William Hurt or Albert Brooks
Aaron is beyond hot IMO. I just don't see how Jane can possibly even THINK about choosing Tom. Aaron had a personality, was always making Jane laugh AND was incredibly cute. Tom was just kinda tacky.
shareI saw this movie on the big screen in 1987. I have seen it a few times since then, and i just watched the new DVD. I fell in love with Aaron back in 1987, so all I could see was Jane falling for him, too. it's interesting reading the comments. I see all of these characters as being complete, multi-faceted, 3-dimensional human beings. Tom is not always "dumb", Aaron is not always "snarky", and Jane is just as complex. This movie is not about stereotypes and happy endings, neither is real life. The screenplay is contradictory IMO, because the real chemistry is between Jane and Aaron. I just watched it twice last night. Although it was clear from jane's response to Aaron on the steps was somewhat cold, I noticed the way she looks at him throughout the film. Also, she puts Aaron over Tom several times in the film, even at the height of her first romantic evening with Tom. She goes RUNNING to be with Aaron and she Aaron that she would "maybe" be able to see him later. AND, she had the CONDOM all ready to go, so WHY would she leave TOM for Aaron at that moment? It's well known that James Brooks didn't know how to end the story from the start. In the commentary he said that ending up with Aaron was not viable and yet he wrote Aaron and jane together more and directed their relationship. I think he is still confused. The editor, Richard Marks said that the audience in 1987 wanted Jane to be with Aaron and I agree. He decided not to have a hollywood ending, but a more realistic one. I love the film as it is. By the way, if you have studied acting, HURT's acting is amazing.
shareWhat's great about the story is how much Jane's dilemna - choosing Aaron or Tom - mirrors the same issue with journalism at that time. Would we willingly accept style over substance because obviously it's more attractive on the surface? It's like the age-old question - what's more important, personality or looks? Sure, maybe a lot of people would say personality, but that doesn't mean they would immediately dismiss looks or other types of surface appeal (like wealth or power).
Give the state of most television news, it's clear what decision the viewers made. As for the movie, I'm glad James Brooks didn't go with a Hollywood-type ending and just left it open. For me it just adds more dimension to Jane's character and shows how conflicted she felt dealing with life and relationships in general.