way less dialog than earlier movies in the genre. You can make that observation of many of McQueen’s films. He was a show-me versus tell-me actor.
Does this attempt at making sense of the change idea help any, or am I pushing too hard to accept that notion?
Maybe Cervaise will enlarge on the point and help us both out.
Well, from my point of view, Back to the Future is a really entertaining movie, with a wonderful story, but I don’t consider it a “great movie,” that is in the sense of capital-G Great. It’s in the same category as Galaxy Quest and Aliens in that respect. From my perspective, I will happily watch any of those movies, but I don’t consider myself changed by them.
But then, that’s why it’s my own personal definition. If you define greatness some other way, then Back to the Future or Aliens or, I don’t know, Superman II might qualify. And that’s fine, those are your “great” movies. For my part, I might also consider one of your movies “great,” or I might just like it a whole lot.
Which is why something like this is inherently subjective. There isn’t a concrete metric by which one movie can be deemed great, and another not. While there may be some movies that a large number of people would agree on (The Godfather), other movies will prove more divisive (Crash), and others would be named by cognoscenti but dismissed by the wider group (Potemkin).
Trying to define greatness serves as an interesting discussion point, to be sure, and may be enlightening as everyone shares their perspectives, but trying to hammer out the rules to the point that the discussion turns into an argument about this movie being included but that one not… that’s where I lose interest.
Well, it’s a comedy in the Shakespearean sense, at least.
See, that’s why the discussion is interesting. though. If we wanted to discuss objective facts we’d have a thread about math.
I think davekhps makes a good point about movies standing the test of time. 28 years later people still discuss “Raging Bull” as a great movie; hardly anyone talks about “Ordinary People,” the film that won Best Picture that year. It raises an interesting question, though, as to whether we need time to gauge greatness.
It’s interesting to read the thread about “Worst Best Picture winners of the last 25 years” and note how many of those films really don’t have a very lasting impact.
I subscribe to the subjective side of determining greatness, which implies that the larger group to decide subjectively that Movie A is “greater” than Movie B helps decide pragmatically which movie that is.
But I still rely on my Favorite Movie group so as not to be swayed personally by the Great Movie group when it comes time to watch one.
I’d say that longevity is important in the selection of Great Movies, which is why I take IMDB’s Top 250 with a large dose of salt. They come down too hard on recent movies at the expense of the true “classics.” That fault keeps that list from being a list of Great Movies – for my taste.
But then I have to really like the individual critic who comes up with his or her list, too. One of the Book of Lists has several (maybe 10 or so) critic’s lists of the Great Movies and it’s amusing to see which movies make all lists and how their rankings shift around.
I guess that’s why we have oregano and hot sauce.
1958 Academy Award was given to The Bridge on the River Kwai which was a damn good movie with a very memorable scene. This means it beat out another great movie that moved me more and meant more (at least to me): 12 Angry Men. *12 Angry Men *was a simple looking movie with a great ensemble cast and a lasting message. I think it still has a lasting impact and one greater than The Bridge on the River Kwai.
On the other hand the 1939 Academy Award had *Gone with the Wind * won over a field of the following.
Dark Victory (1939) - Warner Bros.; First National
Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939) - M-G-M
Love Affair (1939) - RKO Radio
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) - Columbia
Ninotchka (1939) - M-G-M
Of Mice and Men (1939) - Hal Roach
Stagecoach (1939) - Walter Wanger
Wizard of Oz, The (1939) - M-G-M
Wuthering Heights (1939) - Samuel Goldwyn Productions
This might be the single greatest class of movies. *Mr. Smith Goes to Washington * might be corny and not as great in scope as *Gone with the Wind * but it is a great movie that has lasted across the decades and is still true in message today or maybe more so.
*Goodbye, Mr. Chips * was another great film. I think it is less well known now but it is not forgotten and was extremely well acted and directed.
*Wuthering Heights * is another incredible movie with great performances from two of the greatest actors. Olivier & Niven were incredible. I think this has stood the test of time.
I’m not a fan of *Dark Victory * but another well regarded movie. I think **Lissener **mentioned this recently.
I think this *Of Mice and Men * is the definitive version. It was a little odd to see Burgess Meredith young though.
And of course a movie that might well be bigger and more beloved than the winner is the all time classic The Wizard of Oz.
So here all in one year were how many classic all time great movies?
Quite impressive work there, What Exit? but one other feature of 1939 was that that’s the year Europe began WWII. We were a couple years later joining in, but the point might be that the next time we ever get that many great movies coming out at once we’d better get ready for WWIII (if we haven’t already had it).
Just looking for the cloud behind the silver lining, don’t you know? 