'The type of movies that become classics'

Nevertheless the suggestion was that there is a type of film we could have a better idea of saying would 'become' a classic and from this we can probably discount so called instant classics.

(Of interest can you name some instant classics which are no longer considered such? And more interestingly why?)

Classic - classic or dud?

Is it? Something about what I heard about it put me off it, and now I'm even less intrigued!

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about re Literary fiction.

(i saw the trailer for GoNY for the first time last night, right b4 i saw two towers for the second time, and basically GoNY looked as if it's going to be lame in direct comparison — epic of choreographed violence with mythic dimensions — which by all the orthodoxies of cinematic whatever surely ought not to be the case... but Kneejerk Critical Expectation puts Scorsese in the worst possible starting position, even ignoring the DiCaprio problem)

And yes Tom, I guess really meta is the wrong word from a strict semantic PoV, but isn't post wrong with regards to post-rock by the same notion? I don't think we're suggesting meta-rock (or lit or film) as being like some kind of Platonic essence of rock (or lit or film) but rather a particular kind of artistic ambition driving such projects.

Its the ineffability of capturing something you did right before, when it was just in the mix.

By the way, I agree. Meta-film is a bad word for this, meta has a defined meaning in this kind of context. The problem with Great American Album as opposed to the Great American Novel is the latter form came out as an opposition to the already extant (so called) Great English Novels. Since popular music (and for that matter) are much more American forms, this undermines the meaning of the phrase apart from in analogy. Which, to be fair, is the sense we are using it in this thread.

I kind of like (and "get") the use of the word meta in the above context. I never really understood the way it is used on ILX actually.

I always think Oscar winners though are pretty much resigned to the "not being classics" dumper. (Ha ha Marty).

This brings up the problem with the idea of "perfect art" anyway. If its all there, if it leaves the spectator little to do, if it is too well done then what is there left to pick over. The art is in the thoughts and the discussions afterwards.

(The commentary is often negative too, detectable in what gets left out - writers trying for the Great American Novel don't generally put spaceships and aliens in; attempts on the Great [whatever] Album tend to eschew drum machines, and so on)

Things are worse in books, I think, in regard to prejudices against certain types of work - it is far harder for an SF novel to get accepted into the higher reaches of literary greatness than for an SF film. Maybe newer, younger media are inevitably more in tune with newer modes of thought regarding genre? Whatever, there is still a widespread assumption (probably not here, but for most people) that anything published with the look of literary fiction is automatically of higher artistic value than anything with a spaceship or smoking gun on the cover. Comedy is particularly slighted in this kind of thinking. You don't have to read a lot of these various streams to spot that this is misguided.

Incidentally, I do think we're in a bit of a mess in regard to the canon for recent cinema. Not just because of the S&S poll being so backward-looking, though that highlighted the problem (and I know they're doing a last-25-years follow-up poll). We seem to be awaiting some sort of coalescing into a new canon, maybe some kind of new paradigm. I'm hoping for some real sparks.

i told them a. they hadn't seen it in the cinema and b. give me the dvd then, so it needn't poollute yr front room any more

This maybe isn't the point of the thread, but are the Oscars in any way connected to the idea of 'classics' or posterity? I mean, in the last 15-20 years.

I don't really follow the competition, but it seems to me that they're essentially US cinema awards which miss what US cinema does best. That is, either terrific innovative action stuff (Die Hard series, the Matrix), or, like a lot of other countries, terrific indie-ish stuff (Harmony Korine etc).

Instead the most important awards go to the in-between junk like American Beauty and Erin Brockovich.

I'm assuming here. If big awards didn't go to the likes of AB and EB, I take this shit back.

But still, do the Oscars count? It's like, is the best film ever 'Citizen Kane' or is it 'Star Wars'? Obviously, it's neither. But they're both films that have to be dealt with, and neither would win an Oscar (CK would if it was remade, I admit, but I'd say it wouldn't if it were released NOW as it is).

I think you are probably right about City Of God being aimed to be bigger budget bigger scope (and it is based on a bestselling Brazillian novel as well which also ties it in that way). And of course me telling people to go and see it will instantly raise the suspicions of people who generally disagree with my taste in films. Wheras I don't think anyone else will probably see "Take Care Of My Cat" - and I don't want to big it up because I think its a film that just touched me in a certain mood. How do I tell?

i know what you mean about not wanting to go on about something because it just touched you in a certain mood,and i suppose at the end of the day most films/books/albums that people will love,that will really mean something to them,are down to that,so i suppose what "great" works of art do is touch a nerve with most people,which i suppose is why they have to deal with the "big themes"

i suppose its just a question of how well its done,and maybe noone is doing it well at the moment,or,as i think is more likely,maybe the media requires it to look like someone is doing it to validate art/promote sales,so they look for someone who deals with universal issues,heap praise on it,and because we soon realise that these "great" things seldom live up to the hype,were all cynical about them,and this is what i mean,that the problem is not with the idea of the great american novel,its just that its become a boy who cried wolf situation...

But are people still reading The Bonfire Of The Vanities now?

A weird point about the genre prejudice thing is music, where as far as a lot of mags and critics are concerned, the mainstream seems to equal white men with guitars. Other genres are treated tokenistically, as if each offers one person you have to acknowledge, and you can ignore the rest - Lee Perry is the reggae producer, Billie Holiday is the jazz singer, Otis Redding the soul singer. With black forms, it helps to wait twenty years or so...

i was more referring to ambitious projects which *could* become classics (as all classics were once) because of their scope

for example the roots album is (by all accounts-i wish i was more familiar with the specific examples being discussed here)hardly an attempt to merely copy classic hip hop like jurrassic five do (oh i now see where some confusion could have arisen-jurrassic five are trying to make a "classic"hip hop album,as in one that ties in with what is considered classic hiphop,but they aren't trying to make a classic in the sense that it will be regarded as a hip hop milestone)
it is an attempt,from what i've read,including an interview with the band itself,to create an album that goes beyond normal hiphop,ie an important,future classic album
is it just me or are people cynical about people like the flaming lips,roots,etc in their efforts to redefine their chosen medium,whereas mike skinner can actually write a song called "lets push things foreward" and get away with it?
because the roots are an established group,(or scorsese an established director)should they not try to do something that raises the bar?

I am all in favour of great ambition, and I don't see it as any more problematical these days than most enterprises are in a PoMo world.

I think second guessing your audience is potentially problematic, especially if you are trying to create a classic. (Especailly if you are going to write it in an attic).

Loads of classic-y stuff dates very quickly, and pulp stuff like 'Out of the Past' is still golden -- on the other hand stuff that has gone out of fashion sometimes comes back.

There aren't too many rules.

Basically, when I'm in charge the first act of state will be to transfer every film in the history of the world on to DVD. Then we can decide what's classic. Till then we don't have a chance.

(Also missing out the films which simply do not exist any more...)

By definition, any sense of the word that rejects those two films is useless.

Well sure, yeah, you're right. But it would be nice to have more than exists, like Renoir's 'Nana', or Murnau's 'The Last Laugh' or, or, or, and not have to travel on the Red Bus to see stuff late at nite.

I am interested to see how much the Matrix's classic rep is going to be damamged by the sequels. I am already gratified to see that Star Wars currency is finally going down due to the prequels (and the Star Wars babies finally getting over twenty one and being needlessly vocal about a kids movie).

Can we perhaps invent the idea of an influential film (a film which brooks imitation, or from an economic point of view is seen as worthy of imitation)? Certainly COG and Matress would fit into this defn.

'Westworld'
'On the Town'
'Pepe Le Moko'
'Fast Times at Ridgemont High'

Also I suspect some of this discussion is the shadow of the "genre fiction" discussion.

A documentary on The Usual Suspects pointed out that the actual film came in a distant second to its poster in terms of influence.

I picked Together because it is the other end of the spectrum - lots of critical love, not really much popular mindshare. Though look what happened to the moderately similar You Can Count on Me: film becomes underground sensation, stars get put in shit films, director gets bugger all.

(Tangenting all over the place - I'd consider YCCOM, Together and Take Care Of My Cat to be similar but they aren't really. In a perfect world they'd be obviously miles apart with tons of ickle films filling up the spaces between (and beyond))

City Of God has already casued a lot more money to flood into the Brazillian Film industry. (Not a knock off, but a film marketed ina very similar way to appeal to the CoG audience would be Man Of The Year).

Matrix was much more influential than just those two films (though they are obvious low budget knock-offs), there was ceratinly a knock on to the Blade movies, definitely the way the X-Men films developed, the whole attitude in action films towards CGI and wire-fu fights.

That perfect world exists Andrew but a lot of the films inbetween don't get seen / aren't any good. I was thinking that when I saw Okay last week, its a great performance in search of a much better script.

You have to see it anyway, as much as you do 'A Bout de Souffle' or 'Blue Velvet' -- it's a classic of its time, if not a Classic. It's as good a film as 'City of Sadness', in my opinion better.

Uh oh, classic vs Classic. I thought that was the kind of distinction this threead was all about kicking into touch.

I meant to say that in a perfect world the intervening films would be seen. Making them better is a bit trickier.

Would Crouching Tiger have been made without The Matrix, or was that sufficiently a labour of love?

Tangent again: Did the Matrix break kung-fu (again) in popular America? If so was this a big thing, or just something that was obviously going to find a channel anyway, like dancehall? A generation of film critics that grew up on Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan coming into their majority? Or am I blathering away in my usual underinformed manner?

xpost - that was back when this thread was classic. Now it's been elevated to Classic, and pared down to a brand new back to basics meaning.

So, nine years on, what do we think about this? Are people still making 'the kind of films that become classics'?

the kind of films that become comics

the only movie i've seen recently that made me think "classic" is Spring Breakers.

Movies that become classics have little to do with their subject matter or tone or 'size' and everything to do with excellent execution of the material and making a strong connection with large numbers of its viewers, so they feel like they'd like to see it again and have the exact same experience more than once.

also helps if they've got big cartoon robots punching big cartoon monsters in the face

xp to aimless, i think that's half-true. truly great films transcend genre definitions because above all they succeed in being unmistakably, very much themselves. there is another kind of classic though, which is seen as a window onto a specific cultural moment, and is appreciated mostly in terms of how well it speaks to a zeitgeist that has now passed. the graduate is this kind of movie. apocalypse now. the matrix will probably be remembered in this way, as a symptom of anxieties about the digital age at the turn of the century. the reason i think spring breakers is a classic, or will be a classic, is that in addition to being great it feels very timely -- like someday people will say that it is emblematic of something.

basically, i think that movies that can fit into people's facile narratives about cultural trends tend to make their way into the canon.

Yes they do. Uncle Boonmee, Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, Mysteries of Lisbon, Closed Curtains. Tons of classics this decade.

La Vie d'Adèle's timing alone makes it a classic.

Inception, prometheus, the dark knight overthinks it

Leviathan, Turin Horse, Holy Motors, My Joy, Harmony Lessons, Melancholia, Post Tenebras Lux. This has been a really good decade so far.

Melancholia totally. And Antichrist too.

It was on the last S&S poll, a year after release. Along with Tree of Life and Turin Horse.

Frederik B, a good portions of those films you are listing are closer to the concept of 'masterpiece' than 'classic'. I agree for Leviathan, Melancholia, Holy Motors and Turin Horse but not for a film like Anatolia, which is one my favorite films these past years don't get me wrong.

I am interested to see how much the Matrix's classic rep is going to be damamged by the sequels.

Hee hee

basically, i think that movies that can fit into people's facile narratives about cultural trends tend to make their way into the canon.

What's disorienting though is that one generation's facile narrative about their cultural trends can be completely upended by the next generation's facile etc.

oh yeah, absolutely. that's why i think spring breakers is interesting... there was a whole new inquiry pdf issue about it, and it definitely seems like the kind of thing writers feel compelled to write about, but the discourse about this movie has nevertheless been eclectic and mixed, and critics haven't really settled on their pet reductionist explanation for what it is supposed to *mean* yet. idk. "the graduate" is interesting in this way because it is a very different movie today than in 1967 owing to the fact that the "youth" movement it apparently was seen to champion no longer exists, and that generation today is seen to have a conflicted, rather than purely emancipatory legacy.

i think a serious man is a classic

Superbad is a total classic.