Definition of the a film classic? (1 Viewer)

[Lew Crippen]

Now this is an interesting thought and has some appeal—especially to those of us who are not a part of SSOFS (Secret Society of Film Snobs and pronounced 'so fus') and therefore have no vote as to ‘classic’ status.

But I think that rejection (or at least not acceptance) of the population as a whole (or even that part of the population that goes to movies) is enough to withdraw a film’s ‘classic’ status.

For example, The Odyssey is a classic. That very few today actually read the entire work (even among lit majors) is beside the point. Even though those who have actually read Homer might be considered elite poseurs and (or) intellectual snobs by those who have not (no doubt 99%+ of the population), I don’t really think that his works lose their classic status.

As an aside, is it possible to state an idea (about film) in intellectual terms, to be an academic or an historian, or a serious film critic (Sarris, Rosenbaum, et al) without being labeled a psuedo-intellectual?

 

[Lew Crippen]

An interesting point George, but I think valid if and only if one considers the S&S list of 340 films as their list. For me, this (the bottom two-thirds) is where the idiosyncratic films beloved by one or two voters (and for some of these, Jim’s appellation may in fact be accurate) are included.

But if you look at their top 100 (actually 122 if one includes the ties at 95 the movies are pretty solid (especially if we all distance ourselves enough to be a bit disinterested—as you did with All About Eve).

I append the S&S top 100 (122, really) for those in this thread who don’t participate in the S&S thread:

1Citizen Kane
2Vertigo
3Règle du jeu, La (Rules of the Game)
48 1/2
52001: A Space Odyssey
6Tokyo Story
7GodfatherPart II, The
8Seven Samurai
9Rashomon
10Battleship Potemkin
10Singin' in the Rain
12Sunrise
13Searchers, The
14Lawrence of Arabia
15Godfather, The
16Bicycle Thieves
16dolce vita, La
16Passion of Joan of Arc, The
19À bout de souffle
19avventura, L'
19Touch of Evil
22Dr. Strangelove
22Jules and Jim
22Raging Bull
25Atalante, L'
25Psycho
25Sunset Blvd.
28Fanny and Alexander
28General, The
28Godfather and The Godfather Part II, The
28Mirror, The
28Some Like It Hot
33Andrei Roublev
33City Lights
33Enfants du paradis, Les
33Grand Illusion
37Apartment, The
37Apocalypse Now
37hasard Balthazar, Au
37Pather Panchali
37Seventh Seal, The
37Taxi Driver
43Casablanca
43Chinatown
43Mépris. Le
43Third Man, The
43Ugetsu Monogatari
48Ivan the Terrible
48Metropolis
50400 Blows, The
50Intolerance
50M
50Ordet
50Wild Strawberries
55Amarcord
55Barry Lyndon
55Conformist, The
55Modern Times
55North by Northwest
55On the Waterfront
55Persona
55Story of the Late Chrysanthemums, The
55Strada, La
64Age d'or, L'
64Battle of Algiers, The
64Blade Runner
64Gold Rush, The
64Greed
64Last Year at Marienbad
64Magnificent Amberson, The
64Man with a Movie Camera, The
64Napoleon
64Nashville
64Once Upon a Time in the West
64Pickpocket
64Pulp Fiction
64Rear Window
64Rio Bravo
64Sweet Smell of Success
64Wild Bunch, The
82City of Sadness, A
82Clockwork Orange, A
82Dekalog
82GoodFellas
82Ikiru
82Leopard, The
82Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, The
82Night of the Hunter, The
82Ran
82Sansho Dayu
82Traveling Players, The
82Viridiana
82Voyage to Italy
95Argent, L'
95Black Narcissus
95Blue Velvet
95Breaking the Waves
95Chimes at Midnight
95Don't Look Now
95Double Indemnity
95Earrings of Madame De, The
95El
95Gone with the Wind
95Gospel According to St. Matthew, The
95Grapes of Wrath, The
95His Girl Friday
95It's a Wonderful Life
95Lady Eve, The
95Letter from an Unknown Woman
95Matter of Life and Death, A
95McCabe & Mrs. Miller
95My Darling Clementine
95Nosferatu
95Notorious
95Once Upon a Time in America
95Pierrot le fou
95Sherlock Jr.
95Shoah
95Stagecoach
95Treasure of the Sierra Madre, The
95Two or Three Things I Know about Her
95Vivre sa vie

 

[Mark Oates]

I'd say a classic movie is any movie that can be admired by a body of people for some mould-breaking or unique aspect of its content.

Any movie can be a classic - it depends on your standpoint.

IMHO, those "Critics' Ten Best" lists suffer from lazy thinking rather than elitism. If you want to be taken seriously as a film bod, you have to rattle off Citizen Kane, GWTW, etc. in your top ten. They only echo a list drawn up by French cineastes in the 1950s.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I recognize that you did not have time (based on your post’s time stamp) to read the posted list, but very clearly the notion you present does not match the list I posted.

None of this should be taken to be a defense of the S&S list—this is only to address the ‘lazy thinking’ that puts people like Peter Cowie in with those who only follow what Trauffut and Godard wrote those years ago.

If you know your S&S list history, Citizen Kane did not make the top ten in the first S&S poll in 1952.

As I read the list, I see a lot of films included that did not exist until well after this period of film criticism: 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Godfather cracking the top 10.

Pulp Fiction made the list and it was only eight years old when the last list was compiled.

Now these are all very small points, but if you look at the six, S&S lists you will see that the voters include some films each time that were not even made at the time of the prior poll. Which is why the list includes lots of films that were not written about by the critics you mention and did not exist in 1952 (or even 1962) that would have included all of the 50s and earlier films.

This list is dynamic, changing every ten years, as new films are made, older ones are reconsidered and new critics and academics enter the voting ranks (and older ones depart). QED.

That some films written about by Trauffaut, Godard, Sarris and company are still on the list—and ranked highly on the list, might indicate their intrinsic merit, rather than laziness by the voters. From my own personal view, I have to get to number 13 before I think that the film is not of highest rank (and even then, using George’s approach with All About Eve, there is no question that The Searchers deserves to be ranked somewhere.

You might remember that the French critics you mention thought very highly of Alfred Hitchcock and wrote glowingly about him and his films. You can also notice that there are a lot of his films on the list. I suggest that their inclusion has more to do with the merits of the films than it does to the fact that Trauffaut wrote a book about him.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Ladies and gentlemen I like to state for the record that I did not say this, but I sure as hell was thinking it. And yes, it's almost word for word (didn't use idiosyncratic though ).

I think classic is a relative term, but I find that it does have something in common: it has to be part of some collective cultural/popular consciousness for a long time. What's up for that debate is the size of that collective. Among a certain, small circle of friends, Super Troopers is considered a classic.

Ask a random person on the street and nine times out of ten they've heard of Citizen Kane. They may never have seen it, some may not like it, but they sure as hell heard of it. That's saying something.

RE: S&S List
It's popular amongst a certain group of people, so I can say that some of those are classic, although if I were a voting critic and had my druthers, I'd knock off some of those films.

RE: AFI
The rankings are way off on certain films, but I think their mention (like an Academy Award nomination) says more about the film.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Exactly. My rambling was really an agreement with George as to many of the films on the expanded list being the beloved film of a single (perhaps misguided) individual.

The top 100 is overall pretty sound, though I expect that no one would vote for them all. After all it takes a reasonably open person to like Andrei roublev, Apocalypse Now, Pather Panchail, Taxi Driver, The Apartment and The Seventh Seal just to pick some of the films tied for 37th place.

I’m not saying that all of these films are not deserving—just that it is unlikely that the same person would have all of these films on his list—or even think that they were all good films.

What I am sure of, is that any individual’s list is very likely to be much less diverse than this one. And for me at least, diversity is a very good thing.

 

[george kaplan]

I love these conversations. We're never going to resolve anything but it's certainly interesting and thought-provoking to discuss it.

I agree with you Lew that most of those qualify as classics (at least the ones I've seen), though I have to say that there are still a few on there that I think are there more because of their historical import, than true classic status (at least IMO). That would include:

Ivan the Terrible
Intolerance
L'Atalante
Man with a Movie Camera, The
Stagecoach

And while it's just me, I remain completely baffled by the inclusion of some of those (even for historical reasons):
The Mirror
Rio Bravo
Breaking the Waves

 

[Lew Crippen]

I probably share your opinion on Man with a Movie Camera (I like this better than you—but still I’d put it in the ‘important for historical reasons’ category) and Stagecoach, which I’m willing to grant ‘Classic Western’ status, but that is about all (and I know all about how much of this stands for Ford’s Western expansion ideas).

I’d also agree about Rio Bravo—no doubt a classic Western, but hardly a classic (IMO).

 

[Seth Paxton]

I don't think this is really a problem or contradiction anyway because you are defining a classic FROM AN ERA. I don't think anyone thinks there are big sections of history totally devoid of any quality, popular artistic output.

That means that every era does have it's artistic classics. This doesn't mean that the current generation has to care about those classics on a daily basis. What it means is that if you ask someone today to name a classic piece of ancient Greek lit they are more likely to name Homer's work.


And to me that helps define the term better as a piece that is representational of the best of the art form from the period which at some time or another has also proven to be popular.

In the case of Kane or Wonderful Life these are films that IF YOU WANT TO WATCH A FILM FROM THAT ERA, they are the films that you are most likely to watch.

Just because a kid doesn't care about 1930's films or 1500 music doesn't mean that no popular art was created then.


I think this means that there are TWO ways a film can become a classic. It can have a popular appeal which does not diminish as THAT AUDIENCE gets older, forever being a film that they think is great even as their overall tastes shift.

Or, a film can repeatedly find popularity with a smaller group of DIFFERENT generations, say kids loving Snow White decade after decade.

Some films do both.

But popularity is critical, the film must be well-received by some audience and either they must continue to love it for decades or the popularity must pass on to other generations.

At some point it might stop being very popular with the current generation but it must continue to be a reference point of popular film of its era, a film that influenced that or other GENERATIONS (forget filmmaking influences, that isn't important), and a film that received decent critical praise at least within its genre.


So FAD films obviously don't qualify. A film can be very popular for a short time without becoming classic. It can be a reference point for an era without being a classic when that same audience no longer appreciates it in a popular sense (I loved it then but no longer care for it) and no new audience has adopted it as a popular fave (outside of kitsch appeal).


A sign of a film's influence are that its characters or scenes have become cultural reference points, such as Hannibal Lector or "Are you talking to me" in Taxi Driver.


The time frame for a film's popularity to extend beyond one generation is not discrete as George said, but I think 5-10 years is definitely enough time for a fad to die off. I don't think 2 generations is quite enough to define classic, but you could see 3 generations falling into that 10ish range, maybe by 12 years.

So a film that is popular when you were in high school is popular with high schoolers when you graduate college, that's a good sign (or 20 somethings, 30 somethings, whatever age group).

Or if the film you thought was great in high school you still think it great (in the sense of quality) when you are 35, that's also a good sign of classic (as long as a shitload of people your age agree with you).

 

[Seth Paxton]

Oh, and obviously George and Lew have hit upon 2 side aspects of classic.

Just as a film can be classic by being a reference point to an era, it can be a classic by being a reference point for a GENRE or a FOREIGN CULTURE.

Sure few Americans care about The World of Apu, but when you start discussing Indian films then Ray's work is going to get brought up very quickly.

If I say "name a western" then people are going to say things like Unforgiven, Rio Bravo, Stagecoach, etc. When a lot of people from DIFFERENT ERAS (not even current people of different ages, but an actual poll from 20 years ago) give the same answers then you get a list of genre or cultural classics in the same way.


For the most part I think the classic we typically think of with such a term are the mostly English language films that have played well in the English speaking world, simply by the nature of who we are.

Certainly many of us can expand that discussion to an appreciation of other cultures, and if I say name a classic pre-1940 German film someone can come up with Metropolis or Dr. Caligari pretty quickly, but such sub-topics tend to confuse the general discussion with accusations of snobbery and so forth.

 

[Brian W.]

Oh, sure it is. It's still considered a huge classic. It was in the top 100 of the Sight and Sound list in 2002, as I recall.

I agree with the minimum 25-year theory. But there are films that are considered classics by film critics that really aren't embraced by the general public. Raging Bull is a good example -- a lot of people haven't even seen it. Same could be said for Magnificent Ambersons.

Now, The Sound of Music is definitely a classic, and I don't think it made ANY critic's Sight & Sound top ten. A lot of literary critics have belittled Dickens, too, but you can't deny his books are classics.

Probably 90% of all films are rarely viewed again after their first run. If people are still watching them 20, 30, 40 years later, whether it's the critics or Joe Six-Pack, there must be something special about them.

 

[Brian W.]

Oh, sure it is. It's still considered a huge classic. It was in the top 100 of the Sight and Sound list in 2002, as I recall.

I agree with the minimum 25-year theory. But there are films that are considered classics by film critics that really aren't embraced by the general public. Raging Bull is a good example -- a lot of people haven't even seen it. Same could be said for Magnificent Ambersons.

Now, The Sound of Music is definitely a classic, and I don't think it made ANY critic's Sight & Sound top ten. A lot of literary critics have belittled Dickens, too, but you can't deny his books are classics.

Probably 90% of all films are rarely viewed again after their first run. If people are still watching them 20, 30, 40 years later, whether it's the critics or Joe Six-Pack, there must be something special about them.

 

[Jim_K]

The point I was trying to make in an ever so awkward & roundabout way is that who determines what is a classic is not a small group of elite critics & film scholars but the average person who watches these older films. Yes there are more then you think out there. All those people who are buying up those "Classic" films on DVD which in turn are propelling sales are the general public. We wouldn't have this boom of classic films on DVD without them.


Anyhoo carry-on as I'm going to watch the "Classic Samurai film" Seven Samurai, which may or may not (depending on who you are) actually be a "classic film".

 

[Jim_K]

The point I was trying to make in an ever so awkward & roundabout way is that who determines what is a classic is not a small group of elite critics & film scholars but the average person who watches these older films. Yes there are more then you think out there. All those people who are buying up those "Classic" films on DVD which in turn are propelling sales are the general public. We wouldn't have this boom of classic films on DVD without them.


Anyhoo carry-on as I'm going to watch the "Classic Samurai film" Seven Samurai, which may or may not (depending on who you are) actually be a "classic film".

 

[george kaplan]

Well Jim, Plan 9 From Outer Space is classic Ed Wood, so I guess that makes Plan 9 a classic in the same sense as Citizen Kane?

And just because there's a lot of people buying older movies doesn't make them film buffs. Someone who buys a Cary Grant film cause they fondly remember Cary Grant, but wouldn't know Russell Crowe from Ben Stiller is no more a 'film buff' than someone who'd rather die than have to watch a black & white film.

To me there's still a big difference between a film buff and a casual film fan. I know lots of people at work who go to movies; I've yet to meet anyone at work that I'd consider a film buff.

 

[george kaplan]

Well Jim, Plan 9 From Outer Space is classic Ed Wood, so I guess that makes Plan 9 a classic in the same sense as Citizen Kane?

And just because there's a lot of people buying older movies doesn't make them film buffs. Someone who buys a Cary Grant film cause they fondly remember Cary Grant, but wouldn't know Russell Crowe from Ben Stiller is no more a 'film buff' than someone who'd rather die than have to watch a black & white film.

To me there's still a big difference between a film buff and a casual film fan. I know lots of people at work who go to movies; I've yet to meet anyone at work that I'd consider a film buff.

 

[Jim_K]

Apples & oranges. I also know many people at work who "go to movies" & aren't interested in anything made past the last few years so the last thing they'd do I pick up some "classic" films on DVD. I also don't consider these people "film buffs" & I'm unclear about what this has to do with the subject at hand.

I really don't know what we're arguing here. I'm going to assume that you're happy & content thinking that there are no film-buffs outside of the HTF and that a handful of the elite are deciding for you what films are worthy of being called a classic.

Maybe it's my own romantic notion that we all have a free will & can form our own opinions without letting others decide for us. Maybe I'm wrong. Go figure.

 

[Jim_K]

Apples & oranges. I also know many people at work who "go to movies" & aren't interested in anything made past the last few years so the last thing they'd do I pick up some "classic" films on DVD. I also don't consider these people "film buffs" & I'm unclear about what this has to do with the subject at hand.

I really don't know what we're arguing here. I'm going to assume that you're happy & content thinking that there are no film-buffs outside of the HTF and that a handful of the elite are deciding for you what films are worthy of being called a classic.

Maybe it's my own romantic notion that we all have a free will & can form our own opinions without letting others decide for us. Maybe I'm wrong. Go figure.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Well, a dictionary definition of the term classic is:

"1. An artist, author, or work generally considered to be of the highest rank or excellence, especially one of enduring significance.

2. A work recognized as definitive in its field."

So, a movie that fits the above definition is a classic. Obviously, the real issue is what films will fit this definition. Not an easy question, as shown by the prior opinions in this thread.

Regarding the amount of time required before a movie can be considered a classic, based on definiton #1, I do think a certain amount of time needs to pass before we will know, for sure, whether a movie will be one of enduring significance. What that amount of time is, well, that is debatable and I certainly don't think we can answer that question without being arbitrary.

When it comes to newer movies, it is certainly possible that it can be immediately recognized as " of the highest rank or excellence". It is the additional phrase "especially one of enduring significance" that raises the question of whether a new movie can be consired an "instant" classic.

Personally, I think it may be more accurate to state that a newer movie is "destined" to become a classic than to call it a classic outright.

But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Well, a dictionary definition of the term classic is:

"1. An artist, author, or work generally considered to be of the highest rank or excellence, especially one of enduring significance.

2. A work recognized as definitive in its field."

So, a movie that fits the above definition is a classic. Obviously, the real issue is what films will fit this definition. Not an easy question, as shown by the prior opinions in this thread.

Regarding the amount of time required before a movie can be considered a classic, based on definiton #1, I do think a certain amount of time needs to pass before we will know, for sure, whether a movie will be one of enduring significance. What that amount of time is, well, that is debatable and I certainly don't think we can answer that question without being arbitrary.

When it comes to newer movies, it is certainly possible that it can be immediately recognized as " of the highest rank or excellence". It is the additional phrase "especially one of enduring significance" that raises the question of whether a new movie can be consired an "instant" classic.

Personally, I think it may be more accurate to state that a newer movie is "destined" to become a classic than to call it a classic outright.

But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.