Stand-out cinematic achievements?

Question

As with any artform in any century, there may be many people working their craft who are considered to be among the absolute greatest. However, decades and centuries later, there are typically only a few stand-out artists in any given field whose achievements are remembered and revered.

My question to you is, centuries from now, what film or films will be looked upon as the grand cinematic achievements of the last 100 years of cinema? 2001: A Space Odyssey? Vertigo, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Au hasard Balthazar, or Zerkalo? Perhaps 8 /12, Touch of Evil, or maybe even The Seventh Seal? Why?

Also, what filmmaker will be looked upon as the greatest of all filmmakers in these early days of cinema? Bergman? Fellini? Hitchcock? Tarkovsky? Bresson? Godard? Kurosawa? Welles? Bunuel? Who? 10 points to the most intriguing answer.

You're right, I should have specified. In my mind I was thinking the "film experts" of the future.

Zerkalo is a film, not a person.

I seem to be a glutton for punishment, as I'll probably ask this question a few more times. Am I expecting any good answers? No. But I can hope and dream...

Answer 1

This is what you wrote the last time you asked this same question:

"Ok, that's it. I give up. I'm done posting this question on this site filled with typical mass audience film-goers."

Isn't the typical mass audience film-goers going to be the only people your question will even matter too? You say you see cinema as an art form. Well, so do I. But just because I may like certain movies you dislike does not mean the movies I like are NOT an art form. Who gave you the power to decide which films are art and which are not? You mention a couple movies nobody has heard of. So how are those movies going to get passed on to future generations? Why do you think 'The Wizard of Oz' is well-known today and every day since it came out? Because the 'voices' of these 'typical mass audience film-goers' have passed this part of cinema history on forward. As such, it will continue and it will always be the original achievement in the form of art. I'd like to know who Zerkalo is. But I don't. Why? Because no one before me knew either. You seem to be the only person who knows who Zerkalo is so why not enlighten us and tell us who he is? Then we could have the oppurtunity to check his work (art) out. Then we will also have the chance, then, to pass on his art to the next generation and so on and so on. It's really up to YOU (right now) to keep the name Zerkalo alive for future generations. Are you going to? Or are you just going to continue preaching about the 'typical mass movie goer' who couldn't possibly see a movie as an art form. I'm assuming you've NEVER watched a popular movie, a blockbuster or a Hollywood underdog. I also have to assume you don't go to the local regular movie theatre. Because if you did, then that would make you nothing more than a 'typical mass-audience movie goer' wouldn't it? Why not just lighten up a little bit dude? That's what I don't understand. If you feel passionate about Bresson, Bunel, etc... then why not share your passion with us instead of just wanting to argue how yours is the only opinion that matters?

Answer 2

Your question sounds well thought out but I would have to say that it depends upon who it is that is doing the looking back. Your examples suggest that it might be those who actually study "ancient" world cinema rather than constant (across generations) consumers of the art form (where an intact thread of public/societal consciousness exists).

If it is mostly viewers who simply enjoy being entertained by the form, they will most likely note the more prolific,.. or filmmakers who appealed to the larger masses (as it is those masses who largely transport history). In that case, many of your examples may not come to the forefront of recollection. They may be more like Scorsese, Spielberg, Hitchcock, Kubrick, Eastwood, Tarantino, Cameron, Lee, Coppola, Zemeckis, Levinson, et. al. Films and filmmakers officially designated as "high brow" by self-appointed experts does not itself define art.

I think, far into the future, more than filmmakers themselves, that it will be an era (or more) of film production that will be heralded (as the 1970's are now by many film historians). Time is relative; who's to say what will seem relevant in a few centuries (if film preservation technology protects our "20th century" product)?

Your examples and the examples I've mentioned may all be thought of in the same group, or 10 different groups. And, then again,.. none may be relevant at all.

We'll never know. Unless the time-hopping DeLorean becomes a reality.

Answer 3

you're making a sturdy evaluate that almost all of present day movies(even the "water-cooler" blockbusters) would be thoroughly forgotten in time. purely think of lower back some years to seen the pop way of existence phenomenons which contain "sizeable" or "Spiderman"...those movies at the instant are in basic terms diminished innovations.