What is your definition of a "classic" film and what is the last classic film?

[Jar Jar Stinks]

How do you define classic film? What would you consider to be the last entry in that film category?

[Himmel]

Classic films are often favorites that hold up after repeated rescreenings. Classics are renowned films of first rank, reference points in film mythology, or films that have become a part of American cultural folklore.

Jaws would be classic.

[JasonHensley]

Fellowship of the Ring is a classic

[Cremildo]

I don't have a personal definition. The word "classic" is in the dictionaries, it has precise meanings. There are classic movies, and there are personal favorites (personal classics, is that what you meant?). Not the same thing.

Casablanca is a classic, but it's not a personal favorite of mine. A.I. is definitely not a classic, but it's a personal milestone for me.

As for the most recent classic, I dunno for sure. The Matrix, perhaps? TLOTR trilogy?

[L.J.]

For me a classic is timeless no matter when it was made and well revered by most. Most recent classic think is The Dark Knight or Blade Runner 2049 first two that come to mind. Think 2049 in time will be held as high as its predecessor is.

[MechaGodzilla]

A work of outstanding quality which endures the passage of time. Of course everything shows its age one way or another (which isn't a negative, contrary to what some believe), but certain works stand out in that they retain their appeal and the high standard of craftsmanship and artistry remains apparent while their contemporaries begin to look decidedly creaky or fade from public memory.

And, of course, part of the definition of a classic is also that it becomes a standard against which others are judged. Films like, say, Citizen Kane, Casablanca and the works of Hitchcock certainly fit the bill. Several generations of films to follow the aforementioned were and are still compared to these classics. How often don't you hear "it's no Citizen Kane"? Or how directors of thrillers are sometimes praised with "he's the next Hitchcock".

Now, what I've always had some trouble with, is determining how much time has to pass before something (in this case a film) can well and truly be declared a classic. Is it 20, 25, 30, 40 years? 50 or even longer?

And then the fact that film is, obviously, more reliant on technology than, for example, literature. Does that mean they date faster, and thus could earn "classic status" sooner? Is it more impressive for a film from the '70s to still hold up compared to, say, a novel of the same age?

[L.J.]

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla

A work of outstanding quality which endures the passage of time. Of course everything shows its age one way or another (which isn't a negative, contrary to what some believe), but certain works stand out in that they retain their appeal and the high standard of craftsmanship and artistry remains apparent while their contemporaries begin to look decidedly creaky or fade from public memory.

And, of course, part of the definition of a classic is also that it becomes a standard against which others are judged. Films like, say, Citizen Kane, Casablanca and the works of Hitchcock certainly fit the bill. Several generations of films to follow the aforementioned were and are still compared to these classics. How often don't you hear "it's no Citizen Kane"? Or how directors of thrillers are sometimes praised with "he's the next Hitchcock".

Now, what I've always had some trouble with, is determining how much time has to pass before something (in this case a film) can well and truly be declared a classic. Is it 20, 25, 30, 40 years? 50 or even longer?

And then the fact that film is, obviously, more reliant on technology than, for example, literature. Does that mean they date faster, and thus could earn "classic status" sooner? Is it more impressive for a film from the '70s to still hold up compared to, say, a novel of the same age?

I lean toward the twenty year mark. That's enough time for kids to become well adult age and middle age to become older. Also enough for a decades culture to fade out some.

[Talleyrand]

Yes, as Mecha noted it really does depend on the time that has to pass before judgment can be made. It's entirely possible that Greed remains the only classic in the history of the medium if you use very strict criteria.

I, however, do not use such strict criteria. I think the most recent film which is would not be "reasonable" to dispute the classic status of is The Umbrellas of Cherbourg. Even that, however, is a higher standard that I would suggest.

I think the most recent classic, using the somewhat looser, but still quite rigorous, criteria of, a film which has clear and convincing evidence of being a classic may well actually be Sátántangó.

Moreover, the most recent films that have a strong change of becoming classics are Werckmeister Harmonies, Mulholland Dr., Russian Ark and Tie Xi Qu: West of the Tracks. There has not been many since that fairly impressive burst at the start of the century, however, that are any newer. Still that's not bad. I think within 5-10 years we will know if any of those are classics.

However I am not an expert and have not even seen most of these films, but I don't think I'm wrong. I also think that my rough analogue to the legal system is a good way of going about this.

~

Now, that is all highly objective. I now turn to the more interesting subjective discussion. For me, this is fairly cut-and-dry, the most recent classic film is Killing Them Softly (one of maybe a half-dozen of the century so far), and the most recent film that I suspect will be a classic in a few years is The Neon Demon.

Quite clearly, the time that needs to elapse to be a subjective classic is substantially less than that to be an objective classic, even if both are somewhat ambiguous.

[principehomura]

Timeless quality, appreciated on a large scale by a whole variety of audience.
Titanic is the last true classic.
Also The Lord of the Rings comes near.

[L.J.]

Originally Posted by principehomura

Timeless quality, appreciated on a large scale by a whole variety of audience.
Titanic is the last true classic.
Also The Lord of the Rings comes near.

Oh yea Titanic is a great choice.

[Markgway]

Takes time to discern a classic, otherwise you're just lauding what's popular now. I'd say 20 years is an absolute minimum.

Last one I can think of? Probably L.A. Confidential.

[Jar Jar Stinks]

Probably, because I'm a product of that era, I think of the 70's as the limit of what falls into the classic film genre. Apocalypse Now would be the last film to fit the definition of a classic... for now.

[ITDEFX101]

For me a "Classic" movie is anything made BEFORE the Digital Era.

[LegacyCosts]

There Will Be Blood fits my definition of modern classic pretty well.

[Krizzle1]

As others have said, classics are movies that'd still hold up after multiple viewings BUT it's still hard to give them that 'classic' status and its probably different for everyone

Recent 'classics' for me...

About Time (cult classic maybe?)
Ex Machina
Django Unchained
Inception
Logan
Whiplash
Warrior


Maybe ask me again in 10-20 years?

[Leslie Dame]

There are radio stations playing "Classic Rock" which is music from the 1980s. Music from the 1970s is now categorized as "oldies." Makes sense as time simply moves on.

I'd say most movies older than 25-30 years fall into the classic category by default. Whether or not they were ground breaking, had influence or had impact on pop culture at the time.