This might be a strange question to ask of sorts, but Im pretty serious about it. When one watches a film, generally the only factor involved is an emotional response and nothing more. I'm guessing for most people here, no one has really had any formal education in film theory/study so I'm wondering how you approach it.

i.e. do you simply judge a movie based upon if you enjoyed it, or do you apply other criteria as well? Subsequently, what makes a "film" great and something to remember as a classic in history?

there are alot of aspects if you enjoy the movie is one but its not the main one because I mean you can enjoy transformers but you know its not a great movie or it also depends on your mood when you go see it if you are in a certain mood youll enjoy certain movies more anyway ill write more later today I gotta go to class

that doesnt really answer the question though. why isnt transformers a good movie? you make it seem like its an intuitive decision that it can't be a good movie. Furthermore mood very closely to an emotional response, so I dont really see the difference there.

This isn't a question im seeking an answer to in a general sense. I know or have my own idea of what makes film great, I'm just curious what other people takes on it is. i.e. theres another forum I frequent that specifically deals with cinema and there wa a huge debate on why people always include citizen kane on top ten lists. most of the posters just did not get why this was so, which was quite f*cking shocking since if they had the smallest knowledge of the medium they would understand why.

I never took a film theory course in college, not out of lack of interest but out of time. The older I've gotten the more critical I've become, which I think in a lot cases is pretty natural for many different reasons.

When I watch a film, I do look for more than just emotional appeal, though having an initial emotional appeal may keep me watching a movie that otherwise I would have turned off. Storyline is very important to me. That's not to say that a "common" storyline wouldn't appeal to me, but that it would need to make up for originality in other ways to keep my interest. I love it when I see interesting camera angles being used, costume and set design that enhance the film rather than retracting or being so over-the-top that it breaks the plane between the viewer and the film, so to speak. And of course, good acting can make or break any film. These are things that I take note of when I'm watching, or upon reflecting afterward.

hmm this still doesn't really answer the question though. It might just be me but these are the exact type of responses I was expecting. Is there something wrong with it? Not necessarily but one has to ask if its as simple as that.

Lets take for example essentially two random films. Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin on the one side which is considered one of the greatest films ever made, and Ridley Scott's Gladiator. I think its a given that everyone would automatically rank Potemkin higher then Gladiator but if you take the criteria into consideration its sort of contradictory.
By storyline, the former doesn't have anymore of a unique narrative then the latter. Furthermore in this case coincidentally, there isn't actually much of a story at all but more so a fictional point in time being expressed cinematically. On the note of camera angles, what makes it interesting? If it simply looks good? This is a huge dilemma because most modern films are definitely loads better "looking" then older ones. So does that imply the newer a film, the better it is? Is 300 the better film to say Chaplin's Modern Time? Costume and Set Design fall into a similar conflict, but it could be taken further. There are great films out there that have no preconceived notions of set design or costuming for example Gus Van Sant's Elephant or any/all cinema verite. On the other hand, shoddy live-action Disney films have this to an extensive degree as to films such as Harry Potter

Sure theres the question of taking these factors in conjunction, instead of singularly but i think the basic argument still applies. Good camerawork could be a positive factor of a film, but it cant be a reason why it makes it great by itself, or even the other factors listed. There's something missing here.....

My judging is probably lacking loads of element, like most of the population.
When watching movies I ususally place myself into the position of the main characters, so I can get emotional easily. I guess If I don't like the acting it's going to ruin part of my fun. The other thing I judge most is probably the visuals; angle, colours, background, setting, etc. Now I know this is not what makes the movie good (i.e. yesterday I was watching Nanny McPhee; it sucked big time but I spent most of my time looking at how pretty it was). I enjoy movies involving ethical political and philosophical questions, because they leave you with something to think about, but I guess that only is a matter of taste.

So i guess I can't really separate quality criterias from personal taste here...

I guess the thing is, "enjoyment" is an extremely subjective and relative attribute. There are a plethora of elements that one can choose to "enjoy" (like the things listed before), and so I would assume that your judgment would come from some sort of subconscious assimilation of these things. I don't think it's something really so concrete as tallying up things you liked, ie. "I liked this, this, and that" (because you can't physically remember every single detail, unless you have some heavenly gift) but rather something more abstract based on an overall impression.

So what makes a film enjoyable? My take on it would be how well it deceives/immerses you. I believe that film in general exists to provide escape on a deeper level of experience, with entertainment existing only as an auxiliary facade. Again, the elements necessary to provide this kind of effect are subjective from one to the next.

I admit I have no academic knowledge on this subject, but to me, it feels like the answer is going to be likewise abstract.

then again, the original question never said you have to actually "enjoy" it for something to be deemed a good film. On that regard, is enjoyment actually necessary? An elementary example of this would be a film like Schindler's List or Bad Guy, both great films but neither I would call "enjoyable". Both imo are horrible experiences to go through so what makes them great in this case? Another case study, that of the films of Tsai Ming-Liang are anything but entertaining. Great films but, most shots of his consist of little to no action, and exceed the minute marks making for an extremely long, drawnout experience.

My personal opinion on the matter I find, isnt that abstract. Something for example, that is well shot has its merits but film and art in general needs to be judged with a context. The context(s) are not singular but usually pertain to innovation in a historical perspective, and the general notions of a well-made film. Well-made doesn't refer to merely technical ability, because it can be argued that almost all major films have been technically well-made.

Lets take for example the movie 300 which has a high level of special effects usage. Then ask yourself, will this film be remembered and is it a good film? Thinking about it historically, it is technically very proficient but lacks anything innovative or groundbreaking. This is why some of the early shorts by Buster Keaton on the otherhand will be remembered for decades to come for its usage of film exposures to create super-imposition and other effects. Sure, it is a primitive technique today that pales in comparison to CGI, but the importance is that it was completely revolutionary at its time. Thus on one hand, like any other art medium, film cannot seriously be judged without some kind of baseline historical backdrop.

On regards to simply a film being well-made. Lets take some more examples. What separates a film such as WKW's In The Mood For Love from a basic but well-liked Hollywood film such as Lord of The Rings? The latter is arguably very well recieved and believed by much of the populace to be a classic. But is it really so? The production sure is extensively well thought out and constructed but in regards to whether it will stand the test of time is not an easy matter to answer simply. The lesser known In The Mood For Love is as equal in regards to the sophistication of production but lacks much of the larger budget LoTR had to work with.

So the question is, what makes the former such a good film and stand out compared to LoTR? The simplest way to answer it is it contains substance, not just style. Filmically, Jackson did not to much to convey anything through the medium of film that wasnt already expressed by explicit visuals and the literary element. In The Mood For Love on the otherhand engages the form and characteristics of film to intertwine thematic elements that just arent possible with just literature or still visuals. Some quick examples would be such devices as visual and audio motifs to express repetition, lighting to convey a particular mood and to signify certain elements onscreen, either explicit or implicit. In Citizen Kane for example, a famous scene consists of Hughe's face bathed in light then as he kneels over to sign a paper, his face is cast in darkness to foreshadow his morbid future.

In The Mood For Love has many of these conventions such as its usage of different dress patterns to convey different ideas through Maggie Chueng's character. The color scheme is also another obvious example, of the whole film being washed in warmer hues to give off a sense of tension and conflict. The usage of different film speeds also gives a sense of temporal differences that just isnt possible simply in literature

The difference here is, LoTR like any other film makes use of these techniques, but merely for stylistic or emotional effect. In example, the film will be slowed down in dramatic/tragic sequences to allow the viewers to sympathize with whats happening on screen. The usage of color as well is more of an aesthetic quality rather then to express some sort of recurring theme. Does this mean LoTR is completely tasteless? No, because much of the ideas Tolkien was working with still get communicated filmically. The problem is this is a more literal trait rather then a filmic one.

but then again, "originality" and "groundbreaking" arn't just other subjective qualities one can add to the elements of personal taste?


imo a good film is one that uses many aspects like filmography/scenario/setting in an overall pleasing way. Something like a movie worth deserving many varied oscars (not saying the actual oscars deserve their fame though)

It seems to me, Crap, that you're more talking about the qualifications of what makes a film "great" while some of us hit upon the first question you asked, "how do you approach watching a film" and how does that tie into whether or not you enjoyed it.

Imo, the question of what makes a film "great" is flawed from the beginning because the question itself enforces an unfair dichotomy. There are plenty of films that one could argue straddle a middle ground, neither definitively great but not a bad film either.

Really, it's completely subjective. A set of established standards are very well and good for the industry (and subsequently the media) in order to have "fair ground" (and I mean that loosely) to judge works on and also to help direct less-educated (read: almost everyone) consumers, but for the average moviegoer, definitions of what makes a movie "great" are going to be just as varied as the qualities of the movies themselves.

I guess what Im trying to hit at is that there is definitely a difference between a good film and a film you simply like. i.e. like Afwells said most people here are simply hitting upon characteristics that revolve around sheer enjoyment. I guess I should have phrased it better but I did mean for the 2nd question to be taken more at length.

Definitely in the challenge to rank film, it is already flawed like with any art but I dont think its completely subjective. Film scholars for one have fairly objective and scientific ways to approach the medium in addition to their own personal opinions and takes on it. There is definitely a middleground for sure, but in regards to a film canon I dont think subjectivity plays a large role. Its like, no one would argue that the Mona Lisa isn't a great painting since its established as part of the canon.

And really as I tried to communicate before, its not really that anyone isnt actualyl answering the question either. Such things as cinematography and mise en scene play a definite role. Its just with the exception of Na and Candy before no one really touched on the idea that this couldnt simply be style, but had to have some substance to it.

Also depending upon your take on history, i.e. your fine with the way history is taught in most college classes, then defining innovation/originality isnt that hard imo. Ranking the significance in importance on the other hand is, but I never really implied that there coudlnt be alot of great films so I dont see why that should be a problem here.

Anyways, thanks for the responses guys. It was/wasnt what I was expecting sort, but definitely interesting nonetheless.

Oh! Good point with the Mona Lisa. I wish that I had been able to take a film class and learn more about the ways that critiques approach the medium. I wasn't meaning that we shouldn't talk about it, but just that I think it's a complicated thing to talk about. I definitely agree with the substance thing for sure.

I hadn't thought about this before, but you could also compare it with how critics judge literature, too. There are certain standards that they look for stylistically, etc., that help distinguish one novel from another. But do you think that judging such things are harder when reflecting on current works? Is it easier to judge things when the current culture has moved on from what was "revolutionary" or "new" at the time, so that you can better examine the full context? I don't have an answer, it's just a thought that came to me!

Definitelly, I think it applies to really all art, including literature. In regards to contemporary artistic study though, I defintely think you do have a point. Much of the same critique can be used, but its much harder to put things into historical context since the implications posed are yet unknown. In example a film like Blade Runner has had tremendous impact both on cyberpunk culture and sci-fi film on a massive scale. At the time though, it was met with skepticism and wasnt as widely considered a classic as it is today. Modern art though in general is problematic. Such earlier movements like dadaism are essentially challenges to the whole notions of art and what defines art, post-modernism on the otherhand is tricky with its ambigious nature and implications of an unknown future i.e. WKW.