Which of these makes a great film?

jaykhunter

Hey guys, I don't know much about the inner-workings of films, but I always wondered why writers seem to be on the bottom of the totem poll; they don't really get paid that well and they're seemingly forgotten about. Many people might know who voices Homer Simpson but probably not who John Swartzwelder is. Public perception is usually 1) actors, 2) director, 3)aethetics, 4)writing. Of course this is a broad generalization but you get where I'm coming from.

So, I've constructed this poll to see what peoples' thoughts on what makes a great film.

Also, if you could back up your opinion with a movie that is similarly constructed, that'd be great!

mikhail

There was an interesting discussion in the Batman 3 thread on this subject.

Auteur theory holds that the director is the single most important creative force in a film. It's far from universally accepted, but professional film critics tend, in my experience, to focus on directors first too. Directors are now nearly as popularly appreciated as actors: Nolan, Tarantino, Bay, del Toro, Allen... these guys are stars whose names sell films every bit as much as Clooney, Di Caprio, Hathaway, Bale or Streep.

niallon

The choices are a little narrow but I went for great script. I would argue that a great director is needed too however.

Why? Well basically it all starts with the script. The script gets the people who come on board interested. The script and how good it is determines how invested these people are in the film. Bad actors can be brought up a notch by a good script and a good director. Bad actors with a good script means at least their actions and dialogue will be good, even if their overall performances are lacklustre. Bad actors with a good director means lacklustre performances can become somewhat better with a director who knows how to direct actors.

Personally I always feel the director has to be involved with the script, be that changes after its completion, involvement in the writing or out and out original composition by the director. If a director isn't properly attached to his/her script, they may give up and go home.

BostonB

Any of them can make a film fail.

So I reckon you need all three.

jaykhunter

i intentionally made the choices narrow, as to pin-point what you think is the most important single aspect of a film in determining it's quality. Of course you would need all 3 to make the best film, but that's not the question

Black Swan

Straw man film question?

BostonB

jaykhunter wrote: »

...what makes a great film....

jaykhunter wrote: »

... Of course you would need all 3 to make the best film...

Er?

jaykhunter

BostonB wrote: »

Er?

jaykhunter wrote: »

what do you think is the most important single aspect of a film in determining it's quality

:pac:

RNL

The balance you need between these three things totally depends on what kind of film it is.

What's the content of the story?

It might be densely or lightly plotted. There might be a lot of dialogue or very little, and it might be naturalistic or stylised. There might be big emotional scenes, or maybe it's more about rich atmosphere and tone and imagery. And one type of director might work very closely with his cinematographer, whereas another might be great at directing large casts of actors.

BostonB

jaykhunter wrote: »

:pac:

Except "single aspect " is not in your original question :cool:

This question is bit like the old builders joke. Put three shovels in a corner and ask you to take your pick. You're really looking for the i in team when there isn't one.

BostonB

If I had to pick one of the above choices, I'd have to say, I don't think you can recover from mediocre actors. Whereas a strong performance from an actor, can save a mediocre film.

Even if you have all 3, it often doesn't result in a great film. Its takes even more than that. Sometimes it comes together, sometimes it doesn't.

RNL

But you don't need strong actors if the script doesn't put any demands on them.

Phony Scott

This thread is scrambling my head!

BostonB

RNL wrote: »

But you don't need strong actors if the script doesn't put any demands on them.

Well I can't think of any film where I thought that the script on it own made it a great movie, regardless of mediocre acting and directing. So I'm open to suggestions of films to convince me.

indough

BostonB wrote: »

Well I can't think of any film where I thought that the script on it own made it a great movie, regardless of back acting and directing. So I'm open to suggestions of films to convince me.

primer

Warper

Considering the script is the most important thing for any movie, its option 3. Bad script = bad movie.

BostonB

Haven't seen it. But the reviews aren't encouraging...

http://www.reelviews.net/movies/p/primer.html
http://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/review/primer/603
http://dauntlessmedia.net/film/primer-review.html

The good reviews, seem to be confusing complicated with clever.

Where would I get it to watch?

indough

BostonB wrote: »

Haven't seen it. But the reviews aren't encouraging...

you could find 3 mediocre reviews on the internet for absolutley any film if you wanted to

BostonB wrote: »

The good reviews, seem to be confusing compicated with clever.

how could you possibly know that until youve seen it yourself?

its only complicated if you arent clever enough to get the cleverness

BostonB

Dang my spelling...

Thats my impression of the good reviews. That they are lost in the complication. Whereas the poor reviews, see through it. You'd think, if good scripts only proved a general trend, there would be less obscure examples.

Where did you see it?

SVG

I went for great director.

Great performances and great writing can also make great films but only if they are handled correctly by the director. Scripts, especially, really have to go through the wringer before thet make it on screen and many writers seem to have little control over them once they are sold.

It's a narrow choice so there will be lots of examples of acting or writing being most important but I think a director has the most control over the finished product.

But then again we only ever see the finished product, don't we? We have to judge films as a whole and it can be hard to pick apart the different elements. I'm sure there are many movies where no single element is great and the whole is better than the sum of the parts. Lots of things have to come together to make a great film and all of the ingredients are important.

indough

BostonB wrote: »

Thats my impression of the good reviews. That they are lost in the complication. Whereas the poor reviews, see through it. You'd think, if good scripts only proved a general trend, there would be less obscure examples.

that is a pretty big assumption to be honest. perhaps the bad reviewers just didnt understand it. anyway saying something is too complicated for you is pretty much the same as saying its too clever, as if you were more clever youd get it and it wouldnt be complicated to you anymore.

BostonB wrote: »

Where did you see it?

i saw it on dvd. it isnt really an obscure movie at all. there'd be loads of people on here who have seen it i bet. it won a sundance prize.

indough

and by the way, that is just one example, there are obviously loads of others.

JP Liz V1

It all begins with the script so if that fails no matter who the director or actors are they cant make it better :rolleyes:

Otacon

What makes a good meal? Good ingredients or a good chef?

Personally, I think the chef [director in this sh!t analogy] is more important as, if they are good, they can make even bad ingredients work.

thenakedanddead

Thought the second one would be in front. Surprised to find many people agreeing with me that a film can hold up pretty well if it has a good script.

Cherry.Blossom

I reckon that a mediocre script with mediocre actors could be made into a great film with great direction and editing. Great actors combined with bad direction will lead to a bad film in the end.

marwelie

Its all about the screenplay and script IMO. If the story and script is rubbish it doesnt matter if, for example, Orson Welles is directing and it's starring Laurence Olivier it'll always be rubbish.

mikhail

marwelie wrote: »

Its all about the screenplay and script IMO. If the story and script is rubbish it doesnt matter if, for example, Orson Welles is directing and it's starring Laurence Olivier it'll always be rubbish.

But that wasn't the question. The question assumed a mediocre script.

RNL

BostonB wrote: »

Well I can't think of any film where I thought that the script on it own made it a great movie, regardless of mediocre acting and directing. So I'm open to suggestions of films to convince me.

I agree, but what I was saying was you only need strong actors if the script demands it. If the script leans more towards imagery and atmosphere, you mightn't need strong actors at all. Competance might be enough. Or it might be enough for a lot of the scenes to even just have a figure to place in the frame. And if the film is more heavily visual than dramatic, the relationship between the director and the cinematographer or between the director and the production designer might be more crucial.

paulosham

The poll is flawed.

jaykhunter

paulosham wrote: »

The poll is flawed.

How so? It's intentionally difficult to make you choose which aspect of filmmaking (among the three listed) you think is most important to a film's overall quality. It's quite theoretical but I think I was quite clear. If you can't or won't choose one then maybe just join in on the discussion. :pac:

BostonB

I think the problem is its so subjective. for example I would suggest a movie like Gangs of New York, Daniel Day Lewis pretty saves it from being a pretty dire movie. But some aren't going to like Daniel Day Lewis or how he approaches acting. Then again maybe good acting is where you don't notice it. I guess I find it hard because its rare I'd see a film that I could separate it clearly between the 3.

humanji

As many have said, it's a fairly subjective question. All three answers are right, as any one of those has the potential to elevate a mediocre film into a good film.

If I had to choose, I'd go with actors as they are what the viewers see and relate to, so they'll usually have more of an effect.

A director can only get the actors to do their best and not much more. If the actors don't have the ability to give a good performance, the director won't be able to drag one out of them.

And I've seen too many great scripts torn apart by bad acting and/or directing.