Definition of the a film classic? (1 Viewer)

[Steve Christou]

Wow, not liking those films is one thing, fair enough, but not thinking they're great films is quite another, makes me wonder what your idea of great is, Kill Bill 1 & 2?

 

[Steve Christou]

Wow, not liking those films is one thing, fair enough, but not thinking they're great films is quite another, makes me wonder what your idea of great is, Kill Bill 1 & 2?

 

[george kaplan]

I haven't seen either of those. My idea of great films are films like:

The Apartment
Rear Window
The Godfather
Citizen Kane
Casablanca
Star Wars
Dr. Strangelove
Raiders of the Lost Ark
2001
North by Northwest
Some Like It Hot
Stalag 17
Chinatown
The Godfather Part 2
The Bridge on the River Kwai
Vertigo
The Gold Rush
L.A. Confidential
Toy Story
Jaws
Young Frankenstein
Double Indemnity
A Hard Day's Night

and hundreds and hundreds of others.

But a film that I watch and then think "I never want to see that again" is not, in my opinion, a great film. It might be a very good film technically speaking, with great direction, or great acting, or great cinematography, but it's not a great film. Which is why when it comes to opinions about films, I'm often in a small minority, or as the old classic Riley Puckett country song says "I'm ragged but right".

 

[george kaplan]

I haven't seen either of those. My idea of great films are films like:

The Apartment
Rear Window
The Godfather
Citizen Kane
Casablanca
Star Wars
Dr. Strangelove
Raiders of the Lost Ark
2001
North by Northwest
Some Like It Hot
Stalag 17
Chinatown
The Godfather Part 2
The Bridge on the River Kwai
Vertigo
The Gold Rush
L.A. Confidential
Toy Story
Jaws
Young Frankenstein
Double Indemnity
A Hard Day's Night

and hundreds and hundreds of others.

But a film that I watch and then think "I never want to see that again" is not, in my opinion, a great film. It might be a very good film technically speaking, with great direction, or great acting, or great cinematography, but it's not a great film. Which is why when it comes to opinions about films, I'm often in a small minority, or as the old classic Riley Puckett country song says "I'm ragged but right".

 

[Rob Tomlin]

So, you are saying that a film can have GREAT directing (like LoA for example) GREAT editing (like LoA) GREAT acting (like LoA) GREAT cinematography (like LoA) a GREAT score (like LoA) but it wouldn't be considered GREAT because YOU never want to see it again.

Don't you think you are placing too much weight on your own subjective views here regarding a films greatness? Personally, I don't care that much for Citizen Kane, for the simple fact that the story itself doesn't resonate with me. I think you have the same problem with Lawrence of Arabia. Yet, I very clearly consider Citizen Kane to be a GREAT film, for the very reasons mentioned above: it has GREAT cinematography, GREAT acting, GREAT direction etc. It IS a GREAT film, and I recognize it as so, despite being less than blown away by the story.

Your position here also seems to somewhat contradict the poll that you did last year in the Polls section entitled "Great Movies: A consensus" (or something similar). I couldn't find the actual thread, but I did find the "results" page here: Consensus: Great Movies Results

It seems to me that you were interested in other peoples opinions regarding what constituted a great film, and, in fact, you were looking for a "consensus". But here, you seem to be saying that others opinions are completely irrelevant, it is up to the individual's personal opinion, and only their opinion, that determines, for them, whether a movie is great.

You spent a great deal of time on that poll, compiling data and several index's regarding the poll. What's changed?

 

[Rob Tomlin]

So, you are saying that a film can have GREAT directing (like LoA for example) GREAT editing (like LoA) GREAT acting (like LoA) GREAT cinematography (like LoA) a GREAT score (like LoA) but it wouldn't be considered GREAT because YOU never want to see it again.

Don't you think you are placing too much weight on your own subjective views here regarding a films greatness? Personally, I don't care that much for Citizen Kane, for the simple fact that the story itself doesn't resonate with me. I think you have the same problem with Lawrence of Arabia. Yet, I very clearly consider Citizen Kane to be a GREAT film, for the very reasons mentioned above: it has GREAT cinematography, GREAT acting, GREAT direction etc. It IS a GREAT film, and I recognize it as so, despite being less than blown away by the story.

Your position here also seems to somewhat contradict the poll that you did last year in the Polls section entitled "Great Movies: A consensus" (or something similar). I couldn't find the actual thread, but I did find the "results" page here: Consensus: Great Movies Results

It seems to me that you were interested in other peoples opinions regarding what constituted a great film, and, in fact, you were looking for a "consensus". But here, you seem to be saying that others opinions are completely irrelevant, it is up to the individual's personal opinion, and only their opinion, that determines, for them, whether a movie is great.

You spent a great deal of time on that poll, compiling data and several index's regarding the poll. What's changed?

 

[george kaplan]

If I were to do a poll of people's favorite colors to see if there was a concensus, and it turned out most people like blue, it still wouldn't mean that blue was any given person's favorite color.

When it comes to subjective vs. objective, you can't have it both ways. If I were to say that despite great cinematography, etc., that Lawrence of Arabia is not a great film because it's poorly paced and boring as hell, you'd say that's just my opinion, and you'd be right.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that you'd agree that a film that you found to be poorly paced and boring as hell wasn't a great film.

Hence, we're down to subjectivity of greatness. I don't see any way to objectify this in a reasonable manner, short of the concensus or voting approach, and while I'm think that's OK for 'classic' status, I'm not going to admit that a film I think is great isn't cause others don't share my opinion, nor admit that one I don't think is, is.

 

[george kaplan]

If I were to do a poll of people's favorite colors to see if there was a concensus, and it turned out most people like blue, it still wouldn't mean that blue was any given person's favorite color.

When it comes to subjective vs. objective, you can't have it both ways. If I were to say that despite great cinematography, etc., that Lawrence of Arabia is not a great film because it's poorly paced and boring as hell, you'd say that's just my opinion, and you'd be right.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that you'd agree that a film that you found to be poorly paced and boring as hell wasn't a great film.

Hence, we're down to subjectivity of greatness. I don't see any way to objectify this in a reasonable manner, short of the concensus or voting approach, and while I'm think that's OK for 'classic' status, I'm not going to admit that a film I think is great isn't cause others don't share my opinion, nor admit that one I don't think is, is.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Well, I guess you are saying that in analyzing each factor, such as cinematography, editing, directing, score, etc., we are applying subjective measurements, correct? Even so, if a film does all these things "great", but doesn't do one great (screenplay) can't we still be objective by understanding that since the movie was great in 5 out of 6 categories it should be considered great?

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Well, I guess you are saying that in analyzing each factor, such as cinematography, editing, directing, score, etc., we are applying subjective measurements, correct? Even so, if a film does all these things "great", but doesn't do one great (screenplay) can't we still be objective by understanding that since the movie was great in 5 out of 6 categories it should be considered great?

 

[george kaplan]

Look Rob, I don't think we're going to come to common ground here on film aesthetics.

I believe in an overall, holistic evaluation of a film when evaluating greatness. This gestalt can be greater than the sum of it's parts, or lesser. Basically, how does the overall film work? Do I want to ever see it again? If the answer to that simple question is no, then I don't view the film as great.

Now, you certainly could take a separable approach to this. We'd first have to identify all of the important factors. Then we'd have to decide how to weight the different factors, and whether to use a compensatory or non-compensatory model (i.e., does greatness on one factor compensate for lack of greatness on another, or do you need to be great on all of them, or some number of them).

I suppose we could come to agreement on which factors to include. But we'd never come to any agreement on how to use them, and even worse, even if we came up with a mathematical model we agreed upon, we wouldn't share the same evaluation of the various criteria. So in the end, it would still be subjective.

But more importantly, for me anyways, if I were forced to use such a non-holistic model, then I'd still stick in 'rewatchability' as a factor, weight it pretty highly, and make it non-compensatory, so that no amount of great lighting or dialogue would make up for non-rewatchability, so we'd be right back where we started.

 

[george kaplan]

Look Rob, I don't think we're going to come to common ground here on film aesthetics.

I believe in an overall, holistic evaluation of a film when evaluating greatness. This gestalt can be greater than the sum of it's parts, or lesser. Basically, how does the overall film work? Do I want to ever see it again? If the answer to that simple question is no, then I don't view the film as great.

Now, you certainly could take a separable approach to this. We'd first have to identify all of the important factors. Then we'd have to decide how to weight the different factors, and whether to use a compensatory or non-compensatory model (i.e., does greatness on one factor compensate for lack of greatness on another, or do you need to be great on all of them, or some number of them).

I suppose we could come to agreement on which factors to include. But we'd never come to any agreement on how to use them, and even worse, even if we came up with a mathematical model we agreed upon, we wouldn't share the same evaluation of the various criteria. So in the end, it would still be subjective.

But more importantly, for me anyways, if I were forced to use such a non-holistic model, then I'd still stick in 'rewatchability' as a factor, weight it pretty highly, and make it non-compensatory, so that no amount of great lighting or dialogue would make up for non-rewatchability, so we'd be right back where we started.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I guess I'll jump in here since these talks are usually pretty fun. Sorry if I'm all over the place but I'm jumping into this fairly late.


I think this is a perfect example when it comes time for us to stamp the word "classic" on films. Of course PLAN 9 is in no way one of the greatest films ever made but it's not meant to be. I would personally put the word "classic" on this film because in its genre it certainly ranks among the most loved and most seen films. KANE gets a "classic" rating because of how well it was made and on the other level you have something like PLAN 9, REEFER MADNESS and MANIAC (1934), which are remembered for how bad they are.

KANE is a classic when people talk of the all time greatest "made" films. The other titles come up as the greatest when people discuss the worst films ever made but the word worst really doesn't apply to these films because if they were really that bad then no one would be watching them or talking about them. If RIO BRAVO is a "classic Western" but not a "classic Film" then I think PLAN 9 could be called a classic "Bad Film". I think the key thing to a classic is it to be remembered at least 20 years after being made. PLAN 9 and REEFER MADNESS are certainly remembered while hundreds of others movies from their release year are all but forgotten.

When these talks usually come up the horror genre is usually forgotten except for the work by James Whale, which included FRANKENSTEIN, INVISIBLE MAN and BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN yet I still find the "others" like FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN, DRACULA'S DAUGHTER and PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1943) to be classics. While the second group falls into "classic Horror", the first three do rank among the greatest films ever made. I guess something like HALLOWEEN would be considered a classic today yet you can't deny that something poorly made like FRIDAY THE 13th had a huge impact on the horror genre during the 1980's through today and (bad or not) it ranks amongst the "great Slashers". You could break this genre down even further like great Gothic, great Hammer, great Italian Horror and so on.

Either way, I think "classic" can fit many films so perhaps a stronger word should be used when we are discussing the greatest films ever made.

I also think no films is an instant classic and a film really needs time to become a classic. This somewhat ties in with all the Academy Awards stuff, which is usually another hot topic. We can sit here today and look back and wonder why CITIZEN KANE didn't win Best Picture but I think it's pretty easy to see why. I think it's easy to see why IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE was a critical bomb when it was released. When the Academy is talked about in recent years they usually go to 1994 when FORREST GUMP won over PULP FICTION and SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. Today I think most see PF and SR as being better films but in 1994 there's no doubt FG was the king of the year. In the ten years since the praise for FG has died down some while PF and SR have goten stronger. DANCES WITH WOLVES had died down while GOODFELLAS has gotten stronger. ORDINARY PEOPLE has died down while RAGING BULL has become king. We could go back through history doing this and I'm sure each year we'd look at it differently then back in the original day. How many people remember what won Best Picture in 1931? How many people remember a film called FRANKENSTEIN from that year? One film was a classic of its day while the other kept that "classic" tag for the next 70+ years.

As for "Public" vs "Film Buff"....

I might get flamed here but I think it's the film buff who feeds knowledge to the public. I don't think many casual fans know who D.W. Griffith are and I doubt they care who he is. The likes of Bogart, Cagney, Tracy, Stewart and Grant are all but forgotten pretty much. I'm 24 years old and from the people my age (and a bit older), they simply don't care about older films. They don't care if CITIZEN KANE changed how films were made. They don't care if Karloff played the monster before whatever they used in VAN HELSING. Some people won't watch a B&W movie so they're certainly not going to watch a silent film. Some my age won't watch anything that's over 20 years old.

If these people were given the keys to create these lists then there's no telling what films would make the cut. You certainly wouldn't see the like of BIRTH OF A NATION, MODERN TIMES or 2001. So why aren't these films totally forgotten? Because IMO it's the film buff who keeps speaking out about these films and that's why they are still in the public light. Although 90% of today's crowd don't care for these films that 10% will read what the film buffs have to say and they will see these films for themselves. In return, twenty years from now those films buffs will be teaching a new generation about classic films.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I guess I'll jump in here since these talks are usually pretty fun. Sorry if I'm all over the place but I'm jumping into this fairly late.


I think this is a perfect example when it comes time for us to stamp the word "classic" on films. Of course PLAN 9 is in no way one of the greatest films ever made but it's not meant to be. I would personally put the word "classic" on this film because in its genre it certainly ranks among the most loved and most seen films. KANE gets a "classic" rating because of how well it was made and on the other level you have something like PLAN 9, REEFER MADNESS and MANIAC (1934), which are remembered for how bad they are.

KANE is a classic when people talk of the all time greatest "made" films. The other titles come up as the greatest when people discuss the worst films ever made but the word worst really doesn't apply to these films because if they were really that bad then no one would be watching them or talking about them. If RIO BRAVO is a "classic Western" but not a "classic Film" then I think PLAN 9 could be called a classic "Bad Film". I think the key thing to a classic is it to be remembered at least 20 years after being made. PLAN 9 and REEFER MADNESS are certainly remembered while hundreds of others movies from their release year are all but forgotten.

When these talks usually come up the horror genre is usually forgotten except for the work by James Whale, which included FRANKENSTEIN, INVISIBLE MAN and BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN yet I still find the "others" like FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN, DRACULA'S DAUGHTER and PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1943) to be classics. While the second group falls into "classic Horror", the first three do rank among the greatest films ever made. I guess something like HALLOWEEN would be considered a classic today yet you can't deny that something poorly made like FRIDAY THE 13th had a huge impact on the horror genre during the 1980's through today and (bad or not) it ranks amongst the "great Slashers". You could break this genre down even further like great Gothic, great Hammer, great Italian Horror and so on.

Either way, I think "classic" can fit many films so perhaps a stronger word should be used when we are discussing the greatest films ever made.

I also think no films is an instant classic and a film really needs time to become a classic. This somewhat ties in with all the Academy Awards stuff, which is usually another hot topic. We can sit here today and look back and wonder why CITIZEN KANE didn't win Best Picture but I think it's pretty easy to see why. I think it's easy to see why IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE was a critical bomb when it was released. When the Academy is talked about in recent years they usually go to 1994 when FORREST GUMP won over PULP FICTION and SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. Today I think most see PF and SR as being better films but in 1994 there's no doubt FG was the king of the year. In the ten years since the praise for FG has died down some while PF and SR have goten stronger. DANCES WITH WOLVES had died down while GOODFELLAS has gotten stronger. ORDINARY PEOPLE has died down while RAGING BULL has become king. We could go back through history doing this and I'm sure each year we'd look at it differently then back in the original day. How many people remember what won Best Picture in 1931? How many people remember a film called FRANKENSTEIN from that year? One film was a classic of its day while the other kept that "classic" tag for the next 70+ years.

As for "Public" vs "Film Buff"....

I might get flamed here but I think it's the film buff who feeds knowledge to the public. I don't think many casual fans know who D.W. Griffith are and I doubt they care who he is. The likes of Bogart, Cagney, Tracy, Stewart and Grant are all but forgotten pretty much. I'm 24 years old and from the people my age (and a bit older), they simply don't care about older films. They don't care if CITIZEN KANE changed how films were made. They don't care if Karloff played the monster before whatever they used in VAN HELSING. Some people won't watch a B&W movie so they're certainly not going to watch a silent film. Some my age won't watch anything that's over 20 years old.

If these people were given the keys to create these lists then there's no telling what films would make the cut. You certainly wouldn't see the like of BIRTH OF A NATION, MODERN TIMES or 2001. So why aren't these films totally forgotten? Because IMO it's the film buff who keeps speaking out about these films and that's why they are still in the public light. Although 90% of today's crowd don't care for these films that 10% will read what the film buffs have to say and they will see these films for themselves. In return, twenty years from now those films buffs will be teaching a new generation about classic films.

 

[Bryan Ri]

A classic is a film that is held in high esteem, above other popular and critically acclaimed films.

It's sillly but for me, if I'm flipping through channels and see a movie that's on that I already own, and I stop what I'm doing to watch it, it's a classic to me.

If a film can recieve critical praise, achieve a high sense of popularity, and have at least some cultural impact, then it is a classic.

 

[Bryan Ri]

A classic is a film that is held in high esteem, above other popular and critically acclaimed films.

It's sillly but for me, if I'm flipping through channels and see a movie that's on that I already own, and I stop what I'm doing to watch it, it's a classic to me.

If a film can recieve critical praise, achieve a high sense of popularity, and have at least some cultural impact, then it is a classic.

 

[Robert Ringwald]

In my experience of what makes movies classics... they tend to be movies that did something no other movie had yet.

It's really easy to see when you think about it.

I also believe a classic isn't necessarily a "good" movie. For example, a movie like The Breakfast Club has clearly made a name for itself in the population of film... and while it's a good movie, an no doubt deserving of 'classic' status... it's still just a really good teen film.... nowhere near 4 star quality...

So I think a classic is more of a movie that does something interesting and fresh... something that hadn't been done before.

 

[Robert Ringwald]

In my experience of what makes movies classics... they tend to be movies that did something no other movie had yet.

It's really easy to see when you think about it.

I also believe a classic isn't necessarily a "good" movie. For example, a movie like The Breakfast Club has clearly made a name for itself in the population of film... and while it's a good movie, an no doubt deserving of 'classic' status... it's still just a really good teen film.... nowhere near 4 star quality...

So I think a classic is more of a movie that does something interesting and fresh... something that hadn't been done before.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Again, I agree with this for the most part. However, even though we might use subjective factors in analyzing elements such as cinematography, editing, etc., I think a degree of objectivity could be used as well, as long as specific factors are included for what makes each element of a film (such as cinematography) great.

Even though we might not come to an agreement on all this, I do find the discussion interesting.

I'm still not quite sure why you can allow the "experts" to determine what a "classic" is, but not determine what a "Great" movie is. But we don't need to rehash that again, as you have explained your position well.

Michael-

Nice post! I particularly agree with your last paragraph.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Again, I agree with this for the most part. However, even though we might use subjective factors in analyzing elements such as cinematography, editing, etc., I think a degree of objectivity could be used as well, as long as specific factors are included for what makes each element of a film (such as cinematography) great.

Even though we might not come to an agreement on all this, I do find the discussion interesting.

I'm still not quite sure why you can allow the "experts" to determine what a "classic" is, but not determine what a "Great" movie is. But we don't need to rehash that again, as you have explained your position well.

Michael-

Nice post! I particularly agree with your last paragraph.