Ryan McNeil
TCM has been on my mind a lot lately.
This week, for instance, four of my six first-timers were selections that I recorded from that channel. The other two (THE JERK and THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH) easily could have joined them. And yet, with many of them, I feel as though there are classic film fans that would see it as a stretch to call these movies “classics”.
If you ask around – and if you’re a classic fan reading this, feel free to chime in – there is an imaginary line in the sand that designates when the “classic era” ends. Ask some fans and they’ll circle 1970…ask others and they’ll point even earlier to 1960. Meanwhile, for me, the line is much more recent – and furthermore it’s in constant motion. For me the line to designate a film as “classic” is thirty years back; so 1985 at the moment and continually moving forward.
The reason for me to see the line as closer-and-moving is because I feel as though we have to continue recognizing the passage of time. At TCM Fest this year there were heads being scratched that screenings included showings of APOLLO 13 and MALCOLM X…many attendees not seeing them as “classic” enough. And yet, these films are twenty and twenty-three years old respectively. They have more in common with the classic era than they do with their more modern contemporaries stylistically.
Coming back to my own list below, I look at THE JERK and think about how its comedy stylings have so little in common with current comedies, that if you showed it to a child or teenager today and said “You’ll love this – it’s so funny”, they might find the jokes don’t land.
And so, for me what’s considered “classic” might seem far too recent, and yet it is still radically different from the what one expects when they sit down to watch a new release.
I think the biggest hiccup comes down to the fact that we haven’t properly named the various periods of film history. Everyone knows about The Silent Era, The Pre-Code Era, The Studio Era, and even foreign offerings like The Neo-Realists and The French New Wave. But how does one qualify the films of the late 70’s? Or the early 80’s? What about the late 60’s?
“Classic Film” is a little too broad a term for me…it’s like saying “Classic Art”, which would encompass everything from Michelangelo to Jackson Pollock.
Here’s the week at hand – with an emphasis on classics as defined above…
Streaming/Blu-Rays/DVD’s I’ve Never Seen
THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH – Like I said…understatement.
BEING THERE – I think I need to do some Hal Ashby binging.
THE JERK – “More Cans!!!!”
RUNNING ON EMPTY – I’m a little perplexed by the end of this movie, but besides that it holds up splendidly.
MARNIE – I think when I’m done with Wilder, I’ll make a concerted effort to watch all the Hitchcocks. This one was better than I’d anticipated.
JESUS TOWN, USA – Hot Docs screener
Streaming/Blu-Rays/DVD’s I’ve Seen Before
8 MILE – So who remembers that Michael Shannon played the guy dating Eminem’s mom? Further, who remembers that Anthony Mackie played Papa Doc, Shady’s rap rival?
NOTORIOUS – Yet another watch prompted by last week’s read.
I need to watch Being There at some point.
Firsts: A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night– FINALLY! It was a bit too slow in parts but I dug it. Totes dressing up as the Girl at some costume party.
Office Space– Not quite my tempo (I think I’m going to use this quote for films I don’t like from now on).
Dum Laga Ke Haisha– Surprisingly sweet Bollywood film.
Mad Max– Like a lame origin story.
Mad Max: Road Warrior– This is the real shizz. SO AWESOME!
The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover– So I sat down to watch this thinking it’s some light-hearted comedy… Boy, was I wrong…
Step Brothers– Proper light-hearted comedy.
Rewatched: Election– I hate Tracy Flick but I wish I was as passionate as her. Aren’t complex characters the best?
I’d request an ATU about Being There, but I’m still waiting for the DJ’s to play the last song I requested. S-o-o-o-o-o-o….
I really can’t wait to rewatch A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night (which I could have SWORN you’d already seen). Between that and The Babadook it was a killer year for eeries films from first time directors!
Also, is it wrong that after The Cook-The Thief that I was really craving a sausage on a bun?
What did you request? :/ :/
Pump Up the Volume….*many* moons ago!
I’m with you on the definition of “classic.” It should be a changing line. I really like your idea that the periods need names to kind of break it all up and provide some context. I don’t know if it could be done effectively, but I think it would help to contextualize “older but not old enough to be classic to some” films. The line at 1965 or even 1970 seems so ludicrous now. Like the whole ’70s don’t count?!?!?!
As for me, all first time:
A Touch of Zen – glorious and artful. Criminally unseen.
Let’s Get Harry
Nightmare City – the first running zombie movie (1980) and it convinced me that running zombies can be a good time.
Mark of the Devil
I think I just want someone to coin a phrase for the era stemming from 1975 to 2000 as it’s too old to be “modern” but too new to be “classic”.
Feel up to the task?
Hahahaha, no I don’t think I’m the man for the job. That’s a big stretch of time for one name, too. Trying to think of anything unique that ties all those years together and all I can come up with is the blockbuster. But that goes past 2000, so I don’t know.
First-Timers: Cold in July, the eight episode of The Story of Film, Going Clear: Scientology & the Prison of Belief, Walt & El Grupo, and Barking Dogs Never Bite.
Re-Watches: Boomerang, Police Academy 6, Wishful Drinking, and right now, Police Academy 7.
I dislike the term “classic” in general, because like you suggest, it’s too slippery. Some people use it for a specific time period, others for old films in general, others only for great films, others for anything they enjoyed as a child, others for exceptional examples of specific genres or movements regardless of age, etc. In some ways, all these people are right.
I prefer using “studio-era” to talk about what most people think of as classic Hollywood. It’s much more well-defined, and isn’t going to change. But you’re right, I have no idea what to call films from the ’70s-90s, which are nearing their own mid-life crises. You can use specific movements, but what about films from the ’70s that don’t fit in New Hollywood, or New German Cinema, or Italian Horror/Giallo (as but three examples). What about studio-era films that aren’t from Hollywood, and thus that nomenclature doesn’t quite fit? I really struggle with this, because I tend to think of things in terms of “studio-era” and “contemporary,” but the ’70s-’90s (and increasingly the 2000s) don’t really fit either, and yet they don’t deserve to be shuffled into no-man’s land.