Almost everyone enjoys film (watching movies) for entertainment, but the wise know how important it is to do so discerningly.
In many ways, film is a lot like literature in that it mirrors life, making its soul-shaping, storytelling power surprisingly prodigious.
Like books, we don’t have the time to watch every film that is produced. And who wants to waste time on a bad one, wishing you could recover those two hours of your life. Also, like a lot of books, many films lack authentic redeeming qualities. Taking in a steady diet of those, uncritically, can be dangerous to the soul.
While some have thought it helpful to manage film’s influence on the soul by avoiding them altogether, a philosophy found among some fundamentalists, I think it is better to learn to watch and evaluate movies, critically.
After all, our world is not sanitized, and experiencing story through book or film is a helpful way to analyze the good and the bad, the true and the false, and the beautiful and ugly, in a setting that doesn’t require us to act. (i.e., in real life, a noble person would feel the ethical responsibility to stop a crime, for example).
Like other forms of art and entertainment, there are numerous criteria by which we come to our decisions about the quality (or even watchability) of a film. I’m not going to supply an exhaustive list in this post, but I would like to suggest a starting point.
One way to be intentional about our evaluative process is to recognize the difference between truth and taste. This is what Mortimer Adler referred to as admirable beauty and enjoyable beauty, respectively.
Truth, or admirable beauty, refers to the film’s intrinsic excellence as an object. To judge a film’s admirable beauty, we make objective analyses of a its ability to tell a story in terms of its plot, characters, artistic excellence, cinematography, approximation to reality (or inner consistency in fantasy), the abilities of its actors, and such like.
Taste, or enjoyable beauty, refers to our subjective likes and dislikes. We might prefer westerns or comedies to action or romance, for instance. Or, we might prefer a particular actor/actress or particular style of storytelling. Each individual is going to be different. Enjoyable beauty is like preferring the ocean to the mountains or scotch to bourbon.
There is no sense arguing about enjoyable beauty because it is largely subjective. (There is an argument to be made, however, that taste can be developed, and it is either poor, good, or somewhere in between. But that’s a discussion for another post.)
Whether we are do wittingly or unwittingly, we all evaluate the films we watch from somewhere on a spectrum between skilled and unskilled, amateur or expert critics. In order to cultivate our evaluative skills, it can be helpful to be aware of what kinds of evaluations we are making when we say, I loved that movie, or say, I hated it.
One of the criterion on which I personally tend to evaluate a film is on its ability to accurately portray the world as it really is and humanity as we really are. I’m not suggesting raw grit for raw grit’s sake makes a film good, but one that sanitizes reality in a way that doesn’t tell the truth about the fallen world is a bad movie.
For example, I won’t discount a film simply because there is sin in it, but if the sinner doesn’t face appropriate judgment, it’s usually a bad one.
But, again, there are exceptions. For example, Roman Polanski’s China Town represents a world in which the bad guy appears to get away with his wickedness and the good guy is left questioning whether there is any justice in the world.
Watched uncritically, we might be disappointed in the film, or worse, carried off by its message. However, watched critically, we might experience our own theodicy moment, like Job, but within a context that requires nothing of us, except to contemplate what it would be like to live in that kind of world.
With all that said—and there is so much more that needs to be said about film when it comes to enjoying and evaluating them on their artistic and and cultural merits—here is a list of 20 of my personal favorite films without commentary.
This list—given in no particular order—could continue to evolve. Some of them wouldn’t be thematically appropriate for children. There are close-second films which might make the list if I thought about it long enough. Each of these represent a film that had some significant influence on me because of its creativity, its artistic beauty, or its cultural and/or intellectual insight.
UPDATE (2-10-2024): I would modify this list if I were writing the post today but I’m not changing it here as the comments provide further insights and the conversation in the comments has added value to the post, in my opinion.
- Shawshank Redemption
- It’s a Wonderful Life
- True Grit
- Stand By Me
- The Princess Bride
- Jo Jo Rabbit
- Young Frankenstein
- Magnolia
- The Breakfast Club
- No Country for Old Men
- Apocalypse Now
- Breaking Bad (series)
- The Phantom Thread
- A River Runs Through it
- The Lord of the Rings
- The Man that Shot Liberty Valence
- Chariots of Fire
- The Mission
- China Town
- Citizen Kane
Film Runners Up
- Chernobyl (min-series)
- 1917
- Pulp Fiction
- Braveheart
- The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
- Clint Eastwood (Spaghetti Westerns)
- Alfred Hitchcock’s films
- Mel Brooks’ Films
Feel free to share your favorites in the comments or suggest some films for me to watch.
Why are these your favorite films? 🙂
I appreciate your above guidance in using film to cultivate our soul. I would enjoy hearing why you listed “The Mission,”Braveheart, and “Breaking Bad.” I would also like to know why you did not include “Saving Private Ryan.”
Good question, Billy. I originally left the list without commentary because it’s easy to spend time discussing films in which no one is interested. But I’m glad you asked.
The Mission is cinematically breathtaking with the setting above Iguazu Falls. The spiritual imagery of height (e.g., water falls, climbing, Gabriel, Mendoza, the Guarani who lived above the falls) and water (death and new life) were remarkably well done. And, the obvious political tug-of-wars between church, state, and the slave traders are always of interest to me. And, how could one not absolutely love the soundtrack orchestrations of Ennio Morricone?
I haven’t seen Braveheart since it was first released in the late 90s; but for all its historical inaccuracies (and they are legion) and blood-mongering (if there is one obvious fail, I think this would be it), the revival of the heroic figure, William Wallace, the rekindling of love for Scottish culture, and the give-me-liberty-or-give-me-death theme was rather inspirational as I recall it. Truthfully, though, as I mentioned in the OP, if I was to watch it again today, it might descend further than a runner up in my list of favorites.
And, finally, Breaking Bad. I think this series did more to demonstrate to me how well serial film could be used to tell a story than almost anything I’ve ever watched. (I actually watched all six season of this series twice). Vince Gilligan (the screenwriter) is an amazing writer with an eye for human transformation. I don’t think there could have been a better setting than ALQ for the storyline, the symbolism of color was so detailed and subtle it almost seemed unconscious, the hidden easter eggs were serendipitous, the characters–and the symbolism of characters (e.g., Walter’s two sons) were believable and troubling, and finally, both the judgment of self-deception and the catharsis of confession–though still maintaining culpability–were masterfully orchestrated. Plus, Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul are excellent actors; and, as lead and second, respectively, they were extraordinary.
Of course each of the above had their issues, as all films do. But these were interesting and memorable for the reasons mentioned.
In reference to Saving Private Ryan, I’ve heard much fanfare about the film and am apt to believe it must have merit if the film is anything like Hank’s other performances. Unfortunately, I watched the film in bits and spurts–I was repeatedly interrupted–shortly after it was released but never got around to rewatching it. I keep saying I’m going to watch it again, but like the myriad unread books on my shelf, there’s probably a gold mine under my nose, just waiting to be discovered that I haven’t made a priority. Thanks for mentioning it; I am adding it to my summer watch list.
The Judge
Book of Eli
Bridge of Spies
Nacho Libre
Signs
Forrest Gump
Inception
Schindler’s List
You’ve Got Mail
Walk the Line
Gattaca
Napoleon Dynamite
Great choices, Melissa. Dystopian/sc-fi seem to make it high on your list.
Book of Eli was good–Denzel is a great actor. It had lots of Madmax vibes though the storyline was exceptional. I only wish I had such a memory. Like Inception, though I quite enjoyed it, I didn’t feel compelled to watch it more than once for some reason.
I cannot believe I missed Schindler’s List (grimace)! Seriously, that should be on the top of my list. Spielberg is obviously one of–if not the most–prolific and influential screenwriters, directors, and producers to grace the industry, but Schindler’s List is one of his best, I think. I HAD to watch it more than once and it was one of those films that haunted me (the red coat). In my opinion, Liam Neeson tends to fluctuate between terrible and amazing acting, but his performance here was excellent. Great call!
I almost picked Forrest Gump (and Castaway)–two great films with Hanks (I wasn’t as fond of You’ve Got Mail; my wife loved it though). This is another really good call. Forrest Gump transcends conventional and institutional thinking and shows us what it’s like to be a genuine human. Again, great film.
And, yes, Napoleon Dynamite and Nacho Libre are spot-on choices ;). They both should have made my list. They’re right up there with The Princess Bride and Young Frankenstein, though slightly different forms of slapstick comedy. Napoleon’s town could have been my own. Eerily similar.
The rest (The Judge, Bridge of Spies, Signs, and Gattaca) I haven’t seen. I did see Walk the Line though. I love Johnny Cash’s music and the film was quite good as I recall, but it apparently didn’t make the impact other biographical films have. I might have to rewatch it.
I’m looking forward to checking out the films on your list I haven’t seen. Thanks for the recommendations. Adding to my summer watch list 😉
Did you know that You’ve Got Mail is an updated version of the classic film, The Shop Around the Corner? I love the character development and the Austen-esque themes. Also, now, the nostalgia!
The Blues Brothers (1980) – “We’re on a mission from God.”
Harvey (1950)
Pan’s Labyrinth (2006)
Goodbye Mr. Chips (1939)
Baran (2001)
Of course there are many more, this is the shortlist. The Blues Brothers is my favourite movie, but they are all must-sees.
Which version of True Grit do you recommend: John Wayne’s or Jeff Bridges’? I liked seeing Jo Jo Rabbit on your list :), but most of those I have enjoyed. For a television series, try Justified. Boyd Crowder is the all-time best bad guy and the series had a satisfying ending.
Oh, Yes! The Blues Brothers. What a classic. Thanks, Dan. Belushi was a gas, from the Samari on SNL to Animal House and Blues Brothers. I’ll definitely take a look at the others. John Wayne is my favorite Rooster Cogburn but I was really quite pleased with Bridges’ portrayal as well. And, Justified was great too! Timothy Olyphant and Walter Groggins were great in that series. Raylan (TO) reminded me of an old preacher friend I had years ago. He had that same voice and mannerisms.
I like classics and films that probably will be classics some day …
An American Tale
Casablanca
12 Angry Men
High Noon
The Shop Around the Corner
The Song
Woodlawn
Pride and Prejudice (2003)
Unitards
A Week Away
I Can Only Imagine
12 Angry Men is a masterpiece in early cinema and a magnificent treatment of democracy (the demos) and the power of rhetoric (rational public discourse).
I would add Band of Brothers to the list.