Pretty Woman (1990)
Hello and welcome to Filmjitsu, the podcast that wields films like deadly weapons! We are your hosts, I am Jay – and he is Mike. On this episode, Mike endures 1990’s “Pretty Woman” the much-loved romantic comedy about a hooker with a heart of gold and the white-knight, ahem, that SAVES her. After Mike gives us his thoughts about one of the oldest tropes in cinema, involving the world’s oldest profession, colliding with breezy, saccharine filmmaking, we’ll detail our Bottom Five Beloved Films, a list of movies that we hate, but seemingly everyone else loves. And for the first time ever, we’ll be diving into a little listener feedback before unveiling this year’s Holiday Season selection which both Mike and I will have to endure. But before all of that, let’s roll the trailer for the film Entertainment Weekly’s Owen Gleiberman called a “plastic screwball soap opera,” Pretty Woman.
Mike, Pretty Woman is A LOT. While it manages to at least try to imbue its story with some kind of statement about classism, what is doesn’t talk about, but stresses through its gross cookie-cutter characters, is white male privilege and that women are – apparently – either whores, bitches or gold-diggers. Or maybe I’m just taking all of this way too seriously and I should just watch Julia Roberts giggle and grin for two hours because, let’s face it, she’s unbelievably radiant in this role. Because apparently, that’s what many, MANY people do. So what say you sir? Were you troubled by the awful ways these characters act toward one another or were you so swept up in the tangles of Julia’s wild red hair that you happily ignored Richard Gere’s self-satisfied, squinty-eyed misogyny.
Pretty Woman facts:
- The film grossed $463 million and, back in 1990, was the 5 highest grossing film OF ALL TIME. Only ET, Star Wars, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Jaws beat it out. THE FUCK???
- It was released through one of Disney’s “adult” movie distribution companies – Touchstone Pictures (the other one was Hollywood Pictures) – and it was the highest grossing rated R movie in the company’s history until THIS YEAR when Deadpool vs. Wolverine overtook it.
- Where the cracks start to show is when you look at the overall critical reception for the film. It holds only a 64% rating on Rotten Tomatoes derived from 76 reviews. It drops only 5 more percentage points, and this thing will lose it’s fresh rating. I bet reappraisals like our may well have it happen within the next few years.
- People almost universally agree on one thing when it comes to this movie: Julia Roberts is completely amazing in it. Funny, impossibly charming, bubbly and positively gorgeous, she makes this thing so much more than it ever deserved to be.
- The guy who wrote this, J.F. Lawton, also wrote your believe Under Siege and Under Siege 2: Dark Territory. He was also the creator of the Pamela Anderson action show V.I.P. which is every bit as leering and cringe-inducing as you’d expect from the writer of Pretty Woman.
- Watch the first episode for an incredible early acting role from two of the leads of Breaking Bad: Bryan Cranston and Dean Norris! Cranston gets to tussle with softcore phenomenon Amber Smith while Norris gets to pose with a machine gun while playing a mercenary.
- Also, the same kind of insanely unbelievable characters that never could exist in real life appear in this show.
- The original title of the film was “3,000” as that was the amount paid to Viviane by Richard for their week together.
- I kind of feel like the movie, on the whole, hates women. They’re either hookers, gold diggers or bitchy store owners. There’s almost no actual real female characters in this thing.
- This thing IS competently made! The soundtrack is fantastic – King of Wishful Thinking, y’all – and the editing and pacing are pure fire. It’s kind of like the sweet to make the pill go down easier.
Questions:
- Sex workers – the treatment of them here is so base and dismissive, so gross, that I cannot help but wonder what a film like this would look like if made today?
- Even the rich come off as pretty fucking terrible here. This thing seems like it was written by a dude who not only hated the “lower” class, but also the upper class. What did you think? Was Jason Alexander just about the biggest piece of shit ever to grace a movie screen? (Nowadays he could run for office and win!)
- Given the world we live in now, is this still, 34 years later, where we are in terms of patriarchy and misogyny? Critics called it out at the time of its release, which I’m sure even more would do now, but do you think audiences would eat this up today?
- Is Viviane basically an “adult” Disney Princess served up for a generation of people raised on Disney Princesses?
- Capitalism: What’s the film got to say about the importance of making money in our society?
Bottom Five Beloved Films
As I am, by all rights, likely the most contrarian of contrarians, this bottom five is basically my sweet spot: a gallery of largely adored and praised films that, when they are lauded in my company, induce the kind of comedic apoplexy that you – more than almost anyone in my life – live to watch overcome me. I practically froth at the mouth when someone mentions a flick I feel is overpraised, so this… is going to be interesting because I’m not sure how much spleen I have left to vent at this point in my life.
Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
dir. James Whale
Honestly? It’s boring. So incredible boring. You can talk about how terrific Boris Karloff is as The Monster and how off-the-wall bonkers Colin Clive gets as Dr. Frankenstein, but the main event is supposed to be Else Lanchester as both Mary Shelley – natch – and the Bride herself. This thing was meta before there was meta, with an opening that has Percy Shelly and Lord Byron applauding Mary Shelly for her telling of Frankenstein. But as a sequel to the original story, it opens up a mythology in an unnecessary way and betrays the tragic nature of The Monster by immediately having him kill the father of the young girl the monster accidentally killed. This is in the opening moments of what is allegedly Shelly’s next chapter of the tale! And it got a resounding “nope” from me, a guy who adores the original text and The Monster’s sad banishment to frozen climes.
Man, am I ever on the outside of this one: It’s insanely Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, with 98% of 51 critics’ reviews being positive and an average rating of 9/10. I found it unnecessary and the “only this time it’s a lady conceit” left me feeling cold. Yes, the bride’s reanimation and Else Lanchester’s portrayal of disgust when she sees the monster is terrific, but the film is very slowly paced and the introduction of the flamboyant Pretorious, while a fun icon for queer cinema, is another piece of lazy writing – oh wait, it’s not Henry Frankenstein’s fault THIS time, it’s his mentor’s!
I first saw this in film school in a small viewing booth they set aside for student use. Granted, I was working full time and carrying a full course-load at the time, so maybe that had something to do with this, but I FELL ASLEEP WHILE SITTING UP due to the slowness of the story. You’d think at 75 minutes I could have managed to avert shut-eye, but nope. Not this guy. I snoozed, would wake up suddenly and see things were still dull, and then I’d drift off again. How can it be a classic and not be engaging enough to keep someone awake? Maybe I should ask Jeanne Dielman!
Top Gun (1986)
dir. Tony Scott
I won’t deny that James Horner’s score is one for the ages, but it sounded just as good in 8-bit video game mode as it did in full-synth mode in Tony Scott’s bizarrely macho yet homoerotic ode to reckless militarism. I tried revisiting this back when Top Gun 2 came out and “saved cinema” and I didn’t even make it to the halfway point. Boring, filled with posturing and cookie-cutter characters – Did James Tolken ever play anything than the disgusted bald guy in power? Look, I love me some Tom Skerrit, Berlin and glossy shots of sunrises/sunsets. But even Val Kilmer doing his rolling quarter trick cannot make me give a single damn about whatever the Hell it is that Tom Cruise’s character has to prove. This movie seems senseless and all about male ego, in particular, white male ego where the already entitled feel victimized because there are fucking rules to be followed in life. I found Maverick almost thoroughly unlikeable besides the good deed he pulls at the start of the film, and while I wasn’t shocked that a second movie was made, I was a little surprised that revisits to this one didn’t lead to more people figuring out what a dull flick it was. You can show me all the F16 b-roll you want, set to whatever cool music happens to be big at the time, and I’m not going to care a damn bit if I’m supposed to be rooting for one pilot over another because one doesn’t follow rules. What-the-fuck-ever.
1917 (2019)
dir. Sam Mendes
A filmmaking friend of mine from back in the day named Brad Sykes once said to me that he hated long takes that overused steadycam and that he didn’t consider scene using them as “directed.” I didn’t entirely agree with him because I often felt the blocking and flexible lighting setups that were required to preserve the illusion of open space was indicative of the kinds of logistic that tracking or dolly shots require: whether you’re on tracks or handheld with a steadycam the shots need to go together in the edit and that’s directing.
Here though, director Sam Mendes – who also helmed another beloved movie I cannot stand, American Beauty – hangs his hat on an entire film that’s not only primarily shot with steadycam, but also hides the seams using CG. The effect is a film that is supposed to ratchet up tension by allowing viewers an unbroken, close vantage point to the relentless gauntlet faced by the lead character, William Schofield, as he attempts to deliver a message telling another regiment to stand down. It’s a compelling premise, but the gimmick distracts and the gee-whiz factor of it all, even with the expert eye of legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins behind the camera, (he’s best known for his Coen brothers and Denis Villeneuve collaborations), it all comes off as too staged and choreographed.
One of my favorite directors, Jeremy Saulnier, has explained that he tries to capture the real-life awkwardness of violence and had to often tell his fight coordinators on “Rebel Ridge” to make things look less cool so the audience wouldn’t be pulled out of the moment. In “1917,” there’s no denying some pretty incredible technical wizardry is at work, but it all feels artificial. A few years prior, Christopher Nolan helmed “Dunkirk,” which is forever etched into my mind as a foil to “1917.” Nolan’s direction and choice of shots is precise, but doesn’t feel overly staged. The violence feels unpredictable and random, even clumsy many times. But in “1917,” even the surprise moments like Blake’s stabbing come off as borderline theatrical.
It’s not like this is a bad movie, but when it came out, people were breathlessly describing it as a marvel and it was nominated for a slew of awards, including 10 Oscars – three of which it took home. Perhaps it was a victim of expectations for me, but when Scofield makes his runs through various set pieces, it feels just like that: as if he’s actor Geroge MacKay running through staged and choreographed scenes that feel too-perfectly timed.
Night of the Hunter (1955)
dir. Charles Laughton
So many people applaud “Night of the Hunter” as this frightening mood-piece, a stand-out from an actor/playwright-turned-director who unfortunately only made this single film. Robert Mitchem, as a serial killer that poses as a preacher and threatens two children so he can find their father’s money, has moments of true intensity, but for me he doesn’t do enough; he isn’t scary enough. And in terms of the direction, the movie feels uneven and uncommitted to its story or characters. It is visually interesting, but that visual panache comes at the cost of a loss of tension. Some – including Roger Ebert – applaud director Laughton’s otherworldly touches that leave the film unmoored in a historical time period. But to me, it reduces the stakes of the whole situation. I don’t feel particularly frightened for the kids because the dreamlike quality of the film makes me think it’s coming from their point of view, recollections of their survival. In fact, sometime the quirky editing and scene design feel fake, like when the kids escape in a boat down a river that’s clearly a soundstage. Again, it’s a cool visual, but it felt like another in a series of directorial missteps.
Laughton took the initial critical reception of the film – much of which I personally agree with – deeply to heart, and he opted to never direct another film. That is a shame, because while the movie doesn’t work for me, it does show Laughton as a free-thinking creative artist with a drive to do something different. He shouldn’t have given up after one film, but I think the classic status this picture now holds is far too generous.
Joker (2019)
dir. Todd Phillips
I was afraid to put this on my list, because I honestly thought I might start a stream of profanities that I couldn’t control, thus wrecking this episode, and perhaps our podcast in entirety. I really hate this one. Like so many of these “antihero” movies featuring repressed white dudes not getting a fair shake in life so they lose their shit – think “Falling Down,” “Taxi Driver,” or Micky from “Natural Born Killers” – the messages of the film often birth a me-too movement among assholes and incels when, really, the movie intended to send a different message, as we’ve discussed in the past with “Fight Club.”
But here, we don’t have a mixed message really. We have a dude that’s pushed and pushed and pushed to the edge by circumstances from so many corners of his life that it seems ludicrous. But that’s ok! It’s just a comic book movie! Yet at the same moment, they want you to feel sorry for poor Arthur Fleck, and thanks to Joaquin Phoenix giving it his all, many get so caught up in the sad, pathetic story of the protagonist that they don’t mind a damn that he becomes an antagonist. In fact, they cheer him on. They want blood and revenge, totally missing the fact that all of society is so sick that he’s become sickest of all, and as a result, a savior for all those who feel the world isn’t fair.
You want to see a good version of this same movie, watch “The King of Comedy” starring Robert DeNiro and Jerry Lewis. Inspired, tense and disturbing, that one makes you both root for the antagonist, and then fear him, rather than just cheer on his antics and all those that he inspires.
And if all this wasn’t enough, they have the AUDACITY to reframe the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne as being inspired by The Joker, but not actually him? Come on Todd Phillips. We all know you only loosely framed this wack-a-doodle flick in a comic book world because you wanted it to find an audience. You didn’t have to shit on the mythology as well.
FYI – based on the Rotten Tomatoes score, (68%) this is the worst-reviewed movie ever nominated for a Best Picture Oscar.