5 Modern Movie Classics

[Subjugation]

I think what Fluffz meant was that what is popular does not always translate into what is good. And I would agree with that statement, 100%.

But the fact is, I totally agree with Exalt that a movie should "appeal to multiple generations" to be considered a modern classic. I would also add that it should appeal to both men and women, as well. For example: Schindler's List, Shawshank Redemption, Shaving Ryan's Privates, the LoTR series, Forrest Gump..etc. They are had good box office numbers, had critical acclaim, and had that cross-over/mass appeal to them, as well.

I think Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels was great, but I don't think a 40 year old mother of 2 would agree. But I'm sure that bitch would love Shawshank Redemption as much as I did. And that's a big part of what makes it a classic.

[Liquid Blue]

You both are right and I think a majority of people are just posting their favorite films rather than thinking about how a classic movie is different. This is why I don't think Pulp Fiction, Scarface or some of the other movies listed won't fit. Here's my list-


Eternal sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Gladiator

Saving Private Ryan

Fight Club



Edit- Double-check and found out ESB was made in 1980, not 85. I'll add a final one later.

[CrvenBan]

That's the idiocy (should I call it that?) with making any kind of such categorization with an art which is very subjective. If you then put a whole lot of limits and boundaries you'd be taking away the most important aspect of this kind of art, the personal freedom, both in making it and in liking/disliking it. So, what is a classic, how do you define it ? Is it even possible to talk in such terms, who deicedes on those issues. If you go by personal subjective opinions, then every list is as different as the people watching the movies and therefore only useful for making an "most liked - on average" list. If you go by some sort of general consensus then you're taking away the originality, diversity, independence thus making the entire list a mockery to itself. Isn't first movie made in some godforsaken country like Sudan a classic on it's own ? What about movies that you possibly couldn't have seen, even if it's from 1985 and forward ?
La Haine would be a classic very fitting into this list, because it has everything that would make it a classic. According to me. Wonder what everyone else thinks

[DoTheFandango]

The whole point of something being a Classic is that EVERYONE agrees it is a good movie. One personal opinion doesn't make a classic. It's millions of people acknowledging the same fact that a movie is good.

It's a lot more objective than you think.

[CrvenBan]

The whole point of something being a Classic is that EVERYONE agrees it is a good movie. One personal opinion doesn't make a classic. It's millions of people acknowledging the same fact that a movie is good.

It's a lot more objective than you think.

This quote is enough on it's own to strengthen what I wrote before, but I have some questions. 1 million people with 1 million subjective opinions doesn't make it one objective opinion. That is the entire point, ART CANNOT SUCCUMB TO OBJECTIVITY because it stops being art. The whole purpose of art is to provoke different opinions, to get an emotional rise.


If you look at the movies posted here, very few are dramas, how many are non-american movies ? And what is the average age of poster ?
Does genre of movie matter ? Funds ? Box office ? Inginuity ? Awards ? Distribution ? Country ? Availability ? Is Irreversible classic ? Or Memento ? If yes, why, if not why not ? Spiderman movies were liked by both reviewers and the public, are they classic ? What about Lord of the rings, it got bunch of oscars, ton of cash, but is it a classic...What about La Haine ? Can you make comments on any other movie having NOT seen that one ?


EDIT: even tho disqualified because of year of production, the Rocky horror picture show is considered a classic :huh:

[CrvenBan]

No order, not my list, just making a point:

Run Lola Run
When Harry met Sally
Aliens
Heat
Groundhog day
Reservoir dogs
Fight club
Matrix
Magnolia
Withnail and I
La Haine
Memento
Delicatessen
Silence of lambs
Trainspotting
Requiem for a dream
L'adversarie
Big Lebowski
Amelie
Jacob's inferno
Das Experiment
The machinist
Barton Fink
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind
Terminator 2
The usual suspects
Monsters inc
FUCKING SHAKES THE FUCKING CLOWN !!


and THEN a sea of movies from all over the world.

What someone will pick as their top 5 of that list above, depends TOTALLY AND ENTIRELY on their personal and subjective opinion

[Galleleo]

I doesn't mean you can't come to some kind of consensus. What I am being taught at uni is that it is not so much what you chose, but more how you argument your choice. So why is a movie a classic to you? And if more people can find themselves in that reasoning, you can come to a consensus on the subject and thus point out what is a classic or not.

[Liquid Blue]

This quote is enough on it's own to strengthen what I wrote before, but I have some questions. 1 million people with 1 million subjective opinions doesn't make it one objective opinion. That is the entire point, ART CANNOT SUCCUMB TO OBJECTIVITY because it stops being art. The whole purpose of art is to provoke different opinions, to get an emotional rise.


If you look at the movies posted here, very few are dramas, how many are non-american movies ? And what is the average age of poster ?
Does genre of movie matter ? Funds ? Box office ? Inginuity ? Awards ? Distribution ? Country ? Availability ? Is Irreversible classic ? Or Memento ? If yes, why, if not why not ? Spiderman movies were liked by both reviewers and the public, are they classic ? What about Lord of the rings, it got bunch of oscars, ton of cash, but is it a classic...What about La Haine ? Can you make comments on any other movie having NOT seen that one ?


EDIT: even tho disqualified because of year of production, the Rocky horror picture show is considered a classic :huh:

Art doesn't succumb to objectivity when it comes to things like lists and opinions on what is classic and what isn't- the only way you could even argue that is if someone made a movie with the specific intent of trying to make a classic, or widely accepted movie. The movies that people are listing over and over again that I don't agree with? The creators had no intentions of making a classic, they didn't care how many people would like the movies, and that in itself is an expression of art.

Regardless of how many people think this movie or that movie is a classic, that will never take away from the artistic value of the piece. It was art the second it started being filmed, and will continue to be art even if everyone in the world hates it, because art is about expression, not ticket sales or how many dvds the piece will sell internationally.

You said art is supposed to provoke different opinions, well I have to disagree with that. The opinions generated are simply a bonus, art is merely a product of the artist expressing themselves. They create those movies because they want to, because that's what they love to do, not because this many people will like the premise or that many people will make sure to see it opening weekend. All that extra stuff is a bonus, which is why it's not degrading if a movie is not considered a classic or not. If it's a classic that's a bonus, but even if it's not considered one by many, it will never take away from the artistic value of that movie or cheapen it in any way, shape or form.

[CrvenBan]

Gall: my point exactly, you can only argue about why it is good to you, and that regards your personal tastes in images, music etc, your experiences in life and weather or not you will be able to connect with it, your liking of genres and so on. By making any kind of demands which a movie must have to be considered a classic is just voiding the entire idea itself (a blunt example would be Miss Universe pagent for white girls only), so you have to have seen every movie ever made, in this example, from 1985, to be able to objectivly map your subjectivity when it comes to movies.

LB
You said art is supposed to provoke different opinions, well I have to disagree with that. The opinions generated are simply a bonus, art is merely a product of the artist expressing themselves. They create those movies because they want to, because that's what they love to do, not because this many people will like the premise or that many people will make sure to see it opening weekend. All that extra stuff is a bonus, which is why it's not degrading if a movie is not considered a classic or not. If it's a classic that's a bonus, but even if it's not considered one by many, it will never take away from the artistic value of that movie or cheapen it in any way, shape or form.

Please don't tell me you're really this naive. What you said, does imply for generic hollywood movie making.

You think that the 10mins long rape scene in Irrevirsible is made because it looks good, or director just felt like it ? Of course it's made to get emotion, and even more so [spoiler] in the end when you find out that she was pregnant at that time [/spoiler].
A great deal of non-commercial-non-mainstream-notinitforthequickcash artists practice their art with an underlining desire to provoke emotions. That's why art is not objective. Because emotions are not. Writers, musicians, painters, movie makers, sculptures etc...Bob Dylan wrote his songs because he just felt like penning them down ?



Someone answer me: What makes a movie a classic ?

[Liquid Blue]

Please don't tell me you're really this naive. What you said, does imply for generic hollywood movie making.

You think that the 10mins long rape scene in Irrevirsible is made because it looks good, or director just felt like it ? Of course it's made to get emotion, and even more so [spoiler] in the end when you find out that she was pregnant at that time [/spoiler].
A great deal of non-commercial-non-mainstream-notinitforthequickcash artists practice their art with an underlining desire to provoke emotions. That's why art is not objective. Because emotions are not. Writers, musicians, painters, movie makers, sculptures etc...Bob Dylan wrote his songs because he just felt like penning them down ?

What hollywood wants is different from what actors and directors want. The people that make the films, want to express their dreams, moods and ideas. The people that pay for the films, want to make money, and lots of it. There is a difference between the two, which I think is necessary to understand if you want to throw around the word hollywood when it comes to why movies are made.

That scene was apart of an idea, apart of a feeling or vision that the director had. Just like every other director, he wanted his vision to come to life and did it in the best way he thought possible. He wanted you to feel the brutality and shock of it, which is why it was created that way. Artists want to express themselves, and 9 times out of 10, emotions are evoked when people view these works. You have to realize that to me, the goal isn't "how much can I make them cry" or "how can I make them so scared their going to piss their pants", that's an afterthought to what the artists want to produce. If they want to make a scary movie about a dog named Killer, then they will set up a storyline and sequence of shots, etc etc. While doing this, that's when they might say " ok how can we make this first death scene really memorable, how can we show this chick has really nice tits". Emotional appeal is an afterthought to the initial idea.

What makes a movie a classic ?

In my opinion, classic movies are films that are excellent in terms of character portrayal, story progression, cinematography , clear theme and are such fine works of art that they are able to connect a variety of viewers to one single mindset for a given amount of time. They are films done so well that they literally "transport" the viewer into the world of the movie, suck the viewer in and have them totally entrenched in the movie.

It was hard to narrow down 5 classics, but I definitely don't think there are only 5. Kingdom of Heaven, What Dreams May Come, Sympathy for Lady Vengence (Last movie in Oldboy revenge series, better than Oldboy), etc etc.

[CrvenBan]

I said Hollywood because there is where such commercial movies are created, just stories, something that can be sold, summer blockbusters, box office machines and whatever comes with it is a bonus. That is money making, that is business, that is when you read about directors with integrity that had to fight with studios because of their vision. I guess if Stalone wanted himself to be recognized for his intellectual ability he wouldn't have starred in Rocky, Rambo and such. Hollywood wanted it, he wanted it, there is no difference between the two. Would you work for republicans if you didn't agree with their visions ?


What is feeling brutality and shock if not emotions ? I don't know if you ever created anything, but most artists start with the emotion which comes first and everything else is a reflection of that emotion.
So you think a story of a mother and lost child is written like that, someone says: cool I wanna write about a mother and her child she lost. What can she be feeling ? Hmm...
I would bet you 20$ that it starts with (whoever wrote it) having a strong emotion of broken connection, of loss, despair (mother), fear (child) etc.

In my opinion, classic movies are films that are excellent in terms of character portrayal, story progression, cinematography , clear theme and are such fine works of art that they are able to connect a variety of viewers to one single mindset for a given amount of time. They are films done so well that they literally "transport" the viewer into the world of the movie, suck the viewer in and have them totally entrenched in the movie.

And you think that that has nothing to do with emotions ? I would like to continue this discussion with you, but it isn't possible, because you see a piece of art just as that, a piece of work that may or may not cause some sort of emotional reaction depending on the wish of the artist, and I don't.

[Galleleo]

Crven, I think LB is doing art school.

[CrvenBan]

Even worse...I saw his sig, so he's either fucking with me, or he isn't... <_<

[Liquid Blue]

What is feeling brutality and shock if not emotions ? I don't know if you ever created anything, but most artists start with the emotion which comes first and everything else is a reflection of that emotion.
So you think a story of a mother and lost child is written like that, someone says: cool I wanna write about a mother and her child she lost. What can she be feeling ? Hmm...
I would bet you 20$ that it starts with (whoever wrote it) having a strong emotion of broken connection, of loss, despair (mother), fear (child) etc.

Let's take a look back at the bolded sentence in my last post-

"Emotional appeal is an afterthought to the initial idea."

Let me hit you with it again.

"Emotional appeal is an afterthought to the initial idea."

Do you think that an emotion comes before an idea? Where did the emotion come from? What would create a feeling of rage, happiness, or despair? Just bam, out of nowhere? Or would someone have a idea, vision or scene they want to show, and then enhance that scene by highlighting certain elements to create feelings of rage, happiness or despair?

In order for them to want a scene to look brutal, a tragedy to be bleak, there has to be an idea first. There has to be a scene that they want, there has to be a tragedy that they want to twist, etc etc. To simply say that they want an emotional reaction first and an idea to come later makes art seem like it's made simply for the viewers emotions, made simply to fit an emotion. To me, you simply can't break art down like that. There has to be an idea with the emotion, I can't just feel angry and decide I'm going to do an angry piece. If someone has a strong emotion of broken connection, that has to come from somewhere, some situation or experience. Things don't just pop out of thin air.

I don't know if you've created anything, but the artists I've been around my whole life, and the amount of artists I've been around in the past three years have shown me that no listing of what's a classic, what's shit or anything similar will cheapen an artist's work. I go to the Art Institute of Washington, last year as an Animation student and don't get me wrong, emotions are a very big part of art, reactions from viewers are a big part, but they don't make or break a piece of art, they don't cheapen it if the majority doesn't like it.

Art isn't restrictive like that, and artists don't live their lives completely dependent on audience reaction. They create art because they love it, fuck top 10 lists, fuck academy awards, fuck society. It's art, it's expression, it's life.

[CrvenBan]

The last 2 sentences I agree with.


And the fact that you claim that emotion is very importan part of any artistic piece. Weather it's emotion in creation or emotion in reaction, it doesn't matter, but it does affect the objectivity of viewer. All I had to say