|
Okay, let me clarify a few things...
We shouldn't define classic strictly by its age in years. Generally speaking, a film is old enough to be considered a classic when those stylistic elements that once made it seem modern and comtemporary have become so dated that they now appear artificial and stylized. For example, Roger Corman's Edgar Allan Poe films with Vincent Price: when they came out, they were considered inferior to classic Universal horror movies, because Corman's films were in widescreen and color, and everyone "knew" that great horror movies only came in black-and-white. But forty years later, Corman's films look as stylized and artificial as anything from Universal; it's just a different kind of stylization.
As for oxymorons like "instant classic" and "modern classic," those are words people throw around because they like to heap superlatives on their favorie movie and they can't think of anything better to say. The closest they come to making any meanignful sense is in a case like RINGU, which is not only a great film but a film that establishes a set of conventions that become instantly recognized and repeated.
As for arguments about whether movies like GONE WITH THE WIND are classics, one should point out that there is a difference between a classic and a masterpiece. Like it or loathe it (I put myself in the latter category), GONE WITH THE WIND is an established classic of cinema by virtue of the place it holds in film history. It is reasonably easy, however, to make a case that is not a masterpiece but an overr-rated soap opera.
|