All things considered, it's been a pretty quiet month in the world of film. Of the expected big earners this year, we've already seen two in the form of X:Men - The Last Stand and The Da Vinci Code. The only prizes given out this time of year are the MTV Movie Awards, and even the Cannes Film Festival wasn't particularly thrilling this year either. So I admit I was at a loss at what to write about. However, I got an e-mail from a reader (yes, I do get them occasionally) that included this paragraph:

"...I agree with you on 'Thank you for smoking', I thought it was pretty poor. But I think you're dead wrong about 'Hard Candy', that was just sick and twisted for the sake of it. I've looked around your site and you only give 7 stars to old films, which I think is unfair. The LOTR films for example were really brilliant films, and I would give them 7 stars too. But as they're new films I wonder if you'd do that. What do you think of them?.." - From "Anthony B".

In my defence, because the site is relatively new I haven't got around to adding that many 'Classics' yet. But this e-mail does raise a point which I really should explain, and that is how I go about classifying a film as 'Classic' and awarding it 7 stars. I'll deal with some misconceptions that some of you might have first, then just summarise what I think makes a film a 'Classic'.

Only old films qualify as 'Classics'

This is Anthony's chief complaint, and I can assure him that it's not the case. One of the 'Classics' on the site is Downfall, which was only released a couple of years ago - that certainly isn't an old film. In some respects it's actually harder for some older films to get into the 'Classic' category, because I think it's important that a film ages well, or has the capacity to do so. There are some films that are generally considered to be "classics" because of their impact on film-making, which I actually think are remarkably dated and are only watchable for nostalgic reasons. So essentially, my view is that just because something is old and is considered "classic" in some respects, that doesn't necessarily indicate that it's still any good, which is what my 'Classic' rating is used to indicate.

Only serious films or dramas can be 'Classics'

Again this isn't the case at all. A 'Classic' should be a fine film within it's own genre, as I think it's impossible to compare films from different genres when it comes to determining merit. They're not on the site (yet), but I would consider Raiders of the Lost Ark, Die Hard, The Empire Strikes Back and The Life of Brian to be 'Classics'. None of these are dramas, but what they have in common is that they are superlative examples of film-making from specific genres.

Only films which win lots of awards can be called 'Classics'

The number of awards something wins should never determine whether or not you like it, and that is the case for me as well. Films I like and films I think are brilliant get 7 stars, irrelevant of how many Oscars or BAFTAs they might have won. Using some recent examples, I still maintain that The Fellowship of the Ring is a 'Classic', whereas The Return of the King most certainly isn't, but the latter won 11 Oscars. It's also true that awards don't take into account how well a film might age; something you'll realise if you watch many of the 'Best Picture' winners from the 1930s and 40s.

A film has to be perfect to be called a 'Classic'

I don't think there is such a thing as a perfect film in an objective sense. When someone watches a film, they subconsciously apply their own subjective criteria to it. Because of this, no film could ever be described as "perfect", because not everyone can agree that it is. In relation to the site though, a film can still be a 'Classic' even if, in my view, it's flawed in some way. This is normally because either the flaws are superficial and small, or because they just don't matter. Using an example, I gave Amadeus 7 stars, but I still pointed out deficiencies in one of the performances and some of the dialogue.

I now hope I've cleared up a few misconceptions that might be floating around. However, to tell you the truth, I cannot actually come up with a precise or concise definition of a 'Classic'. That's because I don't think it's possible to precisely define what makes a film superlative. It goes without saying that a 'Classic' film needs to be well acted, directed, written and scored, but I think the crucial factor is how much it means to the person watching it. So for me, a 'Classic' is a film that is technically excellent, but it has something special that marks it out within its genre. It's a film I would recommend that anyone see, whatever their tastes, because I think it's a superlative example of film-making that has something truly special to offer.

© David Mercier
Discuss films and features on the FilmJudge Blog