552 Broadcast News

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Message
Author
User avatar
Black Hat
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:34 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Broadcast News (James L. Brooks, 1987)

#76 Post by Black Hat » Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:24 pm

How can it not be about her job when it is her career that defines who she is? Her ethics, her values, her outlook on life have been entirely shaped by her profession or more specifically her idealistic view of what her job stands for. Remember this is a person who even as a little girl was driven to have the career she wound up having.

I'd also disagree and say she did like Tom's personality quite a bit precisely because he was a contrast to Aaron and I'm sure every other man in the Washington world. The film I felt went out of its way to show us her affection for him on an emotional level time and again. That's what made the payoff, her refusal to sacrifice her professional principles for him, resonate so much. If she didn't really care that much for him outside of his pretty face then why does the audience care? Because we're all wrapped up in the tension of this ethical dilemma? That's a bit of not seeing the forest for the trees. There would be absolutely nothing at stake emotionally during what was a highly dramatic airport scene.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Broadcast News (James L. Brooks, 1987)

#77 Post by Mr Sausage » Sun Mar 16, 2014 5:02 pm

Black Hat wrote:How can it not be about her job when it is her career that defines who she is? Her ethics, her values, her outlook on life have been entirely shaped by her profession or more specifically her idealistic view of what her job stands for. Remember this is a person who even as a little girl was driven to have the career she wound up having.
I suppose I disagreed because that phrasing makes it sound as tho' it's about her job or her career specifically, when it's more about her ideals for the profession and everyone in it in general, and therefore her ethics and ideals more than any specific part of her day-to-day job or hopes for her own, individual career.
Black Hat wrote:I'd also disagree and say she did like Tom's personality quite a bit precisely because he was a contrast to Aaron and I'm sure every other man in the Washington world. The film I felt went out of its way to show us her affection for him on an emotional level time and again. That's what made the payoff, her refusal to sacrifice her professional principles for him, resonate so much. If she didn't really care that much for him outside of his pretty face then why does the audience care? Because we're all wrapped up in the tension of this ethical dilemma? That's a bit of not seeing the forest for the trees. There would be absolutely nothing at stake emotionally during what was a highly dramatic airport scene.
Not really. See: when she barges in on him, and the subsequent reaction of Tom's father. She pulls away from him any time he tries for some kind of emotional engagement (and usually to run off to Aaron). Also, the idea that he's a contrast to the other men in Washington is unlikely, as tho' he were the first person like that to waltz through there. Jane and Tom don't truly connect on an emotional level, although that could as much be from her being too scared to do so as anything. Her emotional engagement with Aaron is considerably deeper, tho' unburdened by physical attraction.

Most of Jane and Tom's key scenes are defined by an intense physical attraction, from the fact that she takes him back to her apartment, but pushes him away when he bares himself, to their big News crisis, which he compares to great sex, to when he gropes her after they leave the dinner, but he doesn't kiss her until told, and of course she runs off to Aaron soon after he begins talking and then pushes him further away over the phone. There is no scene of deep emotional intimacy between them--which could be either of their faults (it's probably both), but the fact remains.

I assume the audience investment comes from two things:
A. the mechanisms of romantic comedy are used so well that you just instinctually root for a will they/won't they couple (tho' you can also root for her not to go, too, the film leaves that option open).
B. Because the movie isn't overt about the superficial nature of their attraction, and lets the leads' chemistry heavily suggest a possible happy ending (tho', again, it leaves us room to doubt it, too, both overtly and covertly).

User avatar
Black Hat
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:34 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Broadcast News (James L. Brooks, 1987)

#78 Post by Black Hat » Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:06 am

I would agree with your explanation for audience investment but remain unconvinced about the level of Jane's affection. Emotional connection unfortunately doesn't always manifest itself in healthy or happy ways. As you said her inability to let herself go is due to fear. The fact that we're let in on her fear, let in on her insecurity is showing that this emotional connection exists. If she didn't feel anything what would she be afraid of? Why would she care what his father thinks of her? Why would she be upset when Tom's with the other reporter? Why would she breakdown to her best friend over it?* Usually these kinds of insecurities derive from emotional investment, not physical. I would argue that there is no scene of deep emotional intimacy because she was unable to let her guard down, not because a connection didn't exist between the two. In fact their airport scene was all full of deep emotional intimacy. All that she had suppressed and idealized bubbled over in disappointment. A disappointment that would not exist if Jane felt only a physical attraction.

*This might be over top but I'd even go as far as to say that the entire way Jane handled the final scene, immediately telling Tom about her boyfriend of four months as if that's some sort of accomplishment before running away from him to play with Aaron's son showed that she still feels something for him and hasn't ever really gotten over it. On the opposite end it seemed pretty clear that he was overwhelmed with the feeling of 'what might have been'.

User avatar
bearcuborg
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago

Re: 552 Broadcast News

#79 Post by bearcuborg » Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:28 pm

Also worth checking out is this great James L Brooks interview on Kevin Pollak's podcast/vlog.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: 552 Broadcast News

#80 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Fri Jul 15, 2016 1:42 pm

Picked this up in the latest B&N sale. I watched the documentary about Brooks' career, and I have a question. Has Criterion ever used clips from films they don't have releases for in interviews or documentaries before, specifically from major studios?

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: 552 Broadcast News

#81 Post by cdnchris » Fri Jul 15, 2016 1:53 pm

Before this it was certainly rare, even if the clip was part of a documentary they licenced and not just something they made. Since then, though, I think it's been a bit more common. They even showed clips from The Road Warrior in the Coen brother feature found on Inside Llewyn Davis, and I'm not sure if that's one Criterion would have got from Warners.

User avatar
Timec
Spencer Tracy had it coming
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: 552 Broadcast News

#82 Post by Timec » Fri May 17, 2019 8:27 am

For those in the area, the AFI Silver in Maryland will be hosting a Q&A with James L. Brooks and NY Times journalist Jane Mayer following a screening of this film.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: 552 Broadcast News

#83 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon Mar 15, 2021 3:59 pm

I've stayed silent on this longtime favorite because it's one of those films that's so good I don't want to ruin it with analysis, but after my nth revisit last night I find myself practically moved to tears by how mature a portrait of adult relationships this is (between this film and Starting Over, I think James L. Brooks is one of the most anthropologically perceptive writers out there). Brooks lays down the emotional confusion inherent in an individual's navigation of social engagement with so much compassion, clarifying that there are not "good" or "bad" people or choices, but that the honest challenge for human beings is in constructing, navigating, and dynamically reconstructing an individual hierarchy of needs across multiple incomparable domains. That Brooks allows the same weight to be given to ethics, physical attraction, inspiration, professional respect, personal respect, and the infinite shades of personality and small acts of grace, is revolutionary. I remember seeing this as a kid, and not being able to understand Hurt’s character's complexity, but now I think he's arguably the most interesting character here. The guy superficially resembles many qualities that carry negative connotations, but here is a man who has sublimated his shame pertaining to intellectual deficits from youth into an eagerness to learn and develop as a person and a professional, a passionate enthusiasm that is among the most admirable qualities one can have. He is resilient in using his strengths to his advantage, and his self-advocacy is soft but determined and honest, even if his tear was not.

I love his interactions with Hunter during their miniature, realistic fights: how he owns up to her being "right" in their first spat together while also giving himself permission to dislike it. Her aggression clearly hit the nerve of a deep-rooted core belief, yet he's mature and open-minded enough not to dismiss her value, and instead takes the opposite approach to the solipsism we see too often today, and seeks the challenge of this person as valuable. I love when he goes after her later in the film just to ask her to "slow down," for no other purpose than to stress that he is a member of this relationship and calmly and responsibly communicates his point of view with even-handed emotion and transparent desire for equality. It's such a lovely, gentle confrontation that we all need to do at times with our intimate friends and lovers to feel respected as a person, but there's no explosion or snowballed argument necessary. These are the kinds of interactions that allow people to grow together and separately towards the kind of self-betterment all three characters are chasing with confidence, even if their confidence issues prevail- but these problems can be reframed as strengths as well, depending on how you look at existential development. They certainly reflect for the characters and their supportive partners on this journey where to exercise that personal development.

Each viewing I appreciate more and more how Hurt's attraction to Hunter is primarily not sexual- defying expectations from his goodlooking ladderclimber image- but rather sourced in inspiration. The power to inspire and be inspired by others we meet has never been better expressed than here. I love how Hurt helps Brooks, Brooks helps Hunter help Hurt, and they all engage in kind and unkind behaviors towards each other without that defining anyone's character. I love how supportive behavior doesn't translate into full acceptance or appreciation or needing to like another person; validation and endorsement are separate. The scene of Brooks and Hunter fighting in his apt is one of the best ever filmed about relationship struggles, partly because of what’s left unsaid and how information is communicated without overstating or understating what needs to be conveyed. The very notion that Brooks can damn Hurt because of acute selfish emotional longing and competitive jealousy while also holding onto a valid reason in a selfless and moral position for Hunter's wellbeing is unprecedented. We don't get wholly selfish or selfless actions, because an authentic person exudes both in all their affairs. This is Hunter's show though, and her respectably underexplored meditative crying spells are such a powerful, humbly placed character detail that I think about quite often, as I do her recurrent emotional-existential crises that remain the most relatable aspect, and the heart, of the film.

The film's title itself can be seen as a subtle self-reflexive reflector of its themes and temperament. Much like how the characters' personalities don't provoke so much as serve to shed light on another character, philosophical or emotional dilemma, by the nature of existing cordially by contrast, the title has a similar effect on the film's tone. This is a film about emotions and the complex innerworkings of a person's makeup, not black-and-white facts like the news; and it's a film where characters hardly broadcast them didactically, but converse in body language, humorous beating-round-the-bush dialogue, and some straight talk that has a conscientious heart welcoming collaborative intimacy regardless of how hurtful the projection. It's never a narcissistic echo chamber broadcast, but stems from a place of love and optimistic willingness to see the best in people, even when cynicism of systems lingers in the peripheries. I love this film.

User avatar
dustybooks
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:52 am
Location: Wilmington, NC

Re: 552 Broadcast News

#84 Post by dustybooks » Mon Mar 15, 2021 7:26 pm

A wonderful appreciation. I very seldom go a day without thinking about this film and its characters.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: 552 Broadcast News

#85 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon Mar 15, 2021 11:32 pm

I forgot to mention how perfect the ending is, and I'm grateful Brooks didn't go with his intended cab-surprise that was spoiled by a crewman, which would have minimized the authenticity in favor of a romantic happy ending. Instead we get another, rarer kind of happy ending, one that acknowledges the transient nature of relationships but reframes bittersweet nostalgia into life-affirming gratitude for the experiences that we've had and help shape us along the way. And this is a film that recognizes that these 'experiences' are almost always credited to other people, not through grand gestures but from being present and taking the opportunities to actually respect and study and engage another individual with attention, respect, and empathy. Everyone gets a happy ending, not together, but that hardly matters. Our lives are more reminiscent of this kind of revelation than most movies' oversimplified messages that suppose we have a one-shot-at-self-actualization that exists within the ninety-minute rom-com narrative, when in reality it's an ongoing, bountiful, beautiful ride.

Post Reply