Future Classics

What.

I think Yoda needs to implement a literacy and comprehension test as part of sign-up

__________________

Off hand I'd say that the Brits are very haughty. However, that won't work because I was an Anglophile.
I've never liked the cinematography. There is something about the lighting that always gives more of a feel of a theatrical production than a cinematic one. I also find that in most of the British films I watch, the camera lingers on a sped up sky, showing the clouds moving which is meant to show the passage of time. I don't like it.
One of my favorite British movies is Son of Rambow. However, there were still elements I disliked; for instance, the scene in which the "cool" French kid pulls out a gun and shoots a bird - it lasts about 20 seconds and then flashes back to the main characters. I don't like that, either.
I suppose I don't find most British films to be very coherent. I wonder, though, if the problem may be far deeper; like Canadian cinema, which I loathe more than any other, the government funds many films. Is it so unlikely that in most countries where the government is given a say - consider that I often dislike the movies of those countries - that they've a negative impact? Canada, for instance, won't even allow American television programs to be aired unless a certain amount of Canadian programs are shown; perhaps my lack of exposure to the shows I like, and my extra exposure to the shows I loathe, has created in me a subconscious hatred of Canadian - and, by extension, British - cinema in general?
Anyway, I could go on, but I don't think I'd be able to convey my meaning any clearer; not that I've been clear at all. I like some British films (Harry Brown, Son of Rambow, V for Vendetta), but most of them I dislike.

They seem quite precise issues that I'm gonna wager extend to a select few examples. I'm not sure how you're using 'coherent' and what context as it you develop it into Government funding. If our Government was a dictatorship and censoring films or ideological propaganda then it might be an issue but National Lottery funding is only a means of facilitating a lot of unique directors to create their art. You've listed only recent examples as well (i'd hardly say V For Vendetta was a typical UK film).

French cinema has a pretty similarly strong National Cinema incentive, I can't remember the figures but I wouldn't lump all their output into a single category. You have the same feelings about that?

Interesting article. I think he (I think it's a "he") made things a bit too black and white, but still interesting.

He also brought up the universality of classic films that I talked about that everyone here completely ignored...

I am often completely ignored.

__________________

Did you guys hear something?

No Country for Old Men.

I watched this last night on AMC and I actually thought about putting it into this thread. Unfortunately I didn't feel that it quite conformed to my own rule about the film being popular with a wide audience. Other than that, I think its one of the best films of the last decade.

To add some more:

Dancer In The Dark
Dead Man
City Of God
Talk To Her
In The Mood For Love/2046
Spirited Away
Eyes Wide Shut

I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't ignore that comment. It's just that's it's so obvious as to not need acknowledgement. It's the same for all art. That which is universal can cross time, cultures, generations, etc. Therefore, as it's most likely to appeal to the most people, it's the most likely to be liked/loved by the most people and, by extention, be considered a classic.

Ok, but if it's such a given why are some of the films listed so far Anti-Christ and Sin City?

Because being universal isn't a guarantee of becoming a classic. Likewise, appealing to a smaller or niche market doesn't exclude a film. It's about expose, which is why I said "most likely to appeal to the most people."

Of course it also depends on who's calling it a classic. For example, despite its Oscar nominations, Citizen Kane wasn't well thought of until the 1950's and, especailly, Cahiers du cinéma making it its #1 film of all time in 1961 (where it's stayed ever since.) So it's only after 15-20 years that Kane becomes 'the best film of all time' despite being exactly the same film. Much of this came about due to its re-release and the fact that, as WWII was on, the film wasn't shown much beyond the US where the film was famously the subject of various smears, political and otherwise.

Scarface (1983) is a popular film atm, but was slated on its release and, probably, will once be once again after the generation that grew up with it and loved it are 'replaced' by the coming generation. As a 'rise and fall' film, it'll always have an appeal with some and it may go on to have a kitsch value (some may argue it already has) but I doubt it'll ever be as popular as it's been over the last 15-20 years. It'll probably be a cult classic, but I can't see it being a classic in the sense of Casablanca or Citizen Kane. Of course, there's no guarantee that either of those films will be considered classics in the future, either. There's plenty of forgotten 'classics' or 'greats' littered throughout the history of art.

I didn't ignore it - I said that films don't necessarily have to be universal to be classics (that's why I mentioned cult classics, which aren't universal but definitely considered classics in one way or another). Not to mention that your nomination for a future classic, Children of Men, isn't "universally revered" either.

It has a 93% on Rotten Tomatoes and an 81% audience approval rating. I've only ever come into contact with one person who doesn't like it and his name is Kitsch.

Also, LOL at Sin City being indirectly compared to Citizen Kane!

I assume most people I come into contact with haven't seen it anyway.

And we all know what happens when someone "assumes"...

also There will Be Blood

Yeah, true.

I can see The Departed as a future classic, but, since I haven't seen the other four movies on your list, I have nothing to compare The Departed with.

__________________
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

They're not, the point of this thread is that these are films that are likely to be considered classics in the future - hence, "future classics".

But hey, you might be a spammer anyway.

EDIT: Hey, looks like I was right.