How many masterpieces are there?

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 added Mr Smith Goes to Washington (1939)
and Rio Bravo (1959)

maybe 2 or 3, have you seen brighter summer day?

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!
He hid in the forest, read books with great zeal
He loved Che Guevera, a revolutionary veal
Cow Tse Tongue

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.

What do you think of Akira Kurosawa?

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?

But the thread title...

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.

I figured that would be the reaction.....multiple "bests".

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.

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.

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.

The Travelling Players > A Brighter Summer Day

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").


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?).

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.