MovieChat Forums > Broadcast News (1987) Discussion > Why do I not like it as much as I used t...

Why do I not like it as much as I used to?

posted 19 years ago by stuffic
12 replies | jump to latest

I enjoyed this movie the first time I saw it (perhaps 15 years ago). I've seen it once or twice since then, and still liked it a lot. I bought the DVD recently because I remember it being funny, smart, charming, and a bit romantic. However, after watching it again, it left me kind of cold.

Aaron, who I remember being very funny and likeable, came across more of an arrogant prick who whined too much.
Jane, I once thought was so intelligent, independent, funny, and I was really rooting for her to find happiness in her love life. But now, after seeing all of her neurosis again, I found myself not caring very much one way or the other.
Tom was the only one who I still thought was a little likeable, which is ironic because he was the least likeable of the three when I saw it the first time!

Perhaps this tells more about my personality changes than it does about the movie itself, I don't know. But something about this movie now seems a little smug and full of itself. Any thoughts?

"This is war, Peacock!!"

[–] quin1974 19 years ago

I must admit that I just finished watching this movie, shame on me, I know. I agree with you totally on the character profiles. In some weird way I was totally in agreement with Tom on the editing of his piece on date rape, and I thought Jane was overacting quite a bit.

This must be due to the current state of newscoverage in which everything is not exactly what it is. Strange how a movie can change over the years (at least, if I go by your comments).

All in all, I liked the movie very much and think it is one of Brooks' best (As Good As It Gets is still at the very top of course).

-----------------

At least I HAVE an opinion!!!

[–] stuffic 19 years ago

Thanks for your opinion quin1974, I was wondering if I was the only one! While I wasn't in total agreement with what Tom did, I definitely felt Jane overracted. But that was her personality, oh well...

Something else that I remembered: When they show Aaron and the other three reporters discussing what they would do or wouldn't do in certain situations (filming a live execution, for example) they implied doing whatever it took to get the story, even if it's unethical by most people's standards. However, Jane gets mad about what Tom did regarding the date-rape piece. Now considering she seemed to respect Aaron totally, isn't that a bit hypocritical of her?

"This is war, Peacock!!"

[–] asc85 19 years ago

My only change in what I thought about the characters was that I didn't think Holly Hunter overreacted the first time I saw it (I was 26) regarding screaming at William Hurt in the airport, but when I saw it again, I thought she definitely did. I guess as you get older, you mature in certain ways, and while I'm not saying she should have condoned it, there's a way to work through these things, if she really liked the guy.

I always thought the Aaron character was a jerk.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fentress 19 years ago

I think if you watch that scene again carefully, you'll notice that Aaron didn't really express agreement with the other two reporters. His comment at the end, "Nothing like wrestling with a moral dilemma, is there?", was delivered in a sarcastic tone. I interpreted it as disapproval of the other reporters' willingness to do anything to get a story.

[–] filmklassik 18 years ago

Watch the movie again. A few moments earlier, another journalist is asking them something like "Would you tell a source you loved them, just to get a scoop on a story?" and Aaron doesn't miss a beat before replying (something to the effect of) "Absolutely."

So Aaron is definitely a hypocrite. But so is everybody, to varying degrees.

This movie is a gem.

[–] fentress 18 years ago

Good call. I missed that.

[–] fentress 19 years ago

Please don't take this is any personal way. But it sounds as though you're admitting that the rise in such sensatonalism as an acceptable norm in news has lowered your own standards. So that's why Tom's editing of that piece doesn't bother you now as it did the first time.

He faked his reaction. He created a piece of staged drama and presented it as factual news covereage. THAT'S WRONG, even if Jane did over-react a bit.

[–] fentress 19 years ago

I don't feel that way at all. I thought this was a brilliant movie in 1987 and I still think so now. Then again, the reason for that may be because, despite its brilliance I always thought it had minor flaws all along. I always thought Jane was a bit grating. I never really sympathized with those crying fits. Aaron was a bit obnoxious and nerdy, but he was so smart and so ethical and he had such great witty lines. But I saw those as minor annoyances in an otherwise great film and that's pretty much still the way I feel.

One of the main points of the movie was that Tom advanced in his career mainly due to that likeability (and good looks) instead of through journalistic expertise. That's the whole point. You have to resist his charisma and recognize that he is dumb and shallow. Just think of Aaron's speech about Tom being the devil; that says it right there.

I will grant you, however, that maturity does sometimes change one's opinion of a movie. I once considered another 80's picure, The Big Chill, one of my favorite movies of all time. I was in college back then, and the Big Chill made me feel so mature, so sophistocated. But now I see the Big Chill as entertaining enough, but it really doesn't have that much depth.

[–] krachwitz 19 years ago

I saw this movie at the advice of a friend who was a booth director for a local (Omaha) tv news. He said the only unrealistic thing he saw was that the movie news crew thought there was something remarkable about Joan Cusack's dash to the booth with the re-edited "homecoming" story. He said it happened all the time.
Saw it again recently. Holly Hunter is one of the few real geniuses in movies--she can play anything and make it compelling, and she's especially good with screwed-up, desperate women (The Piano, of course, Home for the Holidays, Living Out Loud, etc.) Albert Brooks is brilliant playing guys who are just finding out about their terrible shortcomings and then finding ways to compensate (The Muse, Defending Your Life, Mother).
But the reason the movie holds up so well is because it was prophetic. What was only feared in the early 1980s has become the world of 2006: news and entertainment are so fused that we can't imagine a full newscast without a dose of what Neil Postman (Amusing Oursleves To Death) called (in 1983) "celebrity worship." Hell, Robin Meade at Headline News has an on-staff entertainment reporter, just so we don't lose sight of the important Angelina Jolie facts amid the Lebanon fluff. The BN domino race looks positively cerebral compared to the pap that makes it out of my tube in the morning. We are where Jane Craig feared we would go--we can't tell the difference between what's important and what isn't, and we can legitimately blame out media because they took what was originally a sacred trust and turned it into a carnival midway.
Peter Jennings may have been a good newsman or the model for Tom, but the endless funeral tributes to him on tv when he died exemplified Aaron's warning---"Let's not forget that WE'RE the story."

[–] ribp 18 years ago

Bravo krachwitz! Another thing that I like in this film is the ending. Not some idealized "everything gets solved in the end" kind of crap, but an open, "this was a slice of life you just witnessed and the characters went on with their lives". Also, what kind of criteria to judge a film is implied in the character's likability? It reminds me of a scene in The Simpsons (maybe Brooks wrote it?) in which Itchy and Scratchy are being very polite to each other. They're likable alright, but they're also very boring.

[–] stuffic 17 years ago

I know this thread is old, but I started it and didn't realize it had this many responses since I left...

Anyway, very good post ribp, regarding a character's likeability. You're absolutely right. I still enjoy this movie. I just enjoy it DIFFERENTLY now (which is an attribute to how good a movie is, right?) I now see how naive my thinking was 15 years ago ("I like Aaron - he's a good guy, I don't like Tom - he's a bad guy, I hope Jane chooses Aaron - they're cute together...") Well, maybe not that contrived, but you get my point
I now appreciate how 3-dimensional the characters really are.

FWIW, I've always enjoyed the storylines and what the movie showed us about integrity (or lack thereof) in journalism and the behind-the-scenes stuff of that industry. That part was never an issue for me. My original post was only referring to the 3 leads' personalities, and how I see them differently now.

Thanks for all of your repsonses.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day