Movies you just didn't "get".

[Auricauricle]

RR6: I never meant to imply that the designation of Masterpiece was one that is set in stone or subject only to the whims of a panel of "experts"; in fact I agree with you in many respects. Especially important is comprehending and respecting the fact that what I may hold as an example of high artistic achievement may not conform to your model. Aside from the presence of certain individuals who are interested in the potential lucrative rewards of the art market and flood the bookstores, record shops and galleries with every possible product imaginable, is the reality that what is considered "good" is highly personal and arbitrary. While I may like a picture of a street scene on my wall, you may like a rendering of a sad-faced clown and his balloon. I would not deign to denigrate your decision (well, maybe I would in private), for that is your appraisal, pure and simple.

On the other hand, I think there has to be some paradigm to what constitutes successful and distinctive application of a medium and what doesn't. I may be stepping out onto an elitist limb here, but I think that there is a general consensus of opinion that is in accord as to what is "good" and what is "banal". While certainly the dictates of the mainstream is indicative of something, I don't reckon that most folks are informed or canny enough to discern a labor of whim from a labor of love.

For example, here in Charleston there is an enormous population of artists, many of whom have opened up galleries for their wares. Among these is a crowd who sell products to the throng of folks who descend upon the city once a year for the annual Wildlife Exposition. They paint pictures of Labrador Retrievers and ducks and shotgun shells. They do all right, sales-wise, but the work is hackneyed and has as much substance as yesterday's peanutbutter and jelly sandwich.

There are other artists who not only paint pictures of something different, but whose labor stretches the medium to amazing limits. I wish I was knowledgeable enough to articulate these thoughts clearly, I haven't the education or erudition to do so, but there are works of art--be they music or painting or what not--that are vastly important. No panel of "experts" may be in accord with such criteria, but these artists transcend the banal and trite and create work that is luminous and transcendant. There is a reason, a valid reason, why names like El Greco, Monet and Wyeth are remembered and continue to be called upon as masters of the form.

In the same sense, I think this is part of what makes, IMHO, 2001 such an enduring film. Part of its appeal is story related: 2001 is a fable, much like the story of Odysseus, which is not constrained to the experiences of one man's adventure in outer space, but of Mankind's adventure in Life itself. In constructing the visual context and content of the story, Kubric cannily applied his brush to create shots not only of great artistic merit and moment, but with purpose. Kubric was a keen observer of human psychology (perhaps this is why he was a recluse), who knew that our perceptual apparatus works in peculiar and important ways. Knowing this, Kubric's films were shot masterfully. Very few directors have such a gift: Wells, Scott, and Greenway are among a few. In short, Kubric pushed the medium to its limit.

The comment, "However, the fact is that a movie or any other work subject to advances in the tools used can create works that vary in degrees of excellence" (Post 75) seems to indicate that because film-technology is ever changing, so too must our considerations, which includes appraisals that account for the quality of the medium. As you and others point out, music and painting have reamined somewhat static (not something I really cotton to), for the woods and pigments employed in the manufacture of instruments and paints are very similar to those used long ago. Because we live in an age where film-work has changed (analog to digital, e.g.), we can look at films like 2001 and, knowing that it was shot with archaeic equipment, and make the certain, smug appraisal that it is an inferior movie.

I hope this long-winded apology impels you to consider an alternative point of view.