50 Best Movies of the 21st Century according to The Hollywood Reporter. (1 Viewer)

[Winston T. Boogie]

Doesn't that approach at least make some sense, in that I would begin by comparing films against other films in the same genre, not pitting a comedy against a drama or horror film.

I agree you don't really crown something best because it is a debatable decision but I think I can, for example, say that Alien is a better movie than the majority of other science fiction movies from the 1970s and be able to back that up.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Needless to say, I disagree. Art is not objective.

Not objective in terms of emotions or preferences but don't you think it is possible to be objective about something that appears incredibly well made and something that is poorly put together.

Isn't there a difference for example between a Rembrandt and what a toddler scribbled on a paper with his crayon? You may love the toddler, but objectively he did not create a work on the scale of Rembrandt.

 

[JohnRice]

Not objective in terms of emotions or preferences but don't you think it is possible to be objective about something that appears incredibly well made and something that is poorly put together.

Isn't there a difference for example between a Rembrandt and what a toddler scribbled on a paper with his crayon? You may love the toddler, but objectively he did not create a work on the scale of Rembrandt.

That’s not a rational argument.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

2001 and Plan 9 from Outer Space...same thing or one shows a higher level of artistic craftsmanship?

 

[JohnRice]

See my last comment…

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

That’s not a rational argument.

You can call both art. You can prefer to hang the toddler scribble on your refrigerator. As someone that does not know the toddler, shown the two works, which would you call better?

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

See my last comment…

Yes, I read that but I think it is clear that objectivity can be applied to art above just what impacts us on an emotional level. Someone can certainly enjoy Plan 9 more than 2001, but I think it can be clearly demonstrated, 2001 is a better work.

 

[JohnRice]

I’m just not interested in arguing absurd comparisons. If you want to debate 2001 vs. Villeneuve’s Dune, that’s great. But Rembrandt vs. a child’s scribbles, I’m not interested.

 

[JohnRice]

OK, I unintentionally painted myself into a bit of a corner. I didn’t intend to say there is nothing at all objective about art. Of course there are objective factors, such as comparing Rembrandt to a child’s scribblings. I expected that to be understood. I just believe that at high levels, art is about a lot more than just objective perfection.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I’m just not interested in arguing absurd comparisons. If you want to debate 2001 vs. Villeneuve’s Dune, that’s great. But Rembrandt vs. a child’s scribbles, I’m not interested.

Yes, this is where it becomes more difficult, when you get down to works that are closer in artistic craftsmanship and then you have to begin differentiating and your emotional preferences become part of the process. I agree. I think though that before you get there, there is much you can eliminate objectively. So, yeah, if you are asking me to name the better film between The Searchers and The Wild Bunch, I think I would end up falling to the less rational, more emotional part of the decision-making process.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

OK, I did unintentionally painted myself into a bit of a corner. I didn’t intend to say there is nothing at all objective about art. Of course there are objective factors, such as comparing Rembrandt to a child’s scribblings. I expected that to be understood. I just believe that at high levels, art is about a lot more than just objective perfection.

Yeah, I mean I went to those examples based entirely on their simplicity.

 

[JohnRice]

So, there is a real world example. For instance, I appreciate Kubrick's craftsmanship, but I find his movies detached and uninvolving. So, they will generally tend to fall short of the very best for me, and I'll take Villeneuve, who is every bit as well crafted in my book, but also does a lot more with it.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

So, there is a real world example. For instance, I appreciate Kubrick's craftsmanship, but I find his movies detached and uninvolving. So, they will generally tend to fall short of the very best for me, and I'll take Villeneuve, who is every bit as well crafted in my book, but also does a lot more with it.

Yes, and what I think is, once you have got things down to that level, between two works, both with exquisite craftmanship, and you are choosing between which you will put on your list...well...then either choice works because you have objectively removed works that do not stack up with them and so either choice Denis or Stanley can be correct and well represent something of the best.

At this stage you are choosing between two excellent films so neither choice would be wrong and both show what you want to show. I don't really see that idea at work on the Hollywood Reporter list.

 

[Joe Wong]

As I said earlier, such lists are just a bunch of opinions (with sarcasm ).

I've often looked at a piece art hanging in a museum and wonder, "how is that art?" For example, one entire room in a museum I visited just had a thick rope strung from one end to another. That was the piece of art.

While I may be confounded by a rope occupying an entire museum room being displayed as "art", it's not up to me to decide that it's not art to anyone else.

So while there may be a general consensus that a Rembrandt may be a more monumental work, there may be a select few who like the toddler's work better (as a piece of art)! Who's to say they're (objectively) wrong? It's their opinion, right?

On diversity of genres being represented on such lists (superhero films, etc.), I think that rather than "force" a superhero entry on a list simply because the genre has dominated box office for the last 15-20 years, the appearance of such films should be dependent on the diversity of the people making the lists.

For example, a group of selectors that includes Scorcese and others on the following list would likely have no superhero films in their "best of" list.

https://people.com/movies/directors-who-have-criticized-superhero-movie-genre/

But if you have a more diverse group of film enthusiasts, you might see the likes of The Dark Knight and/or Black Panther on the lists (citing 2 examples that have won Oscars).

Just my 2c.

 

[jcroy]

Yes, I read that but I think it is clear that objectivity can be applied to art above just what impacts us on an emotional level.

If one is to define something "objectively", I would guess there would have to be a way of measuring something which is independent of human observation.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I think we naturally react strongly to the use of the word "best." That's why these lists engender so much emotional baggage for people who appreciate film. There is always a big debate when a long-standing gatekeeper of cinema puts one of these out. But "best" is an easy word to use, so I get it.

It can mean part or all of the following:
Most Important = shaped the medium. This is mostly about cinema as an art form. The (second) most objective, because depth of knowledge about the art form and history matter here...this is about what the director intended and why.
Favorite = this one pushed my buttons the most. The most subjective, because it is primarily about the how the audience (of one) felt.
Successful = most eyeballs (money, tickets, etc). The most objective, because it is a mathematical problem.

Because we go to cinema for different reasons, to laugh, to cry, to be awed, to be moved, to waste time...how we feel and value movies is very personal, so lists like these are personal. Especially to a group fo folks that likes movies enough to talk about them in an online forum. We're going to be defensive, because we think we know what is "best."

Anyways, I use lists like these to evaluate what *I* like about films...to maybe find a gem I've been meaning to see or discover one. I like to see some personal faves on the list, but I don't take it personally when they are not. But I was happy being reminded about Zodiac, Eternal Sunshine, Pan's Labyrinth, or Manchester by the Sea (that's a tough one). Those are great films, and I connected deeply with each one in the theaters. It reminded me that I still need to see Inside Llewyn Davis and Moonlight, among several others. That has great value to me, even if my other 21st century favorites aren't on the list.

 

[Jeffrey D]

I think we naturally react strongly to the use of the word "best." That's why these lists engender so much emotional baggage for people who appreciate film. There is always a big debate when a long-standing gatekeeper of cinema puts one of these out. But "best" is an easy word to use, so I get it.

It can mean part or all of the following:
Most Important = shaped the medium. This is mostly about cinema as an art form. The (second) most objective, because depth of knowledge about the art form and history matter here...this is about what the director intended and why.
Favorite = this one pushed my buttons the most. The most subjective, because it is primarily about the how the audience (of one) felt.
Successful = most eyeballs (money, tickets, etc). The most objective, because it is a mathematical problem.

Because we go to cinema for different reasons, to laugh, to cry, to be awed, to be moved, to waste time...how we feel and value movies is very personal, so lists like these are personal. Especially to a group fo folks that likes movies enough to talk about them in an online forum. We're going to be defensive, because we think we know what is "best."

Anyways, I use lists like these to evaluate what *I* like about films...to maybe find a gem I've been meaning to see or discover one. I like to see some personal faves on the list, but I don't take it personally when they are not. But I was happy being reminded about Zodiac, Eternal Sunshine, Pan's Labyrinth, or Manchester by the Sea (that's a tough one). Those are great films, and I connected deeply with each one in the theaters. It reminded me that I still need to see Inside Llewyn Davis and Moonlight, among several others. That has great value to me, even if my other 21st century favorites aren't on the list.

I’m surprised you haven’t seen Llewyn Davis yet. I liked it, and will have to revisit it. Moonlight is also a pretty good one, but I thought one viewing was enough.

 

[Carl David]

This debate has started to get some focused thinking and reasoning about it.

It's certainly interesting. We most likely will not come to any decisive conclusions any time soon.

But we might get close.

The problem with cinema or art in general is it's not scientific. You can't measure a movie and come away with conclusive data.

The subjective/objective perspective both apply as a consequence of being unable to accurately define what art or a good movie is.

People watch movies for different reasons. Perhaps all want to be entertained but some might want to be emotionally involved in the movie or some might want to be frightened etc. This is why we have different genres and why some people prefer horror and others sci-fi and so on.

It's probably rational to say an objective movie "best of" list should have different genre types on it and movies from different decades too. If a list of 50 "best of" movies had 50 westerns on it then it's fair to say that the list-maker needs to broaden their horizons and has not watched enough movies of other styles.

No matter how brilliant someone might think a painting is or a movie there will always be someone else who will not like it. There will be someone in the world who does not like Mozart and another might not like paintings by Da Vinci and so on.

That's the subjective view.

However, we must ask how has The Mona Lisa got to be world renowned? Why is Mozart still listened to and loved by many today over 200 years after his death?

Surely after much time has passed if an old piece of music or a painting is highly regarded today by so many people and they still gain pleasure and a sense of wonder from that it must be seen as a great work?

Maybe we can't define precisely why it still effects us more profoundly than other works created today but we can objectively recognize those works as great pieces of art.

Objectively, we could argue that the immense talent, dedication to master their craft and perhaps an element of chance to name a few things have resulted in an artist that has not only created something original and striking to anything else by their peers or previous and current artists but also something rather beautiful and profound that transcends race, age & sex and is appreciated and respected by people of all types from around the world.

That would make it a great work objectively in my opinion.

 

[jcroy]

However, we must ask how has The Mona Lisa got to be world renowned? Why is Mozart still listened to and loved by many today over 200 years after his death?

In the case of music before the invention of the phonograph, the easy answer is that sheet music was repeatedly published and preserved through the centuries. If a composer's music was not published and/or not replayed, will it still surive for centuries after death?

The hard question is why was a particular piece of music repeatedly replayed by subsequent generations of musicians ?

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

If one is to define something "objectively", I would guess there would have to be a way of measuring something which is independent of human observation.

No, I would not say that. Art is a human endeavor and so human observation is a part of it but I would say that there are aspects of art, in this case we are discussing filmmaking, that are quantifiable and therefore you can judge them without entering the emotional impact of a work on you.

To give an example, I think we can agree, most of us anyway, that Roger Deakins is a top of the heap cinematographer. I did not like the last film lensed by him very much, Empire of Light, but it was plainly obvious to me, his work on the picture was wonderful. So, while my overall impression of the film was not good, I could see that Deakins work was fantastic. Same with the acting in the film. Some of the acting was also executed at a very high level. So, these are I believe measurable aspects of the work. In the end when I judge the film, how it impacted me, all of the parts combined, despite high level work in it, it is not a great film.

Another example, the film Prometheus by Ridley Scott, I recognize in the film there is some excellent work. Scott does his usual high level job handling the production and directing, sets and costumes look great. Photography is fantastic. In the end, though, despite the parts that I can clearly measure as good, I did not find the film to be good.

I think there are measurables in the art and then there is the emotional side.

If you are choosing between paintings of Van Gogh and Monet and attempting to declare one the "greatest" well, my point there would be, either choice is fine. Both are masters, both show a high level of skill and awareness in their art. You can see, in the work itself an extremely high level of thought and ability combining with a vision to create something wonderful.

When you get there, choosing between two high level talents, then it kind of does become the emotional coin toss, which one hits you emotionally, which is the part which is not quantifiable nor easily explainable and where people would begin to disagree.

I think the reason some people get upset with lists like this or naming artistic things the best or greatest is because of the emotional component of art and how we connect with it.

My point is that before you get there, to that deciding factor which is how we connect with the art, there are some measurables in terms of being able to discern what is very high level work with what is shoddy work. That can be measured.