'The type of movies that become classics'

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (138 of them)
The idea SR was expressing which I largely agreed with (or the way I see it anyway, regardless of SR) isn't that ambition in and of itself is a bad thing in terms of an inspiration behind creating art (or entertainment for that matter), but rather a certain type of ambition to make a certain kind of movie/book/record, ie; an important one from the PoV of history, which seems (to me at least) to rather hamstring the ambition by making the 'art' too self-consciously serious and faux-grand to be really affecting to an audience prepared to engage with the 'art' on it's on terms rather than on the terms of hype/intention/history/etcetera. I mean, I'm sure people are keen to create something that is, say, 'fucking brilliant', and that's a fine and noble ambition, but 'fucking brilliant' (cf wonderful, beautiful, amazing, astonishing) is very different from 'great', 'classic' and so on, which is (maybe) what Scorsese (or whoever) had in mind. I think. Or Krystof Kieslowski or whoever. Like, Shakespeare wasn't writing plays with an eye on history and posterity, was he? He was just writing plays because he was a playwright. And I know Brian Wilson WAS trying to make a 'great' album with Pet Sounds but he was crackers and so (in the Deleuze & Guiaiaiaiataryian sense) managed to maybe escape the trap a little because he was (again in D&G terms) schizo maybe? Hmmm...

Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Friday, 10 January 2003 14:59 (twenty-one years ago) link

OR you know when you see a film (etcetera) and you conme out of it and someone asks what you thought of it (like wot Pete said above) and you HAVE to say "Well, I could tell it was great, BUT it didn't really do anythign for me..." - the idea that we can 'recognise' 'great' 'art' (argh, 'thingy' overload!) without actually liking it and I think that, if we don't like it and we're pretty sure that our quality-appreciating analogues are at least half-engaged and functional, then, really, it's not ACTUALLY 'great' 'art' AT ALL and so ALL is subjective and we might as well say "bollocks to it all then" and go home.

Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Friday, 10 January 2003 15:06 (twenty-one years ago) link

I think my suspicion (and I'm starting to sound disturbingly like Harold Bloom here) is with works that seem as if they are looking at a range of classics or highly praised works and trying to mimic and reproduce what they think was their success and style. The history of the art form (forms, even, sometimes) is always there, and I am more happy with works that seem to take the agonistic attitude that Bloom extols. Brian Wilson reacts against the Beatles and tries to make a great record, Oasis try to mimic them because that's what classic records sound like.

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...

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 10 January 2003 19:52 (twenty-one years ago) link

well i certainly wasn't trying to suggest that anyone should merely try to mimic classic art forms,i presumed the point about the beach boys/oasis would be taken as read...

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?

robin (robin), Friday, 10 January 2003 20:15 (twenty-one years ago) link

I wasn't specifically arguing with you Robin, just saying some things that occurred to me.

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.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 10 January 2003 20:34 (twenty-one years ago) link

In the Bedroom I was ready to hate with a white-hot diffidence; the cover of the tapebox and the NAME of it and the CAST all screamed Sentimental Quality Movie. When roomie told me that like even the cutlery had received Oscar nominations I knew this was not the movie for me, so was DOUBLY blown away by how much I liked it. Don't know if it will ever quite become a "classic"; I don't know much abt the precedents for this type of film (I personally think of a cross between contemporary Taiwanese cinema and John Sayles), but I wonder if the type of person for whom the markers of quality that turned me off got them EXCITED about it - wound up disappointed by how the movie actually was (extremely uncomfortable at times and one of the most UNsentimental movies on such a subject that I can recall)?

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 10 January 2003 21:25 (twenty-one years ago) link

yeah i had meant to clarify several posts ago that i wasn't talking about merely trying to copy the "classics" martin,your post just reminded me that i hadn't....

robin (robin), Friday, 10 January 2003 21:40 (twenty-one years ago) link

nine months pass...
This was a very interesting thread.

Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Saturday, 25 October 2003 18:47 (twenty years ago) link

Yes, I'm annoyed I missed it. I think it's certainly possible to intentionally make great movies: I doubt that the makers of either The Matrix or Together thought that they were making some anonymous movie. But you can't get Oscars for it.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 27 October 2003 11:37 (twenty years ago) link

Coming back to this with the idea of ambition. I don't think it is bad to be ambitious in art, but perhaps the ambition should be directed towards the art itself rather than its reception. Is there a difference between "I am doing this because I think an audience will respond like this to it" and "I am doing this because I respond to it in a certain way."

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).

Pete (Pete), Monday, 27 October 2003 12:01 (twenty years ago) link

I can't find time to read the thread, but the big thing to remember is how much the idea of what is classic changes -- just look at the Sight and Sound polls from 1952 and '62.

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.

Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 27 October 2003 12:06 (twenty years ago) link

I also don't think Meta-film is a great name for this: its form is a comment on (some of) the state of cinema, but this is true for all film, until the Inuits sweep down on our abandoned cities in 2080, and start The Second Wave of film.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 27 October 2003 12:29 (twenty years ago) link

Films that aren't classic: 'The Matrix' and 'City of God'. But that doesn't make them bad; I don't know if we need classics in that sense, or at all.

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.

Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 27 October 2003 12:40 (twenty years ago) link

How does a DVD transfer enable you to see ever film ever made? Do you really think you have this much time in your life?

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

Pete (Pete), Monday, 27 October 2003 12:50 (twenty years ago) link

Films that aren't classic: 'The Matrix' and 'City of God'. But that doesn't make them bad; I don't know if we need classics in that sense, or at all.

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

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 27 October 2003 12:51 (twenty years ago) link

How does a DVD transfer enable you to see ever film ever made? Do you really think you have this much time in your life?

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.

Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 27 October 2003 12:55 (twenty years ago) link

'The Matrix' is a classic of its type, but it's hokum surely?
'City of God' is alright, but it's no 'Goodfellas' (note: I am not a rockist Scorsese fan by any stretch).

Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 27 October 2003 12:57 (twenty years ago) link

I don't think it is trying to be Goodfellas. I also prefer it. But this might merely be exoticism, or novelty (though having seen a lot of Brazilian films lately, it certainly towers above most of them).

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.

Pete (Pete), Monday, 27 October 2003 13:04 (twenty years ago) link

Well, if it's imitatedness yer after, then lots of classics don't make the cut. But here are some classics-in-that-sense

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

Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 27 October 2003 13:07 (twenty years ago) link

Hokum as in "a device used (as by showmen) to evoke a desired audience response", or as in "pretentious nonsense"? The first isn't a criticism, and the second is only serious if you expect "The Invisibles - the movie". It does what it does extremely well and looks great throughout.

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

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 27 October 2003 13:08 (twenty years ago) link

Okay. I meant in the second sense. But I'll let it drop, but for this: it doesn't have the internal consistency of 'Bladerunner', but I prefer it anyway because it's a lot more fun to watch.

Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 27 October 2003 13:10 (twenty years ago) link

Do you reckon there's going to be a lot of CoG knock-offs? I can only really think of two Matrix clones (Equilibrium and Underworld), though it would be foolish to think that it wasn't influential.

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))

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 27 October 2003 13:17 (twenty years ago) link

the matrix is like the structuring absence in my moviegoing, i never ever want to see it.

amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 27 October 2003 13:18 (twenty years ago) link

Why do you not want to see it?

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.

Pete (Pete), Monday, 27 October 2003 13:34 (twenty years ago) link

Ver Matrix was an influence on CoG? Nah, maybe not, but those funny, action-doesnn't move-but-camera-does shots are all Matrix.

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.

Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 27 October 2003 13:50 (twenty years ago) link

Good point, I had forgotten about that. Cerainly the spinny round camera stuff would not have been in there without The Matrix.

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

Pete (Pete), Monday, 27 October 2003 13:54 (twenty years ago) link

A knock BACK to the first Blade film (1998).

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.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 27 October 2003 13:56 (twenty years ago) link

nine years pass...

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

cardamon, Saturday, 24 August 2013 21:56 (ten years ago) link

the kind of films that become comics

the arpeggio as will and idea (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 24 August 2013 21:57 (ten years ago) link

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

Treeship, Saturday, 24 August 2013 22:07 (ten years ago) link

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.

Aimless, Saturday, 24 August 2013 22:08 (ten years ago) link

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

the arpeggio as will and idea (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 24 August 2013 22:18 (ten years ago) link

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.

Treeship, Saturday, 24 August 2013 22:24 (ten years ago) link

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

Treeship, Saturday, 24 August 2013 22:25 (ten years ago) link

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

Frederik B, Saturday, 24 August 2013 22:27 (ten years ago) link

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

Van Horn Street, Saturday, 24 August 2013 22:29 (ten years ago) link

Inception, prometheus, the dark knight overthinks it

firelance photographer (darraghmac), Saturday, 24 August 2013 22:33 (ten years ago) link

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

Frederik B, Saturday, 24 August 2013 22:41 (ten years ago) link

Melancholia totally. And Antichrist too.

Treeship, Saturday, 24 August 2013 22:42 (ten years ago) link

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

Frederik B, Saturday, 24 August 2013 22:42 (ten years ago) link

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.

Van Horn Street, Saturday, 24 August 2013 22:49 (ten years ago) link

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

Hee hee

TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 24 August 2013 23:14 (ten years ago) link

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.

cardamon, Saturday, 24 August 2013 23:33 (ten years ago) link

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.

Treeship, Sunday, 25 August 2013 08:13 (ten years ago) link

i think a serious man is a classic

Superbad is a total classic.

Van Horn Street, Friday, 30 August 2013 19:43 (ten years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.