# Enduring films and place/time setting **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [July 17, 2010, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enduring-films-and-place-time-setting/547015 "2010-07-17T09:30:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2010, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enduring-films-and-place-time-setting/547015/1 "2010-07-17T09:30:42Z")
So I’m wondering about what I’d actually like to call superfilms. (Didn’t put it in the thread title because I have to explain it.) Not just popular films, or well-made films, or big money-makers. Basically, films that have never gotten old, that have never been out of the public consciousness. Bearing in mind that there are very few of them, they’d have to have all four of these criteria. (And they’re just my criteria; if you think they should or could be modified, by all means say so.) 1. Started out at least strong, if not a huge hit, or even a phenomenon. But it had to have struck a chord with the majority of viewers while it was still in theaters. This rules out, for instance, **It’s a Wonderful Life** , which didn’t find its audience until it started getting shown on TV every year. 2. Its popularity has never taken a dive since then. Waned a bit, perhaps, but no backlash, no perception that it’s old and no longer worth watching. You may think **American Beauty** is an awesome film, and you may be right, but I remember that DVD sales were not at all as expected. Somehow, it didn’t resonate as well after a year had gone by. 3. Especially devoted fans, like Casablancaholics. Or the guy I know who only watches **Once Upon a Time in the West** once every five years because overviewing would ruin it for him. But if it only has this element, it’s not what I’m looking for. There’s a group that gets together every year to watch **Somewhere in Time** , but I’m not including that film, because it doesn’t have the first two criteria, while **Casablanca** and **OUATITW** both do. 4. Still taken seriously by filmmakers. Subject of parody **and** homage. Used in “It’s [blank] meets [blank]!” log lines. And not just because it’s a well-made film, but because it’s proven that it’s a concept that people want to see. So I’ve got five of each so far: five in the real world and then-current era, and five set in a fantasy world or in the past. **Gone With the Wind** (entirely in the past) **Wizard of Oz** (made-up world) **Titanic** (mostly flashback) **Star Wars** (made-up world) **Once Upon a Time in the West** (entirely in past) * * * **Casablanca Rocky Jaws**(thanks,**Quint**!) **Saturday Night Fever** **E.T.** The only one of these that is really of its moment is **Casablanca**. But it’s set in a time period that films have never stopped revisiting, so it doesn’t really come off as anachronistic. Except for things that can’t be helped, like cars and old-fashioned phones, there’s nothing especially trendy in **Rocky, Jaws** or **E.T.**. Disco was trendy if anything was, but **SNF** was not celebrating disco. It was really about how grim Tony’s life was every minute that he was _not_ dancing. So I’m wondering, how much does a film’s time/place setting contribute to this? I can’t help thinking that if a film is not tied to the era in which it’s made, that helps a lot with its longevity. And how much does it help when it’s new? The term “escapism” is thrown around so much; are people more drawn to films with settings that are entirely unlike the world outside the theater? And what other elements do these films have in common? Of course, there is the question of how old a film has to be before it’s proven its longevity. Some recent films may surprise everyone by outlasting currently bigger hits, and currently beloved films might already be wearing thin. I might be premature naming **Titanic**. Maybe by 2030, people will be scoffing at it. I’d like to name the **Lord of the Rings** and **Pirates of the Carribean** series, but it’s early for them too. If there really is a 3-D revolution, they might be dismissed by future generations as old-fashioned but not enough so as to be retro-cool. Still, by all means make predictions about which films **will** last. (But remember 1, 3 and 4!) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2010, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enduring-films-and-place-time-setting/547015/2 "2010-07-17T09:50:52Z")
If I’m understanding your criteria correctly, I’d include _The Godfather_, Parts I and II. 1. Hugely successful when released. 2. Their popularity hasn’t declined. 3. Often named as “best film ever”. 4. Critically acclaimed. 5. Both set in a historical period (the fifties). ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2010, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enduring-films-and-place-time-setting/547015/3 "2010-07-17T10:06:22Z")
Ooh, yeah. I forgot that. ETA: And II flashed even further back. ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2010, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enduring-films-and-place-time-setting/547015/4 "2010-07-18T20:26:48Z")
I’m wondering if **Annie Hall** would fit in here as well. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enduring-films-and-place-time-setting/547015/5 "2010-07-18T21:32:24Z")
I’d say _Annie Hall_ is pretty borderline. It was popular but not hugely so. And I think the regard for it has declined - partly due to Allen’s personal issues and partly to the fact that he reused the themes of _Annie Hall_ so many times they now seem cliched. I think people were just overly impressed back in 1977 that Allen was doing a relatively dramatic film after his earlier broad comedies - obviously the novelty of Woody Allen being serious has since worn off. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2010, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enduring-films-and-place-time-setting/547015/6 "2010-07-18T23:27:08Z")
**A Night at the Opera** fits, as does **Horse Feathers** and **Monkey Business**. All were set in a comic version of the real world. **Duck Soup** just misses because it flopped. **2001: A Space Odyssey** seems to fit. Sort of a made-up version and extrapolation of the current world. **Some Like It Hot** – set in the past. **City Lights, Modern Times, The Gold Rush**. All massively popular, with plenty of fans since the start, and critically acclaimed. Slight drop off since they’re silent, but still listed as a film great. **Singin in the Rain** ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enduring-films-and-place-time-setting/547015/7 "2010-07-19T00:24:16Z")
No, most of those fall just short of what I’m thinking of. **2001** might be the only one that qualifies. And **Nemo** , you’re right: **Annie Hall** also doesn’t quite make it. ETA: What I mean is, the Marx Brothers themselves, and Chaplin himself, were highly popular and influential, but I wouldn’t single out any one film of either as being a phenomenon in itself. SLIH is/was popular, but not iconic. SITR I’m not sure about.