Movies you just didn't "get".

[Auricauricle]

You're more charitable than I, Beef: I don't think "anyone" can appreciate Beethoven, etc....But that's stuff for another forum, hm?

And so, by extension of your point, what is "classic" is dependent on the dictates of "the masses"? Guess I might as well go the libraries, bookstores, etc., and tell them to throw out their Kipling, Dickens and Tolstoy, because they're old and nobody reads them anymore....

Trapped, indeed!?

[Groundbeef]

You're more charitable than I, Beef: I don't think "anyone" can appreciate Beethoven, etc....But that's stuff for another forum, hm?

And so, by extension of your point, what is "classic" is dependent on the dictates of "the masses"? Guess I might as well go the libraries, bookstores, etc., and tell them to throw out their Kipling, Dickens and Tolstoy, because they're old and nobody reads them anymore....

Trapped, indeed!?

I think appreciate is perhaps the incorrect term.

In a nutshell, here is why I think that I do. Most artforms rely on technology that really hasn't changed much over the ages. Books are still books. The process for making a book has changed, but in essence, a book that was written in 1750 is still the "same" as a book made today.

The message is not affected by innovations related to mass production of bindings for example.

Concerts (classical) are essentially the same as they were in the days of Bach, Beethoven, and others. A piano may have changed, as well as other musical instruments, but the way the music is transmitted (the actual instrument) hasn't fundementally changed. The message isn't affected by the passage of time. The symphony still sounds the same.

The Mona Lisa, if painted today, would rely on pretty much the same technology that was in effect at the time of its original commision. The technology for grinding pigments to make the oil paint is irrelevant, in that the image is essentially the same weather it was painted today, or 500 years ago. Heck, cave paintings relied on the same technology (give or take a brush!).

Film however, is still an art form in flux. What was a marvel in 1968 is NOT a marvel today. And as technology progresses, 2001 will continue to look older, and older. The book notwithstanding, the actual "film" looks dated. And that single fact, separates the "art" of film from other classic "art" mediums. I would argue that any film that uses technology as a basis for it's story telling, will in itself never be a "classic". We may argue that the techniques used in the film were groundbreaking, and Kubric was a great director. I wouldn't disagree.

But the fact is, because film, unlike other mediums continues to evolve it makes classifying something a "classic" a moving target. And I don't think that film will age nearly as well as the other above mentioned "arts".