The Fall of the Classic

Where have all the classic films gone?

Are we even in an era that is capable of making classic films, or is society too fragmented to allow for a single film that will appeal to everyone? Social commentary fades away more with each breath. The fact of the matter is, the best film of 2004 (Crash) was a torpid attempt at best. It was Hollywood trying to say, "See, everyone? We can still make movies about society. We can still talk about racism and corrupt police, and -- no, seriously. We're a lot better than you thought. Please don't stop going to the movies."

It spelled everything out. It didn't create characters the viewers actually cared about. There are no Charles Foster Kanes anymore, no Terry Malloys, and certainly no Annie Halls. The closest thing to a solid social commentary within recent memory was Brokeback Mountain, and it was so divisive that half the people it could have had an effect on boycotted it because it was about gay men. "But CWSA," I hear you say. "Isn't that what a truly classic film does? Doesn't it create differing viewpoints and spur discussion, and open up controversy?" And I am here to tell you, Yes. That is exactly what a classic film does. However, there is no educated discussion here. There is no actual controversy. There is a large portion of the populace covering their ears and humming while the world goes by. Movies like Brokeback Mountain are supposed to open people's eyes, add a new perspective to the argument. Problem is, people don't want to know this new perspective. They have their opinions, and nothing is going to change that. They want to remain ignorant, thinking they already know what it's about and they already disagree with it. Somehow, Citizen Kane, through a knock-down-drag-out fight with the production company, managed to get released, managed to give its opinion in a subtle, brilliantly crafted way, and changed people's minds. That can't happen now.

Today, Brokeback Mountain just gets tossed off as "That Gay Cowboy Movie." It's so much more than that. It's the discussion of the belief that homosexuality is not a choice. Mostly, though, it's a discussion about the nature of love. The complications, the questions it raises, the societal conflicts -- it's all about love, but because the lovers in this film happened to be two men, it became a movie about gayness to the public. In a partisan society, with an issue that divisive, it made the true point of the film moot.

So what's to say that there can be a movie that can make a difference right now? People seem to miss the point of the truly brilliant. They say it's too weird, or it doesn't make sense, or who cares? It doesn't have a happy ending. It's not romantic or sweet. It doesn't scare you on a direct level. Movies are losing their effect. The reason for that is the decline of the importance placed on subtlety. Standards are lowering. Minds are going to waste. The movies that are getting made have explosions or gunfights (even some of the good ones -- to try to attract more people), raunchy sex scenes, or dick and fart jokes. (BRING IT BABY! YEAH!)

Now, I love explosions, car chases, gun fights, dick and fart jokes, and raunchy sex scenes as much as the next guy. They definitely have their place, and I'm not saying that all movies these days are worthless. There is definitely value in entertainment, in engrossing storytelling, in cheering people up. Here's the thing -- a couple years ago, there was a truly outstanding film that had: raunchy sex, gore, fistfights, gunfights, more raunchy sex, mobsters, the works. This film is "A History of Violence." This movie was remarkable. Every single element had its place -- from one sex scene, a truly loving, tender (but still sexy as hell) relationship between spouses, to the later sex scene, a raw, conflicted, violent, dirty fucking on a staircase. The difference between this film and the other recent movies of its ilk is the establishment of character, the importance of each element of plot. This film changed the idea of what a sex scene should be. While most stories use the sex scene as a culmination of previous events, "A History of Violence" uses the two sex scenes to indicate a change in the main character. Character in and of itself seems like a lost art in cinema.

Another movie that uses character exceptionally well is American Beauty. This is as close to a contemporary classic as I have seen -- at least in terms of the public. There have been other films that many people have respected, enjoyed, or hailed as brilliant -- but there has not been as open a discussion as there was for this film. The beautiful thing about this movie is that it appealed most to those that it criticized -- suburbanites. It was marketed in a way that suggested a sexy comedy (most notably the "you want to have ten thousand of his babies" scene as it appears in the trailer). Tons of people saw this movie, and many came out of the theater not having seen what they expected to see. What they DID see was an intense, complicated emotional film that showcased the vain, horrible life of suburbanites, brought to life by Chris Cooper, Annette Bening, Kevin Spacey and Thora Birch (wonderful performances, all). It openly tore at the fabric that the middle class had worked together to weave over the last century -- and for that, it was hailed as revolutionary. Those who didn't like it still respected it.

The only issue is that THAT was 1999. It's been 8 years. Politics have changed. Our government has changed. Our country has been attacked. As a result, we guard our opinions far more closely. We don't let people we don't know tell us what to think, or even suggest it. Is there room in the minds of Americans for an opinion they don't already have? Maybe someone can break this. Maybe someone can reach the minds of the mass-consumer. I don't know how they'll do it, but hopefully, someone will figure it out.