What makes a film great or destined for greatness (or great influence)?

What makes a film great or destined for greatness (or great influence)?

Intro.

This is a debatable issue and, always, the inevitable conclusion of the debate is that greatness is relative. There must be some form of consensus however and this consensus is formed among certain groups. One group will see The Hangover 2 (2011) as a great film while the other group will say that it is rubbish. One group will say that Vertigo (1958) is a great film while the other group will say it is boring. If it is the conclusion that greatness is relative then if we were to be objective and compile a list of great films from all groups involved then most films would be considered great. This idea about relativity is flawed in some respect and so I will postulate my own concept of greatness (this is a joke about relativity ha-ha, anyways). In this commentary I will explain what the true definition of relativity is with regards to greatness.

The criterion for greatness (or great influence).

Firstly, greatness is tied into influence i.e. someone or thing that is a progenitor for a movement that is lasting. This definition is limited to the extent that if I make people believe that 2+2 =5 it is influential until someone can prove that 2+2=4. My influence would then be shattered and my theory will then be discarded never to be revived.  This brings me to the second criterion which is the extent and reach of the progenitors’ influence that will make it lasting. A large scale  here is important however this is not always acceptable for little recognised projects by persons can be considered great because their ideas were snatched and subsumed (absorbed) into other projects which, through better marketing campaigns, were able to build on the ideas of the lesser known film to become more popular. This is the case when you consider Blade Runner (1982) vs. The Matrix (1999). The dystopian aesthetic in The Matrix originated with Blade Runner however The Matrix can be considered the more popular film in the present day.  It can still be said that the influence of the lesser known film is more significant in scale having  inspired projects that have generated substantially more money and fame than it did at the box office.

This brings me to my third criterion, mastery of the concepts that came before which would require that the original  concepts that came before are subsumed by the creative team so as to create a new concept that builds on the former concepts without disregarding them. This can be called filling a gap that the previous original concepts failed to explore. The Matrix expanded the dystopian vision of Blade Runner with its action driven set pieces such as the famous slow down techniques.   Also in film and music this can be seen with the influence of technology. In music today technology has advanced to the point where the subsumption (absorption) of previous technologies such as individual instruments (guitar, flute etc) has generated some form of synthesis which is electronic music. It will, however, be dubbed electronic although it has subsumed the previous technologies for the sake of advancement. Instruments themselves can be upgraded with more diverse applications. In film technology lies mainly with the quality of the audio-visual picture which is now more advanced in the twenty first century than when it was utilised in 1930. This technology in the 21^st, however, only subsumed the advancements, however slight they may be, of the technologies employed during the twentieth century over time therefore making it the outcome of  a nearly century long progression from the silent era. There was a gradual build up so that technologies once deemed unnecessary were disposed of and newer technologies which have embraced the foundational principles of previous developments will be utilised to make a clearer audiovisual experience. The audio-visuals in film today are now much clearer than they were in 1950 the special effects are now generated by computer whereas before they were mostly made by hand. Technology however is one means of advancing greatness or influence (as mentioned before the two words more or less coincide). Technology in the case of art can simply be seen as corresponding to the advancement of the times in which we live and the increased demands of the consumer. If you have a basic idea of the capitalist system developed in the West then you should be aware that technology merely absorbs the progress made by human labour. Technology then reaches a stage where it seems almost independent of man however it is not since it is the subjective input of man that will continue to advance technology. In capitalist societies technology is seen as objective or constant capital and the labour of man is seen as relative or variable. It is the variable labour of man that will be continuously absorbed by technology until by 2080 it looms like a towering monolith over man where he will see it as something completely independent of him.   

This brings me to my next point: greatness or influence is in accordance with the process of change. This simply means that greatness or influence can still be had even if the advancement of technology goes beyond the time when a certain film was created for technology only channels something it never creates it i.e. its input is not the determining factor. The creative input stems largely from the subjective viewpoint of the individual and he or she utilises the technology to create a distinct impression based on their own observation. This impression, therefore, could still have a lasting impact whether the film or song  was made in 1930 or 2010 since the subjective individual would have been able to use the technological medium (however limited)at his or her disposal to transmit subjective artistic views. It does not affect the overall vision of the performer for audiences will understand what he or she is trying to say. The modern technology could only enhance an earlier production by utilising new technologies which will only bring the picture into a sharper focus however the technology would not be able to enhance the subjective technical input i.e. how the camera was used to create the element of deep focus which is a technique used extensively and famously in Citizen Kane (1941) where you would focus on the character in the distance as opposed to those that are upfront. The character in the distance would then be able to highlight the true physical dimensions of the set or the actual action that is taking place; dimensions which the characters upfront or in the foreground will not highlight for the viewer. In Casablanca (1943) the sets may look dated but the use of silhouettes by director Michael Curtiz, to capture the mood, cannot be radically transformed had updated technology been applied.

It is clear now that the subjective, creative input of the performer is the most essential thing and this brings me to the next criteria: the subjective viewpoint must assume an objective viewpoint to achieve lasting influence. I mentioned that technology as a reflection of objective or constant capital absorbs variable or relative human labour which generates surplus value for the capitalist. This applies also to the creative process and what we consider to be great or something with great influence. When you as the subjective individual puts forward a work of art it is immediately considered a subjective piece. It will be criticised either positively or negatively however over time when it can be determined that the techniques applied by the subjective individual has had a decided influence on later projects then it assumes an objective stance much like how technology represents the outcome of human labour. In this case however the subjective input will become objective because the techniques are now no longer considered variable or relative but a distinct form which later generations will borrow from when advancing their own subjective artistic expression. Initially it is considered to be subjective however when it becomes clear that the subjective input included in the work has a distinct form then it becomes objective. The techniques used in Citizen Kane such as deep focus and the use of black and white to achieve the look of gritty realism in modern films such as Raging Bull (1980) and Schindler’s List (1993) are now objective techniques that one may employ in his or her own subjective artistic expression perhaps to create a new form.

This brings me to the concept of relative greatness or great influence. The vulgar elements of this premise I addressed briefly in my introduction where people state that what is great for you is great for you, what is great for me is great for me. This is a completely vulgar explanation. The objective advancements of mankind in the form of technology were made possible by the relative improvements of human labour. Human labour under capitalist production generates surplus value for the capitalist.  The same applies here for when someone using his or her  subjective input is able to create a distinct objective form that is a sign of greatness or great influence because this new form represents a new medium by which the development of another distinct form may take place. Relative signs of greatness occur when new subjective forms are built on the objective form. The vulgar explanation that what’s great for me is great for me etc is erroneous from an objective standpoint. It is true that women like the thrillers on Life time but this does not make them great because there is no new form of film apparent in these lifetime films. When someone draws a straight line as a form of art it becomes objective having built on the previous objective reality that was the dot which represented the starting point for the straight line. I come along and add two lines in the form of an angle to create a triangle. I have thus built on the objective reality of the straight line, which can never be displaced for straight lines we will have with us always, and have built on it by adding an angular formation to create a triangle. It can be said that what is good for you is good for you but unless what is good for you creates a new, distinct, unquestionable form that can be developed it loses its signature of greatness and becomes absorbed in the existing objective reality i.e. what is already definitively known. It failed to build on what was known already.

Content, Form, Characterization and Expression in Film

Great films have certain elements that are necessary for the title: content, form, characterization and expression. The content comes first and this is usually in the form of a screenplay which represents the birth of the idea. The form is the means by which the screenplay is shaped and this is where the director comes to the fore for he and his team must give the screenplay form so that it can be transmitted visually. What is expressed on paper is not necessarily visualized in the minds of others. You might know what you want to say but other people simply don’t. You can have 100,000 words on paper but if it is not given form it is useless. This is why sometimes you have directors who take part in the screen writing process or another screen writer is brought on board to flesh out your initial concept. In film the form is brought to bear through the use of technology such as the camera and the computer or the reels that will be edited, the musical score, set design etc. These elements will give the visual cues to the audience and make them aware of the content on display in a distinct form. The human elements behind the camera or in the editing room are guided by the director who is most responsible for giving form to this content. Another aspect of the form which is crucial is the characterization by the actors and this is another element of the form but must be distinct on its own grounds for there are films with great characterizations and poor form from the director’s standpoint. The actor is supposed to give form to the character as presented on paper; whether or not the character is written as a caricature is not the actors concern he must give form to the content as it is presented. Bad acting can be described as a poor characterization of how the character was supposed to be based on the content. It is bad because it is shapeless or almost without form. The characterization can be linked with form but the actor can make his or her own improvisations to give the character a more distinct personage without the aid of the director (check Heath Ledger as the Joker in The Dark Knight (2008)). The expression is the final outcome of the form that the content has assumed. The form in which the film will be expressed depends on the work behind the scenes with the director, producer, editor, actor etc and sometimes what you envisioned takes a shapeless form of expression and collapses or it does not improve on the existing objective techniques but still has either great direction or a some great characterizations that give it life but do not add a new distinct form. Lastly, the expression will take on a new distinct form based on these elements of production when compared with previous films that helped to create a new form of expression. Ironically what may be considered a shapeless form may actually  be found, after awhile, to have developed a new form of expression.  It cannot supplant the previous objective reality created by earlier films but builds relatively on these advancements to create a new distinct reality or a new form to filmmaking. This is how a great film is born. This ends my brief treatise on what makes a great film or a very influential film.

Next Review will be A Vision of Los Angeles, part 2: Blade  Runner (1982)