Quintessential Films

[Dumbledore lives]

A little while ago I was trying to think of what I believed to be the film that defined a decade, specifically the 80s, which led me to the wider question of are there any films which defined a decade, the quintessential films of that period of time.

I figured I'd bring this to the forum, just to see what they thought. What I mean by this is, what showcases the culture, style of movie-making, people of the time, or any combination of the previous. My personal choices begin in the 60s because I simply have little or no experience with films before then.

60s: To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
70s: Star Wars (1977)
80s: Breakfast Club (1985)
90s: Pulp Fiction (1994)
00s: Donnie Darko (2001)

Now all of these are debatable, and given time I would probably challenge myself on all of these, especially the last one, but for right now, at this period of time, these are my choices. Don't restrict yourself to just one choice though, sometimes a large variety of films must be considered just to define one year, let alone a decade. So I bring it to the playground, what do you believe are the quintessential films for the decades?

[grimbold]

i think the shawshank redemption might be a better movie for the 90s
as for the 00's spiderman 2 is my pick

[Athaniar]

I'd say the Lord of the Rings movies are a good suggestion for 00's film, but I'm no expert, really.

[Knaight]

Your list seems reasonable, except for Donnie Darko. That was a cult movie, it had a small group of fans who absolutely loved it, but it wasn't widely received. The reception given to movies like Donnie Darko, Harold and Maude, and Napoleon Dynamite simply does not count for the decade as a whole.

As for what is the quintessential film of the 2000-2010 decade, that should be more apparent once its a bit closer to 2020 or so. It could be Lord of the Rings, it could be Twilight (I hope not), it could be Kill Bill, it might even end up one of the more "artistic" movies that received a more mild reception, such as Bridge to Terabithia.

[Asthix]

Defining movie of the 30's? 'The Wizard of Oz.' I suppose 'King Kong gets an honorable mention.

The 40's? Disney's 'Fantasia.'

50's would probably get a lot of suggestions. 'The African Queen' or 'Some Like it Hot' for instance.

[Dumbledore lives]

Like I said in the first post Donnie Darko was probably one of the more debatable picks, and now I'd probably pick the Kill Bill duology or the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. I will argue for it though, it may be a cult movie, but through the advent of the interent many more people have seen it than have would in a previous decade. This movie also was seen by the specific generation who would be most likely to watch it and kind of relate, due to in large part the internet.

[Erloas]

I definitely wouldn't have picked Pulp Fiction for the 90s. It was one of those movies that is talked about a lot, but no one I know actually really thought it was all that great. It seemed like it appealed to a fairly specific crowd, and wasn't really all that main stream. And not that popularity is everything, but I think when talking about films defining a generation it is a an important factor: Pulp Fiction made 108M, Rush Hour (the 50th grossing movie of the decade, all the farther the Wikipedia page goes) made 141M.

I would probably go with Jurassic Park personally. It essentially defined what big movies were going to be for the decade. It stepped up the visual effects to a new level, and that is a lot of what drove movies of the 90s. It was also a movie everyone went to see in the theater (914M gross, 3rd after Titanic and Star Wars E1). And the fear of velociraptors is still alive in pop culture.

And of the two I can't think of any other big films of the decade that followed the lead of Pulp Fiction but the films following in Jurassic Park's footsteps are pretty big.


For the 2000s... its hard to say but it would have to be a toss up between Pirates of the Caribbean, or Lord of the Rings. I think Pirates had a larger impact on the culture as a whole, especially since much of LOTR's hype was because it was already a well established franchise. Pirates got to where it was in popularity just on the films themselves. They were both movies that almost everyone went to see, and both had fans and critics alike. I would probably give it to LOTR if it got to its prominence based on the movies primarily (which I will say I liked the movies more then the books) rather then the 50 years of fanbase it had from the books.

That would be a defining movie of the decade, rather then defining media in general of the decade in which case I would probably have to go with Harry Potter. Even though the books started in the 90s, it was in full steam through the '00s and had a much bigger cultural impact overall. But the movies are mostly an extension of the books rather then being that influential on their own.

[Bhaakon]

So you're saying that Dungeons and Dragons wasn't the defining movie of the 2000's?


Seriously, though, I'd suggest The Dark Knight.

[polity4life]

If we are going for impact and defining impact as what is emulated, then I suggest this list:

60's: Psycho
70's: Apocolypse Now
80's: Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back
90's: Titanic
00's: Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring

If we are going for impact as in what changed filming standards, then I suggest this list:

60's: 2001: A Space Odyssey
70's: Star Wars: A New Hope
80's: Blade Runner
90's: Saving Private Ryan
00's: Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Troll 2 was the defining movie of the 90s. :smallwink:

[polity4life]

Troll 2 was the defining movie of the 90s. :smallwink:

They're eating her! They're going to eat me next! Oh my gooooooooooooooood!

[comicshorse]

I'd say Fight Club for the 90's

[grimbold]

Defining movie of the 30's? 'The Wizard of Oz.' I suppose 'King Kong gets an honorable mention.

The 40's? Disney's 'Fantasia.'

50's would probably get a lot of suggestions. 'The African Queen' or 'Some Like it Hot' for instance.

i agree with your list
for the 50s i would go african queen however Singing in the rain might also be a good pick
for the 1910s i would go Nosferatu partially because its the only movie of that era i have even seen

[Ricky S]

Fight Club and Pulp Fiction are definately Quintessential films to watch. As is Lord of the rings.

[Gaelbert]

for the 1910s i would go Nosferatu partially because its the only movie of that era i have even seen

That's not a particularly good reason. I'd go with The Birth of a Nation for the 1910s. It might fit a little better with the late 1910s through the 1920s though. Red Scare was in the late 1910s, the KKK restarted in 1915, and similar events occurred throughout the second half of the decade.
For the 2000s I'd go with the Pirates of the Caribbean. Pirate movies were dead, and then PotC resurrected them in the epic atmosphere prevalent in other movies of the decade like Avatar, LotR, among others.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

00s are definitely Pirates, no doubt about that in my mind.

[Traab]

You know, breakfast club was the first film that popped into my head when I thought of one that "defined the decade" That was a real classic. I think jurassic park counts for the 90s, as was said, it basically created a new level of special effects in films, it set the bar imo.

[0tt3r]

I would say The Departed for the 00s. Roeper agrees. (http://blog.richardroeper.com/?p=1499)

[Dacia Brabant]

This was a hard exercise, but I think narrowing it down to what was essential for the film culture of the time is the way to go. My list would be:

1910's: The Birth of a Nation and Intolerance, which should be taken together.
1920's: The Gold Rush
1930's: Gone with the Wind
1940's: The Third Man
1950's: On the Waterfront
1960's: The Sound of Music
1970's: Chinatown
1980's: Ferris Bueller's Day Off
1990's: Titanic
2000's: ??? Harry Potter et al., Lord of the Rings and Pirates of the Caribbean could all lay claim to this.

[Kneenibble]

I would put Citizen Kane for the '40s, actually.

The '40s is tough though, because it's highly artificial. War and post-war '40s should be separate categories.

[Trog]

40's: Casablanca
50's: 12 Angry Men
60's: 2001: A Space Odyssey
70's: One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest
80's: Platoon
90's: American Beauty
00's: Return of the King

[Serpentine]

I'm gonna take a slightly different take, and look at quintessential Australian films.

1900s: The Story of the Kelly Gang, as the first-known feature-length film :smalltongue:
1910s: I'm not sure, I don't believe I've seen any from this time. The fact I've heard of The Sentimental Bloke suggests that might be it, though.
1920s: As for the above, with For the Term of His Natural Life as the one I've heard of.
1930s: Seven Little Australians
1940s: The Rats of Tobruk sounds like it'd be about right.
1950s: Jedda
1960s: They're a Weird Mob
1970s: Starting to get a little tricky (not least because some of these I've actually seen...). I'd say it comes down to The Adventures of Barry McKenzie, Picnic at Hanging Rock, or Mad Max. I'm thinking Picnic at Hanging Rock for the way it continues to intrigue people, but The Adventures of Barry McKenzie is sort of Australia positioning itself on the international stage while exploding its sense of humour all over the place. I think Mad Max more sorta leads into the '80s.
1980s: This one's either the Mad Max franchise or Puberty Blues. As a commentary on Australian culture in the 1980s, it's definitely Puberty Blues (...from what I've heard. Never actually seen it myself, though I should). It is not, and never will be, Crocodile Dundee.
1990s: A choice of a few: Fern Gully: The Last Rainforest, Strictly Ballroom, The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert and The Castle. Strictly Ballroom offers some social commentary of the time, but I don't know how relevant it was to most people. The Castle I think was a more accurate reflection of our own perception of ourselves at the time. Fern Gully epitomises the upsurge in environmental conciousness of the 90s, as well as various stylistic features of the time, but I think Priscilla is really the best display of Australia's development as a society - and not only cuz of the whole gay thing.
2000s: I picked out a bunch of movies, and expected it to be a hard decision, but then I hit The Rage in Placid Lake and realised it could be nothing else.

Ideally, I think the "quintessential film" of a decade should somehow profoundly reflect that decade from which it comes, and the society that made it. I tried to do that above, but it's a bit tricky, especially with the early ones.

[Obrysii]

I would say for the '40s, that Citizen Kane be the movie of the decade.

Not just for the movie itself - but for the technical stuff it "gave" to the movie industry.

[grimbold]

I would say for the '40s, that Citizen Kane be the movie of the decade.

Not just for the movie itself - but for the technical stuff it "gave" to the movie industry.

i think that i would have to agree with you
that is a killer movie

[AtlanteanTroll]

Seriously, though, I'd suggest The Dark Knight.

This. Because it's a Supers movie no questions asked.

[grimbold]

This. Because it's a Supers movie no questions asked.

for the same reasons i suggested Spiderman 2
also Spiderman 2 is the highest grossing opening weekend movie ever.

however i still prefer LOTR:ROTK

[Erloas]

I think if you were to pick any superhero movie you would have to pick the one that started the recent big crazy. Which if I remember correctly would have been X-men in 2000. Sure there were superhero movies before that, like the first batman and superman's but many of those were from 10+ years earlier and didn't really lead to a change in the movie scene. Whereas after X-Men came out there have been dozens and dozens of superhero movies released.

And while the Dark Knight was a good film, and probably the quintessential Batman film, it was made following in the already existing superhero movie push. And it made a lot of money and won a lot of award nominations, it was more of a gem in a genre instead of a genre creating piece.
Of course if you are looking at the quintessential films of a genre it would probably work.

And of course I'm not quite using quintessential as my definition for film requirements, I'm more using defining, as in the defining movies of a decade, the ones that had a big influence on the movies to follow.

[Athaniar]

I think if you were to pick any superhero movie you would have to pick the one that started the recent big crazy. Which if I remember correctly would have been X-men in 2000. Sure there were superhero movies before that, like the first batman and superman's but many of those were from 10+ years earlier and didn't really lead to a change in the movie scene. Whereas after X-Men came out there have been dozens and dozens of superhero movies released.
Didn't Blade start the 2000s superhero film craze? But it's from '99 anyway, so it probably won't fit as a quintessential film for either decade.


i agree with your list
for the 1910s i would go Nosferatu partially because its the only movie of that era i have even seen
Isn't Nosferatu from 1922?

[Obrysii]

Didn't Blade start the 2000s superhero film craze? But it's from '99 anyway, so it probably won't fit as a quintessential film for either decade.

I'd argue either The Matrix or Spiderman started the superhero crazy.

[The Big Dice]

I'd argue either The Matrix or Spiderman started the superhero crazy.

You could make a case for the Matrix starting the current glut of superhero movies. But Blade was the first comic book adaptation of modern times. Which I'd say makes it the movie that started the ball rolling.

[Obrysii]

I'm not sure. It didn't gross a huge amount and didn't generate the kind of hype that The Matrix or Spiderman did.

[grimbold]

You could make a case for the Matrix starting the current glut of superhero movies. But Blade was the first comic book adaptation of modern times. Which I'd say makes it the movie that started the ball rolling.

i would disagree because Blade probably will not be considered a classic at the same level of Spiderman or the Matrix in 50 years time

[The Big Dice]

i would disagree because Blade probably will not be considered a classic at the same level of Spiderman or the Matrix in 50 years time

Blade was the test bed for the technology that went to make X-Men. Blade was the last real gasp of the "Vampires are for killing, not making out with" school of thought, too. BUt in terms of how important it was to the superhero movie genre, it was about as important as Silent Running was to the science fiction movies of the 70s.

Which is to say, it predates them all, was a significant, but not the only, influence on the decision to make more genre movies. And that it will always be overshadowed by the big budget all flash and no trousers movies that came later.

[Erloas]

Well for what its worth, I didn't realize that Blade was a comic book character at all. Asking my brothers GF, she said she kind of heard that in passing at some point. And a rather brief check says that the movie is only loosely based on the character rather then telling the story of the comic book. I think in general it fails to be associated as a comic book based superhero movie to the general population, as well as only being mediocre in reception.

And while the Matix definitely made a very strong impact on the movie industry, it didn't become a comic until after the movie came out, and as such, its not really any more "superhero" then any generic action movie.

X-men predated Spiderman by 2 years.

X-men was also very obviously a superhero movie and was fairly well received. To me it seems like the start of them.

Of course for the previous decade there were 4 Batman movies, and that 3 of them did fairly well (don't know about the animated one). Of course it didn't seem like Batman was able to get the interest to pull other comic book franchises into the movies, and maybe that was a Marvel vs DC thing because not much came DC following Batman and the DC movies didn't really show up too much until Marvel had released half a dozen or so movies.
I wonder how much of that had to do with the fact that Batman has seemed to have a strong presence on his own in other medias besides comic books. I bet many more people only know Batman from his various saturday morning cartoons, movies, and TV shows, knowing the characters without ever having read the comic books and never getting interested in the comic books.

Of course now looking over a list of comic books to films, I see that Spawn was from '97, though I don't think it did all that well, and was a fairly new and not well established comic book at that point.
As well as Men in Black of the same year, also one that I didn't realize was based on a comic book. It came across much more as a general summer action movie then a comic book specific superhero... it also seemed to lack the superhero part of things.

[Tazar]

Lord of the Rings or Curse of the Black Pearl would be my choice for a 2000s film.

Serenity would be the one that most defined the science fiction genre itself, in my opinion, but it's not really that mainstream or well known, comparatively speaking.

[Serpentine]

Meh at Serenity. It's an okay movie, but I don't think it epitomised or defined anything much except maybe really annoying fandoms.

Lord of the Rings might be the film that kicked off a new wave of good fantasy (e.g. Game of Thrones, The Dark Tower), but I'm afraid the effect was delayed by too much for it to have defined a decade (i.e. it came out in the 2000s, fantasy might be properly kicking off in the 2010s), and/or the credit is at least shared with Harry Potter.

[Tazar]

Meh at Serenity. It's an okay movie, but I don't think it epitomised or defined anything much except maybe really annoying fandoms.

Going to have to agree to disagree on that one, then. :smallwink:

I've yet to run into another film this generation that captures the "Star Wars feel" like Serenity, with the exception of maybe Star Trek.

[VanBuren]

I would put Citizen Kane for the '40s, actually.

The '40s is tough though, because it's highly artificial. War and post-war '40s should be separate categories.

I'd put Casablanca, frankly.

[Serpentine]

I don't see what about sci-fi it's meant to have defined. The only thing I can think of that it has that most others don't is the western aspect. If anything, I'd give that honour to something like Stargate, if we're not going back to things like Star Trek.

[Tazar]

I don't see what about sci-fi it's meant to have defined. The only thing I can think of that it has that most others don't is the western aspect. If anything, I'd give that honour to something like Stargate, if we're not going back to things like Star Trek.

Here's what I find it to represent; the group of instantly likeable and vibrant characters battling against incredible odds, the feeling of distinctly different but at the same time familiar worlds and locales, a terrifying and alien enemy, and truly "epic" moments.

As a particular enthusiast of spaceship combat in novels and film, Serenity has what I consider to be one of the most visually excellent space battles in film, which is another point to its credit in my eyes.

[Serpentine]

Eh. That might make it a good example of science fiction, or maybe even science fiction in the 2000s*, but how does that make it representative of an entire decade?

*I would protest this, even, as I think through the decade sci-fi shifted into quite different, more drama-y types, making Serenity more of a throw-back than an epitome.

[Tazar]

Eh. That might make it a good example of science fiction, or maybe even science fiction in the 2000s*, but how does that make it representative of an entire decade?

*I would protest this, even, as I think through the decade sci-fi shifted into quite different, more drama-y types, making Serenity more of a throw-back than an epitome.

You may note that I have nowhere suggested that it's a standout example of the entire decade in film making, merely science fiction in the 2000s.

I, personally, find Serenity to be the best science fiction film of the decade; you clearly disagree, and so I'm unfortunately forced to conclude that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point. :smallwink:

[Serpentine]

Yeeeaaaaah. I think at best it's a decent bit of light sci-fi. A look at the List of Sci-Fi Films by decade on Wikipedia finds: The 6th Day, A.I. Artificial Intelligence, Donnie Darko, Evolution, Vanilla Sky, Minority Report, Resident Evil, Signs, Solaris, The Day After Tomorrow, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, I, Robot, The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, War of the Worlds, A Scanner Darkly, The Fountain, Paprika, Sunshine, Cloverfield, WALL-E, Avatar, Astroboy, District 9, Moon, Splice, and Star Trek.
Pretty much all of those I'd consider better, of greater influence of film, and/or more representative of the decade than Serenity.

If you wanna try to convince me, though, I think most people here are basing their concept of "quintessential films" on one or more of the following:

1. Does it reflect the decade in which it was made?
2. Did it have a lasting influence on film in and/or after that decade?
3. Did it have a lasting influence on popular culture/public psyche in and/or after that decade?

...sometimes within a particular subset of film (e.g. sci-fi, or Australian films).
I, personally, mostly use #1.
So, um. Do you have any more argument to make in the context of one or more of these, or some other basis?