How many masterpieces are there?

Tools    





It would be pretty wild if someone perfectly agreed with anyone else's list of masterpieces, yeah?
A longshot in fairness Yoda, yeah!

Maybe the guys who have 2 or 3 it might be possible, but to have the same 138 would be unlikely I would agree.



although saying that @Yoda, if someone watched my 138 films*, at some point they would conclude 'you know what? I think give or take, he's just about right'.

*or at least, starting at 1924.



For example, I've expanded my list of masterpieces to a round 50, and compared to half the examples I've seen here, it just further proves how basic I am. 😅


New additions:


Beetlejuice (1988)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Everything, Everywhere, All At Once (2022)
Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Pulp Fiction (1994)



I don't actually wear pants.
So can I take it then that nobody agrees with my list?
Dawg I don't agree with my list. How can I agree with someone else's?
__________________
I destroyed the dastardly dairy dame! I made mad milk maid mulch!



maybe 2 or 3, have you seen brighter summer day?
Yes.
I like the rainstorm. But then I always tend to enjoy heavy rainstorms in movies. There's a great one in Cafe Lumiere. I wish it lasted longer.



The Guy Who Sees Movies
Wouldn't a "masterpiece" have to be the best work of one maker? That big long list at the beginning is lots of movies by lots of film makers. That's a long list of good movies, not A masterpiece.



I don't actually wear pants.
Wouldn't a "masterpiece" have to be the best work of one maker? That big long list at the beginning is lots of movies by lots of film makers. That's a long list of good movies, not A masterpiece.
Who turned off my sanity?



Wouldn't a "masterpiece" have to be the best work of one maker? That big long list at the beginning is lots of movies by lots of film makers. That's a long list of good movies, not A masterpiece.
But the thread title...



Wouldn't a "masterpiece" have to be the best work of one maker? That big long list at the beginning is lots of movies by lots of film makers. That's a long list of good movies, not A masterpiece.
That's some peoples' definition, although I think it's a minority view.
At least one other person has expressed a similar view in this thread.
It's not my view though.



The Guy Who Sees Movies
I figured that would be the reaction.....multiple "bests".



What do you think of Akira Kurosawa?
I like Sanshiro Sugata, Stray Dog and High and Low very much.

The comic/caricature nature of most of the samurai films doesn't appeal to me personally.



I figured that would be the reaction.....multiple "bests".
It doesn't need to be multiple bests though.
I'm fine with a film being a masterpiece which isn't a director's best. Maybe that's my misunderstanding/ignorance of the meaning of the term, but I apply it based on the outstanding quality of the film irrespective of whether it is the greatest that the director made.



For example, I've expanded my list of masterpieces to a round 50, and compared to half the examples I've seen here, it just further proves how basic I am. 😅


New additions:


Beetlejuice (1988)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Everything, Everywhere, All At Once (2022)
Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Nothing wrong in being basic.
Personally I think Raiders and PF are great shouts. I thought I had them in the list actually, and try to remember why I didn't include them.
I'm not a Beetlejuice fan, but the suggestion has prompted me to consider Edward Scissorhands.



It doesn't need to be multiple bests though.
I'm fine with a film being a masterpiece which isn't a director's best. Maybe that's my misunderstanding/ignorance of the meaning of the term, but I apply it based on the outstanding quality of the film irrespective of whether it is the greatest that the director made.
If by masterpiece we mean "magnus opus," then there are as many masterpieces as there are filmmakers (i.e., no matter how bad a filmmaker is, they have a work which is their "greatest achievement").

Historically, a "masterpiece" was a work of a very high standard produced to obtain membership of a guild or academy in various areas of the visual arts and crafts.
Our friend Wikipedia

In this case, Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction would be Tarantino's "masterpiece" as this is what got him the credibility he needed to be considered a true director. On this definition, a masterpiece will be an earlier work in a filmmaker's oeuvre by which they "arrived" (included in the club of recognized quality filmmakers) and prejudged (A: What the heck is a Tarantino? A:Look at this).

Finally, a popular definition of masterpiece is just something "really good" / "outstanding," on this definition there is no limit to the number of masterpieces a filmmaker might produce.

We will arguably get the fewest masterpieces under definition 2, as not many filmmakers are "made" like men the mafia. But if we're loose in terms of inclusion (i.e., do we just mean a working director or someone who is recognized as a bankable "name"?), then there are as many masterpieces as there are "professional filmmakers."

If we go with a composite definition, we can be more explicitly limiting. That is, you could say that under your definition a masterpiece must be
i. a work of superlative quality, by which

ii. a director was "made" in the industry (achieving recognition as a true artist, not just getting work), and which

iii. is considered representative of the best work of which that artist is capable.
The composite definition would be qualitative (is it good?), temporal (when was this person elevated into the pantheon?), and typical (What does a true Tarantino film look like?).



I don't actually wear pants.
Since we're discussing movies I watched a movie to find out. The movie I chose was Big Short, and they had a simple math equation in that film that gave me the answer. One of the characters says, "It's as if two plus two equals... fish." So, naturally, there are fish masterpieces.