You don't have to like a film for it to be great...

To be truly great a film must have…

-Excellent writing of the film (words/actions/etc). This is a baseline I think… if a film has everything else listed below this, but is not tied together with a tight and well thought out words/actions that blend with everything else, then it has failed to be great.

-Representation or Presentation equal to what is being shown on screen. We’ve talked about whether films are presentation of realty or a representation of reality. Either can be incorporated into a film that is truly great, however, I think the director needs to think about whether he/she is representing or presenting and allow that to affect the film in whatever way necessary. Creativity within this is important as well—creativity can force an audience to view and experience a representation or presentation of reality in a way that they never knew they could before. This was the case in Daughters of the Dust. Although I did not particularly like the film, it was great because it forced the audience to feel uncomfortable with the way reality was being shown on screen.

-Use of creative cinematography. This is extremely important for a film to be great. Again, like it was with representation/presentation, it is important for the filmmakers to be creative with their cinematography. They should make it fit with the scene, characters, and film as a whole using creativity to catch the audience and possibly leave people wondering how they did something or just in wonder. In class we’ve talked about how The Diving Bell and the Butterfly could have very easily been a Hallmark film, but it was not! The cinematography made it a great film.

-Editing that matches the film. It is important to have an editor that will be creative and match the editing to the action and perception of the movement and spoken word. The editing was another factor in Daughters of the Dust that made it great. There were scenes where some of the women/girls were dancing on the beach and the editing made it feel like staccato movement. It was very beautiful and stuck in my mind for a while after.

-Casting that matches. It is important that the casting matches the characters well. For the remake of Psycho I had a hard time watching Vince Vaughn on screen as Norman Bates because he is generally a comedic actor I understand he might have not been as famous at that time, but even so, his face was not attractive or sly enough for Norman Bates. Obviously this is completely opinion based, but I think there is some value and concreteness to casting actors that match the characters. It is important that their acting style and ability matches the needs of the film as well (which technically goes with use of mise en scene, which is the next component for a great film). A number of films are terrible because the acting seems so fake (not stylized, but fake). For example, the film A Walk to Remember is not a great film by any means for a number of reasons, but one of the reasons is bad acting.

-Use of mise en scene. Making the scenes and sets look real or at least making them match and show something a little deeper about the film as whole is very important. It is good for film makers to be conscious of effective lighting, character blocking, costumes, make-up, etc. The film Ran was great partially because of its use of mise en scene. The castle that was burnt down in a battle was real, the costumes definitely were telling of the people and then the use of wide open landscape as a setting was very important and telling for the characters involved.

There are probably more things that make a film great; however, this is my list. I think overall the films that become great are the films where the film makers stretch themselves beyond their limits to form something creative—something that will make the audience step back and think, There’s something about that… or even I don’t think I liked that film, but there was something about it… A great film goes beyond liking it. I keep thinking about bell hooks talking about Daughters of the Dust and how that film forces the viewer to look at things in a way they never had to before—it challenged the normal way of telling stories. I think when a film defies normalcy to some degree it has a quality of greatness.

I’m not sure whether all films need to have every part of my list to be great because some films are known for one or two of those things and could be great. Or is it that really, those one or two qualities are enhanced because everything else fell together so smoothly? I don’t know if there can be a universal standard for greatness—perhaps greatness is bound to each individual genre. Maybe it is according to each individual culture…