BETTING AND TIME CAN MAKE A CLASSIC FILM

It has often been said that words like 'classic', 'legend', or 'iconic', are each subjective by nature and design, mainly because people can't always define these particular attributes as soon as they're displayed. Case in point, the artist Vincent van Gogh, also known as Vinny to his pals, never made any money with his work, despite now being known as one of the most prolific painters of his time. Why is that though? Could it have anything to do with him being a bit of a nutter? Or better yet, could Vincent's subjective notoriety be associated with the nature of society and how time can effect this?





Now what do I mean by this? Here, let me explain what I mean by using the following two examples. Or as I'd like to call them: 'The Betting Effect' and 'The Homage Effect'.

THE BETTING EFFECT

Do you like to gamble? Are you the type of person who like's to lay down a large wager regardless of risk? Well, not many people do! Some people like to think of gambling as a sin, stating that it should never be attempted in any given type of situation. But the thing is, life is a gamble. Everyone's life! No matter what you do, be it going to college, going to work, or even, heck, waking up in the morning and eating toast, sometimes risks need to be made and payments need to be wrought. 

To me, a good example of this can be seen in the careers of actors who are now known as legends or icons by their piers. I mean, what would have happened to Clint Eastwood's career if he never stopped working on the TV show, Rawhide, so he could travel to Spain and make a Japanese story transformed into a Spaghetti Western? Namely, the 1964 classic, A Fistful of Dollars! Whilst over on the opposite end of the spectrum, what would have happened to the career of Boris Karloff, especially if Bela Lugosi agreed to play Frankenstein in the 1931 original? Which, yes, Mister Lugosi was initially supposed to do, yet didn't! 

So do you see what I'm trying to get at here? Sometimes you have to take a chance, lay down a bet, or have a punt on something like online gambling. Hollywood can't seem to bring themselves to do this in today's formulaic cinematic climate. But then again, today's Hollywood isn't the same as it was back in the day. When the American film industry was first founded on the West Coast, it was done by a pack of optimistic and creative immigrants who wanted to charter new ground, not re-tread old ones, and that, my friends, makes all the difference. Something new and something worth the risk.

THE HOMAGE EFFECT

Did you know that classic film's like 'The Magnificent Seven', 'It's A Wonderful Life', and 'Citizen Kane', were all deemed failures upon their initial release? The same can also be said for older films too, films from the silent era like Buster Keaton's 'The General', as well as Charlie Chaplin's 'The Kid'. Today, however, they're all thought of as being the best of the best of the best. And do you want to know why? Time, that's why. Time has made society appreciate these magnificent movies because of the way we have evolved throughout the years. 

For instance, when Charlie Chaplin first made 'The Kid', audiences wanted to know why this comedy had sad moments in it. 'I thought comedies were supposed to be funny', said one noted New York film critic, and yeah, to some degree comedies are! Yet that being said, through this film Charlie has been able to demonstrate to us that some forms of entertainment can come with many emotional layers. A comedy that is always funny doesn't have the same emotional depth where it comes to story-telling. Being on the same level, constantly, scene by scene, play by play, can make a film feel flat and pointless in retrospect. Nowadays we are used to the amalgamation of film genres, like the rom-coms, the film-noirs, or the kung-fu comedies, but back in Charlies era this notion was new and seemed like untested ground for the general public. 

Another factor I would also like to mention is that sometimes the principle of time can help aide a film's growth, especially where it comes to those people in front of the camera, namely, the actors. Now going back to what I said about Chaplin, if you think about it, comedians like him and Stan Laurel were inspired by much older greats, such as Harry Langdon, and tried to imitate them throughout their works. Chaplin and his ilk then inspired other comedians like the Goons or The Marx Brothers, who likewise did a similar thing throughout their careers. The Goons and The Marx Brothers also inspired other comedians like the Pythons, Woody Allen, Robin Williams, Richard Pryor, and Mel Brooks, and in turn, they inspired the next generation, which inspired the next generation, which inspired the next generation, and so forth, and so on.

Inadvertently this principle of generational inspiration has allowed society to comprehend different styles, different tastes, and different types of story, which, on a conceptual level, is what all of these classic films are! They're all stories told in unique ways that society has had to learn how to appreciate... appreciate in such a way that can only be found in art. Thank you cinema. I hope you get better soon.