Wonderful post that expands on what you did and the conversation that ensued as we discussed art. Thank you for being my guest writer and for the chat that followed. And, a little P.S.: I love Tarantino and Terrence Malick, notably from Malick _The Tree of Life_ with a beautiful rendition of motherhood and the ethereal, in this flick, Jessica Chastain. Sean Penn and Brad Pitt gave extraordinary performances as well. Big xo to you, Mary
Thank you for the recommendations Mary! There are so many movies to explore!! Thank you also for having me as a guest writer on your site!!! It really helped me to elaborate, expand, and clarify my thoughts on what makes a movie truly great. It was a wonderful experience, and I really appreciate the opportunity to better hone my thesis.
Both E.T. and Back to the Future are hugely significant films in my life.
There are two very similar recurring themes in my life which I think about all the time: the need to not be lost, and the need to find my way home. Similar, yes, but different.
Back to the Future is a WONDERFUL treatment of finding the way home - more so than E.T., but perhaps that’s why - or because - it’s the better film. I cry buckets at the theme tune of E.T., because it reminds me of a time I got very lost, but Back to the Future - a film I’ve seen a heap of times - still makes me wonder every time I see it whether Marty IS going to find his way home. That cable-connecting scene makes me bawl like a child.
The theme of finding the way home is an interesting connection between E.T. and Back to the Future that I had not considered. Of course, The Wizard of Oz also deeply delves into the idea that "there's no place like home." Getting lost is very traumatic indeed, especially as a child, and these movies all definitely touch on some deep longing we all have.
Part of my reservation about E.T., though, is that it's too manipulative in inducing the viewers to cry by showing young children suffering. And I think there is something cruel about that, and also about showing what is essentially a dog, E.T., dying. The vast majority of people are greatly saddened and horrified when animals, especially pets, are abused. To me it's a cheat to use this in a movie rather than creating characters that are not animal-like that audiences learn to care about and are induced into crying because of an event, not because other people in the movie are crying.
Basically, I don't believe in taking away someone's happiness or sense of safety, especially a child's, and because E.T. was promoted as a family movie and not an adult drama, it strikes me as mean-spirited. I think it may have traumatized a lot of children, and I think I'm one of them.
But my real problem with E.T. is the lack of joy, which Back to the Future—although it does have dramatic, tense moments—does not lack. Back to the Future is fun, and it's satisfying to watch over and over. In fact, I watch the trilogy every year with my family as a Thanksgiving Day tradition. I will never rewatch E.T. I don't want to cry; I prefer to laugh and feel uplifted.
I agree: E.T. is a difficult watch, especially without the release of a decent resolution. I’m astonished that it was given a ‘U’ rating. I touched on the film myself in a post a little while back - do check it out.BTTF, however - and it’s unusual to include the sequels in this - is a masterpiece of its exploration of the ‘home’ theme.
It almost seems, sometimes, that there is a disconnect between the films that professional critics see as "great" and the films that you rightly categorize as "great" based on their message and ability to provoke thought in the viewers' minds. I'm thinking specifically of Terrence Malick. His films are widely praised by critics but I can't find anything of persistent value in them. They seem to ramble around and go nowhere; they are technically breathtaking but have no end goal, purpose, or point to make. Perhaps, though, this is okay? Perhaps there is another category of great films, the tour-de-force films, which exist only to broaden the limits of art and to push the envelope of what is possible? Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey would fall into this category, as would Hitchcock's Psycho.
Then there are the films which are inexplicably popular with film buffs. I have no idea why Quentin Tarantino or Wes Anderson are popular. But that's just my personal preference, and I haven't seen very many films by either director. Perhaps if I were more familiar with their style I might have a clearer view of how they are communicating.
Yes, under my thesis I put these films that you label "tour-de-force films," those that are technically breathtaking, and obviously entertaining, under "good" movies, that, yes, are a form of "art," no doubt, but they are not "great art" because they have no message really to communicate, or the message is so unskillfully delivered that most people find nothing of value to take away.
So yes, for movie buffs and movie fans alike, movies with no substance that offer no deeper understanding about life are "great movies," but to me they are not "great art" because there is a level of movies that are masterfully made, pushing technical boundaries as "Back to the Future" did, while also delivering life-changing, soul-stirring messages. It's because these kinds of films exits that those that don't have a message fall to a lower category of just "good."
The message in a film to me is what differentiates simple entertainment from art that elevates the human condition because great art shows us beauty, something that is not easy to see in everyday life. Great movies let us experience beauty, and the message in a film lets us carry that beauty in our minds and hearts, and therefore has the potential to uplift and enhance our lives. That is a more profound action with a more valuable result than just being momentarily entertained.
Wonderful post that expands on what you did and the conversation that ensued as we discussed art. Thank you for being my guest writer and for the chat that followed. And, a little P.S.: I love Tarantino and Terrence Malick, notably from Malick _The Tree of Life_ with a beautiful rendition of motherhood and the ethereal, in this flick, Jessica Chastain. Sean Penn and Brad Pitt gave extraordinary performances as well. Big xo to you, Mary
Thank you for the recommendations Mary! There are so many movies to explore!! Thank you also for having me as a guest writer on your site!!! It really helped me to elaborate, expand, and clarify my thoughts on what makes a movie truly great. It was a wonderful experience, and I really appreciate the opportunity to better hone my thesis.
A great read, thank you!
Both E.T. and Back to the Future are hugely significant films in my life.
There are two very similar recurring themes in my life which I think about all the time: the need to not be lost, and the need to find my way home. Similar, yes, but different.
Back to the Future is a WONDERFUL treatment of finding the way home - more so than E.T., but perhaps that’s why - or because - it’s the better film. I cry buckets at the theme tune of E.T., because it reminds me of a time I got very lost, but Back to the Future - a film I’ve seen a heap of times - still makes me wonder every time I see it whether Marty IS going to find his way home. That cable-connecting scene makes me bawl like a child.
Thank you Rebecca; I appreciate your feedback!
The theme of finding the way home is an interesting connection between E.T. and Back to the Future that I had not considered. Of course, The Wizard of Oz also deeply delves into the idea that "there's no place like home." Getting lost is very traumatic indeed, especially as a child, and these movies all definitely touch on some deep longing we all have.
Part of my reservation about E.T., though, is that it's too manipulative in inducing the viewers to cry by showing young children suffering. And I think there is something cruel about that, and also about showing what is essentially a dog, E.T., dying. The vast majority of people are greatly saddened and horrified when animals, especially pets, are abused. To me it's a cheat to use this in a movie rather than creating characters that are not animal-like that audiences learn to care about and are induced into crying because of an event, not because other people in the movie are crying.
Basically, I don't believe in taking away someone's happiness or sense of safety, especially a child's, and because E.T. was promoted as a family movie and not an adult drama, it strikes me as mean-spirited. I think it may have traumatized a lot of children, and I think I'm one of them.
But my real problem with E.T. is the lack of joy, which Back to the Future—although it does have dramatic, tense moments—does not lack. Back to the Future is fun, and it's satisfying to watch over and over. In fact, I watch the trilogy every year with my family as a Thanksgiving Day tradition. I will never rewatch E.T. I don't want to cry; I prefer to laugh and feel uplifted.
I agree: E.T. is a difficult watch, especially without the release of a decent resolution. I’m astonished that it was given a ‘U’ rating. I touched on the film myself in a post a little while back - do check it out.BTTF, however - and it’s unusual to include the sequels in this - is a masterpiece of its exploration of the ‘home’ theme.
Great! I'll check out your post on E.T. Thank you for letting me know.
I'm so glad to meet a fellow BTTF fan 🤗
👍
It almost seems, sometimes, that there is a disconnect between the films that professional critics see as "great" and the films that you rightly categorize as "great" based on their message and ability to provoke thought in the viewers' minds. I'm thinking specifically of Terrence Malick. His films are widely praised by critics but I can't find anything of persistent value in them. They seem to ramble around and go nowhere; they are technically breathtaking but have no end goal, purpose, or point to make. Perhaps, though, this is okay? Perhaps there is another category of great films, the tour-de-force films, which exist only to broaden the limits of art and to push the envelope of what is possible? Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey would fall into this category, as would Hitchcock's Psycho.
Then there are the films which are inexplicably popular with film buffs. I have no idea why Quentin Tarantino or Wes Anderson are popular. But that's just my personal preference, and I haven't seen very many films by either director. Perhaps if I were more familiar with their style I might have a clearer view of how they are communicating.
Yes, under my thesis I put these films that you label "tour-de-force films," those that are technically breathtaking, and obviously entertaining, under "good" movies, that, yes, are a form of "art," no doubt, but they are not "great art" because they have no message really to communicate, or the message is so unskillfully delivered that most people find nothing of value to take away.
So yes, for movie buffs and movie fans alike, movies with no substance that offer no deeper understanding about life are "great movies," but to me they are not "great art" because there is a level of movies that are masterfully made, pushing technical boundaries as "Back to the Future" did, while also delivering life-changing, soul-stirring messages. It's because these kinds of films exits that those that don't have a message fall to a lower category of just "good."
The message in a film to me is what differentiates simple entertainment from art that elevates the human condition because great art shows us beauty, something that is not easy to see in everyday life. Great movies let us experience beauty, and the message in a film lets us carry that beauty in our minds and hearts, and therefore has the potential to uplift and enhance our lives. That is a more profound action with a more valuable result than just being momentarily entertained.
We are in 93% agreement. What do you think of "Seven" (1995)?