Anybody actually seen this? - Smooth Talk (1985) Discussion

[–] dorphley 21 years ago

I liked the film. I've heard that the film is different from the short story, espically the ending. Does anyone know what the numbers on the rear of Arnold's car are meant? I've heard a couple different things and I was wondering if anyone knew the truth or had some good ideas.

reply

[–] macullen 21 years ago

The numbers add up to 69. Also, if you count backwards from the end of the Old Testement for the first number, and take the second two to be chapter and verse numbers, you get "When he saw the people in the square, he asked them where they had been, and where they were going." So, on one level, its a thinly veiled sexual reference, but if you look closer, its something quite complex and a little sinister (since Arnold seems to number the books of the Bible backwards).

reply

[–] serinamerola 21 years ago

Numbers could also mean 33 (Arnold Friend's age), 19 (age of his first rape/murder victim), 17 (age of his second rape/murder victim), which would indicate 15, Connie's age, as his next rape/murder victim. But that's based on the short story. The film changed the ending.

--Oh Spike, you're the big bad! You're the big bad!

reply

[–] jewfizzle 18 years ago

33 is the age at which Jesus was crucified, and 19 is the number of angels guarding the entrance to hell.

reply

[–] deanowest 14 years ago

33 + 19 +17=69
Take the average 69/3=23
3/2= .666!
My student figured this out.

Dictated, but not read.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ceebeegee 13 years ago

Ugh, what a creepy remark.

reply

[–] BlueLeaves 21 years ago

and thought it showed brilliant insight inside a teenage girls mind. She acts one way but thinks another. Her flirting is that of an older woman but in her mind she is just testing the waters. She wants to be attractive to boys but she is not ready ready emotionally for what her flirting may provoke. She loves her mother but despises her at the same time. Laura Dern is superb as the teenager and supporting cast is also very good. I just might comment that Treat William's character seems a bit over the top but necessary to make the point of the film. I have never read the story but, as you can read, would highly recommend the film.

"If a king can't sing, it ain't worth being king."

reply

[–] chica2481 20 years ago

I think it depends on what is your favorite part of the story. I personally enjoyed the end of the story and felt the movie totally screwed with what I thought should have happened to Connie. I would see it just because it has good parts but it is very different from the story and won't expect to see a great film that is exactly just like the story.

reply

[–] MichaelMovieLoft 20 years ago

I've read the story and seen the movie. The movie messed with everything. The story has a dark demonic feel. The movie added more dialogue and characters. In the story, Arnold Friend comes off as omniscient. He knows all about Connie. In the film, he gets his information from Connie's uncool friend, Jill, a character created for the film. It takes away from the power Arnold has in the book.

But if taken seperately, you see a study of a young woman who is in a rush to grow up too fast, a mother who knocks her daughter down and doesn't know how to relate to her, a father who doesn't even bother, and a sister is only slightly older than Connie but acts like she knows it all.

It probably would've worked better if they didn't base it around JCO's story and went on their own.

Pat

reply

[–] esmith6286 20 years ago

I had to read this short story for my EN 102 class freshman year of college. I thought it was a great story, but never got the chance to watch the film version. I was reading the other few posts here, and was wondering how the movie ends. I like how the book leaves it as an open end. Also, if you remove the "r's" from aRnold fRiend, it become An Old Fiend. Possibly the devil?? Just a thought.

reply

[–] maxdaname 20 years ago

The movie was Horrible, bad acting, bad interpretation of the short. 15 year old Connie looks 25 and her sister 19 year old (or so I don't quite remember) looks at least 13. Short story = good, The movie = very dissapointing

reply

[–] lorddarkknight3 20 years ago

I hated the story and the movie. This is one of only TWO movies I have rated as a 1 out of 538 movies, so you know it has to be pretty damn bad.

Know religion, no peace. No religion, know peace.

reply

[–] Jenny16 20 years ago

I have to agree with some of you. I really enjoyed the story more than the movie. I think the ending of the movie was totally ridiculous. It completely lost my interpretation of the story. Also i agree with the fact that Connie looked a lot older than she was suppose too.

Even though the actress that played her was 18, she did not even look that young. honestly I think the older sister would've had a better chance at playing connie.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pjenkins00 19 years ago

I read this story in high school. my teacher pointed out the same "an old fiend" reference as being a common way to refer to the devil. also we talked about the flies being architypically representing the devil. Arnold's friend Ellie could be short for "beELLEzebub".

reply

[–] sanity-is-relative 19 years ago

yeah, oates meant for the Arnold Friend character to have demonic undertones.

reply

[–] kurt_imdb 20 years ago

I saw the film this afternoon, and was impressed. I don't know if the altered plot impressed me so much as the perfomances. I was positively transfixed by Laura Dern. And Treat Williams brought swagger and charm to an unsympathetic role that could have easily gone 100% slimey and evil. Anyway I had read (and enjoyed) the story before, so I thought I'd look it up online and found that this is what Joyce Carol Oates had to say:

http://www.usfca.edu/fac-staff/southerr/smoothtalk.html

I mean if you're interested in what the story's author thinks.

reply

[–] Useless_Chick_23 20 years ago

Thank you so, so much for the Joyce Carol Oates link. I have been looking for the short story "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" since seeing the movie "Smooth Talk" in 1987. With this link, I was FINALLY able to find the full text of the story and print it out. I haven't read the story yet, but I'm very excited.

Thanks again!! :)

"FRA-GEE-LAY ... it must be Italian!"
"I think that says 'fragile', honey."

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] aliensbuff 19 years ago

So I caught the last 30 minutes or so last night on Sundance...and I'm curious. When Connie finally leaves with Arnold, the scene cuts to his car parked out in a field and no sign of them in the car. Cut back to her arriving back at home and looking confused. I assumed the filmmakers are inferring that she had sex with Arnold, but she doesn't look abused or hurt.

Based on the above comments about how the movie differs from the story, was she supposed to have been raped and/or murdered after leaving with Arnold? If the movie decided to change the ending, what are people's interpretations about what went on during her 'ride' with Arnold?

I thought the movie made excellent use of sinister music during the long scene where Arnold is doing his smooth talking. One second you expected him to attack her, and the next you don't know what his motive is.

Good movie (at least the tail end of it)...but as with tradition, the story is probably better.

"Am I right, or am I right or am I right? Rightrightright...right." - Ned Ryerson

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] osa1011 19 years ago

The scene where Arnold is trying to convince Connie to go for a drive is quite moving. The way he moves toward her reminds me of a cat preparing to pounce on its prey. With each step, Arnold seemed to position himself at an advantageous stance. I didn't find the film amazing, but I did enjoy it. And, I have to disagree with those who feel the acting was bad in this film. I thought the acting was the highpoint.

reply

[–] jreid1-1 19 years ago

I saw this for the first time last month and I thought it was great. Maybe not a fast paced thriller, but still good. However, I was a teenager in the 80's and this really reminded me of those times. I wasn't as flirty as this girl, but still hung out at the mall for 6 hours at a stretch and wore the same type of clothes and what not...anyway, point being those maybe the reasons that I liked it so much....I do still recommend it anyway.

reply