The Dillon Empire methodology for applying cinematic classic status.

Casablanca (1942). Credit: Warner Brothers
I recently received several requests for film reviewing tips and obliged with this piece. Now I’ve been asked to expand that article by laying out my criteria for what I consider a great film. That’s a very thorny question, fraught with subjective ideas. However, since film is like oxygen to me, perhaps I am reasonably well placed to offer a modestly solid definition, which you can take to heart or disregard.

You might argue any film you enjoyed is great. Or at least, it was for you, so who cares what critics or academics think? I don’t altogether go along with that. For one thing, per my article on film reviewing, I believe there’s a substantial difference between favourite and greatest. The former can be stated without argument. If you were to say Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is your favourite film, I might think you have terrible taste, but beyond that, no argument can be made. On the other hand, if you were to seriously claim Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is a great film, I would: 1) Recommend urgent psychiatric treatment, and 2) Request that you substantiate your claim along the lines listed below (mainly to humour you, before the men in white coats arrive).

A Great Film Must First Be a Good Film
Objectively speaking, a film can only qualify for potential greatness if the component parts — acting, direction, screenplay, cinematography, score, sound, special effects, production design, locations, editing, art direction, and so forth — are all good to start with. That doesn’t necessarily mean the film isn’t flawed in some respects, provided that the cumulative effect is excellence.

For example, Apocalypse Now is sprawling and self-indulgent. Yet it is also magnificent. It has a singular quality unlike any other film in cinema history, with its reflections on the evil in the souls of mankind resonating with every subsequent generation. The film has an astonishing power that remains undiminished over forty years later, and as such the flaws are easy to overlook.

If a film satisfies the above criteria, it qualifies for potential greatness. However, the following tests must also be applied.

The Ten-Year Rule
I won’t label a film with classic status until at least ten years have passed. Great films are like fine wines or single malts, maturing with age. Citizen Kane, Vertigo, Blade Runner, It’s a Wonderful Life, Peeping Tom, and Barry Lyndon are all examples of films that weren’t universally acclaimed upon initial release, but became classics via subsequent critical reappraisal, popular rediscovery, or both.

Conversely, some films that first appear great prove far less impressive with the passage of time. Crash may have won Best Picture and been a critical darling, but it diminishes with subsequent viewings, and has hardly endured in the manner of The Searchers or Some Like it Hot.

Have the same question. What makes XXX spy video great? Do you agree that the creative talent behind the scenes of any film has strong opinions about what makes a film great? I think it is acting, directing, cinematography, editing or screenwriting, right? But can excellent acting work without a good director, especially when we talk about adult video? Any ideas?