What makes a favorite?

I've been thinking about criteria. What qualities do I love in a "really really really good" movie, and how many of those have to be in the movie before I call it "favorite"?

Well, let's get more specific. For example, what if I said that "good acting" was very important to me? Wouldn't that be too simple? There are hundreds of movies that contain good acting. So as an example, this illustrates that for me to say a film is a favorite of mine, it would have to contain more than merely good acting. It should have good acting and good directing -- right? And is that sufficient? Doubtful.

Plus, these would be too simple if they were generalized. This is still not specific enough. What makes "good acting," and what makes "great acting"? What makes the acting SO great that the actor disappears, and the character becomes a person you know, a seemingly real flesh and blood person, a person you sympathize with or despise or dream about?

So there must be a list of criteria -- and well-defined very specific criteria -- that a movie has to meet before it rises from the level of "a movie I enjoyed," or "a good movie," to one that I will cherish, carry with me in my heart, watch again and again, plead with friends to watch, and turn to as if it were itself a friend.

And what is more, I want to tell you, I don't think every favorite of mine meets every one of the criteria. There may be some favorites where certain criteria are carrying so much weight that the others can go the wayside. For example, is plot important in "Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle," which is a biopic of Dorothy Parker as dark and grimly comic as the great lady herself? Is not mood much more important in a film like that?

I think that the aims of the movie have to be taken into account when weighting the criteria. And I'm telling you all this now because it will save me having to justify it later. We all know that Tom Cruise is not a "great" actor by any means. But what he accomplishes in "Top Gun" could not have been done by anybody else and transformed that movie from a one-summer blockbuster into a modern classic. If you were a screenwriter and you storyboarded Casablanca and you storyboarded Top Gun and you put them right alongside each other, you would see many similarities, because plotwise and structurewise they are nearly the same. Each of these films has the elements of a classic -- built into their scripts. That is to say, each has a script formulated according to the rules of screenwriting. They don't deviate much from these rules. The very aim of the movie is a classic rise and fall, with all those little moments along the way that seem like organic cues for emotion even though they are scripted. However, there are so many movies that aim for classic status. What makes it something you can watch again and again has more to do with the success of the actors to bring the script to life, to see what is called for -- in this formula! -- and give the viewer an experience that is more than formulaic. Each of these films is highly predictable, and yet, in some way not. Because the main character in each feels like a real person. So, I will argue even when it comes to the basics, like acting, the criteria must be considered according to the aims of the movie itself.

And one other point about criteria. I have known films that I have loved very much based on one criterion or two, but I could never call them a "favorite" despite this fact. That would be a scenario where there's a negative criterion. Something that should have been good enough but wasn't -- something that was so terrible that it brought the whole thing down on its knees. God, there are so many films like that. You often see great actors wasted, or great scripts wasted. I'll give you just one sweet example of this. "Brokeback Mountain." My oh my. Talk about great acting! Those were characters that I literally, still dream about. And you have great directing, great cinematography, etcetera etcetera -- many positives. But you have one major negative. Which is mood. And folks, this is MY blog. Perhaps you can have favorite movies that you'll watch again and again where the mood of the movie doesn't factor in. Perhaps mood ain't one of your criteria. But for me it is. It is very, very important and it'll probably be one of the first things I write about for each of these precious babies.

I'm not saying the mood has to be 'upbeat' or any such hogwash. But why on earth would I ever want to watch "Brokeback Mountain" more than the 3 times I've already seen it, when I know for a fact that the central experience of watching the film is to feel absolutely devastated?

By this I am trying to point out that, whatever its other qualities, each movie is an experience, just like any other sort of thing you can experience in this life, and when it claims a couple hours of your life, it becomes your reality for a short while. If you are a true film lover, a bona fide movie buff, you know exactly what I mean when I say there are some experiences you don't want to have more than once. Or maybe -- maybe -- twice. A 'favorite' movie has to be, for me, an experience I want to repeat over and over and over again. For the rest of my life.

Coming Soon: The Favorites Project

Hello to my few faithful readers!

I am very excited to announce that I am going to embark on a new project in this blog, which will be very much a departure from what I've done previously. I have decided to undertake a serious critical examination of my "favorite" films, and ask myself why they are my favorites, and attempt to list and describe detailed criteria.

Aren't you excited?!?

Scroll down to the bottom of the screen to get an idea of SOME of the movies I consider favorites. Of course, one asks, how many are there? Out of thousands of films I have viewed, there are probably only 20 or so that I consider favorites. So far.

Wordle of Blog, as of today

SALT: A Must-See!

Wowee! Salt gives new meaning to being "on the edge of your seat." Let me tell you, I was walking to the theater today, thinking I wonder why this show is still in theaters. Usually when I want to see a movie, it disappears before I have a chance. "Salt" has been out since, what, June? I seem to recall mentioning this to someone at least two months ago. It's September now. Most of the summer has passed. Guess why it is still showing?

Although I haven't heard that it's gotten tremendous critical reviews, someone must be talking about it and people must be going to see it. I can understand. This is not for film snobs, but it's the most fun I've had at the theater since I Am Legend. What a ride. Picks you up from the beginning and you don't ever really sit down again.  And yes, the whole time you are wondering "Who is Salt?"

Is she a CIA agent, or a Russian spy? That is only the first question you're asked and asking yourself. Is she a good guy or a bad guy? It is very difficult to decide, but you're rooting for her anyway. Something's up with her for sure. Is she a victim of brainwashing? Was she traumatized as a child? Or does she have her own agenda -- and if so, what the heck is it?

You don't really have time to think about it, because you're biting your nails watching Angelina Jolie leap from the top of one semi to another across multiple freeway overpasses, scale the interior walls of an elevator shaft or knock down ten FBI agents without dropping her one small handgun. Yes, she flies through midair and kicks like a ninja warrior! Although she is not technically playing a superhero in this movie, she may as well be.

But that's not the reason you're rooting for her. What I loved most about this movie -- and it's the exact reason some critics panned it -- was that Salt has a heart. While you're questioning her motives and admiring her skills, there's not much you know about her except one thing. She loves her husband. You might spend time wondering what role he plays in all this, but it's not nearly as important as the fascination with a woman who can kick ass and take names and still be -- well, a woman. In one key scene especially, she has to hide her emotions even when she's dying inside. By this time, yes, I could feel every beat of her heart as if it were my own.

So Leo Can Fail, After All! (not really)

I'm just kidding. Leo didn't fail. But after thinking for many years "anything with this actor's gonna be good..." Well, I finally saw the first Leonardo DiCaprio film that I didn't like. Shutter Island, what a let-down. Actually, Leo did the best he could. The problems with the film had nothing to do with him, really. His acting was its usual clever/didn't-see-this-coming mixed with suave. The film however! Yikes! First of all, haven't we seen this one before? A movie about a mental institution with a "missing" patient? Unless this is your Very First Movie, (and how old would you have to be? 5? in which case it would probably scare you), you know how this is going to end.

But I was willing to accept that, as a matter of fact, and go with the flow. I had already heard that the movie was dull and predictable and squishy. I was ready to know the ending from the beginning. I figured there would still be drama to enjoy along the way. There wasn't! An hour into it, I'm sitting there wondering, So when are we going to get to the point? It was the equivalent of a chase scene where the main character is not chasing anyone. You will never know how painful it was for me to watch Leo running around, acting it up, making squinty eyes and hot demands from everyone around him, essentially purposeless. I mean by that: What drove this character? If the story were to be believed, he was a U.S. Marshal trying to solve a missing persons case. Yet he knew from the very start that this person was not really missing. So then, his puzzle to solve became.....? His interest in the place was.....? Right. You kinda had to know the ending, in order to understand what was going on.

Essentially, the reason this film was so terrible was: knowing the ending became a requirement for following the basic plot, and yet, the ending was supposed to be a surprise twist. Hmmmmmmm.....