552 Broadcast News

Discuss DVDs and Blu-rays released by Criterion and the films on them. If it's got a spine number, it's in here. Threads may contain spoilers.
Message
Author
User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: 552 Broadcast News

#51 Post by knives » Sun Jun 05, 2011 3:39 pm

I thought How Do You Know was enjoyable in a light old-timey sort of way. Like applying Woody Allen characters to '40s situations. It doesn't even try to be a great film, but it manages to be an enjoyable one.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: 552 Broadcast News

#52 Post by Roger Ryan » Sun Jun 05, 2011 4:04 pm

knives wrote:I thought How Do You Know was enjoyable in a light old-timey sort of way. Like applying Woody Allen characters to '40s situations. It doesn't even try to be a great film, but it manages to be an enjoyable one.
Persuaded by Domino's warm review (in the "James L. Brooks" thread) I went and rented HOW DO YOU KNOW?, but could not connect with it on any level. The characters never behaved in a believable or logical fashion given the circumstances, and it wasn't like the illogical behavior was particularly amusing. I also have little patience for plotting contrivances like having a character about to impart crucial information another character needs to know only to be interrupted by a cellphone (incessantly in this movie) or, worse yet, having the character simply decide he will relay the info at a later time. For me, the film just tries too hard for what it has to offer, but I'm glad you and others here found it enjoyable.

User avatar
dad1153
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:32 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: 552 Broadcast News

#53 Post by dad1153 » Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:04 am

Saw this one with my father and his wife last weekend while on vacation in their AZ home. They barely recall seeing "Terms of Endearment" and Brooks' TV work meant nothing to them (either didn't see it or don't care for any of it). The year before I showed them "Network" which my father liked but put his wife to sleep. This year's selection was meant to cover the same ground (satire of network TV news) with a new twist (a likable lead character representing the death of standards in TV journalism), but also to put my father to sleep while this time his wife would stay wide awake at the romantic comedy hijinks. Alas, both ended up wide awake and liking the movie a lot. Since they had no idea who the actors were (not even Holly Hunter) my father never perceived Albert Brooks' Aaron or William Hurt's Tom as competitors or romantic leads (though his wife was on the ball since she's more familiar with the romantic comedy genre) so everything that happened pretty much surprised him and delighted her. Now evey time he watches TV news dad's hoping to catch an anchorman sweating profusely. And someone please send James Brooks an e-mail with the good news: my father and his wife LIKED the ending! Yes, they're probably the first two people that have seen "Broadcast News" and like the way it ends. If you've seen the bonus features in the Criterion "Broadcast News" BD you know why this a pretty big deal (wink, wink).

User avatar
Professor Wagstaff
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:27 pm

Re: 552 Broadcast News

#54 Post by Professor Wagstaff » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:49 am

dad1153 wrote:Yes, they're probably the first two people that have seen "Broadcast News" and like the way it ends.
Actually, I'm quite fond of the ending that exists. Life has gone on for the characters in the epilogue, but the you can tell how they've never been able to stop considering the what-ifs after all this time, especially when they speak to and look at each other, barely able to hide their uneasiness. The ten minutes leading up to that have some of my favorite lines in the movie, including
Jane: You won't be able to stay mad at me, right?
Aaron: I hope so.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Broadcast News (James L. Brooks, 1987)

#55 Post by Mr Sausage » Mon Feb 17, 2014 6:35 am

DISCUSSION ENDS MONDAY, MARCH 17th AT 6:00 AM.

Members have a two week period in which to discuss the film before it's moved to its dedicated thread in The Criterion Collection subforum. Please read the Rules and Procedures.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

I encourage members to submit questions, either those designed to elicit discussion and point out interesting things to keep an eye on, or just something you want answered. This will be extremely helpful in getting discussion started. Starting is always the hardest part, all the more so if it's unguided. Questions can be submitted to me via PM.

1. How did you interpret the last act?

2. Did you view the revelation about Tom's broadcast as a betrayal? Did you interpret it as Jane realizing she was becoming something she wasn't comfortable with? Or another way?



***PM me if you have any suggestions for additions or just general concerns and questions.***

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

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

#56 Post by Mr Sausage » Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:19 pm

A member was kind enough to submit some discussion questions. You'll see them in the post above.

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

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

#57 Post by Drucker » Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:33 pm

Alright, alright. I haven't got much to say but hopefully I can get the ball rolling.

As usual, I enjoyed this film a lot more than I expected to. I have only sit out two film club discussions thus far, and continue to enjoy each new film way more than I expected (especially Browning Version and Miss Julie). I figured this would have to be the film that I just would not enjoy in any way. 80s? Rom com? Bah I say.

But wouldn't you know it, I put the film on, and being that it wasn't foreign/long/slow/etc. my wife and roommate and his girlfriend all sat down and I really did enjoy the film. It seems to always be on the verge of doing what you expected, and then doesn't. I arrogantly assessed half-way through that of COURSE Albert Brooks's character would be fired, but he's not. And of course Holly Hunter and the dashing blonde would end up together. Wrong again, however.

There were just great moments. And everything in the film fits so perfectly in the mold established for all three characters in the introduction/prologue: Tom really, really doesn't feel good about being able to get through life on his looks/personality. He doesn't take advantage of it, and is genuinely interested and appreciates those who help him (look how he treats the staff after his first broadcast, and how he can't break things off with Jane because he truly loves her). That's why I don't believe his act with the tear is truly the betrayal Jane makes it out to be. The idea was planted in his head by someone else, he was nearly on the verge of tears already, and like everything else in the movie and his life, he seems to be rushed along by forces outside of his control. But he does think about the consequences of those outside forces, or so it seems.

Albert Brooks' character always has a chip on his shoulder. He yells, "You'll never make more than 19,000 a year!" But that sounds great to the jock who just beat him up. If Tom has his looks, Aaron has his mouth. And he just doesn't seem to be able to control what comes out of it. He's convinced everything that comes out of it is worth saying...and in the end he almost seems RIGHT! But that doesn't matter.

And of course Jane yells at her father in the intro, and then gives him a kiss as if to say sorry I still love you. Like Aaron, her ideals and her big mouth seem to be her worst enemy, but at the same time, the thing that cements her ascending career.

I would love to hear if there are any huge boosters of the film out there why this is a masterpiece, but I'm just fine with it being a nice 80s film. I will say that the score was beyond awful. The sentimental strings that would come in took me out of the movie almost every time.

That said, I loved the little in jokes, with Aaron's last name being Altman, and then appearing in all its alliterative glory on the television broadcast. This of course comes after Aaron insults Tom for using alliteration during his broadcast. And Joan Cusack's line "Now my brother won't be the only screw-up in the family," is a simple enough wink for the audience to be charming, rather than eye-rolling. I guess you could say that about a lot of this film.

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

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

#58 Post by movielocke » Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:24 pm

Did you view the revelation about Tom's broadcast as a betrayal? Did you interpret it as Jane realizing she was becoming something she wasn't comfortable with? Or another way?
The first time I saw the film, in high school, I went along with the betrayal narrative, on Jane's side the whole way.

Having worked in television for so many years now, I almost have a counter-reading of the 'betrayal'. Jane, as a producer, will have shot pick-ups and reaction shots for packages for years and then edited them in as though they were part of a continuous multi-cam shoot--it would be routine. In part, I now view her anger as anger at herself (but directed at Tom) for falling for the illusion like her audience is expected to. She becomes angry because she's not supposed to fall for the illusion, she's supposed to see the seams. The fact that she didn't, that Tom got through and convinced her--in effect negating her knowledge and experience of the realities of television production--was shocking and threatening. In a sense, she became angry at him because of those perceived threats to her professionalism, if she could become audience, then she's not as above it all as she once thought. In order to maintain her career she has to get above it again. This is not really all conscious thought or decision making, she's reacting emotionally, so naturally all her reactions are going to come out in terms of betrayal as well as putting all the onus on Tom. She fell for the oldest trick in the television book, that's just not possible, right? someone as smart as her couldn't fall for that trick, right? What a dirty, unethical bastard for daring to trick her, right?

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

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

#59 Post by Gregory » Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:42 pm

movielocke wrote:Jane, as a producer, will have shot pick-ups and reaction shots for packages for years and then edited them in as though they were part of a continuous multi-cam shoot--it would be routine. In part, I now view her anger as anger at herself (but directed at Tom) for falling for the illusion like her audience is expected to. She becomes angry because she's not supposed to fall for the illusion, she's supposed to see the seams. The fact that she didn't, that Tom got through and convinced her--in effect negating her knowledge and experience of the realities of television production--was shocking and threatening. In a sense, she became angry at him because of those perceived threats to her professionalism, if she could become audience, then she's not as above it all as she once thought. In order to maintain her career she has to get above it again. This is not really all conscious thought or decision making, she's reacting emotionally, so naturally all her reactions are going to come out in terms of betrayal as well as putting all the onus on Tom. She fell for the oldest trick in the television book, that's just not possible, right? someone as smart as her couldn't fall for that trick, right? What a dirty, unethical bastard for daring to trick her, right?
The main reason I can't agree with that interpretation is that not all illusions on television are equal: editing together different shots to create an illusion of continuity is one thing, but Tom's betrayal is something more than that because it's so emotionally manipulative and sleazy and calculating. It's emblematic of so much of what she loathes about the way that TV news was gradually heading at the time. That Tom already was a living example of the sinking standards and increasing superficiality of the news was already a problem early on in the film, when she finds out his story and that he's undeserving of his job, but the revelation about the televised crocodile tears pushed Jane's feelings of conflict and doubt past the point of no return. And yes, I agree that she's angry with herself for having fallen for it.

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

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

#60 Post by movielocke » Tue Mar 04, 2014 5:22 pm

With my career having been 15 years after the film was made, I can't really say how pre-lapsarian television editing was in this period. Perhaps it was pure. But my experience in broadcast, scripted and reality (yeah, I've worked in all three over the years), has made me pretty skeptical that cheats, pickups, cutaways and reaction shots were not common practice back then, because it's certainly common today. I can't view the film without that lens, which is why I think it's an interesting alternate read, even if the read may not be accurate.

I do think you could make a distinction that somehow one reaction shot is more immoral than another reaction shot, but I'm not so sure that what Tom did was all that immoral (hah, that sentence just revealed to me how much reality has jaded me), it's such a minor infraction, filming a reaction shot after the fact.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

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

#61 Post by knives » Tue Mar 04, 2014 5:29 pm

I think her failed talk near the start of the film is a real signal to what she was upset over which is developing a fiction to dramatize the broadcast. So yes, I doubt it is so much that the image was manipulated that she was bothered by. That said it is clear, to me, that she is upset that he would later on film himself crying so as to build the emotions of the audience rather. It's such a crass way to make people take notice of you thus having the news be about the newscaster rather than the thing being reported. Her anger, the anger of the film, is the idea of the news being a soap opera which faking the news as he does is a strong example of.

That said this ignores that the film is probably very naive. It has this idea of good journalism which for all I know never actually existed. So ignoring reality the question seems more like what does the film believe news is like.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

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

#62 Post by Gregory » Tue Mar 04, 2014 7:12 pm

Yeah, I thought of filming his reaction shots separately as only a minor breach of ethics, and the really objectionable thing was that he was pretending to cry spontaneously to bolster a manipulative, faux-sincere piece of sensationalism while also injecting himself into the story and making a bid for a career as a celebrity anchor/television personality.

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

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

#63 Post by Drucker » Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:14 pm

What do you guys make of her station manager's (?) comment at the Correspondent's Dinner that he was happy she became more flexible? To me, I still have a hard time accepting that Tom's breach of ethics was as bad as Jane seems to believe. At the beginning of the conference where she makes her speech, she's much more critical of infotainment-type nonsense superseding real news. When she's overseas and the reporter tries to set up a shot of the soldier/insurgent tying his shoes, that's almost treated as a joke though, isn't it?

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

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

#64 Post by warren oates » Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:27 pm

It is meant to be funny. Jane clearly goes too far in her obsessive quest for purity, demanding that the sort of standard B-roll cutaways that aren't even an essential aspect of the unfolding newsworthy narrative they're there to cover nevertheless be captured with a brand of idealistic direct cinema non-interference that really never existed in documentary filmmaking in the first place. The capper to that scene, of course, is that the soldier himself is so confused by the hubbub that he's now uncertain of what to do, actually unable to decide whether to tie his shoes or not, flustered in a way that's made him totally self-conscious. So she's ironically ended up interfering more in the unvarnished "reality" she'd set out to capture than her camerman ever did when he unobtrusively grabbed those shots initially.

What's good about that scene is what's good about the film as a whole: Everything is so clearly constructed. Yet it's not all obvious. There are plenty of surprising character choices and lots of room for subtext and irony. The central dramatic and thematic arguments of the film aren't at all cut and dried.

I like how it's a three-hander. How it's a serious dramady about work, which is the partner Holly Hunter chooses in the end. I like how it updates the newspaper films of previous eras. How the guy's a ditzy blonde, if not quite a manic pixie dream guy (because: no imagination). How the girl chases the guy to the departing train/bus/plane. How the frumpier friend doesn't turn out to be her true love, but she also doesn't get to keep him as a friend -- again, more for work reasons than personal ones. And then how she leaves her would-be lover not strictly because he's genuinely ignorant of how unethical and inauthentic his work-related transgression was, but because she realizes she loves her work, at least in its most ideal form, more than she could ever love him.

The best scene in the film is the Libyan crisis special report a highwire three-way act that Hurt later ends up comparing to great sex (thinking he was only having a M-F twosome). Regardless of what they all say they want and almost end up doing, in the end all their sexual energy gets sublimated into the work (with the notable exception of Hurt, who still manages to get some on the side).

Hurt's performance is the one that interests me the most. I'm always impressed with cerebral actors who convincingly take on the roles of characters much dumber than they are. Forget about playing tortured geniuses, the physically or the mentally handicapped. A much bigger challenge for an intellectual method type is to portray a man of boringly average intelligence, to really live in and fully think through those banal thoughts and unsubtle motivations so they flit across the eyes believably. The sort of thing Woody Harrelson is pulling off in True Detective right now or that De Niro does so brilliantly in Raging Bull and perhaps less successfully in Jackie Brown, where I feel like I can also sort of see him thinking too hard just behind Louis Gara's supposed to be thoughtlessly dead eyes. Anyway, if I didn't know better and hadn't seen him in anything else, Hurt would totally have me convinced that he is more or less the guy in the film, a good-looking but shallow charmer who coasts by on his easy likeability. He's worried enough about his lack of depth to try and figure out how to hide it, but not so much that he aspires to reverse it -- especially if that involves serious time and hard work.

Michael Ballhaus' cinematography looks terrific in the 1080p stream I caught on Netflix, the colors are crisp and distinctive and the depth and texture of the images is of a piece with his other best work from around the same time, even Goodfellas. And the score, serviceable without feeling grating or sappy, has aged well too.
Last edited by warren oates on Sat Mar 08, 2014 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

#65 Post by Black Hat » Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:52 pm

To my surprise Broadcast News was not the television news satire I was expecting but rather a sheet of romantic comedy pulled aside to reveal the emotional journey of three opposing characters trying to make sense of themselves, one another and the world they live in. Brooks did a masterful job of letting his characters breath without even a hint of judgment. This served to bring the audience closer as feeling helpless thanks to frustration coming in the forms of being in over your head, Tom, being unjustly overlooked, Aaron, or emotionally unavailable, Jane.

A thought on Albert Brooks' performance: for much of the film I felt he was the weak link, nothing about his performance conveyed anything except this is Albert Brooks playing a barely awake Albert Brooks. Then the scene of Jane coming over after his anchorman fiasco happened. The best characters are the ones who make you believe you've figured them out only to show that you're a fool for trying. Up to that point he was trapped within himself, but once he felt he lost everything he was able to unburden himself of the layer upon layer of crust that had formed going back to his days being bullied at school. The unveiling of all his inner bullshit that he expressed in that scene made his character's arc the most satisfying.

The ending, though far from flowery, was true to the examination of these character's tale of emotional hang ups we had been following. Aaron, perhaps because his failure and humiliation forced him to, was the only one who confronted his insecurities by letting his job go. Having accomplished his goal of marriage and child, he's at peace with who he is. Tom, who to his credit still has enough self awareness to understand his limitations, remains willing to play the devil. If by devil we accept Aaron's definition of devil as good looking liar. Jane's outcome was sad. Not only was her love interest, if she was even telling the truth, only been around for three months, not an indicator of stability especially when contrasted with the other two's marriages, but she was also unable to stand still upon meeting again. That symbolized that she remains running in place emotionally.

Drucker, the executive's comment was gloating. A bit of revenge for how she treated him at the prior party. On how much she really cares about Tom's ethical breach: someone like Jane, who has difficulty acknowledging how she feels in situations she doesn't feel in control of, looks for anything that can give them reason to reassert themselves. Aaron didn't tell her about what Tom did out of journalistic code but rather that she can go back and regain control. Remember, before that he even makes mention of how he doesn't like how she's changed. Aaron wants Jane to be the Jane he's in love with and the Jane he's in love with doesn't fall in love with a guy like Tom. Manipulation at its finest.

One thing I noticed watching the film that I'd like to pose to the group was Jane's diminutive stature. I don't think I can recall ever seeing as many shots in a film where it's made as obvious it was here how short a character is. Did anybody else pick up on this? Were all those shots emphasizing her height telling us that she'd never quite reach what she wants?

Lastly has anybody watched the deleted scenes? There's one on there of Tom & Jennifer having sex where she blurts something crazy out but for the life of me I can't make it out, anybody know what she says?

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

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

#66 Post by Black Hat » Mon Mar 10, 2014 8:10 am

Having watched it over the weekend the interview with Susan Zirinsky, who the character of Jane was based on, is fantastic. It's rare to see someone so open and honest about themselves.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

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

#67 Post by Gregory » Mon Mar 10, 2014 12:46 pm

Black Hat wrote:Lastly has anybody watched the deleted scenes? There's one on there of Tom & Jennifer having sex where she blurts something crazy out but for the life of me I can't make it out, anybody know what she says?
"Damn all you sons of bitches! Oh shit! Oh you bastards!" Then she regains her composure and says, "Sorry."

One thing I found interesting in the deleted scenes was that Tom coaches Aaron to "punch one word or phrase every sentence" and in an earlier scene we see in Tom's notes that he has the words to be emphasized highlighted in his notebook so that he knows exactly how to say the questions.

User avatar
Moe Dickstein
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:19 pm

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

#68 Post by Moe Dickstein » Mon Mar 10, 2014 2:39 pm

The thing I found most relavatory in the deleted scenes was the subplot of Tom's source. Brooks' material always rides a knife edge of tone, and I think that arc while interesting and well told, would have brought an aspect to his character that pushed him too far into the negative.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

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

#69 Post by Gregory » Mon Mar 10, 2014 2:50 pm

Including it would have also dated and weakened the film.
Buddy, the gay character, acts silly and flirty all the time to establish that he's gay and probably to add comedy to this part of the story. The security officer says to him something like, Oh, you're that gay guy—I've been looking for you! When the interview didn't start off well, would Aaron really have called security and said "There's a gay person who needs to be escorted from the building"?
Buddy then invites Tom for a drink in a regular bar. "Is there a regular bar around here?" Then Buddy can't figure out or accept that Tom isn't gay and he makes all kinds of clumsy passes at him. It would have added very little to the film and it comes across as written by a heterosexual who'd never known any gay men.

(Anyone happen to know who played Buddy? He's one of those actors in deleted scenes who are typically hard to identify, and searching the internet just turns up other people asking who he is.)

User avatar
Moe Dickstein
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:19 pm

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

#70 Post by Moe Dickstein » Mon Mar 10, 2014 6:36 pm

I agree by 2014 standards it's almost gay-minstrel comical but it wouldn't have been so for a mainstream audience in 1987.

User avatar
jindianajonz
Jindiana Jonz Abrams
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:11 pm

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

#71 Post by jindianajonz » Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:33 am

I don't have much to add here that hasn't already been said, but one thing that nobody has really touched on is the relationship between Aaron and Tom. They seem to "complete" each other more than JAne completes either of them, since Tom has the looks, poise and charisma that Aaron lacks, while Aaron has the ideas and understanding that Tom seeks. I wouldn't go so far as saying this film deals with homosexuality at its core, but it's interesting that the only thing Jane brings to the table is a femininity that they are both comfortable connecting with, and thus acts as a facilitator for the "three-way news report", as Warren terms it.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

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

#72 Post by Mr Sausage » Sun Mar 16, 2014 6:35 am

I wouldn't say that's a relationship, it's just the qualities Jane loves are split between two people, hence the romantic problem she faces. She loves Aaron's personality, so they are very close friends, but she isn't sexually attracted to him enough to want more than friendship; whereas Tom is sexually attractive enough to date, but lacks an attractive personality.

It's the dream man bisected rather than a depiction of homosociality or something. They're complementary only so that they'll offer our heroine two different avenues of compromise, neither of which she takes (was surprised and pleased by that route).

User avatar
jindianajonz
Jindiana Jonz Abrams
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:11 pm

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

#73 Post by jindianajonz » Sun Mar 16, 2014 11:23 am

You are correct when you are viewing it from Jane's perspective, but I was looking at it from Aaron and Tom's professional perspective. I think you are dead on with your "dream man bisected" remark, but the interesting thing is how painfully aware both men are that they are merely incomplete parts of a bisected whole- their motivation for most of the movie is trying to find a way to fill in (or at least compensate for) the part of them that is missing from their professional lives. When Jane is there to act as a conduit for Aaron's words during the Libya segment, they create a remarkable piece of journalism, but this system can't last due to jealousy over Jane, and the two men never manage to find a way to work together symbiotically- the closest they get is Tom trying to teach Aaron to be an anchor (i.e. give him the tools to circumvent Tom, rather than allow the two to work together again) and this ends in disaster. I think that if they could find a way to get Aaron's words back into Tom's ears, the two would make a very strong team. But because their personal drama gets in the way, by the end of the film Tom seems to have given up on understanding the news and instead just banks on his affability, while Aaron has decided to reduce his frustrations by taking a low stress job at a smaller Oregonian station, despite the fact that this severely reduces the audience for his ideas.

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

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

#74 Post by Black Hat » Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:45 pm

I didn't see Jane's romantic problem having anything to do with Aaron at all. When he kisses her or makes overtures she disregards them to an eye popping degree. Jane's romantic problem was between her job and Tom. I also think to say her attraction to Tom is purely sexual isn't fair either. Yes he's a good looking man but it's also the innocence he shows, his optimism, kindness and security with himself, being able to admit that he needs help, which leads to a charming, youthful exuberance. An island so far away from her own that she can't help but want to visit.

I think it's her realization that Tom isn't as innocent as she had thought that is partly why she reacts the way she does at the end.
Gregory wrote:"Damn all you sons of bitches! Oh shit! Oh you bastards!" Then she regains her composure and says, "Sorry."
Thanks for this.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

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

#75 Post by Mr Sausage » Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:12 pm

Black Hat wrote:I didn't see Jane's romantic problem having anything to do with Aaron at all. When he kisses her or makes overtures she disregards them to an eye popping degree. Jane's romantic problem was between her job and Tom.
It's not between her job and Tom at all, it's between her values, which Aaron embodies as he is more or less her conscience, and those that Tom represents.

She likes many aspects of Tom's personality, but not strongly, not like Aaron's personality, which she connects with strongly enough to be his closest friend and confidant. Tom's sexual attraction is the dominant part of their relationship (it's a major part of his characterization in general), and it's eased along, as Jane well knows, by well-meant but superficial charm.

This movie is so good because it sets up a romantic dilemma that, because it's not about the choice between two viable suitors, is transfigured into an ethical dilemma. Aaron is never really in the running, but his presence constantly reveals the crucial absence in Tom (and also vice versa I'm sure). The choice is more: either Tom or what Aaron stands for--or, rather, if Jane can still stand for their shared values if she remains with Tom, ect., ect.

Post Reply