I was a senior in college the summer of 2004 when “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy,” came out in theaters. I don’t remember its release being a particularly significant event.
Though I was a college student, one of the movie’s targeted demographics, I never saw “Anchorman” when it was out in theaters and I don’t recall any of my friends seeing it either. There was little indication the movie’s lifespan in the collective American conscience would last more than a few weeks – basically until the next Ferrell or Vince Vaughn or Ben Stiller movie came along and replaced it.
But something strange happened. Unlike Ferrell’s “Blades of Glory” or ”Semi-Pro,” “Anchorman” seemed to find a new life on DVD and cable TV over the years and its stature grew to the point where many consider it to be one of the more memorable comedies of the decade.
It’s endlessly-quotable, ridiculous dialogue (“I don’t know how to put this, but I’m kind of a big deal,” “Sixty percent of the time, it works every time,” etc.) have become popular party lines. The UK’s “Times Online” recently ranked “Anchorman” number 62 on its “100 Best Movies of the Decade” list – right in between “There Will Be Blood” and “Spirited Away.”
Regardless of your opinion on “Anchorman,” this anecdote illustrates that sometimes the movies that end up being the “decade-defining” films are the ones that open to little aplomb, while many “important” films that open to critical acclaim and Academy Awards are forgotten over the years.
With 2009 winding down, many websites and publications are listing their picks for best movies of the decade. “Best” by definition is a subjective term, so there never is going to be a cut-and-dried method for determining the top movies of a decade.
Nevertheless, perhaps the optimal way to determine a film’s worth is to see how it fares against the test of time. Namely, is the movie just as good 10 or 20 years down the road - and just as important, but often overlooked - does anyone bother to watch it a decade or two after its release?
For instance, “Shakespeare in Love” (1998) won the Academy Award for Best Picture the year it was released, thus deeming it in one measure the best cinema had to offer that year. It’s unlikely the film has aged poorly in the sense of quality since it was released 11 years ago (depending on your taste for 16th-century Gwyneth Paltrow period pieces). But for a film that could have been considered one of the best of its decade, its lasting impact on the cinematic landscape has been virtually non-existent. It’s rarely been discussed or referenced at all in this decade and has largely been forgotten.