Broadcast News (1987)

Broadcast News

Broadcast News – 1987

Director – James L. Brooks

Starring – Holly Hunter, William Hurt, and Albert Brooks

Every few years, maybe once or twice a decade, there is a movie that is a watershed moment for the audience.  Specifically it fundamentally changes how the audience perceives their relationship with how they see the world.  A film comes along, and playing with delivery, intention, or the pre-conceived notions of the audience, turns the world on its head, and shows us something familiar in a whole new way.

Films like the Lumiere brothers short “Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat”, “The Man with the Movie Camera”, and “12 Angry Men”, sideswiped their audiences by manipulating what they were expecting and adding what they never saw coming, in the process waking them up to a whole new way of looking at things.  Shit, even the Sixth Sense caused a whole generation of movie goers to not only watch out for twists, but to almost expect them.  The visceral reaction inherent in the unknown is an addictive, and revelatory experience. It is just this sort of reaction that all films try to go for, but few ever really manage to pull off, not to mention on the scale that is required of a cultural event.

So it was with a certain amount of excitement that I approached seeing how the media shapes and packages the information we consume, making it more palatable, while all the while leaving us craving more.  Broadcast News was one of those films that tried for, but for my money, didn’t quite reach that sort of cultural status.  While I found the actors fun to watch, the script funny, and the story engaging, I felt like it was never able to accomplish its goal of revealing the drive and desires of the media structure that existed in the late 80s and early 90s.  Where the 24 hour news channels of today seem almost theatrically and blatantly disingenuous about their goals and motivations, the news culture that this film seeks to expose was one hiding behind the impression of integrity and virtue, so I felt like I kind of already knew the ending to the story.

The focus of the film is focused squarely on truth in journalism, in particular with the relationship between popularity, ratings, and honesty in the reporting of the news.  Holly Hunter plays Jane, a producer and champion of ethics at a big television news station, who ends up butting heads with Tom, the dumb yet likable reporter who knows that he hasn’t earned what he’s given, feels bad about it, yet succeeds and advances despite himself.  William Hurt is the perfect actor to play Tom, because, truth be told, I liked him simply based on the fact of who was playing him.  To further complicate matters, Aaron, Jane’s workplace confidant, and secret admirer, immediately distrusts Tom based on the budding attraction between him and Jane.

Basically, in the eyes of Jane and Aaron, Tom represents all that is wrong with how the news is presented and delivered.  Attractive faces with little to no knowledge of or interest in the details of the actual facts, delivering the “stories” that are really more geared to engage and attract viewers than to disseminate information.  Seeing this as a personal affront to her code of ethics, Jane, tries first to take a stand against him, then to educate him, and finally, after relenting to his obvious charms, starts to compromise her beliefs and principles.  The false, yet believable emotion that Tom brings to his reporting, begins to win her over proving just how effective he is as a voice-box for the network.

Ironically, I don’t know that Tom’s use of false tears during a story about date rape was really any more or less manipulative than Jane’s juxtaposition of a picturesque Norman Rockwell painting with the less than dignified life of a newly returned veteran.  At best they are equally manipulative, and at worst Jane actually takes it a step further by hiding it a little better than Tom was able to.  And therein lies one of my problems with this film.  The message wasn’t ambiguous enough that it wasn’t obvious what they were pointing at, yet it wasn’t black and white enough to end the film convinced about one side of the argument or the other.  The film had a certain selective subtlety that seemed a little too inconsistent for my liking.  Ultimately I would have liked the film to take a bit more of a stand, whether I agreed with it or not.

Few people in Hollywood are so simultaneously revered and nearly as unknown as is James L. Brooks.  Famed for being one of the original writers and a producer of one of my favorite shows, The Simpsons, that is really where my knowledge of him ends.  To look at his list of movies that he’s directed is to be rather disappointed.  The Adam Sandler film Spanglish was one that I thought was supposed to be pretty awful, but  As Good as it Gets, with all of its Oscar wins, was supposed to be pretty great.  Despite all the acclaim,  I never had a real urge to see it, so for all I know it’s equally as good as Spanglish.  And of course, Steel Magnolias.  I’ve heard of it, but that’s really about it.  Now that being said, everyone else I’ve talked to about Broadcast News seemed to really love it, and the fact that I was only luke-warm on it leads me to believe that I must be missing something, or that perhaps I need to watch it again.

Like I said, William Hurt is fun to watch, Albert Brooks is funny, and Holly Hunter plays a character that is just like other characters of hers that I like a lot.  Unfortunately, those positives still don’t make the “just okay” movie that it was, the “exceptional” movie that I was hoping it would be.  Rather disappointing.

Strictly Ballroom (1992)

Strictly Ballroom

Strictly Ballroom – 1992

Director – Baz Luhrmann

Starring – Paul Mercurio, Tara Morice, and Bill Hunter

I hadn’t realized before sitting down and watching it, but seeing Strictly Ballroom pointed out just how I’d been missing Australia, not to mention Australian film.  There is a certain quality of the acting, the tone and the intonation.  The characters are at once relate-able and larger than life, and the initial cartoonish impression I had of Australian cinema turned out, I realized, to simply be a vehicle for a more universal set of truths.  In an effort to be funny, and make for a more compelling read, I have had the tendency to make jokes at the expense of, and be rather hard on some of the films that I’ve seen.  The caricatures of the people in those films seemed unrealistic or even laughable on a first viewing, but ultimately, once the stories were done and the reviews written, I continued to think about films like Priscilla Queen of the Desert, and Muriel’s Wedding.   Each stayed with me longer than I would have thought.  I have come to rather like Muriel’s Wedding, despite feeling a little indifferent to it when I wrote the initial review. Like each of those other films, Strictly Ballroom, is completely an Australian film, and just as before, it’s got me thinking.  Thinking about the film itself, and about going back to Australia.  Hopefully soon!

My wife in particular was excited about this film, thanks in no small part to the fact that it centers around dance.  Though, the film isn’t really what I would call a dance film in the same way that something like Singing In The Rain is a dance film, it is instead to dance as Rocky was to boxing, an important plot point, but not necessarily the focus.

The story centers around Scott, the promising dancer who yearns to break out of the rigid formula required by the Pan-Pacific Ballroom Dance competition, and dance his own movies, from the heart.  Everyone from his partner, to the judges, to his family all try to warn him that he is being reckless with his chances of winning the competition and making something of himself.  It’s only, Fran, the mousy, seemingly inexperienced dancer in his class that sees otherwise, and encourages him to break free from the rules, and from everyone else’s expectations.

Scott and Fran both are both good enough characters, played well by actors Paul Mercurio, and Tara Morice respectively, filling out the roles nicely with likable, engaging characters that the audience wants to root for, but it’s really the supporting characters that populate the world around them that make this movie such a joy.  Take Fran’s parents for example…at first her father seems like an angry, possibly abusive guy trying to commandeer his daughter’s future, but it turns out that he is a passionate dancer who truly doesn’t want to see his little girl waste her time with someone who doesn’t treat her as she deserves.  Her mother, likewise, is a rich breathing person who deeply loves her family.  You can tell at once that each of them, outside of the reality that this film covers, has lived a full life, each with their own experiences and trials.  This is a testament not only to the filmmakers, but to the actors as well.

Likewise, Scott’s parents harbor their own desires and regrets, as they strive and scrabble trying desperately to reach for past glories.  Scott’s dance coach, Les, as well as his rival Doug, are both great fun to watch as they blunder through the narrative, successfully wresting my attention away from our two leads.  Good as each of these secondary and tertiary characters might be, certainly the most watchable performance was turned in by Bill Hunter, as the detestable, corrupt, Ballroom Federation president, Barry Fife.  Chewing each bit of scenery that he’s given, Fife is sooooooooooo much fun to watch, that I almost wish the film were about him.

At first watch, this film, as well as a lot of other films that come out from down under, seem a little simple, a little cartoonish, or even more than a little over the top, but each film that I have had the good fortune of seeing, is saying more than what is on the surface.  Priscilla, as well as Muriel’s Wedding, have strong messages of acceptance, and Muriel in particular has more than a little to say about forgiveness (of yourself just as much as of anyone else.).

Similarly, Strictly Ballroom is more than what is evident on the surface.  It preaches passion for what you love, and acceptance of others, not despite, but because of what they are.  I really enjoyed this film, more even than watching it, I enjoyed thinking about it afterwards, which is really a sort of first for me.  I am looking forward to giving this film another viewing to see if I can glean anything further from it.  More than anything, though, this film makes me miss Australia.  It brought back memories of traveling along the coast of New South Wales, from Kiama back to Sydney (although I’m not sure I could tell you why it made me think of that…), and for that I loved it!

Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961)

Breakfast at Tiffany’s – 1961

Director – Blake Edwards

Starring – Audrey Hepburn, George Peppard, and Mickey Rooney

I’ve heard for years about Breakfast at Tiffany’s.  Nothing concrete mind you, nothing in-depth about the plot, the themes, the writing, or any of the lead or supporting actors.  Apparently, what I had been hearing about was Audrey Hepburn.  Her style, her grace, and most of all her fashion sense.  While by and large Audrey is most definitely deserving of all the acclaim she has garnered over the years, Breakfast at Tiffany’s is definitely it’s own beast, above and beyond such things.

For those, like me, who have only been privy to random rumblings about minor aspects of this film, here is a breakdown of the story.  Audrey Hepburn plays the young, beautiful, quirky, carefree, flakey, and wholly unreliable Holly Golightly, a character who wrote the book on what real-life actresses like Natalie Portman, Zooey Deschanel, and Chloe Sevigny have built plenty of their roles on.  Her charm and magnetism carries her through life, drawing people to her both for good and ill.  She seems to live in a bubble protecting her from any real sort of responsibility, keeping her real thoughts and feelings at an arm’s-length from anyone who might try to get close to her.  Mind you that doesn’t stop anyone from trying, prospective suitors, friends, and even family, keep trying to reel her back into reality, and are forever willing to forgive her for struggling to keep them away.

Even the square-jawed, perfectly coiffed, understanding, new neighbor, Paul Varjack (played by a George Peppard with super Technicolor blue eyes), runs into the same brick wall that everyone else does.  Where everyone else eventually gets the hint, Paul maintains his pursuit of Holly despite her track record of flighty behavior, and gold-digger-esque tendencies.  Paul himself is a slave to what made him a success as well.  His claim to fame is a novel that he wrote with the support of his well-to-do mistress, without whom he would still be in dwelling in relative obscurity.

Assuming both Holly and Paul were able to maintain the same frame of mind, they would make a good couple, but Paul has grown tired of his shallow existance, and yearns for something else.  In the end, all of Holly’s qualities that attract Paul, end up keeping him at arm’s length.  The free-spirited, irresponsible behavior that seems so attractive at first, ends up actually being a bundle of paranoia and anxiety, unable to let go of a failed formula for love and success. That isn’t quite the glamorous image that is presented in the marketing of the film.

This film is much closer to the films of the seventies than it’s release date lets on.  It is more concerned with the exploration of the damaged side of the young miss Golightly, and mr. Varjack than it is with showing off the lush, lavish, fun lifestyle of the sixties.  It seeks to juxtapose the unfulfilled, unhappiness that both Paul and Holly are subject to, with the carefree party lifestyle that both are living (on the surface anyway).  In the end, non-stop drinking, lurid rendezvous’ with faceless strangers, and the absence of any sort of responsibility will only contribute to the feeling of worthlessness.  Holly’s telephone, locked away in her suitcase, is representative of her isolation from and fear of the actual relationships, commitments, and everything else encompassed by “the real world”.

On script writing duties is Truman Capote, a man who I know little about although I’m more curious than ever to read more of his work.

The director, Blake Edwards is no stranger to popular, well regarded movies.  Though this does seem to have a somewhat deeper subtext than a lot of his other movies, it does share a fair amount with some of his other films (I’m going from memory here, it’s been a while since I’ve seen anything.), most notably “The Party” from 1968.  The party scenes in both films share a certain voyeuristic quality as the audience simply observes the merriment and mayhem as it happens.  They don’t so much expound upon what we already know of our characters as much as they give us a inkling of the time and the place in which they live.  There is some humor there, but it is more descriptive than it seems on the surface.

I have to say I was surprised by how much I liked this film.  On paper, a film about two broken socialites doesn’t seem all that engaging to me.  I really like Audrey Hepburn, in everything I’ve seen her in, so it was a no-brainer that I’d like her here, but I can’t shake the image of George Peppard as Hannibal from the A-Team, so he was a bit of a harder sell at the outset.  It’s a good thing he didn’t smoke a cigar in this film or my suspension of disbelief would have been gone and it would have pulled me out of the film entirely.

Truthfully though, his character, Paul, was the real heart of the film.  While Holly, along with her sense of style, is the centerpiece of the film, Peppard does most of the heavy lifting in terms of character growth, exposition, and engagement with the audience.  Peppard is to Hepburn what Joseph Cotton is the Orson Welles in “The Third Man”.

The film’s one failing grace, and really it’s just a sign of the times in which it came out, was the overtly racist, and unflattering view of asian culture put forth in the form of Holly’s upstairs neighbor, Mr. Yunioshi played by the shitty Mickey Rooney.  Rooney’s portrayal serves no purpose except for getting cheap laughs at the expense of a people perceived as being simply ignorant, pajama-wearing, slow-witted, buffoons.  Luckily it doesn’t ruin the rest of the film, though it is unfortunate.

All in all I would say the film paints an accurate picture of loneliness, and as a bonus it crafts a realistic and satisfying ending that allows the characters to grow beyond their selfish, opulent trappings.  Overall, I’d say it’s definitely well worth the time, and worth a watch.

(***Warning Spoilers***)

“Don’t worry.  The cat’s fine.” – Ashley

Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975)

Picnic at Hanging Rock – 1975

Director – Peter Weir

Starring – Rachel Roberts, Vivean Gray, Helen Morse, and Jacki Weaver

I’ve only seen a handful of films that have come out of Australia, and those that I have seen are not necessarily the cream of the crop. Firstly, there was Crocodile Dundee, the seminal fish out of water story that played itself out over the backdrop of the mid 1980’s, this was followed up by the outstanding, Crocodile Dundee 2, which simultaneously raising the stakes while staying consistent on the laughs and heart. Next, came “Pricilla, Queen of the Desert”. Actually this is a good movie, but it remains a movie that I only very vaguely remember. As such It also remains a movie that I will have to return to one day when I have more time (not sure when that day will come…), but as it stands I remember it being pretty good. And finally, I round out my Australian film education with the first two classic art-house films in the Mad Max series (by the way, the sequel, The Road Warrior, is SO much better than the long drawn out original Mad Max).

So there you have it. I walked into Picnic at Hanging Rock with considerably less than full knowledge of the Australian film experience. My introduction to Peter Weir the director was the Jim Carrey movie, The Truman Show and the Russell Crowe flick Master and Commander, neither of which I loved, but both of which I appreciated. Before watching it, Picnic seemed to be a dry period piece concerning itself with noble ideals such as manners, class, wealth and some big notions along the lines of justice and righteousness. I was surprised how well it dealt with its actual topic, guilt, and the inescapable despair that it rode in on.

The picnic in question refers to an outing for the students at an all girl school in the early 1900s, out in the beautiful but harsh Australian outback. As the poster states, a party of girls heads out, but a fair number of them are never heard from again, after they get lost at (where else) Hanging Rock.

Search and rescue missions are formulated, mounted and failed. Testimony is taken from the one surviving (? I leave this question mark because we never truly find out about what happens to the girls, so technically they all might have survived.) member of the group, yet still there are no leads. The fact that no bodies ever-present themselves is enough to keep the hope of finding them alive, but the lack of any real evidence one way or another forces the police, the community, and the school to face the unpleasant fact that they may be dead, or worse, dying.

It is this unknowing that allows the commonly felt guilt to take hold and fester. Despite the fact that no one is directly to blame, each character is wracked with crushing guilt, from the school’s strict headmistress, to the poor girl who was not allowed to go on the field trip, to the young boys who were the last people to see the group of girls alive. Everyone is affected.  Everyone is wounded so deeply by this invisible stain, that  it corrupts them all and throws their lives into disarray.

One of the film’s major strengths is the fact that there are different messages to be gleaned depending on just what you bring to the experience. Is this simply a factual yet dramatic telling of a true story? Is it an exploration of reliability of one’s narrator? Does Picnic at Hanging Rock speak, and offer commentary to the dark past of Australia’s birth and colonization? Yes, yes, and more yes.

As with most films of the seventies, the look and pacing of the film are as big a part as the acting, story, or direction. The slow methodical pace of the story serves to draw out and enhance the tension and accentuate the anguish. The color palette only helps the depiction of the tawny reds and desert browns and yellows of the harsh australian climate, and the softer look to the film stock helps the dream-like quality of the story. Since many films in the seventies had these qualities, it’s hard to tell which simply worked with what they had, a which used the film stock as a means to an end. If I had to bet, I would guess Peter Weir was one f the latter.

As with each of the characters presented in the movie, the story of what happened that St. Valentines Day in the outback leaves a mark on the viewer as well. I watched the movie nearly a year ago, and I still find myself thinking about it. Maybe not everyday like I might something like Die Hard, or JFK, but it certainly finds its way into my consciousness. Definitely a film worth seeing, although maybe not right before or after some of the aforementioned films from Australia.

***Of Special Note***

It has been quite a while since I’ve written in this blog.  A little more than a year if my calculations are correct.  A lot has changed in my life and I haven’t had the time to devote to regularly updating a project of this magnitude (pop POP!).  Needless to say, I’m not interested in giving up writing about movies although I can’t promise that I won’t need to take a break from them now and again.  That being said…I’m glad to be back at it.

Secondly, this is officially my 100th post!  So for those of you keeping score (I think it might just be me), I’ve seen and written about 100 new movies since I started this project, and since I entered into it having seen 300 of the 1001, I am at about 40% completion.  Hooray!  Only 601 more to go!

A Night at the Opera (1935)

A Night at the Opera – 1935

Director – Sam Wood

Starring – Groucho Marx, Chico Marx, Harpo Marx, Kitty Carlisle, and Allan Jones

The Marx Brothers films are quickly becoming some of my favorite of the ones that I’ve watched for this blog so far.  While I have seen only two now, this one and Duck Soup, I am hoping there are a few more on the list.  If not, I suppose I’ll have to rent and watch them in addition to whatever is next to see on the list.

As with most comedies of this era, the plotline is a simple one.  Groucho’s character is the manager of a small opera house in small Italian town, Harpo plays the unhelpful assistant to the conceited lead singer, and Chico plays the manager for the up and coming young talent who’s currently working as a backup singer in the show.  The plot really takes off when blah blah blah blah blah…blah, blah blah…..  Basically, the story doesn’t matter.  The film is a series of set ups for one-liners, sight-gags, singing, and clever instrumentation.  It doesn’t have a message, and doesn’t pretend to be anything other than entertaining.

As far as comedians go, Harpo is still my favorite with his innocent yet devilish destructiveness.  Groucho comes in at a close second, often times providing the group a kick in the pants by way of witty dialogue.  This keeps the plot and the action moving forward.  Chico acts as a good in-between man, balancing the loose energy of Harpo and the cynicism of Groucho.  Each is talented in their own rights, but alone they wouldn’t remain as consistently interesting.  Operating as a team they feed off of and support one another.

I’ve read that this film was the first to not feature Zeppo Marx, instead featuring Allan Jones as the straight man come love interest for the lead actress.  Jones’ character is virtually unnecessary to the film, except as a plot device to get the brothers on to the steam ship bound for New York.  The same can be said for virtually every other actor and actress save for one, Margaret Dumont as Mrs. Claypool.  Dumont, a favorite of the Marx Brothers, has co-starred in quite a few of their films, including At The Circus, Cocoanuts, A Day At The Races, and Duck Soup just to name a few.  She always manages to play the put-upon, yet the eternally forgiving upper-crust subject (victim?) of Groucho’s advances, one-liners, and lewd remarks, and she always does it with a straight face.  When describing his and Dumont’s chemistry on-screen, Groucho credits it’s success to the fact that she “never understood what he was saying”.

If this list of films has done anything for me, it has opened my eyes to the fact that my movie education has had some gaping holes in it for sometime.  The Marx Brothers have long been one of those holes, but thankfully they are a gap that is getting filled in.  If you are a fan of the Three Stooges, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, or W.C. Fields, it is more than a safe bet that you’ll love the Marx Brothers too.  I can certainly attest to that.

P.S.  This review marks the 1 year anniversary of this blog being around (well… one year and a handful of days anyway).  In that time, I’ve seen and reviewed 70 different movies from 1900 through the 2000’s.  I’m very glad to see that I am still keeping up with it, sometimes not as quickly as others, but for the most part fairly regularly.  Thanks to those who comment, and thanks to those bloggers whom I comment on!

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)

Bad Day at Black Rock – 1955

Director – John Sturges

Starring – Spencer Tracy, Robert Ryan, Ernest Borgnine, Lee Marvin and Walter Brennan

Coming into this film, I knew only the blurb that I’d seen in the 1001 Movies book, and frankly I was pretty excited to check it out.  The premise is pretty standard, yet pretty compelling.  A man gets off a train in a lonely desert town, no one knows why he’s there yet they immediately distrust him, eventually leading to threats of violence and confrontation.  I was instantly grabbed by this concept.   I wanted to see what would happen.  Unfortunately, once I did, I wished I had just lived with my imagination of what it might be.

First off, Spencer Tracy isn’t a bad-ass.  Based solely on the description, it seemed to me that Tracy’s character would have to be a hard as nails, no-nonsense type of guy.  Someone who could take care of business if the situation called for it.  What we got was a rather weathered old man who never seemed willing to stand up for himself.  The townsfolk took a lot of pleasure in pushing him around, and he took great care to try to keep from provoking them any further.  He took loads of abuse when it seemed like he should be handing some out.

The bad guys, while actually pretty bad people, didn’t provide any interesting motivation for their cruelty.  The set-up of the story hints at some terrible secret that the entire town is trying to keep quiet, and when Tracy’s character arrives, everyone immediately jumps to the conclusion that he is there specifically to position blame.  Aggravatingly, nobody ever stops to ask any questions, instead they stubbornly decide to be vague and confrontational with their dealings with one another.  I’m sure if the towns people ever asked the Macreedy why he was there, they could have saved themselves an awful lot of trouble.  Instead they start trouble almost immediately

As far as the supporting bad guys go, I would have expected more from a cast featuring Lee Marvin and Ernest Borgnine, both actors that I really like in other roles.  It wasn’t until the credits that I realized that Lee Marvin was in it, or that he played a fairly prominent character.  The character of Reno played by Robert Ryan was probably the only character I found somewhat interesting, unfortunately he seemed a little under-developed, and lacked any real motivation by the end.

One of it’s most gorgeous attributes, the scenery in which it was filmed, was mis-used as well.  It was rare that we ever saw the panoramic vista’s in which the town was supposedly set.  It’s too bad really, as the location would have given the audience insight into the isolation (both literally as well as the town’s isolation from decency) that each of the people in town was subject to.  The one major theme of the film seemed to be the fact that each character was in one way or another alone, some for their crimes, and in the case of Macreedy, his  isolation from any help or safety.

Unfortunately, this is another film that I’d have to say is just taking up a precious spot on this list that rightfully deserves to go to another film.  While it wasn’t awful, it was by no means one of the greatest films ever made.

P.S.  Although it has nothing to do with Bad Day at Black Rock, I recently watched  film that I thought for the life of me was on this list.  To my dismay, it was not.  To my further dismay, films like Bad Day at Black Rock, are!  The film in question is Peter Bogdanovich’s, Paper Moon starring Ryan and Tatum O’Neil and a “father” and “daughter” team of hucksters, traveling their way across depression era America swindling what they can from whoever they are able to.  It features a performance from the always fantastic Madeline Kahn, and is quite possibly one of the most beautiful looking films I have ever seen.  If you haven’t seen it, do yourself a favor and check it out.

Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1981)

FastTimesAtRidgemontHigh

Fast Times at Ridgemont High – 1981

Director – Amy Heckerling

Starring – Judge Reinhold, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Sean Penn, and Phoebe Cates

So now we start getting into some of the movies that could be considered fluff.  Potentially not worthy of being on the list of 1001 movies that you MUST see, but possibly being on the list of 1001 movies you might think about checking out sometime if you aren’t busy.  Does that mean it’s bad?  Not at all.  Does it mean that this space could have been better used for something else (like the Big Lebowski or The Blues Brothers for example?) in the comedy genre? Yup.

This isn’t at all an indictment of The Fast Times at Ridgemont High, but as it didn’t really do anything particularly revolutionary for film as a whole (aside from including a lot of young and up-and-coming actors and actresses), it more than likely was pulled from a hat with a list of movies meant to pad out the numbers to 1001.

That aside, Fast Times was a very fun movie.  I particularly liked Judge Reinhold, Phoebe Cates, and Jennifer Jason Leigh.  Each reminded me of people that I went to high school with, but not in a sappy or sentimental way.  Everyone knows, or knew a Judge Reinhold.  Everyone saw the Phoebe Cates character walking down the hall.  And everyone was friends with or dated a girl like Jennifer Jason Leigh’s character.  These characters make the movie relatable for people, at least for someone who grew up in the relatively safe suburbs, like me.

Unfortunately I don’t have a whole lot of analyzing to do for this film.  It was great fun to watch, but I haven’t really thought about it too much since.  Some quick things to say about the film…It did strike me that there was an awful lot of nudity from a character that was supposed to be 14 years old, and the subject of abortion was dealt with in a pretty straight forward and un-dramatized way.  So much so, that I have to imagine that it would have sparked some controversy on it’s initial release (it certainly would today at any rate).   Next, I think I can appreciate Sean Penn in this movie more than anything else that I’ve seen him in (that is of course without seeing Milk yet).   Lastly I have to say that there is a similar thread going through all of the movies that Cameron Crowe has had a hand in (aside from the dominance of music), each one seems like a close relative of the others, different, but only by a little.

So…watch it, enjoy it, but don’t expect too much.