MovieChat Forums > Smooth Talk (1985) Discussion > What the h*ll?!

What the h*ll?!

posted 18 years ago by Entgegengelaufen
13 replies | jump to latest

That was my reaction after having first watched this movie yesterday morning.

*Contains Spoilers*

I don't care for the ending and I longed for the character of "Arnold Friend" to be captured and prosecuted accordingly. Of course , that didn't happen.

It's probably true that there is some "deeper" , psychoanalytical element pertaining to Laura Dern's character pervading throughout the film , but I think a more simple ending would've satisfied the audience's need for a "conclusion." Otherwise , we're left to believe that this guy's just going to keep running around preying on young girls.

It was an engaging film and it jept my attention throughout. I think a lot of that had to do with how well Ms. Dern portrayed her character and how the film didn't follow that many "cliches."

I almost draw into question whether or not William's character was "real." I mean , so little in known about him in the film and he doesn't really show up until the end. And there's that bit at the end where she even tells her sister about how she's not even sure it was real. Perhaps his character was symbolic?

I also think it could be said that Dern's character is punished for her awakening sexuality and I find that offensive. It's also surprising that a woman would write such a story.
It's that chavinistic attitude about a girl being punished for being a "tease."
I don't buy that at all. She never went "all the way" with anyone and therefore she wasn't a "slut." She was just curious about the things she was feeling , but always felt a responsibility to herself and her family never to "go all the way." So , it's as if a man from the stone age could've written the story.
I'm not quite sure that's the sentiment entirely , but it seems that way. That aspect of the story disappointed me.

I have not read Ms. Oates book , but I'm inclined to after having seen the film.

Amicus verus est rara avis.

[–] Incredible_Brightness 18 years ago

I didn't understand the film myself. But the girl wasn't punished for her awakening sexuality, at all.

If she was punished for anything - it was for being selfish. Don't you remember the majority of the movie, before the scene with Laura Dern's character and Arnold Friend?? It was about how the girl had everything, in the eyes of everyone who knew her, and how she never thought about anyone but herself.

I really don't think the Arnold Friend character was supposed to be perceived as a real person. I think he was supposed to represent the guy she thought she was looking for.

The ending, as far as I could tell, was positive. Because she suddenly had a better relationship with her family. Unless you're trying to say that she sacrificed her sexual-self for the role of a good daughter and sister. That could be annoying, if that's what you think the point of the movie was.

Me personally- I don't know. I feel like it ended on a high note.

"Carol, one word of advice: send Cindy to a special school"

[–] Entgegengelaufen 18 years ago

Hi Angry-Scientist ,

First of all , I guess I should just say that I don't fully understand the film either. lol

But...

I don't think she was anymore selfish than most girls her age would be. I mean , she lived in a small town , not much to do , and if she spent most of her time at the mall or hanging out with friends , who's to blame her? Most teenaged girls spend long periods of time in their rooms listening to music and trying on makeup and clothes.

I think that she "did" feel distanced from her family , but I think that was due to the fact that she was growing up and changing a little bit and what used to amuse her suddenly didn't.

With regard to the issue of people feeling that she "had it all" , maybe there was a tinge of that , but it wasn't wholly justified. I think it's the typical "grass is always greener on the other side" type situation. And jealousy is not foreign amongst teenaged girls. And the sister relationship wasn't that unusual either. I think it's quite common for one sister to feel that the other is "prettier" and more "popular" that she is.

I do get the vibe , though , that she was punished for her awakening sexuality.
In the kind of way men feel about women, "Oh, she's a tease." , "She's gonna gets what's coming to her."
And that really surprises me , considering that the writer of the book was a woman.
Sure she had some "daliances" with guys , mostly just extended kisses , but she stopped when she felt it was going too far.

I think the character of Arnold Friend , real or not , was designed as the "she's gonna get whats coming to her" revenge.

In my eyes , he is a rapist , pure and simple.

As for casting , I don't have any problems with it. I don't care how many people think "How could they cast Treat Williams as a sexual predator , he's so cute." I think he's frightening and scary in this film , totally unattractive and very sleazy.

I don't know , I get the vibe like the director/writer was trying to "knock her off of her 'highhorse" , so to speak , at the end.

Amicus verus est rara avis.

[–] Incredible_Brightness 18 years ago

I think the character of Arnold Friend, real or not, was designed as the "she's gonna get what's coming to her" revenge.

In my eyes, he is a rapist, pure and simple.

Really? Because I don't think he raped her. He said something like - he 'came to take her for a ride and that's what happened.' For some reason, my mind has actually gone blank as to what definitely happened when they were out on his/their ride. Because I saw it on a regular TV broadcast - TBS (the station). However, I seem to remember her telling him off in a very empowered way. I felt that experience changed who she was. And yeah in a way it was like a growing experience. To show her the danger in going off with boys she didn't know well. Because that's certainly what she was doing earlier in the film. She was practicing being a sexual young woman but she was still being somewhat irresponsible.

I seriously doubt he was meant as any kind of revenge, nor that the film would use rape as revenge. But the film was so vague that any and everything's open to interpretation. I get what you're saying and if I thought you were totally right, what you're saying is really horrible and would be really shameful and irresponsible filmmaking. But this is really not about all girls. I think it was the story of one girl and how she just needed a reminder of how serious 'playing around' can be. I really don't think he raped her. He took her on that ride and I seriously think the message was- 'I just took you for a ride, but the next guy might not be so gentle.' And that is a real lesson and a fairly positive message for her to learn.

But if that was the point of the movie, than the whole thing with the family had almost nothing to do with anything. Which is why I agree there is definitely a shady aspect to the film's story. But it's also entirely possible that the woman who wrote the story was one of those young people who were kind of wild yet grew up to be more conservative. It's possible, there are certainly those kind of people out there. In which case, than the interest in adapting the story and a woman having directed the film as well (didn't a woman direct this film? I can't remember) wouldn't be that surprising. Because, especially that time in the '80s, was very "Don't Talk to Strangers"esque. Rick Springfield did that song about it, and Disney's Welcome to Pooh Corner show did a home video about the subject too, right about that time (mid 1980's).

Sure she had some "daliances" with guys, mostly just extended kisses, but she stopped when she felt it was going too far.

Yeah, I remember that scene. And I was fully expecting her to be raped at that moment- since the guy had said earlier that he could give her a fat-lip. But I think the movie could easily have been making a statement that it's not only her choice. That she wouldn't necessarily know how to stop a guy who had his mind made up that he was going to get whatever he wanted from her. Perhaps the movie was showing her how real and dangerous it gets.

"Carol, one word of advice: send Cindy to a special school"

[–] Entgegengelaufen 18 years ago

Hi AngryScientist ,

That brings to mind , I have not seen the the unedited version either so , there could be some interesting parts I've missed.

For instance ,in the version I saw on TBS (the only version I've seen thus far), during the scene where she actually goes away with Friend in tha car , it's cuts to some deserted field somewhere and *I think* it shows her getting up from the grass/cut wheat (whatever it was)and re-buttoning her top.I *think* that's how it went. So , it leads one to believe that she got in the car , went off with him , and he *had his way* with her.

Rape isn't just defined as just/only *pinning someone down and physically forcing themselves on that person* , it can also be from a threat , etc. I can distinctly recall him saying on the porch that her *house could burn down* , which was a threat. He was basically saying that , if she didn't go with him , he would burn her house down.And she was so naive/stupid that she just went along with it. I certainly wish she had put up some kind of a fight and tried to defend herself. He was clearly a guy in his mid 30's and she was , what , a junior in high school? Clearly rape.

As for her "daliances" , I agree with you that she shouldn't have put herself in those positions. Each encounter certainly could've proved dangerous for her.Besides , it's just not the proper way to behave.

That said , I don't like to see a woman constrained in any way. As a proud feminist , I still feel that the film was one giant message of "The girl was a tease and she got what was coming to her."

Now , that's based on what I've seen so far. True I haven't read the book , and true I haven't seen the unedited version of the film. How much could've been left out of the film? I'll have to search around online and read up a little more about it and try to find out.

I haven't checked yet , but If I'm not mistaken , I think the writer of thebook might also have directed the film?

It's one of the few films where I'm not sure what it was trying to say?(Except the "got what was coming to her" sentiment I mentioned earlier.)

Amicus verus est rara avis.

[–] gentoodaemon 18 years ago

The ending was actually insane because they tacked it on. If it were at all a really strong ending, they would've closed at the first fade to black at the shot of the empty car. Instead, they made everything super-happy and forgiving so that dumb people who didn't feel like being sad got what they wanted at a price.

[–] reallyshortpeoplerule 17 years ago

I agree. I haven't actually seen the movie but I have read the story. It has always freaked me out a bit. Personally from what I've heard about the end of the movie it's a bit screwed up. I mean he did rape her and in the story you are made to think he kills her. It is based on a series of real murders. So even though I haven't seen the movie her coming back being all "different" in the end defeats the purpose of the story. She basically thought of herself as some sort of God, and in the story she realizes that by being the way she was it got her into this mess and she'll never get to change.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mister_Anderson 17 years ago

The short story, which you can read online, is open-ended. There's no telling whether he killed her or not. I did not think the movie's ending was "happy" by any means. The creep totally raped her and brought her back home. Since he had taken her virginity, he no longer cared about her. The only thing he says to her after the deed is that "we only went for a ride, right?" trying to cover his tracks.

Arnold Friend (aka An Old Fiend) stands for the rape of youth coming into the age of sexual independence. It can be a very violent and abrupt thing. While you COULD interpret the stort story that she dies, I think the movie is much more effective, because it can be applied to many more young women coming into their sexual awakening, not just murder victims.

MOVIES BY THE MINUTE --> http://moviesbytheminute.blogspot.com

[–] Moondrop_C 18 years ago

This movie (which I haven't seen yet, but plan to) is based on the story by Joyce Carol Oates, which was inspired by the murders committed by Charles Schmid ( http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/schmid/sand_1.html ) in Tuscon. If you don't like the story in this movie, definitely don't read about that case.

[–] TeamStrode 17 years ago

R.I.P.: Reese, Angel, Darren, Chad, Kyle, Jake, Mitch, Keith, Ryan, David, Trent, Scott

Hm...I was watching a IFC document on teens and sex in the movie industry and they mentioned this one. No not in-deepth but it got me thinking and now I plan on showing it to my students.

[–] starships-1 17 years ago

I saw the ending several times it does not show her buttoning her top in the fields or whatever. It shows no one but the car and the empty fields. It was a scary ending in my opinion.

[–] pennywishes4u 17 years ago

The short story has a bit of a different feel than the movie. In the short story it's really highlighted that she's selfish, unfairly casts her family from her life, is obsessed with her own beauty and her sexuality is sort of used as a tool to get what she wants from men who she then lets sort of prey on her, does that make sense?
(Being a feminist myself this also sort of irritated me because I came to the same conclusion, but I also know that Joyce Carol Oates is known for her feminist beliefs which is what leads me to believe that this isn't her intention at all)
What is hard to capture in the movie is that Arnold Friend is supposed to be representative of the devil. In the story there are mentions of his face looking as though it were an artificial mask, his walk was loped and slanted as if he were wearing shoes several sizes too large etc. (hints that this isn't his natural form, and that he has hooved feet like the mythological form of the devil, a satyr ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyr ) There's also some mention of his hair being arranged in a way to disguise horns protruding from his head, etc.
in the book he's also acompanied by a friend, meant to symbolize beelzebub or Azrael depending on who you talk to.
The story is supposed to tell the story of t he Charles Shmid murders through creating a symbolical dance with the devil.
the ending is also different in the movie which sort of ruins the story for me. In the book Friend tells her that he'll kill her family if she doesn't go with him, and after a section in the story where she "loses her breath" normally thought to mean a re-birth and a transformation from a selfish child to a woman, she makes the choice to go with him as a means of protecting her family, in her first ever self-less act, obviously turning her into a savior figure since she's "sacrificing" herself.
There's some argument to be made that by having Connie sacrifice herself, she's presenting this idea that women, in our society, are constantly sacrificing ourselves for our "families" (in most cases meeaning sacrificing ourselves to the task of motherhood). I think the story is also trying to point out that when women do "use" their sexuality, men "expect" things, as friend does, that aren't fair or consistent with what the women are portraying.

So yeah, that was really long, lol. All in all, I don't think Joyce Carol Oates is by any means trying to say that "connie got what was coming to her" but I can see how you could get that from the movie, I think the happy ending especially really kills it. In the book you really side with Connie, whereas in the movie it's hard to side with anyone until the very end.
If you're interested, definitely check out the story it's WAY better than the movie.

[–] Lunar_Park 17 years ago

I watched this movie last night and was majorly creeped out by Treat Williams's portrayal of "Arnold Friend". I always remember him as "sweet George Berger" from the musical movie version of HAIR.

ASIDE from that - I DO think they should have ended the movie differently. She definitely should have gone off with him showing her first "unselfish" act. My God - Hollywood ruins another good story....but then again, I read on the movie package this flick won Best Picture in the 1986 or 1985 Sundance Film Festival.

I wish Connie would have run upstairs and locked herself in her room. Why didn't she?

I guess I'll have to read the story to find out.

And THANK YOU all for posting the "secret code". I had no idea why "A. Friend" showed that to Connie or what it meant.

Wow....the ending could have been so much more effective but I do think Laura Dern and Treat Williams gave great performances with the material the screenwriters gave them.

*I Got Million Dollar Charm, Cousin.. I've Got Headaches & Toothaches & Bad Times Too Like You....*