Not-so-Classics, classics.

[JG]

It's interesting to think -- if some movies that are consider classics were made now, exactly the way there originally made, would it be called a classic?  I feel a lot of movies are considered classics because they were innovative at the time, but how do they stack up if you take that away from it?

Is Casablanca really that good?  Are Godard and Truffaut's films really that brilliant?  How bout Fellini? Is Citizen Kane a masterpiece, or just good?  How bout movies like Birth of a Nation, or the General?

Take away the "innovation/it's never been done before" factor and answer these questions.  It's fun to think about.  

I wish this thread weren't so long cause I would read it all and probably find the answers I'm looking for.

[Garam]

Well, if Citizen Kane wasn't made back then, the films it influenced wouldn't exist either, so if it came out 60 years later, it'd still be amazing to everybody.

Or not. Somebody else would make a similar film.

[JG]

what i'm saying is just pretend that it wasn't influential and just a regular movie that came out.  is it still a masterpiece?

[Garam]

Godard wouldn't be hailed nearly as much.

[Figure 8]

what i'm saying is just pretend that it wasn't influential and just a regular movie that came out.  is it still a masterpiece?

I think the same thing would happen.  When movies like Citizen Kane came out, they were just regular movies (seeing how it didn't win the Oscar).  I think probably 60 years from now, like Garam said, it'd be just as influential and considered to be just as great, I think.

[JG]

vaild point.  i think citizen kane is a bad example cause it really is that good, but i think casablanca wouldn't be considered that good.  godard wouldn't  be all that original.  i think a lot of films made in leiu of him are better than his actual films, but his films are considered greater because of what they inspired.  

not sure if that made sense.   my point is:  as a young kid who is viewing foreign films for the first time, i don't see them for how influential they are but how are they are as regular movies.  some are still brilliant.  some aren't.

[Garam]

Godard's films were so big because of the period they were released in. If they were released now, not many people would care. Or not. I dunno really.

I'm not sure if the same applies for Truffaut. I think he's a better storyteller than Godard, so he has that going for him.

[Reinhold]

i still love lawrence of arabia as much as i did before i knew anything about movies.

[modage]

not sure if that made sense.   my point is:  as a young kid who is viewing foreign films for the first time, i don't see them for how influential they are but how are they are as regular movies.  some are still brilliant.  some aren't.

yes, i went through this same dilemma 2 years ago.  the answer is: they wouldn't be considered classics if they were made today, but most that are classics are considered so because not only were they innovative at the time but they hold up pretty well.  so even if they wouldn't rock the world today, they'd be pretty damn good.  or atleast a C+.

[NEON MERCURY]

And i like Lynch, but i think Blue Velvet is overrated. It's always made out to be his masterpiece, and i don't think it is at all.

well, in those terms i can sort of see what you're saying by overrated in the lynch catalogue.  but as a film on its own, saying its overrated is quite ridiculous.

[Alethia]

Godard's films were so big because of the period they were released in. If they were released now, not many people would care. Or not. I dunno really.

I'm not sure if the same applies for Truffaut. I think he's a better storyteller than Godard, so he has that going for him.

if you haven't, you should check out godard's later stuff (numero deux, every man for himself, passion, hail mary, prenom: carmen, forever mozart, notre musique)....

[Garam]

Will do, and i agree with Neon Mercury. I was incorrectomundo.

[killafilm]

...but i think casablanca wouldn't be considered that good...

I'm going to disagree with you.  Well crafted movies are going to be considered, "good, great, what have you," in any era.  Casablanca excells in story, character, acting, dirction, photography, and ect...  In the past ten years a lesser somewhat similar film, The English Patient, won best picture among other Oscars.

I don't think you can take the influential out of Great films.  That's a core part that makes them great.  That and age.  A lot of them like Metropolis and Citizen Kane were slept on their first releasse.  

Just think of Kevin Costner.  Waterworld was a bomb.  But I recall him comparing it to 2001.  And the Cosnter is always right, so let that little 'gem' age a little, and watch it shoot up the IMDB top 250

[JG]

Well I think Casablanca would be considered a four star movie, but not a masterpiece.  I think that plenty movies each year come out that are better than it, but just don't have the "influential" factor.  Great movie?  Yes.  Masterpiece?  No.  Citizen Kane, however, is a masterpiece.  

I think a lot of French New Wave films are good for this topic.  Let's discuss movies like Breathless, Shoot the Piano Player, 400 Blows.

Let's also throw in some Fellini for good measure.  How good is La Dolce Vita?  La Strada?

[Figure 8]

I think it's really just impossible to determine how movies would be thought of now.  I think all these movies are named the best of all time just because of the influence they had on cinema as a whole, which really had a lot to do with when they were released.  I think if they weren't, movies would be very different, thus making them just as influential if they were released now.  But I do think some of them aren't as good as some of the movies released now, just these ones haven't sunk in yet.