"The test of time"
is a phrase which crops up frequently in this website. What is this test,
and why does it matter?
Fragmented,
modern Western societies contain innumerable groupings of people who are united by
shared enthusiasms and prejudices. Each group loves films in which their own preoccupations
are pivotal. For example, some-one fascinated
by space exploration will insist that "2001,
A Space Odyssey" and "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind" are
brilliant films. However, most non-space enthusiasts find "2001, A Space
Odyssey" intensely boring, and "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind"
intensely childish. In other words, it is possible for a movie to evoke strong
enthusiasm in a small minority of film lovers, and boredom and resentment
in the majority.
Because even low-budget movies
cost vast sums to produce,
the movie business can never be a "cottage" industry, making films for small minority audiences.
It is essential that movies be sold to a mass audience. The film
industry is acutely aware of this, and spends lavishly to publicise and sell
its movies. Sometimes enough excitement is generated by the marketing campaigns
to entice large audiences into the cinema, only for the audience to leave
the cinema disappointed. The film in question is commercially successful,
but will it stand the test of time?
The test of time comprises four separate
tests, and is important because it shows which films have
a lasting appeal and can, years after being released, still earn revenue
in repertory cinemas and on DVD. This enables the movie industry to identify
the elements commonly found in films that do pass the test of time, and
by extension, to judge which new films might be commercially successful both
when
first released and when issued on DVD.
The four individual tests
are as follows:
1) DO MOST PEOPLE WHO SEE
THE MOVIE ENJOY IT?
This test has nothing to
do with the commercial success or otherwise of the film. Whether
the movie plays to a full house or to an almost empty cinema, does most of the
audience enjoy the film? As long as the venue is a normal cinema with a cross-section
of the general public as the audience, this question is crucial. The test
is not valid if the audience is a specialised audience; for example, all students
at college or all members of an art society.
2) DO MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE
STILL ENJOY THE FILM SEVERAL YEARS LATER?
This is a demanding test.
Modern marketing campaigns attempt to "position" the prospective
audience by creating in them a frame of mind which is receptive to the movie
being sold. The intention is to prime the audience to
enjoy a film, but will that audience still admire the film when the effect
of the marketing campaign wears off? Even more
significantly, people's values and tastes change as they grow older and gain
more experience of life. For example, at seventeen years of age some-one might
smirk at the insolence and facetiousness that Tom Cruise frequently displays,
but at the age of forty find those same qualities extremely unattractive.
If people enjoy a film when they first see it, and enjoy it again several
years later when they themselves have become different people, the film has
passed a severe test. Very few films do pass this test.
3) CAN THE FILM BE SEEN REPEATEDLY
WITHOUT BECOMING STALE OR BORING?
How many times have people
seen "Singing In The Rain"? How many times have people seen "The
Bridge On The River Kwai"? How many people have seen "Casablanca"
so often that they can quote chunks of the dialogue? A great many;
but how many of them would protest at watching one of those films
again? None of them; because these films have not and do not
ever become stale and boring. No matter how often or how recently one has
seen these films, a further viewing is always enjoyable. There are many films
which can be watched once every ten years, but the real test
is can a film be watched once every two years?
4) DO PEOPLE WHO COME IN
"COLD", PERHAPS YEARS AFTER THE FILM WAS FIRST RELEASED, IN A DIFFERENT
CULTURAL CLIMATE, UNAWARE OF ANY HYPE, ENJOY THE FILM?
A man is out of town on a
business trip. That evening he is left to his own devices. He does not want
to stare at the walls of his hotel room; nor does he want to spend the entire
evening in the bar, drinking too much, trying to strike up conversations with
strangers. He is too old and too shy to try picking up a girl. There is a
repertory cinema down the street. He does not know much about movies, and certainly
he has never heard of the film they are showing today. He does not know if
the film got good or bad reviews when it first came out. He does not know
what the film is about, or even who is in it. He does not know if it is a
comedy, a drama, an epic or a sex film. He only knows that watching a
movie might be the best way to spend the evening. He buys a ticket, and goes
in. He is unprepared and has an open mind. Does he enjoy the film? Does it hold his attention all the way through
without any boring patches? Is the ending satisfying? Will he still remember
the film two months later? When it comes up on television, will he make a
point of watching it again?
A film that passes all of
these four tests can safely be judged to have passed the test of time.
These tests centre on the
responses of most
people, not all people. No film, no matter how brilliant, will please every-one.
When "The Third Man" came out, it was
immediately recognised as a classic, a status it retains to this day. The music
by Anton Karas made a major contribution to the film's mood, and caught the
public's ear and imagination. Two men went to see the film, and afterwards
exchanged opinions
as they walked down the street. One said it was the best film he had ever
seen. His friend disagreed. "It was all right I suppose, but that bloody music
got on my nerves!"
ESSAYS HOME