Definition of the a film classic? (1 Viewer)

[Lew Crippen]

I can see that I was imprecise in using the term ‘generation’, Seth. “Generation’ is commonly taken to mean (I’m doing this without a dictionary) the time that it takes to replace the fathers (and their brothers and sisters), with their sons (and daughters and nieces and nephews).

Therefore your grandparents are of one generation, your parents the next, you (and any siblings) the third and your children (should you and your bride decide to reproduce) a fourth.

Although times vary (I have one set of cousins where the youngest has a nephew who is older then she), many take this span to be about 30–35 years (33 is a number often used).

What I meant by this imprecision, was that those critics one in ascendancy (such as Kael, Truffaut, Sarris, and the like) have now mainly bee replaced (and yes I know that Sarris is still writing) by Rosenbaum, Ebert, and Turan (among of course many others). They too, will be replaced by a bunch of (now) wet-behind-the-ears, young pups, who will no doubt strive to make their mark by challenging what has come before (and especially what has been praised before).

While I don’t expect to see Citizen Kane or Vertigo replaced by a Michael Bay movie, it would not be unsurprising to see either or both fall in the critical esteem—and much less surprising to see films like L’Atalante fall out of favor altogether (confirming many of the opinions of those writing in the S&S thread ).

Fashions come and go in all disciplines, and I see no reason to believe movies are exempt. I’m pretty sure I wrote once before in a thread like this, about a physicist, who back in the 50s when there was debate between the ‘big bang’ theorists and those who favored a ‘steady state’ universe, said that the debate would end when all the ‘steady-staters’ had died out.

So if a more-or-less ‘hard’ discipline has to wait for another generation in order for a theory to become (for a time) unchallenged, I’m of the belief that it takes a while for the identification of ‘classics’.

And as for becoming a voting member of one of the secret societies, I am sure that I have not agreed with Dome, Jim, Walter, George, Seth, Rob, John Rice, Brook and Walter, plus the entire international HTF membership, so I expect that I’ll be disallowed a vote no matter the club (and I refrain (but barely) from using Groucho’s line).

 

[Lew Crippen]

I can see that I was imprecise in using the term ‘generation’, Seth. “Generation’ is commonly taken to mean (I’m doing this without a dictionary) the time that it takes to replace the fathers (and their brothers and sisters), with their sons (and daughters and nieces and nephews).

Therefore your grandparents are of one generation, your parents the next, you (and any siblings) the third and your children (should you and your bride decide to reproduce) a fourth.

Although times vary (I have one set of cousins where the youngest has a nephew who is older then she), many take this span to be about 30–35 years (33 is a number often used).

What I meant by this imprecision, was that those critics one in ascendancy (such as Kael, Truffaut, Sarris, and the like) have now mainly bee replaced (and yes I know that Sarris is still writing) by Rosenbaum, Ebert, and Turan (among of course many others). They too, will be replaced by a bunch of (now) wet-behind-the-ears, young pups, who will no doubt strive to make their mark by challenging what has come before (and especially what has been praised before).

While I don’t expect to see Citizen Kane or Vertigo replaced by a Michael Bay movie, it would not be unsurprising to see either or both fall in the critical esteem—and much less surprising to see films like L’Atalante fall out of favor altogether (confirming many of the opinions of those writing in the S&S thread ).

Fashions come and go in all disciplines, and I see no reason to believe movies are exempt. I’m pretty sure I wrote once before in a thread like this, about a physicist, who back in the 50s when there was debate between the ‘big bang’ theorists and those who favored a ‘steady state’ universe, said that the debate would end when all the ‘steady-staters’ had died out.

So if a more-or-less ‘hard’ discipline has to wait for another generation in order for a theory to become (for a time) unchallenged, I’m of the belief that it takes a while for the identification of ‘classics’.

And as for becoming a voting member of one of the secret societies, I am sure that I have not agreed with Dome, Jim, Walter, George, Seth, Rob, John Rice, Brook and Walter, plus the entire international HTF membership, so I expect that I’ll be disallowed a vote no matter the club (and I refrain (but barely) from using Groucho’s line).

 

[Holadem]

Something weird is happening to this thread... I see a third page, but can't access it...

--
H

 

[Holadem]

Something weird is happening to this thread... I see a third page, but can't access it...

--
H

 

[Stephen_L]

Just thought I'd pipe in on what is a very interesting discussion. Speaking for myself, I can distinguish between 'classic' films, films whose quality has been strongly acclaimed and supported over time, and 'favorite' films, films some classic, some junk, many in-between that are special to me personally. The two categories overlap, but are not synonymous. There are many films I will admit are classics, but that I do not particularly care for(Gone With the Wind and Roshomon for example). Likewise there are films I love (I call them guilty pleasures) that may be cheesy, goofy, even second rate, but they resonate with me and I love them (Lots of martial arts, science fiction). But just because I love them, does not make them classic or great.

 

[Stephen_L]

Just thought I'd pipe in on what is a very interesting discussion. Speaking for myself, I can distinguish between 'classic' films, films whose quality has been strongly acclaimed and supported over time, and 'favorite' films, films some classic, some junk, many in-between that are special to me personally. The two categories overlap, but are not synonymous. There are many films I will admit are classics, but that I do not particularly care for(Gone With the Wind and Roshomon for example). Likewise there are films I love (I call them guilty pleasures) that may be cheesy, goofy, even second rate, but they resonate with me and I love them (Lots of martial arts, science fiction). But just because I love them, does not make them classic or great.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Would any of you call a film you didn't like a classic? I mean, CITIZEN KANE has the reputation of being a "classic" but if you didn't like it, would you still be able to see why it's considered a classic? The film that comes to mind for me is Lugosi's DRACULA, which is considered a classic by many but it's a two star film to me and in fact I think it's very poorly made. I think the performances are bad, direction horrid and the overall pace is just downright boring. However, that very image of Lugosi as Dracula is why I would consider the film a classic even though I don't enjoy the film.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Would any of you call a film you didn't like a classic? I mean, CITIZEN KANE has the reputation of being a "classic" but if you didn't like it, would you still be able to see why it's considered a classic? The film that comes to mind for me is Lugosi's DRACULA, which is considered a classic by many but it's a two star film to me and in fact I think it's very poorly made. I think the performances are bad, direction horrid and the overall pace is just downright boring. However, that very image of Lugosi as Dracula is why I would consider the film a classic even though I don't enjoy the film.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Personally, I feel there are two kinds of great at work here. There's personal great, which is how you interact with the film. I think Animal House is great and a comedy classic.

Then there's consensus great, basically whether you can see why a certain film is great or whether or not you agree to it. This is more along the lines of standing the test of time and being the paragon of a particular genre.

I'll use myself as an example. I really like Citizen Kane, and I can also see why others consider it great. That's a rare occurrence.

I hated 2001: A Space Odyssey on first viewing, and I think it's okay on my second and third viewing. I don't think it's great, but I can agree to why others think it's great and won't dispute it's place in history or any list.

I liked La Dolce Vita okay, but it's definitely too boring for me. In this case, I don't personally think it's great, and I also fail to see why it's considered great.

I hate L' Avventura, and I fail to see why it's great. Reading the Criterion essays and a lot of other critiques only confirms my thoughts that there's a contingent of people out there that just love subtext, reading between the lines, and putting a bigger emphasis on that than telling a good story.


I didn't like Breathless, and I'd vote it farther down the list of important films, but it's got it's place in history.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Personally, I feel there are two kinds of great at work here. There's personal great, which is how you interact with the film. I think Animal House is great and a comedy classic.

Then there's consensus great, basically whether you can see why a certain film is great or whether or not you agree to it. This is more along the lines of standing the test of time and being the paragon of a particular genre.

I'll use myself as an example. I really like Citizen Kane, and I can also see why others consider it great. That's a rare occurrence.

I hated 2001: A Space Odyssey on first viewing, and I think it's okay on my second and third viewing. I don't think it's great, but I can agree to why others think it's great and won't dispute it's place in history or any list.

I liked La Dolce Vita okay, but it's definitely too boring for me. In this case, I don't personally think it's great, and I also fail to see why it's considered great.

I hate L' Avventura, and I fail to see why it's great. Reading the Criterion essays and a lot of other critiques only confirms my thoughts that there's a contingent of people out there that just love subtext, reading between the lines, and putting a bigger emphasis on that than telling a good story.


I didn't like Breathless, and I'd vote it farther down the list of important films, but it's got it's place in history.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Well, since I used this very example previously, except it was regarding whether Kane was "Great", instead of a "Classic", I would still say the answer is yes.

Just as I can recognize the elements that make CK "great", I also recognize the elements that make it a "Classic", including it's obvious influence on subsequent film making.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Well, since I used this very example previously, except it was regarding whether Kane was "Great", instead of a "Classic", I would still say the answer is yes.

Just as I can recognize the elements that make CK "great", I also recognize the elements that make it a "Classic", including it's obvious influence on subsequent film making.

 

[Rob Bartlett]

The short answer to whether a film is a classic or not is simply "if you have to ask..."

The longer version. The thing is, I don't very often use the term "classic", it's really a troubleseome word. Used to describe current or recent films displays an obnoxious penchant for hyperbole that could come to bite me in the ass, and used to describe older brings about baggage that unfairly derises today's well-made contemporaries. Personally, I think it best the word "classic" be used as advertisement or classification on a video store shelf.

To be honest, I don't think a classic can exist in the "Academic" sense. Because if somebody is going to consider themselves an expert film critic, if someone truly fancies himself a true, hardcore objective buff, then whatever era the movie was made in should be irrelevent. Whether it has stood the test of time should not be a factor in determining how well it's made, or how much you like it.

For pragmatic purposes, one may simply say anything that was released say, 30 years ago. Of course, this allows for the company of older flms that weren't very good, I think a lot of times the philsophy of yesterday's bottom being superior to today's cream of the crop tends to follow suite with the mentility that older great films are better because they're older. People will simply look at b-movies or flops from previous eras and declare that less-then perfect elders possess a "charm" that none of today's features have.

So I do think a film's status as as a "classic" ultimately falls to its status as a pop-culure phenomenon, and the ability to evoke a memory that sometimes doesn't even exist. If I were to watch a cartoon, and some giant thing, simian or not, scaled up a skyscraper holding a companion, I knew this would be a take on King Kong, despite not seeing it until I was twelve. The Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane, Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, It's a Wonderful Life, The Sound of Music, Jaws, Rocky, Taxi Driver, E.T. Star Wars and many, many others are instantly recogniziable. In terms of films that have existed in the last decade, Austin Powers, Bravheart, Moulin Rouge, The Matrix and Pulp Fiction, have shown signs of being iconic, regardless of critical perception of these movies. Hell, even though Forrest Gump lost a lot of status as a work of art, it has remain firmly entrenched as a work of culture

Skimming a little deeper, I think if an actor, or even a director develops a resume that is very, very strong, some of the lesser works could attain this status. For instance, let's say Hugh Jackman gets involved with a string of movies whose quality range between say Pulp Fiction and Catch Me if You Can (assuming your opinion for such movies matches mine), then the currency of Hugh Jackman increases in value, and thus any movie he was in becomes culturally more signifigant. Thus, X-Men, a movie that was well reviewed and commercially successful, but neither a critical darling nor a phenemenon, is a little closer to "classic" status then it would be had its cast been otherwise obscure. (It was the first movie that came to mind, in fact, because of the rising stock of many involved made the sequel much more visible) Look at New York, New York and Cape Fear, both have escaped being swallowed into time, because Martin Scorcese directed them.

I think a film that manages to impress both critics and mass audiences it'll have an easier time then doing either seperately, which is probably the most obvious statement of the year. But a film doesn't have to make a ton of money to get a mass audience talking (Boogie Nights) The thing about acheiving lendary status is, you have to be entertaining or accessible, at least to some degree. The thing is, a movie is a medium of imagination, and it's more important to capture the audience's the flex your muscles of expertise. (The Hours) If your film is too cynical or abrasive, it's may appeal to a section of people who are not so much in love with the medium, as they are with their own intellectualism. Lars Von Trier may have his fans, but I'm not sure if he will inspire as many people to autonomously make movies as say, Sam Raimi.

So really, it's just simple.

 

[Rob Bartlett]

The short answer to whether a film is a classic or not is simply "if you have to ask..."

The longer version. The thing is, I don't very often use the term "classic", it's really a troubleseome word. Used to describe current or recent films displays an obnoxious penchant for hyperbole that could come to bite me in the ass, and used to describe older brings about baggage that unfairly derises today's well-made contemporaries. Personally, I think it best the word "classic" be used as advertisement or classification on a video store shelf.

To be honest, I don't think a classic can exist in the "Academic" sense. Because if somebody is going to consider themselves an expert film critic, if someone truly fancies himself a true, hardcore objective buff, then whatever era the movie was made in should be irrelevent. Whether it has stood the test of time should not be a factor in determining how well it's made, or how much you like it.

For pragmatic purposes, one may simply say anything that was released say, 30 years ago. Of course, this allows for the company of older flms that weren't very good, I think a lot of times the philsophy of yesterday's bottom being superior to today's cream of the crop tends to follow suite with the mentility that older great films are better because they're older. People will simply look at b-movies or flops from previous eras and declare that less-then perfect elders possess a "charm" that none of today's features have.

So I do think a film's status as as a "classic" ultimately falls to its status as a pop-culure phenomenon, and the ability to evoke a memory that sometimes doesn't even exist. If I were to watch a cartoon, and some giant thing, simian or not, scaled up a skyscraper holding a companion, I knew this would be a take on King Kong, despite not seeing it until I was twelve. The Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane, Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, It's a Wonderful Life, The Sound of Music, Jaws, Rocky, Taxi Driver, E.T. Star Wars and many, many others are instantly recogniziable. In terms of films that have existed in the last decade, Austin Powers, Bravheart, Moulin Rouge, The Matrix and Pulp Fiction, have shown signs of being iconic, regardless of critical perception of these movies. Hell, even though Forrest Gump lost a lot of status as a work of art, it has remain firmly entrenched as a work of culture

Skimming a little deeper, I think if an actor, or even a director develops a resume that is very, very strong, some of the lesser works could attain this status. For instance, let's say Hugh Jackman gets involved with a string of movies whose quality range between say Pulp Fiction and Catch Me if You Can (assuming your opinion for such movies matches mine), then the currency of Hugh Jackman increases in value, and thus any movie he was in becomes culturally more signifigant. Thus, X-Men, a movie that was well reviewed and commercially successful, but neither a critical darling nor a phenemenon, is a little closer to "classic" status then it would be had its cast been otherwise obscure. (It was the first movie that came to mind, in fact, because of the rising stock of many involved made the sequel much more visible) Look at New York, New York and Cape Fear, both have escaped being swallowed into time, because Martin Scorcese directed them.

I think a film that manages to impress both critics and mass audiences it'll have an easier time then doing either seperately, which is probably the most obvious statement of the year. But a film doesn't have to make a ton of money to get a mass audience talking (Boogie Nights) The thing about acheiving lendary status is, you have to be entertaining or accessible, at least to some degree. The thing is, a movie is a medium of imagination, and it's more important to capture the audience's the flex your muscles of expertise. (The Hours) If your film is too cynical or abrasive, it's may appeal to a section of people who are not so much in love with the medium, as they are with their own intellectualism. Lars Von Trier may have his fans, but I'm not sure if he will inspire as many people to autonomously make movies as say, Sam Raimi.

So really, it's just simple.

 

[Pete-D]

Well going by Disney venacular, there's "classics" and then there's "masterpieces" (not that Disney's marketing "suits" have the last word here, but I think in this case there's some merit to their ranking system).

I think "classics" are films that raise the standard in their given genre. To me that's the main thing that I look at when calling something a "classic".

Case in point -- "Enter the Dragon" is not exactly AFI "Top 100" material, but it is considered a classic by many because of what it did for the martial arts genre.

It doesn't hurt if other films are influenced by that said film or if they have a pop-culture impact.

Masterpieces I would say have to stand the test of time (as in a longer period of time) to see if they're still relevant.

Some recent classics I think would be "The Matrix", "Pulp Fiction", and "The Sixth Sense". Those are movies that other films will be compared to for years and years. They'll very much be remembered as films specific to that era.

Some movies also can become classic because they are remembered as the launching point of a director or an actor ("Terminator" brought both James Cameron and Arnold to the forefront) or are associated with that actor or director as their best work.

I think if P.T. Anderson and Wes Anderson for instance continue on to have long and prestigious careers making films, then Boogie Nights and Rushmore or Bottle Rocket (their earlier films) will be looked back on as classics even though neither of those films really did a lot of box office.

 

[Pete-D]

Well going by Disney venacular, there's "classics" and then there's "masterpieces" (not that Disney's marketing "suits" have the last word here, but I think in this case there's some merit to their ranking system).

I think "classics" are films that raise the standard in their given genre. To me that's the main thing that I look at when calling something a "classic".

Case in point -- "Enter the Dragon" is not exactly AFI "Top 100" material, but it is considered a classic by many because of what it did for the martial arts genre.

It doesn't hurt if other films are influenced by that said film or if they have a pop-culture impact.

Masterpieces I would say have to stand the test of time (as in a longer period of time) to see if they're still relevant.

Some recent classics I think would be "The Matrix", "Pulp Fiction", and "The Sixth Sense". Those are movies that other films will be compared to for years and years. They'll very much be remembered as films specific to that era.

Some movies also can become classic because they are remembered as the launching point of a director or an actor ("Terminator" brought both James Cameron and Arnold to the forefront) or are associated with that actor or director as their best work.

I think if P.T. Anderson and Wes Anderson for instance continue on to have long and prestigious careers making films, then Boogie Nights and Rushmore or Bottle Rocket (their earlier films) will be looked back on as classics even though neither of those films really did a lot of box office.