|
|
What Do We Understand By 'A Classic Film'? |
 |
|
|
When discussing what is classic, we tend to use words such as 'timeless', and 'great' and think of the films in question as 'old' or being in black and white. Certainly these sorts of stereotypes are true, but we have to consider how they relate to the notions of canons, modes of representation and historical periods. We need to be able to define 'Classic', and understand what is meant by the term when writing about film. The naming of a film as 'Classic' is a fairly modern concept and as such tends to be attributed to old films. It conveys the sense that the film which is under discussion is a masterpiece: an influential and powerful piece of film-making which will last and be recognised as important and perhaps even be seen as ground-breaking in years to come. Films which now seem to display these qualities are grouped together, somewhat clumsily, and so we appear to have a genre of classic film (in a very loose sense of the word), or rather, a repeated mode of representation: the main aspect that nearly all classic films share is the 'auteur' , that is, the artist who is deemed to have created the film, be it the director, cameraman, the editor, or the screenplay writer. A visual signature is placed on the film: the cinematography is usually very innovative, for example, "Citizen Kane" has an inverted narrative structure, beginning with the death of the main protagonist. It also employs radical techniques such as deep-focus photography to make sure that everything in the shot is in focus, and there is elaborate Mise-en-Scene in order to allow us the audience to observe all that happens in the shot. The bravura use of lighting is just another way in which Orson Welles (in this case) shows us what he can do with cinema. Another example of directorial innovation is Eisenstein's use of montage in "Battleship Potemkin", playing intellectual games with his audience. It is clear that the directors and writers of classic films believe that cinema is not just film theatre and the techniques used to tell a story engage us in understanding the world, human character and frailty. Films like "Citizen Kane" and "The Bicycle Thieves" are therefore great humanist works of art. This theory (Auteur theory), or style of film-making differs from Genre theory, and as a consequence it is very rare for a classic film to be part of a genre. The only example is, perhaps, "Casablanca" which was a piece of product, designed and crafted from a film factory making a film a week: in the 1930's, Hollywood had an institutionalised way of making a film and telling stories - 'The institutionalised mode of representation'. Each film comprised of a conventional narrative structure with a beginning, middle, and end, and always began with an equilibrium which was disrupted, the rest of the film spent trying to resolve that disruption. The whole film occurs through cause and effect by the actions of the main character, or the hero (in this case Humphrey Bogart). The plot was not complicated, and there was pleasure in the text by seeing it all fall into place. It also helped if there were established stars playing the lead roles as it added to the stylish nature of the film. (These parameters for Genre theory are still applicable today). Although this may sound contradictory with my previous statements about Auteur theory, the point is that "Casablanca" is an exception, and it is really the only film together with the "The Maltese Falcon"(again starring Bogart) which can lay claim to being "classic". This is mainly due to the great script-writing and the fact that because there was a set formula, paradoxically there was more room for creativity, and thus a memorable and entertaining film. It is not surprising, therefore, that a canon of classic films has been established, since there is criteria from studying the modes of representation for doing so. Such films usually included are Fritz Lang's "Metropolis", Sergei Eisenstein's "Battleship Potemkin", Dziga Vertov's "The Man With The Movie Camera" and Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane". The 'canon', as in literary terms, seems to suggest that these are the films that we must watch if we want to be able to talk about film and its development over the years, and that these are the most influential and best films ever made. (In fact "Citizen Kane" and "Battleship Potemkin" are frequently being voted as such). Another piece of evidence relating to the success of the films in the canon is the fact that they are either sometimes copied in style, or alternatively have scenes copied, such as the 'Odessa Steps' sequence from "Battleship Potemkin which reappeared in a slightly different version in "The Untouchables". "Casablanca has been copied indirectly to the point of being cliched, and as a result, perhaps, imaginary lines are more famous than real ones: 'Play it again, Sam', for example, is never actually uttered by Bogart! Some of the films included in the generally accepted canon, such as "Metropolis", are there because of their political, or quasi-political aspirations: the German Expressionist Cinema of the 1930's, with its dramatic and symbolic sets, symbolic acting, and consciously unnaturalistic appearance was a rebellion against the typical American 'Blockbuster'. Most of the German directors at that time were products of disillusion after the First World War, and these particular German films tended to be overly artistic, and tended to employ elaborate lighting sets. They also used to contain strong messages about issues such as gender, women and national socialism. The classic era appears to be between the times of the late 1920's up until the 1940's with "Gone With The Wind", and the reason for this is probably that cinema was a new entity and consequently to become a pioneer of a movement, such as the Italian Neo-realists for example, was much easier than it is today. It was possible to manipulate the camera and lighting etc. in such a way then that a new style of film-making could be born. de Sica in "Bicycle Thieves" was able to capture the reality of everyday life by using fluid mobile camera work which followed the action as though it was determined by the characters rather than the director, whilst also filming in black and white to suggest a documentary style, using non-famous actors, opposite to the big Hollywood Technicolour films of the same era. The dialogue is sparse and naturalistic, and unlike a film such as "Casablanca" in which it is clear that everyone knows it is a fictional tale, de Sica concentrates on the real concerns and plight of everyday people. Its strength is its ability to capture reality on a celluloid reel. The term 'classic' can clearly be defined in relation to a number of different aspects of film but it is a combination of all three of the above media which give the term 'classic' its colour and strength. To say that it is one alone which defines classic more fully than the other is not true: without the creation and existence of the canon, a film would not be able to be judged as great and worthwhile as it would not be possible to compare it faithfully to its contemporaries and predecessors, but without the 'author' the actual film itself would not come into being. The fact that so many great films were made in the twenties through to the forties is a reflection of the newness of cinema and the exploitation of virgin cinematographic techniques, but the fact that many of those aforementioned techniques,( such as the varying height of shot in "Citizen Kane" for example to create a feeling of inferiority in the audience) are still being used today shows that it was also to do with the fact that there were many skilled and visionary film-makers around at that time. A film, in short, has to contain a plethora of different experiences for the audience, and display an imaginative use of cinematography and/or script-writing if it wants to receive the accolade of being named as a classic film. Bibliography
Timothy Corrigan, A Short Guide to Writing About Film (New York,1994)
Relevant Links
|
 |
|
|