http://manrobotmonster.livejournal.com/75213.html

Over the last couple months I've rented a lot of "classic comedy" from Netflix. Most of yinz that are around my age know what this means. All the stuff we grew up believing was the funniest shit in the universe: Caddyshack, Stripes, Blazing Saddles, Animal House, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Bachelor Party, et cetera, et cetera. You know, all of the stuff from the 70s and 80s before comedy branched into low-budget screwball Police Academy ripoffs and teen dramadies a la John Hughes.

I'm not entirely sure why my generation holds so many of these films in such high regard (especially Caddyshack). Did we really think they were so funny when we saw them, or did our older brothers all think they were really funny so we just agreed to appear cool? But I'm here to tell you that most of those movies just aren't that good. The Mel Brooks stuff is still alright, and The Jerk still gets a lot of laughs from me, but almost all of those other movies are not only stupid (hey, Dodgeball is stupid) but they're not very funny, completely disjointed, and generally lead to me just wishing they were over by about 2/3rds of the way through.

In general the formula for most of these "classic" movies is that a bunch of guys sat around a room doing a ton of drugs and came up with ideas for scenes they thought would be really wacky. But like most guys who sit around doing a bunch of drugs they did everything half-assed, feeling like they'd accomplished their goal after the first couple brainstorming sessions. So in general these movies move from one "wacky" scene to the next with no real feeling of continuity or plot or story arc. The scenes themselves sound funny when you describe them to someone but when you actually sit down and watch them... not so much.

Which in itself isn't so bad. I mean, a lot of movies that I've rewatched over the years just don't hold up... or if it does, it does so only in a nostalgia sense. I still enjoy Three Amigos, but I think if I hadn't seen it every Friday night it was playing at the Tri-Boro cinema back in 1986 I wouldn't really like watching it today. But what I find bizarre is how many people treat the idea that Caddyshack isn't actually that great as some kind of horrendous blasphemy.

"It's a classic" they say. Then they give you all sorts of reasons why you didn't like it. You need to watch it drunk, or stoned, or with a bunch of other people (perhaps all drunk and/or stoned). But I don't buy that shit any more than I buy that The Dead are really awesome but I just don't appreciate them because I haven't seen them live on acid. If you have to put all sorts of conditions on the viewing of a movie (aside from the obvious ones... like watch it from beginning to end without interruption) that's a hint-and-a-half that its not a classic.

If they don't say they, they'll often say that you have to understand a movie based on the time it came out, or how groundbreaking this movie was or how you "can't" make a movie like this anymore (I love the people who act like teen sex and drug use are verboten topics that no one makes movies about, what fucking planet have they been on for the past decade?). The problem is that this very argument bolsters my point that said "classic" isn't that great. A movie should stand on its own merits as a good movie. I shouldn't have to like a movie because its an important part of cinema history, or because a bunch of other people decided I *have to* like it.

Of course, I do admit that I bring these arguments on by stating my opinion as fact (i.e. "Caddyshack isn't all that great" rather than "I don't really like Caddyshack"... although I think the latter would still lead to the same discussion). I also admit that certain types of movies appeal to certain people. But since my comedy tastes include not only Whit Stillman and the Coen Brothers, but also Happy Gilmore, Super Troopers, and Anchorman I hardly think I can be accused of being a movie snob, overthinking, or just not "getting" dumb comedy. I just don't like to waste my time on unfunny comedy simply because others have declared it "a classic."

And I guess in the end the use of that term is really what bugs me. By definition a classic is something that stands the test of time. We all learned in High School english class that the reason William Shakespeare is the greatest writer ever is because you can take his plays and set them in any place and time and they still make sense, centuries after they were written. Of course, one can argue about whether that is true of Shakespeare, especially if one is said high school student assigned to read and understand MacBeth, but if that's the standard for what constitutes "a classic" I hardly think a movie that doesn't hold up two decades later unless your drunk, high, and in a room full of people who all loved it as kids qualifies.

It's not like there aren't tons of examples of great films that have truly stood the test of time. Cool Hand Luke is as great a movie today as it was when it came out before I was born. Old Yeller will still make anyone who watches it cry like a baby. Theres a reason It's a Wonderful Life is a classic, and its not just because someone, somewhere declared it so (unlike, say, Rebel Without a Cause). The final three-way standoff in the Spaghetti Western A Fistful of Dollars is so well done that it holds its own against modern huge-budget CGI-infused blockbuster action climaxes. Even the original Planet of the Apes holds up if you're not immediately turned off by the 60's-era costumes - I mean who can deny the raw charisma of The Hest and his enormous, manly teeth?

There are more recent movies, too, that I think will have the chance to prove themselves classics in the long run - Barcelona, The Usual Suspects, Glengarry Glenn Ross, High Fidelity, Reservior Dogs, The Lord of the Rings, and dozens of others that aren't at the top of my head. And if I'm lucky, by then few people will even remember Fast Times at Ridgemont High, although maybe the next generation will be adamant that everyone must love Freddy Got Fingered.