What Makes a Movie Great?

A really great film is certainly a collaborative effort but, I voted for acting as, even if everything else is grand but, the acting isnt top shelf then, it would fail <in most cases>. Great actors can pull up a bad script, faulty director, bad cinematography, and production, I think in most cases.
Generally however, all elements arent that spectacular and I believe we enjoy many films based on those aspects that mean a great deal to our own tastes.
For Example:
My favorite film of the last year is "Count of Monte Cristo" based solely on the fact I havent seen such admirable and technically correct cinematography in many years. I also think the Production end of the film aided in that but, specifically moreso the cinematography itself is stunning.
So, my point is that although it isnt the greatest of films, that aspect alone has me wanting to purchase it to view over and over. Another person will have had a different experience with that particular film, and not be interested in that aspect so, in a general concensus it will not be viewed as a good film. Our own interests and ideals for a film are very different and therefore, so will be different for everyone.
Many films however, effect a great deal more of us I think because of the collaborative effort and interests being covered so, many of us have the same films we return to again and again.

Hi LightWizard --

This was a Very Difficult choice!!! I finally voted for 'script'.

It just seems that everything comes out of the script, as if the script is the foundation.

One of my favorite movies is 'The Matrix'..... I think it brought together all the components. Everything fits like a glove and flows smoothly. And, I love the script!!!

P&L..agree with you on the script and Matrix, and revisitiing that onoe time again is a pure joy.

The Matrix is so good I spent the BIG bucks and got it on DVD. I watched it for the umteenth time last Wednesday. Great film all the way around. I loved the out takes and the director and actors discussing the film, that is what I really like about DVDs.

I voted for director as the element with the most influence.

I agree "The Count of Monte Cristo" is superb filmmaking and brought the novel to life with some brilliant touches. Some of the finest cinematography I've seen in recent years.

I voted for director as I feel the really great movies had a central driving creative force even with a good script, the best actors and all the other components of making movies. There has to be some directoral style to the film, a way of telling the story, and if it's also mirrored in the production design, the actors, the composer, et al, it comes together and makes a memorable film.

I voted for the script since I think a good one will draw in good people. If actors are excited about the story and the script, then they are more likely to perform better. If the script is good, then perhaps excessive violence, stupid chase scenes, etc. won't be necessary.

I voted for director because s/he tells the story and brings it to life through the actors. A good director knows how to put actors, even unseasoned actors, in a position where they can find magic in the script and bring it to the screen.

I'm siding with Piffka here. Of all the options, it seems to me the one which, if absent, most immediately precludes greatness.

Script here.Everything about the film may be A Grade but if the script sucks the film is still a dog.

Hebba- The film that comes to mind when I saw your post was, "Psycho". In the hands of a lesser director than Hitchcock, it could have been simply a run-of-the-mill horror story. It was Hitch's direction that made it great. If I thought about it, I probably could come up with other examples.

This is a toughie, Lightwizard. Some of the best actors have been in flops because of poor direction, and some of the best directors, even though they had the best actors at their command, have had flops because of a poor script. And some movies which have successfully combined all of the above factors have not achieved greatness. Maybe, it all boils down to "a great movie" is in the eye of the beholder.
But, I'll vote for acting. I've seen a lot of inferior movies that I have enjoyed just because of the acting, and I've seen a lot of movies with good stories (scripts) that I disliked because of mediocre performances by the actors.

And, I've seen a lot of movies I liked just because of the music. But that's a whole new ballgame.

Oh, and I forgot to add: This is really a great thought-provoking topic, Lightwizard.

Which Count of Monte Cristo ?

I voted cinematography. I did so for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the enduring power of the big screen. Movies easily survived what was initially thought to be the threat of television thanks to the big screen, and then survived the advent of the VCR for the same reason. This is not necessarily an example of good cinematography, but consider the opening of the move Who Framed Roger Rabbit?: the impact of the opening animation derives in large measure from the large screen--it just doesn't overwhelm you on the small screen in the same way.

When i read the topic, Spielberg came to mind firts. A good example to me is The Color Purple. I do not consider this a good script. There is much one will not understand without having read the book--and i don't think the book qualifies as great literature, either, i consider it a shakey effort at best. The cast of the movie was competent, but not "stellar." Spielberg's cinematography, however, made it a much more effective movie.

There is a long, long list of movies which i would say have a unique effect, due to the clever or even brilliant use of cinematography taking advantage of the big, silver screen. They don't have the same impact on the small screen. 2001: A Space Odyssey had only about 65-70 special effects, and yet, it was a very powerfully evocative movie because of the use of cinematography. The whole Star Wars soggy . . . excuse me, saga . . . is effective because of the fantastic sfx, which exploit the power of the big screen. Despite the objections of the purists--there is no sound in space, actinic explosions do not occur in the vacuum, etc.--these movies compell because of the cinematography. You all are, of course, free to publically display your foolishness by disagreeing with me.

okseeyahbye

It's a topic I ran across on Abuzz that really got nowhere -- if they'd had a poll, it would probably have looked similar to the one on this thread. A good director avoids picking a bad script and in the so-called Golden Age of Hollywood, the studio system dictated what director would direct what script with the actors assigned to the project mostly by the production bosses. Although this turned out some classic films, it also turned out a lot of B movies, many of the lost forever because of lack of preservation. Today, the B movie has been polished up with special effects, very professional soundtracks, star power, et al, and becomes "the popcorn movie." One you enjoy at the time but is often forgettable. There has been some surprising successes critically and at the box office of this sort of film but by-and-large they end up lost in the local Blockbuster library of disposable entertainment.

Today, a great director like Scorcese will hand pick his cast (the casting director is directly under them but he has the final say), select and work closely with the cinematographer, the filmscore composer, and all the collaborators. "The Lord of the Rings" special extended version of "The Fellowship of the Ring" has features showing how Peter Jackson was totally at the helm of the ship. I don't know if I'll ever watch the commentary version of the film, however. But I did recently watch the commentary for "Gosford Park," "Mashima" and "Tigerland." The auteur theory is a valid one in my opinion. It doesn't always figure that a producer/director or producer/writer/director means a better film, either. Someone will inevitably point out that Indies are nearly all director's films and they are not always four star movies. That is most often true because these films are nearly all early efforts in a directors development.

So I can see why the script would be picked as a basis for a great movie -- the play's the thing! It's out of the ordinary for a good script to end up in the hands of a mediocre director -- oh, it can happen and has happened, but looking over the history of film, I still have to stick with the director being at the top of my list. Kubrick is a good example -- he was always involved with the writing of the script (perhaps a notorious example is the rewriting of Nabakov's script for "Lolita," playing up the satirical black comedy aspects of the story).

Algis, this "Monte Cristo":

IMDB Link to "The Count of Monte Cristo"

Now on cable and for DVD/VHS rental.

I can see your point about the script and the director, Boss--especially the director. On the Biography channel last weekend, which i watched for a little while at Lovey's house, they had a bio of von Stroheim (sp?), and it was appalling the efforts he would make with the story, the acting and the cinematography--only to have more than half of his effort end up "on the cutting room floor."

On the subject of scripts, i'm not entirely convinced, though. Often, a good novel is ruined on film, and there are many good films which were made from mediocre novels or plays. Having a good script is no guarantee, and picking a good play or novel is not either. I also feel that Hollywood has lost its ability to find and encourage good screen play writers. At one time, Hollywood had Aldous Huxley, William Faulkner--many true literary luminaries in its "stables." This does not mean they were always happy, or successful as screen writers. It does mean that Hollywood was trying, though. When i saw the move Dangerous Liaisons, which i considered quite well done, and faithful to the novel, it occurred to me then that Hollywood was starved for material--after all, one of the best movies produced that year, it used as a source a novel which had been written in french 200 years before.

I'd like to see some examples of what would be considered great films where the directing was weak but the film reach that stature because of the acting, cinematography, music, script, etc. I can remember films that had good scripts, good actors, and were failures because of mediocre direction. This still doesn't make me change my mind about the importance of the director and it is difficult to determine just how much a particular director put into a film. They aren't visible in the final product other than style which includes the way they handle their actors. Their style may be like Altman of Woody Allen in letting the actors take a lot of free rein and go so far as to improvise their dialogue and interaction with the cast and camera.

Well, films are certainly collaborative efforts, but my nod (and I wish I could vote for more than one element, sinc it was close) is to the script. I agree with piffka's idea that a script starts a good process going, e. g. it attracts a top-notch director who brings in a stellar cast and makes good decisions on what to keep, what to leave out, what to emphasize - plus who to select to do things like cinematography.

Of course the producer is the one who, ultimately, gets things done (with the power of the purse), but I feel the tiny push to get the ball rolling comes from the script.