This isn't to say that it's been the Dark Ages since the 1980s. The word "classic" presents a conundrum in that it is loaded with the implication that everything else is not a classic, i.e. inferior.
A better way to approach "classic" is through the context of Hollywood history and the evolution of the film industry's business model. By "Hollywood," this also means this argument is limited to the U.S. film industry.
This approach takes much of the subjectivity out and focuses more on the "when" instead of the "what."
After all, there is the "Classical Era" when talking about music, an era defined as music composed roughly between 1750 and 1820. Greek and Roman literature from antiquity often is termed "Classical Literature."
Silents not "Golden"
Because "classic" connotes "old" right off the bat, starting the "classic film" era at the dawn of the Golden Age in the1930s makes sense when juxtaposed with silent films and the surging popularity of "talkies."
The silent film era, roughly 1904 to 1928, has much cinematic merit, but these films are not as accessible to the masses as talkies. It's tough to find them today on broadcast or cable channels. The silent era should be viewed as a distinct genre, no better or worse than talkies.
Thus, it makes more sense for the "classics" to begin with the "Golden Age" of Hollywood, roughly defined as films of the 1930s, '40s and '50s.
A "new" way of thinking
With the early bookend established, what of the later "classic" years? Peter Biskind, in his book "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls," defines the "New Hollywood" era roughly as the period from the late 1960s to the early 1980s, when the old studio system and Production Code strictures fell by the wayside.
This made way for grittier films touched by countercultural sensibilities that held a general disdain for "old-fashioned" filmmaking conventions and themes.
Sure, most film historians would not group New Hollywood with the Golden Age, the end of which has been put anywhere from 1946 to the early 1960s, depending on whom one asks. However, both eras were mostly free of the "blockbuster" mentality that became a permanent business model after the successes of "Jaws" and "Star Wars" in 1975 and 1977, respectively, a shift detailed by Biskind.
Busting has been booming
By the early 1980s, bloated big-budget blockbusters and sequels targeting teens and young adults became de rigueur, and modestly budgeted films aimed at older demographics, which could be found in ample amounts from the 1930s through the 1970s, became a much smaller piece of the pie. This business model still exists today.
It doesn't seem right, or historically accurate, to end the classic period before New Hollywood's rise, which effectively lumps the era in with the later blockbuster era because of the aforementioned classic-and-everything-else mentality.
(The Golden Age had its own brush with blockbusters, in the 1950s, when the rise of television intimidated the film industry to the point of bankrolling large-scale epics like "The Ten Commandments" and "Ben Hur" to distinguish itself from the small screen. The epic box office bomb "Cleopatra" helped end that trend in 1963.)
Surely, one can appreciate films without the need to categorize, but like music and literature, it would be nice to have a generally accepted classical era so that when the term "classic film" comes up in conversation, everyone will be on the same page of the script.
Frank Rossi - I'm an amateur film historian, with an emphasis on the studio-system and "New Hollywood" eras, roughly 1930 through 1981.
