This was inspired by the Overrated Crap Cinema thread, and it concerns classic cinema (and could flow over into literature as well).

When we regard the classics, are our opinions colored by the notion that they're "classics" while we watch them? For example, I was watching Seven Samurai again yesterday, and I was pondering why I highly regard it. Is it because it's already highly regarded? Or is it because I genuinely enjoy it and can recognize why it's a classic? Or do I simply like it because I like it, regardless of any "classic" labelling?

I think understanding when a film came out, it's cultural context and timing, can shed a lot of light on why the film is regarded as a classic, as well as filming or story techniques that were innovative or unique at the time. Films like Citizen Kane or Rashomon work well with this knowledge. But a film like Casablanca doesn't emply that much innovative trickery or technique, it's just plain GOOD, and it holds up incredibly well today.

Any thought on the classics and what makes them so?



PS: I've never been to film school so I've probably missed out on any "why they're classics" discussions some of you folks may have had. But I love film, so talking about it is one of my favorite things to do.

This is an interesting question. As a film student, I was force-fed movies that I was told were classics, produced decades before I was born (in some instances). For example, I was told how brilliant Nosferatu was as a motion picture, as well as how groundbreaking it was, which makes it a classic. However, when I watch the movie, it doesn't really do much for me if I'm only looking at is a spectator (as opposed to a film student). Breathless is another movie like that.

So there's really no easy answer here, but in fact more questions. What makes a 'classic'? How old do you have to be when viewing a movie to "get" it? What do you know about the history of the medium? There's just too many variables for there to be one simplified answer to it all.

For the record, I'll go into the viewing of a classic movie with no expectations (like I do most movies), and that works fairly well for me. I can honestly say I love Citizen Kane because it's a great, tragic story, and not because of all the innovations Welles used. Ultimately I think it comes down to if you are WATCHING a movie or STUDYING it. In my opinion the movies that are indeed classics will produce the same overall feeling of the movie on both counts.

I was forced to watch "Salt of the Earth" in a film class and told it was a classic. Yeah, I didn't get it. So they had a limited amount of money and they made a movie with a significant message, great. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

this is exactly how i watch these movies as well... all of the classics i enjoy, i love out of pure enjoyment of the film. Other well renowned films i didn't enjoy so much, like La Strada, so I don't fellate them like a lot of scholarly types do.

Frank nailed it right in the head with his point about watching vs. studying. It all comes down to what you're looking for in a film. I was lucky enough to have been exposed at a pretty early age to "classics". I was about 14 or 15 at the time and my main interests were Dragon Ball Z and porn. Now I like Andrei Tarkovsky and porn.

But I watched those movies with absolutely no knowledge of what exactly "made" them great, or even the fact that they were "highly regarded". Movies like "The Mirror" and "Solaris", or later on Czech new wave film. Shit, I watched "Loves of a Blonde" long before I even knew about "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". I was just hypnotized by the stories and the visuals, and it pretty much told me that that's what I wanted to do with the rest of my life, make movies. I had no idea they were "great". I just loved them.

There are also other "great" movies like "Tokyo Monogatari", a big chunk of D.W. Griffith's stuff, or a lot of the later (critically applauded) Luis Buñuel flicks like "Viridiana" that I just can't get into. That's where the studying comes in. I realize their importance, and I realize why they were groundbreaking, but I just can't enjoy them very much. In fact, some of them I downright loathe. I don't know if any of you are familiar with Argentine film (doubt it though), but Leonardo Favio is one of the most respected and well-known filmmakers in the country's history and I can't stand his movies.

So yeah. When I talk about "classics", I mean those old mostly European films that were hugely influential-- however, in a more subjective plane, a "classic" is defined by its audience. I will call "The Big Lebowski" a classic. I don't think my film history teacher would agree.

Is classic synonymous with influential? Tastes change over time. We've seen it with music. Most individuals in OB are not huge fans of Cole Porter and George Gershwin. At one time "Battleship Potempkin" and "The Jazz Singer" were considered hugely entertaining. Less so today, but they remain influential.

Is "Pulp Fiction" now a classic because it has been so influential?

*starts to raise hand*
*hesitates in fear of being called a pretentious wannabe like in the other thread*
*puts hand back in pocket, cranks "Evenflow" and punches girlfriend in the stomach*



My distaste for Pulp Fiction aside, I would call it a classic, sure.

If you've read any of my posts, you must know that I would never call anyone else pretentious. Actually, I like to think of myself as more pompous than pretentious. So get your girlfriend some roses, put on BETTER MAN and describe your thoughts to me. I won't be offended if you consider my question unbearably simple-minded and lacking in the rudest cinema Kultur.

Nah, I was kidding

But yeah, I dunno. What are some agreed-on "classics"? Can "Citizen Kane" be mentioned in the same breath as "Home Alone"? I think what qualifies a film as a "classic" lies between two things: critical reaction and overall impact and influence. Both "The Jazz Singer" and "Battleship Potemkin", as well as films like "The Big Lebowski" and, yeah, "Pulp Fiction" can be regarded as classics.

What I call classics, and this is a purely personal thing, is what sits in the "classics" section at the video store: pre-1970's flicks (American or otherwise). That's just to distinguish them from modern movies.

I think that in retrospect it is possible to define films as classics that have been influential. Echoes of those films persist over time in new films. However, critical reaction is an uncertain quantity. It changes as the eras change, and it is influenced by changes in filmaking that occur as seminal films are integrated into the principles of filmcraft.

Explain to me in what way "Home Alone" is a classic film. I am not doubting that it is, I am wondering what it's lasting impact is. Is a film like "Goodfellas" a classic in the way that, say, "The Godfather" is a classic? It is clear that "The Godfather" has had an impact in cinema and in popular culture in general. Has "Goodfellas?" An example of a film that I have found very enjoyable, was well-reviewed, but I am not sure would be considered a classic is the 1931 film "A Free Soul" starring Norma Shearer and Clark Gable. It was popular and critically acclaimed in its time, garnered many award nominations, but is virtually forgotten today. Is this film a classic?

I've long thought there's really two ways of approaching this.

The first is from the reception-studies bent: The sum of a reaction to art is defined by the experiences and knowledge the person observing the art brings to it. That is, if you watch something and think it sucks, then ostensibly, it sucks. No art truly has inherent meaning, it only has carefully plotted suggestions.

That said, some observers of art come equipped with, for lack of a better word, a higher "vocabulary" of the art in question. I don't particularly like the film Citizen Kane (to take the world's most obvious example), but my "vocabulary" in cinema is, I suppose, developed well enough to where I can appreciate the flick's technical aspects and actually enjoy watching it, knowing that Welles "cheated" to get the snowglobe shots, knowing that he stuck the camera in holes in the floor, et cetera. That's interesting to me, and I like it, but it doesn't change the fact I feel like the movie's more or less window dressing.

some classics effects get lost with time, cause we've all seen tim burton, nosferatu doesn't have an effect. but tim burton prolly wouldn't be the same if we didn't have german expressionism. its good to know where this stuff comes from especially if you work in film. most of the great film makers of today spielbergs, scorsceses, wes and pt anderson, ect.. all have a great knowlege of the films that preceded them. it helps to know what's been done so you can build on top of that effort instead of reinventing the wheel that 12 year olds don't know about cause they weren't around. that being said, ultimately great movies are great movies. that's why citizen kane, its a wonderful life, m, man with a movie camera and many other classics are still a good watch today. but most movies don't and won't last.

for those who aren't big on the story of citizen kane, i think its a great story well told, the camera trickery is a plus, but i think the story holds (with the exception of the fact that today the singer who sings the boring opera doesn't sound as awful as they make it out to be, but other than that i love it)

Hmmm....perhaps. I would say that for a large percentage of even relatively young movie-watchers, most films from the 30' and 40s are still quite entertaining, even if they aren't classics. And quite a few silent films are very entertaining, particularly for those who like foreign films and are used to reading subtitles. Most of these aren't classics. And they certainly aren't influential. I think that there are probably a lot of people who would find a film like 1945's "Christmas in Connecticut" more entertaining than "Citizen Kane" or 1924's "He Who Gets Slapped" much more fun than "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari."

Dr. Strangelove and Judgment at Nuremberg come freshly to mind. Also, Yojimbo and Ran.

Olivier's Hamlet was fantastic and timeless, too.

i think your example is confusing entertaining with storytelling, needless to say those films may be more fun, but they don't have the staying power, because their stories are entertaining, but probably less memorable

i think your example is confusing entertaining with storytelling, needless to say those films may be more fun, but they don't have the staying power, because their stories are entertaining, but probably less memorable[/quote]
I am not certain what I understand your comment. In what way am I confusing entertaining with storytelling? I'm also not sure that I quite understand the term "staying power" as used in this context. Does it apply to dissection for basic film principles, or does it mean continuing watchability? I will say that although "Christmas in Connecticut" is not in any way innovative, dissection of this film will uncover many of the principles pioneered by Ernst Lubitsch in films considered classics such as "Trouble in Paradise." This is one of the reasons that such films continue to be entertaining cinema. A director like Peter Godfrey was able to expertly execute basic principles, but did not have original ideas of his own.

Must storytelling be the focus of a film for it to be considered a classic? Are there stories to be gleaned from the great films of Walter Ruttmann, Dziga Vertov or Maya Deren?

I am not certain what I understand your comment. In what way am I confusing entertaining with storytelling? I'm also not sure that I quite understand the term "staying power" as used in this context. Does it apply to dissection for basic film principles, or does it mean continuing watchability? I will say that although "Christmas in Connecticut" is not in any way innovative, dissection of this film will uncover many of the principles pioneered by Ernst Lubitsch in films considered classics such as "Trouble in Paradise." This is one of the reasons that such films continue to be entertaining cinema. A director like Peter Godfrey was able to expertly execute basic principles, but did not have original ideas of his own.

Must storytelling be the focus of a film for it to be considered a classic? Are there stories to be gleaned from the great films of Walter Ruttmann, Dziga Vertov or Maya Deren?[/quote]

i think that's what i hear about most when we talk classics. you remember the characters stories and the people who brought them to life. at least what they say at oscar ceremonies. usually what sticks out to human beings as special seems to be a film that is unique well executed and memorable. i don't really even care about this debate anymore tho. its all semantic, and i don;t really care about what we label a classic or not

My AP English teacher during my senior year of high school had us watch a bunch of "classic" films. I found most of them to be boring. But maybe that's because I was a senior in high school.

What were some of the films?

Citizen Kane, On The Waterfront, Casablanca... Can't think of any of the others off the top of my head.