I just had an afterthought to something a posted on this thread about the Godfather Triliogy.
I have a theory about any old peice of artwork (film or book or musical peice) that is considered a classic… Its hard to watch anything that is considered “seminal” for the first time and be as impressed as you should be. This is because it has been copied so many times, that nowadays it seems derivative and unoriginal, but thats only because, in the case of the Godfather trilogy, EVERY ganster movie since then has copied it.
So my question is this to any students film/literary stuff. Is there a fancy sounding name that describes this idea that I can use to impress my friends and family ?
I think ‘seminal’ is indeed the word you want. I would describe The Godfather as the seminal gangster movie; E.E. Smith’s Lensman novels as the seminal works of space opera, and so on.
I was more looking for a name for this concept: that ‘Seminal’ films, books, etc. often don’t seem that good when they are viewed years later BECAUSE they are so seminal. They look unoriginal and cliched because as they have been copied by all the other works that followed them down the years.
I think griffin’s looking for a word to describe the underhwelming feeling that often accompanies one’s first encounter with a ‘classic’ book/movie/piece of art that’s been over/hyped.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard a term for this experience. It perfectly describes my reaction to Pulp Fiction, however. My parents wouldn’t let me see Pulp Fiction when it was new. Last year, I finally got around to renting it, and I was quite underwhelmed. It’s been copied so much that it now seems trite and boring.
There was a thread about this not too long ago. I think they referred to it as something like Citizen-Kanism. They didn’t use those words but it had something to do with Citizen Kane.
Someone please make up a word for it, we’ll vote it in, everyone start using it online and off, write up a Wiki page and voila-- new word. My submission: hypecritical [hi-PUH-critikul] to have one’s view’s of a seminal work colored (negatively) by the hype surrounding it. Could be troubling for people with lisps and/or bad spelling…
Except that’s not what the OP is asking about. The problem is not too much hype, or the work not living up to it, the problem is that what was new and original isn’t any more.
The trouble with Shakespeare is that he uses too many cliches.
Just to support your observation/theory, my initial reaction to Citizen Kane which I saw for the first time all the way through (after dozing off any number of times partway through it) maybe 10-20 years ago, was “ho hum.”
I feel the same about most of the silents and the old comedies with peoiple like the Marx Brothers, W.C. Fields, Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd and so on.
Having been around for the first screening of The Godfather, I don’t suffer in its case. Same for other “classics” like The Sting, Bullitt, The French Connection, Blade Runner and so many others that may now seem old hat to younger viewers.
I don’t have any idea about the term to describe the phenomenon, but I suspect Ebert may have one in some of his books.
Any revolutionary, ground-breaking work of art will have a diminished impact on those who experience it for the first time having already grown accustomed to the culture that was originally inspired by it.
The Curtains-Clothing-Classic Correlation:
Any movie in which someone makes clothes from old drapes will become a classic.
)