T/S: John Hughes vs. Judd Apatow

Some of you dingalings are possibly missing there was such a thing as CULTURAL Reaganism -- ie, how '80s American movies all seemed to end with Eddie Murphy or John Candy smiling in freeze-frame.

And now, folks seem only to get excited about American movies that are (to one degree or another) big-screen TV shows.

I hate movies (and books, for that matter) about people's mental states

I'm not sure what this means...? I mean, you could make an argument that anything character-driven is "about people's mental states."

see, i think most people who have a problem with bueller are upset by the notion that for some/many people it is neither wretched nor somber, and they pretend that the refusal to deny this is right-wing.

this is some seriously lame standard "you're just jealous!" anti-critic malarkey

Next Stop Wonderland was fairly indie, though -- the more I think about it, the more it might just be that lots of female-aimed romantic comedies are big-studio mass-market movies, where a lot of the ones we're thinking of as male-POV ones are a shade more independent, or coming from a known-entity director, or whatever.

Some of you dingalings are possibly missing there was such a thing as CULTURAL Reaganism

OK, it's 80s, I get that. But Reaganist? In what sense? Freeze frames in particular have some characteristic about them that makes them Reaganesque? If everything in the 80s is defined by the sitting president at the time, then the terrorists have already won.

romantic comedies with flawed/realistic female protagonists and shallow/glorified males

Sex and the City is a good example of a romantic comedy - albeit televised - where the female characters are relatively complex, and the male characters are desireable goods. Basic formula is that girl encounters guy, girl likes guy, guy turns out to have deal-breaking flaw, girl moves on. As the show progressed, the longer running male characters became better developed, but remained secondary.

Lots of romantic comedies work this way: Bridget Jones flicks, Pretty In Pink, Pretty Woman, etc. The more non-generic characteristics a guy has, the less desireable he is.

okay, I don't have time to get into it right now, but Pretty in Pink has many fine qualities!

Awwww I do love Next Stop, Wonderland but it's sort of a dark, small movie that doesn't promise so much to its characters, I think. XP yes, Nabisco, that too.

JMC, I think I meant stories in which how people FEEL about things is more important than what actually HAPPENS. Not b/c I think feelings are invalid in real life but because I think examining fictional emotions is such a bottomless pit/black hole for me mentally.

It's not quite a comedy, either, but Taye Diggs in How Stella Got Her Groove Back is basically a one-dimensional hunk, IIRC.

I love how in irl that character turned out to be gay and ditched her

u love it

Add to list: that new Catherine Zeta-Jones movie, various more teenagey ones where someone meets the prince of an imaginary European nation and he is endlessly, blandly, inhumanly nice, etc. ...

I didn't meant to prejudice the description too much by calling them "consumer goods," just that in a lot of the really pop-aimed ones the guy is generically dreamy and supportive and flawless, and instead of having personality characteristics he is interested in helping the female lead with hers. (Something like the stock cardboard "hot chick," except with dialogue.) It's not any more wish-fulfillment than the other way around -- I guess the thing I was trying to get at is that wondrousness over the kooky savior or whatever at least constitutes some kind of emotional reaction to another specific person, as opposed to someone blandly filling in a role it's assumed women must need to be filled.

and instead of having personality characteristics he is interested in helping the female lead with hers.

I know what you're talking about now. I've seen a lot of movies where a guy comes over to fix the cable, you know, and he's like, interested in helping the female character.

Taye Diggs in How Stella Got Her Groove Back is basically a one-dimensional hunk

Re: Nabisco

Maybe it's the same though. In the male POV version, they guy is either trapped in adolescence (40 Year Old Virgin) or trapped in boring adult routine (Stranger Than Fiction). Needs girl-object to become fully human.

What do I look like, the Blue fucking Fairy?

Uh and by "I", I of course meant "we". Or even "women" in a completely general sense. Of course.

Under the Tuscan Sun is in the same category as How Stella Got Her Groove Back, I suspect. Middle-aged woman has all sorts of emotional and sexual revelations jump-started by fling with romance-novel cut-out.

It's weird to wonder whether substantive character stuff on BOTH ends can be fitted into rom-coms!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8e/He_said_she_said.jpg/200px-He_said_she_said.jpg

so ahead of its time

it's not like female-driven romcoms are hard to find, it's like 50% of the respective filmographies of Julia Roberts, Reese Witherspoon, Debra Messing, Ashley Judd, etc. it would be pretty interesting to count up how many of those movies have female writers or directors vs. male.

the elephant in the room is that most all movies about couples are going to tell the story at least slightly from one half's perspective more than the other, and that's always going to shade how you measure these things.

Don't say that about Witherspoon, dude, ILX will hand you your tongue.

Also, to be fair to Ashley Judd, she's more often caught up in some sort of conspiracy that involves masked men chasing her through a forest.

I really hate the way that they stereotype masked men.

I don't think that Al was making any sort of value judgment!

Serious question: does Laurel look like the Blue fucking Fairy?

I used to really love Reese - she had quite a streak of quality material - but what has she done for me lately

reese wins forever just for cruel intentions

But Reaganist? In what sense? Freeze frames in particular have some characteristic about them that makes them Reaganesque?

If they come at the end of a dumb and shallow 'feelgood' narrative, yes.

You know, I think I could use you in a movie role Morbius. How are you at 'kookie'?

I think Alfred goes over the Reagan-stuff pretty well upthread (idealization of suburbs and corresponding fear of urban-dwelling minorities/homeless, loads of mindless conspicuous consumption, etc etc)

Yes of course, but we're talking about freeze frames? I mean, we're not talking about the suburbs. We're talking about freeze frames. Not, not what actually goes on in the movie. We're talking about freeze frames.

I prefer movies that end with Rodney Dangerfield and a Journey song and a big party

xpost

Yes. If you don't understand how a smiley freezeframe that's sposed to send you out happy and stupid (while the presold soundtrack hit plays)is a characteristic of post-Star Wars shit, well...

Throw in a few lines of coke, a chastised liberal, an Air Force pilot (secretly gay), and I will conced Reaganesque.

a cute asshole who jerked everyone around, including the best friend he only half-heartedly cares about

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE MOVIE IS TO HELP THE BEST FRIEND BECOME HIMSELF AND THEREFORE TRULY HAPPY BY GETTING OUT FROM UNDER HIS PARENTS (AND EN PASSANT DESTROY A BIG YUPPIE DOUCHEBAG LUXURY ITEM) - THE EXTREMELY HOT GIRLFRIEND IS VESTIGIAL (YES, MORBS, IT'S VERY MISOGYNISTIC), THE LOVE STORY IS BETWEEN THE FRIENDS - DO YOU PEOPLE NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND THE PLOT?

happy and stupid

guys, everyone who is happy is stupid

gabbneb the car is destroyed by accident, not by design or because of some anti-materialistic "free yourself of your posessions" logic

At the same time I agree that you Reaganista types are severely projecting onto this film.

no, shakey. the car was destroyed by god.

also the kind of "help" Ferris actually gives his purported "best friend" is of a highly dubious nature

x-post

Cameron = buttoned-down straightman
Ferris = kooky girlfriend

sure that sounds legitimate

guys, everyone who is happy is stupid

This is very close to a line from Gregory's Girl.

Anyway, it's kinda funny that this thread is a faceoff between '80s teens and '00s man-boys.

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE MOVIE IS TO HELP THE BEST FRIEND BECOME HIMSELF AND THEREFORE TRULY HAPPY BY GETTING OUT FROM UNDER HIS PARENTS (AND EN PASSANT DESTROY A BIG YUPPIE DOUCHEBAG LUXURY ITEM) -

Noted, but I mentioned Ferris' astounding indifference to his plight. This may be the performance's problem too. I mean, Broderick is just not convincing offering to take the blame for car going out the window.

Yeah it's pretty clear that Cameron is going to be severely beaten by his father, or perhaps killed. Ferris is all like Bluto in Animal House: "Hey, you fucked up, you trusted me."

Also, thanks to everyone on this thread who reminded me why I stopped participating in film threads!

P.S. I can't believe I can't remember this clearly, and do not really want to get involved in this Reagan-era debate, but is the car's going out the window really an "accident?" Isn't it a half-accident that occurs as Cameron is, like, going off on the car? Doesn't he kick it off the jack it's balanced on?

the car's going out the window was entirely out of the filmmakers' hands

it was Reagan's fault.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:1bjSZve1hJR3_M:http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/north/north.jpg
I cannot recall

never woulda happened if Deaver had still been around