Dane

Not sure if this has ever been discussed before on DVDTalk before, but I will give it a try.

I thought it would be interesting to know what people think entitles a movie to be called a Classic. Is it age? Is high technical standards? Is it exceptional performances?

Basically, what do you think that makes a movie a Classic?

Pointyskull

Age is a factor - as in if it can stand the test of time (ex. Wizard of Oz) - but I also think something that radically redefines a film genre (ex. LOTR) in some way can earn 'instant classic' status.

It's ultimately subjective as to what makes up a "classic" and what doesn't.

I tend to toss the term around indiscriminantly at times, however, so I'm guilty on that count. Tons of folks consider films like Citizen Kane and The Godfather "classics", but for me neither of those two do all that much for me. I don't necessarily dispute their status as "classics", it's just that I don't particularly like those films.

ArchibaldTuttle

if its a really good movie, that is still really good 10 years later

Fok

I agree. Then there are movies which are considered cult classics......which are different?

marty888

For me, a "classic" is a movie that has both critical and popular success that extends over the years. How many years? Can't really say, but definitely more than just 2-5 years.

Chris-VC

A 'classic' film has to endure at least 10 years of aging. If a film can stand up to the harshest criticism on technical, directorial, screenwriting, and acting levels after a decade or more, I consider it a classic.

Example: Jurassic Park was considered great when it came out, but after watching it carefully yesterday, the film is just as incredible as the day it came out. I would now consider it a classic. By contrast, a film like Kill Bill impresses me tremendously now, but time will tell whether that impression remains. Anything after 1993 or 1994 needs more time before consideration for such status.

Age isn't everything, however. An example of so-called 'classics' that haven't survived the test of time are Bringing Up Baby and The African Queen, both of which made AFI's top 100 list (and both of which star Katherine Hepburn, coincidentally). Both are ridiculous, stupid, unrealistic films, and I'm confident that there are few film buffs out there who still consider them classics, no matter what the idiots at AFI say. These are the same people that proclaimed Tootsie the greatest comedy of all time....ick...

Rivero

You have got to be kidding me. Jurassic Park was never ever considered a great film by any stretch of the imagination. The only things critics may have overly praised upon it's initial release were the special-effects and computer animation. Nearly everyone complained of the thin story, weak characterizations, and nonexistent by-the-numbers direction of Mr. Spielberg. I also remember many complaints from audiences on what a lousy translation it was of the extremely popular novel.

wendersfan

I would think at least 25 years would be necessary, but you've described it, basically.

wendersfan

I think your post is what's ridiculous, not the classic films you mentioned. But what should I expect from someone who thinks Jurassic Park could ever be considered a good movie.

jaeufraser

Well, lambasting someone for liking Jurassic Park is kind of silly. For a monster suspense movie, it's quite good. Very entertaining. A classic? I wouldn't say so, but definately a solid flick.

In my opinion it's simple...a film that can has both enduring critical and popular success. If it can meet those criteria over a long span of time, then I would consider it a classic. Something like In The Bedroom might be well reviewed, but it's lack of popular success makes it not be a classic. Something like The Wizard of Oz, Star Wars, or Pulp Fiction, I would call classics. They've received critical acclaim, stron public sentiment, and by all means will be remembered for years. I think you need at least 10 years to make that assessment (and it remains to be seen if Pulp will remain a classic, though I believe it will).

Rival11

Without a doubt

It pretty much falls into two catergories:

1. A film you love and own that you may like a hell of lot more than most people and it holds up on its own after many years.

2. Flims you wouldn't really care to watch too much but upon seeing them you think they are still amazing.

DVD Smurf

According to Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: 1clas·sic
Pronunciation: 'kla-sik
Function: adjective
Etymology: French or Latin; French classique, from Latin classicus of the highest class of Roman citizens, of the first rank, from classis
1 a : serving as a standard of excellence : of recognized value b : TRADITIONAL, ENDURING c : characterized by simple tailored lines in fashion year after year
2 : of or relating to the ancient Greeks and Romans or their culture : CLASSICAL
3 a : historically memorable b : noted because of special literary or historical associations <Paris is the classic refuge of expatriates>
4 a : AUTHENTIC, AUTHORITATIVE b : TYPICAL
5 capitalized : of or relating to the period of highest development of Mesoamerican and especially Mayan culture about A.D. 300-900

Cinematic examples: Seven Samurai or Modern Times, IMHO.

Cheers

DVD Smurf

Dane

Thanks, for all the various viewpoints.

No doubt that age is an important factor when labelling a movie a Classic. A movie needs to stand the test of time before we know how well it holds up. Just don´t think 10 years is enough - it will more likely have to be 20-25 years.