In his long, illustrious career, James L. Brooks, most famous for developing The Simpsons, has only directed six movies. He actually has one of the stranger careers I've seen. He started out as a television writer, jumping from show to show until he apparently developed a knack for selling TV shows.
By the time he directed his first movie, Terms of Endearment, he had gotten a "created by" credit from eight different TV shows, all of which were off the air by that point. He seemed disinterested in actually writing anything - of those eight shows, he only wrote for Mary Tyler Moore Show beyond the pilot and that was still just six total episodes. He had also written one movie, which was decently reviewed but nothing special.
And then with Terms of Endearment, he got a chance to direct his own written work. It was nominated for 11 Oscars and won five of them, including Best Director and Best Picture. Four years later, he wrote and directed his follow-up, Broadcast News.
I liked Terms of Endearment quite a bit. It wasn't nominated for 11 Oscars good, but it was a pretty good movie. Broadcast News is better.
Broadcast News has a lot going on. It's a love triangle between a handsome, but dull anchorman and a brilliant, yet prickly news reporter. Having to navigate these two options is a workaholic producer, who has constant breakdowns.
... But that's not really what the film is about. It's about the fight for news itself. On one side is Tom Grunick, played by William Hurt, who represents news as entertainment. On the other side is Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks), who thinks of news as some higher calling, that they should report the news without regard to ratings.
In the middle is Jane, played by Holly Hunter, who agrees more with Altman. She doesn't want news to become entertainment. She wants news to be compelling because the news is so compelling. But the problem is Altman kind of sucks. She's not attracted to him. She is attracted to Grunick, but she also sort of hates everything he represents.
Grunick is charismatic, aware of his faults and seems to be trying to be better. But, in this parable of the news, he also dumbs down his viewership. Everyone in the news is trying to do their best to actually report the news, but ratings is king. Grunick wants to be better, but he also understands what makes compelling television and that's ultimately what's going to win out.
Conversely, Altman is dying to be an anchor. He's a very good on-field reporter, but when he gets his chance to anchor on a day where most everyone else is at a party, he fails miserably. He'll certainly report exactly what we need to hear, but it won't be compelling television.
Broadcast News was made 34 years ago, and the fight represented in this movie has been lost, so much so that modern viewers may not even perceive what exactly Grunick is doing wrong. (And in fact, I believe his "ultimate sin" was already standard practice at the time, something I am completely willing to overlook because of what it symbolizes). The dull, handsome anchor is what we get.
The three leads were all nominated for an Academy Award and, while I haven't seen that many 1987 movies, they all deserved it. I have seen Moonstruck though, and Holly Hunter deserved it over Cher. I'll say that. Hunter was amazing in this movie. She's the glue holding this movie together.
I'll also give some credit to Brooks, who by all accounts should be the guy the audience is rooting for. He has the more honorable symbolic position to news after all. But Brooks can be mean. He responds to a rape survivor's tearful story with a sardonic quip (he's watching her on TV, not like face to face thank god). It certainly complicates matters that Altman is nothing but mean to Grunick, and Grunick couldn't be a nicer, more humble guy.
Hurt meanwhile gets to play the extremely rare self-aware dumb guy. He knows he's dumb. He knows he only has the job for his looks and charm, and not for any news-related reason. This is all stuff that in 2021, we would probably scoff at. A news anchor got the job for his looks and charm? Well aren't those the only requirements? Evidently, once upon a time, they actually had to be respected newsmen.
What makes the movie good is that while it clearly seems to lean towards the side of news for the sake of news and not entertainment, Grunick IS better at being a news anchor. When he does his thing with Hunter screaming in his ear half the time, he presents a clean, successful broadcast. Grunick knows what a good news broadcast is. There's a place for this. It just shouldn't be the only thing.
I make it sound like this is a lesson, but these are themes that are naturally revealed through its characters. It is not a movie for the sake of lecturing the audience, Brooks created complex characters where their actions felt natural. The fact that it also works as a commentary on the state of journalism is nothing short of amazing to me.
The third thing that works for this movie is that it's just a fun, seemingly accurate look at how making a news television show happens. There's an early scene that helps capture the thrill and terror that makes you understand why these characters have dedicated their lives to it. I am not really a fan of the man's work, but there's no way Aaron Sorkin wasn't heavily influenced by this movie. Just to give you an idea.
Most movies barely work on one level. Broadcast News, in my opinion, works on three levels. It's a love triangle, and and a compelling one with a conclusion that's fit to the story its telling importantly. It's a fight between old journalism and new journalism. And it's a fascinating look into high stakes, live television.
4/4 stars
No comments:
Post a Comment