What are the "essential" movies to watch? (1 Viewer)

[Walter Kittel]

I won't disagree that these lists are mostly limited to commercial narratives, however Ebert's list includes titles such as Alain Resnais' Last Year At Marienbad and Errol Morris' Gates of Heaven, films that strike me as non-commercial. Since the original criteria was to be 'literate in a good movie discussion', the scope of the films might depend upon whom you are conversing with.

- Walter.

 

[Arman]

Okay, if I have to do this by one country with one essential movie - Here's my World's Top 20 Essential Movies:

US: Casablanca (Curtiz) or Citizen Kane
UK: The 39 Steps or The Third Man or Lawrence of Arabia
France: Children of Paradise or Jules et Jim or Weekend
Italy: L’ Atalante (Vigo)
Japan: Seven Samurai
Sweden: The Seventh Seal
Germany: Wings of Desire (Wenders)
Brazil: City of God (Lund & Merelles)
Spain: All About My Mother
Hongkong: Chungking Express
Taiwan: Yi-yi (Yang)
Iran: The Wind Will Carry Us
China: Farewell My Concubine (Chen)
Mexico: Exterminating Angel
India: Pather Pachali
U.S.S.R/Russia: The Mirror
Denmark: Babette’s Feast (Axel)
South Korea: Chunhyang (Im)
Canada: ? (there must be one from Canada)
Australia: Innocence (Cox)

 

[Eric Howell]

Why are you guys listing all of those “old crappy movies”?

My essential list for my friend the “Smokey and the Bandit” aficionado:

Blues Brothers
Caddyshack
Yellowbeard
Trading Places
Vacation
Police Academy
Cannonball Run II
Spies Like Us
Fletch
Ferris Bueller’s Day Off
Three Amigos
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Big Trouble in Little China
Raising Arizona
Princess Bride
Spaceballs
Dragnet
Coming to America
Scrooged
The Naked Gun

 

[Eric Howell]

Arman, if you want something from Canada, perhaps go with an Atom Egoyan or David Cronenberg.

 

[Anthony Connor]

he mentions that in his opinion the greatest movie ever made was..."Smokey and the Bandit".

I can't argue with that

Sound to me like it might have been a reference to the movie "EDTV".

Regards

AXE

 

[David Rogers]

Asking this question is the same as asking "prove mathematically which movie is the greatest".

There is no right answer. There is no right list. Collect a hundred different "movie experts" and have them list what they consider to be important movies, and you find different lists. Worse, ask them the same question a year from now, five years from now, twenty years from now; and their answers have changed. And even on the movies that might appear on multiple lists, the reasons for being on each list will be as varied as the lists themselves.

Why? Because people are people; what affects one person doesn't another, or does so in a dramatically different way. One person considers Spielberg the greatest director in the history of cinema, another considers it blasphemy to rate anyone above Hitchcock.

Is one 'right'? The other 'wrong'? No.

Watch what you love. Watch what makes you cheer. Watch what makes you believe in the power of mythical storytelling, pulse pounding action, heart wrenching drama, or the joy of a timeless comedy. If you love to learn about movie history get methodical about a genre or a director, an actor, an era. As long as you're watching movies, you're doing it right. Anyone who tells you differently is as opinionated (and wrong) as the next guy.

The point of the entire medium is you, the viewer. It’s always about you. Not the guy next to you, but you. Watch what YOU love.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Is one 'right'? The other 'wrong'? No.

The guy who said "Smoky and the Bandit" was the greatest film ever was wrong. Demonstrably wrong. Perhaps if he said "It's a film I enjoy", that might be right, but the second he classed it as the greatest film in cinema, he became wrong.

To adopt your attitude, one would have to say that, if one person classes Citizen Kane to be the greatest film ever made, and another person classes a third-rate p0rn video as the greatest film ever, each opinion is valid. Nonsense. One has a valid informed opinion, the other is a moron who doesn't even deserve a VHS player.

Now, it is entirely true to say that different people have different tastes, and it is of value to look at what other people consider to be grest cinema and to expand your knowledge of films. But to say that one person's uninformed moronic opinion is of equal value to the opinion of someone who has a true love of cinema is quite plainly absurd. The Smokey guy is the former, fortunately most of those here are the latter.

 

[Edwin-S]

Now. now. No need to call people who think "Citizen Kane" is the greatest film of all time, morons.

 

[Cagri]

Well, I have seen Metropolis and Potemkin many years ago and both of them were horribly boring. They may be successful early products of cinema art in which directors used innovative techniques for the first time but they are boring. So in what sense they are called as "greatest" ? A greatest piece of art shall live forever. People shall feel the same enjoyment watching/listening/looking at that piece no matter when, meaning which century. These films almost aren't watched by anyone anymore except students studying cinema or visual arts. When someone makes a list of greatest 20 drawings in history, Mona Lisa will most probably be in the list and it doesn't matter if you see Mona Lisa in the 18th century or now. But these films in my opinion are far from being great, they may be important but not great in my opinion.

BTW, my post isn't directed to anyone posted here as nobody here listed these types of films as "greatest". It's just I see these films in various places listed amongst the greatest films in history every now and then.

 

[JonZ]

2001 A Space Odyssey
Seven Samurai
Ran
Roshomon
Apocalypse Now
Psycho
Vertigo
Patton
Dr Strangelove
One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest
Citizen Kane
Planet Of The Apes
The Godfather Parts 1&2
Raging Bull
Goodfellas
Jaws
Close Encounters Of The Third Kind
Schindlers List
The Wild Bunch
Unforgiven
The Good The Bad & The Ugly
Amadeus
Touch Of Evil
Halloween
Moby Dick
Superman The Movie
Star Wars
The Empire Strikes Back
Once Upon A Time In America
Taxi Driver

 

[Nick Senger]

To answer this very question, I compiled this list a little over a year ago. It has given me a terrific introduction to some great movies.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I don't know how you guys do it. There are hundreds of thousands of films available. How does anyone go about deciding what is "essential" viewing to be called a "cinephile"? The lists here already show signs that being a "cinephile" is already nothing but a subjective exercise. Someone who hasn't watched "400 Blows" but has watched "Seven Samurai" and "2001:A Space Odyssey" isn't a "cinephile"?

Based on the definition, they can be. But they would not be particularly knowledgeable, nor would they have informed opinions.

While the exercise may seem subjective and there are the normal, expected differences in this thread that you would expect in a discussion of any art form, there are many of the same films and filmmakers being mentioned—and many of the differences cited are not really very important. For example, Seth—L would choose a different French New Wave film than the one I suggested. Walter picked a different Kurosawa, a different Disney and a different Bergman. George picked a different Hitchcock. These are only very slight differences (differences within broad agreement) and I am quite sure that we would all have had similar reasons for why we chose as we did.

In many cases even the differences are really the same. George, Walter and I all thought it important to have an animated film. For me the one to see (in order to be truly knowledgeable about film) is ‘Snow White’, as I think that it is the film that changed animation forever and set a benchmark for others to aspire. Walter, no doubt picked what he consider the best of this type of animation and George picked a film that represents a leap forward given today’s technology.

I would suggest that there is no real disagreement here (my only disagreement with George’s list is that he does not have enough foreign films, but in their omission he managed to include some types that I was forced to forego).

Or look at Arman’s lists, which are quite comprehensive. There is not one film of his that I would not consider essential for anyone who wants a broad base of knowledge.

 

[Cagri]

Lew, I know that the point is not the greatest films, that's why i said

BTW, my post isn't directed to anyone posted here as nobody here listed these types of films as "greatest". It's just I see these films in various places listed amongst the greatest films in history every now and then.

Consider my post as a side note/question please.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Funny, but I don't see how Eisenstein's rapid-fire editing and groundbreaking exercise in montage (along with that awesome "Odessa Steps" scene) can be looked at as "boring." But that's OK. Potemkin draws me in to such an extent I don't even notice its being a silent. What a flick.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Well, I have seen Metropolis and Potemkin many years ago and both of them were horribly boring. They may be successful early products of cinema art in which directors used innovative techniques for the first time but they are boring. So in what sense they are called as "greatest" ? A greatest piece of art shall live forever. People shall feel the same enjoyment watching/listening/looking at that piece no matter when, meaning which century. These films almost aren't watched by anyone anymore except students studying cinema or visual arts.

Viewed as a question, I’ll make some slightly different points.

Unlike most of the other arts, film is relatively new, so being able to determine what will stand the test of time is a bit problematical—it is not certain that either of the films you mention will live forever. While I thoroughly enjoy Potemkin for many of the reasons that Jack mentions, it is not a film without flaws, but it is likely that will still be around for another 100 years because of the energy and still-valid cinematography and editing that (to me at least) appear vibrant and thrilling today (which is why current filmmakers like Paul Verhoeven quote freely and directly from this film).

As to your suggestion that only students watch these films, I can only say that I saw Battleship Potemkin during the Sydney Festival a little over a year ago. It was shown at the Sydney Opera House (at the orchestra hall or larger of the venues) to a sold out house (at least to the showing I attended). The screening was accompanied by a full symphony orchestra playing music written by Sergei Prokofiev. I can only vouch for my wife and I as to not being visual arts students, but I am reasonably certain that the majority of the thousand plus attendees were also not visual-arts students. (This by the way would be one of my top ten experiences in seeing a film in person.) I might add that Metropolis played for a week in Dallas at a local, commercial theatre last year and again, I don’t expect that many of those in the audience were film students, though some may have been.

I do agree that great art lives forever. We just differ as to whether these films can be considered great and will live forever.

I would suggest that many non-visual arts students would be writing something like, 'I saw the Mona Lisa when I was in Paris, and what’s the big deal anyway? The impressionists are much better.' This by the way, is not merely conjecture, I have overhead such comments. In Paris—and elsewhere.

 

[Brian Lawrence]

is there such a thing as a list of say 10-20 movies that one HAD to have seen in order to be considered literate in a good movie discussion?

Yes there is indeed a definitive list of such films.

 

[Brian Lawrence]

.







































[c] :p) [/c]

 

[george kaplan]

I've been too busy to respond to this discussion, but I will do so, at least a little, now. I'll start by saying that a number of good points have been made, especially by Lew.

What is a film buff or a cinephile? It's not necessarily an expert on film, nor even one who has seen a lot, but it does describe someone who is enthusiastic about film (as a medium, though certainly not all instantiations). But film buffs do share a desire to see more films, and that is where lists like these serve a great purpose. We can't agree on which films are best or which are most important, but as a group, we can select films that certainly are viewed as great or important by many, many others, and that makes those worth seeking out for the film buff. Many film buffs haven't seen Citizen Kane yet, but it makes sense that they would seek that film out before they'd seek out Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls. They might prefer the latter, but it's a less important choice for someone who wants to expand their film knowledge.

I don't like Lawrence of Arabia, but it's vastly more 'essential' for a film buff to have seen it than to have seen Uncle Buck (a film I'd rather watch).

Likewise, I think The Apartment is a greater movie than Citizen Kane, but it's less essential. If a film buff had seen neither and could only see one, their degree of being film literate would be better served by seeing Kane.

Obviously there's no right answer to any of these lists. All focus on different aspects and come from different people. As to the deficiencies in my own list, I'll just say that while foreign films are certainly essential, especially from certain historic and certain genre points of view, I do consider English language films, as a group, more so. By which I mean that if someone could have seen all of the films in one and only one language, and no others, I think it would be more essential to see all the English films, than only all of the German films, or only all of the Iranian films, or only all of the Peruvian films. Obviously all languages have both good and bad films, but more of the essentials (or the most essential) for me come from here. Of course, I will be the first to admit that many will disagree, and their opinions are every bit as valid.

For myself if I were to do an essential list focusing more globally I'd pick the following (1 film per country):

Citizen Kane - U.S.

Mr. Hulot's Holiday - France

Dr. Strangelove - British

M - German

The Good, the Bad & the Ugly - Italian (if forced to pick more traditionally, either 8 1/2 or Open City)

The Seventh Seal - Swedish

The Killer - Hong Kong

Mad Max - Australian

Meatballs - Canadian (so I haven't seen any of the 'deep' films from Canada )

Ashes & Diamonds - Polish

Rashomon - Japanese

The Harder They Come - Jamaican

Battleship Potemkin - Russian


Of the top of my head, I'm having a hard time coming up with 7 more countries that I've enough knowledge of to recommend an essential film.

Oh, one last thing. Thinking that Smokey & the Bandit is the greatest film ever made is a perfectly valid opinion. It may be a extreme minority opinion, and frankly if this guy is any kind of true film buff, then as he watches more and more classics, it's an opinion that will almost certainly changes, but if it never does, that's his opinion, and he's entitled to it of course, no one else would want it

 

[JustinCleveland]

You need to see some of the worst movies ever made to be able to have a true barometer for quality.

 

[Lew Crippen]

What makes you think we haven't?