Last week I posed the question of whether Inception was a generational film. I asked this question in response to the numerous critics tossing “film of a generation” around in their reviews of The Social Network. That piece led to an online conversation about not only whether Inception was a generational film, but what exactly was a generational film in the first place.
First of all, what does generational mean? Doing the natural thing in situations such as these, I looked it up in the dictionary and got something with “common cultural or social characteristics and attitudes”. That makes sense to me. But then how do we determine what is a generational film? I like the definition posted by Bjorn V in the comments section of my article. It went like this:
- Aptly sums up a generation, especially its quirks/idiosyncrasies/struggles (basically what sets the generation apart from others. which is why universal themes don’t really cut it. this may be achieved thematically or topically.)
- Inspires a generation. (does one better than merely stating the obvious. plays a part in shaping the generation.
- or the optional factor. Appeals to the generation. (hey, if you wanna do 2 you’ve gotta have some fanbase, right? Not necessarily pinned to box office mettle and may only be seen with time. This criteria suggests that whatever’s generational is ultimately defined and chosen by its generation.
I think Bjorn hit the nail on the head. Some people have argued that box office shouldn’t matter, but I think it’s hard to claim a film as generational if few people have even seen a film. If you disagree gives us a better definition.
Next we have to decide what generation we are talking about. Back in the day, that was a fairly easy question. Most people started families when they were in their twenties and with few exceptions everyone knew what generation they were in. The generation known now as the Great or Silent Generation grew up right before World War II, went off to fight the war, then came home and started families. They then begat the Baby Boom Generation who in turn begat Generation X.
So it was, right up until women started to join the workplace in the 1960s. Suddenly you had some people starting families in their early 20s while others waited until their late 30s. It’s hard to say two people are from the same generation if they were born two decades apart. Even though their parents may have played in the same backfield on the local high school football team.
Just look at Warren Beatty. He was born in 1937 so there is no doubt he’s a member of the Silent Generation. Some dictionary definitions would therefore conclude that Warren’s children are “boomers”. But it’s hard to argue that Beatty’s 10-year-old daughter has a lot in common with say, Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. I’m not sure she would even relate to Mark Zuckerberg who is 16 years her senior. So what generation does she belong to?
Then there is the question of who gets to be the voice of a generation. Is it the critics, the historians or the audience themselves? Can anyone truly speak for a generation who isn’t a part of that generation? Is Kanye West the voice of this generation as he so proclaims?
What about gender? Can a film be generational if it only speaks to one half of the equation? Are Sex and the City and Fight Club both generational films? Or are both of them too gender specific?
Finally, can a generation have more than one “generational” film? I think it’s possible for a generation to have more than one film that tells their story. For example, Easy Rider was definitely a generational film for young boomers but I would argue Forrest Gump was just as “generational” when those same people hit middle age. The same is true of Gen Xers who can claim Star Wars, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and American Beauty in my opinion. One for each stage of Gen-X’s development over time.
Peter Travers, one of the major proponents calling The Social Network a film that “defines a generation” goes so far as to make a list of twelve generation defining films. I wonder how many people supposedly defined by those movies actually identify with them, and is it merely exclusive to one generation?
I think the biggest problem with calling films generational is something of a misunderstanding of what it means for something to be generational. With The Social Network being considered a film of this generation what exactly is that referring to? A generation that’s on the Internet? A generation that uses Facebook? Well, the problem there is people of all ages are using the Internet and are on Facebook. From Justin Bieber to your 70-year-old grandmother. So what generation are we talking about exactly? If MySpace had a film five years ago it would have seemed significant… Now, not so much, making it seem as if The Social Network is more timely and/or relevant than generational. Can’t the same be said for most movies people dub “films of a generation”? Perhaps, but that film was definitely timely and relevant, just as Up In the Air was last year.
Take Milk as another example, is that a generational film? Some people may say no because either they aren’t gay or didn’t grow up in the ’70s. Does that make it any less generational?
So what films do you think define your generation? What films do you think define the generations around you? Do films define a generation at all? There are no wrong answers, but hopefully you’ll stick around to defend your opinion, challenge those of others and possibly change your mind as well. Just be nice about it…
