Skip to main content

Still got that nasty sinus problem, I see.

Bright Lights, Big City
(1988)

(SPOILERS) A star’s quest to buck audience – and often studio – preconceptions is invariably a dangerous game. You can quickly flame out the very thing that made you an attractive prospect in the first place. Or you can plod on, entrenching yourself determinedly in a style that doesn’t suit you (Robert De Niro in most broad comedy, Bruce Willis in most straight drama). Michael J Fox wanted to be taken seriously – being adored for Family Ties, Back to the Future and, yes, Teen Wolf just wasn’t enough – and it took him three attempts to realise no one really wanted to come along with him on that journey, whether he was serviceable in those roles or not. Bright Lights, Big City arrived after the John Hughes teen wave had peaked and a more cautionary tone was being taken towards youthful 80s abandon. It’s major problem, however, is that it’s all cautionary; the excess never looks like it’s fun, even for those partaking.

Bright Lights, Big City, based on Jay McInerney’s novel, had a rocky road to the screen, passed between a multitude of stars (including, apparently, Tom Cruise, who blanched at the drug content), screenplays and directors, with United Artists never entirely convinced by the risky material. At one point, Joel Schumacher was interested (appropriate, since St Elmo’s Fire was the next baby step on from Hughes-ville). Then Joyce Chopra came aboard and secured Fox to star, but got the chop a week into filming. Veteran James Bridges came in, picked a draft that hadn’t been expunged of drugs reference due to a studio nervy about turning off Fox’s family fanbase, and set to work.

And what Bridges ended up with was, well, drab. As Pauline Kael said – and she wasn’t entirely down on it – there’s “no excitement, no vision”. Fox’s Jamie Conway never seems remotely enervated by his coke habit (largely referred to as Bolivian marching powder in the movie), just a little sweaty or tired round the eyes. With maybe a touch of tousling of his de rigueur 80s mullet. His jeans, jacket and tie ensemble is far more distracting; would Gotham Magazine – based on the New Yorker – actually allow their employees to look such scruffs, irrespective of how incompetently they do their fact checking?

You might argue poor Jamie isn’t able to (have fun), wracked by guilt as he is over mother Diane Wiest’s death and obsessing over wife Amanda (Phoebe Cates) walking out on him, but that’s the whole point of him taking drugs. At very least, the club scene around him ought to have a modicum of atmosphere (the soundtrack is pretty good, just never used to engaging effect). Relatively, Kiefer Sutherland, as roguish snort buddy Tad, seems to be having an actual good time (being Sutherland, he probably was). Indeed, Jamie’s parting rebuke to Tad – “You and Amanda would make a terrific couple” – comes across as entirely unwarranted moralism that’s difficult to get behind, such that you wonder how long Tracy Pollan will be sympathetic to him (obviously, not in real life).

Bridges made The China Syndrome, of course, but his output was otherwise distinctly patchy; his previous picture was the entirely less-than Perfect, and Bright Lights, Big City would turn out to be his final film. His approach to the material is disappointingly pedestrian (there’s a “comedy” scene involving a puppet ferret where you’d swear he couldn’t be arsed). It arrived following the also-downer, drugs-are-bad edition of Less than Zero the previous year. It was an adaptation Brett Easton Ellis did not like initially, Downey Jr and Spader aside, but has since warmed to. The films’ thematic similarities, the party being over-wise, are matched by their critical mauling and the public indifference that greeted them. I’m not sure you’d be advised to make an actually faithful adaptation of Less than Zero – although Tarantino, naturally, has professed an interest – but casting Andrew McCarthy in the lead role certainly wasn’t the place to start.

Whereas Fox is fine here, mostly. If you can ignore his terrible drunk acting (but let’s face it, Cruise has done worse). When he’s still employed by Gotham Magazine, the movie manages a degree of balance, with memorable faces and performances as a contrast to Jamie’s stale misery – Swoosie Kurtz’s kindly singleton, Frances Sternhagen’s stern but deep-feeling boss Clara, John Houseman’s pained chief fact checker Mr Vogel; even Alec Mapa’s sarcastic co-checker (“Still got that nasty sinus problem, huh?”) There’s also a glimpse of what’s in store even if Jamie did have the job he wanted, via Sam Robard’s soused fiction department writer/ reader. Once Jamie’s given the boot, however, there’s only dead space left; his drug taking isn’t interesting, his leaden visions of guilt (Coma Baby headlines, and talking baby) are desperately poor, and his obsession with Amanda is banal.

There was certainly nothing wrong in principle with Fox’s desire to stretch himself, but in his serious dramatic roles – Casualties of War excepted, where he feels like he’s outside his comfort zone – the material didn’t really fit, as opposed to his lacking the capability. Maybe he should have persevered – Hanks was in a similar boat, and eventually won all the plaudits ever – but as it turned out, he wouldn’t have unlimited time to test his options.

Bright Lights, Big City, ironically, might have been a better movie if it had expunged the drug element, instead focussing on the trials and tribulations of an aspiring writer caught in the drudgery of an uncreative career. There’s one scene that sticks in the mind above all others, where Jamie is summoned before Clara and Mr Vogel to explain his errors in an article, and he recounts his – scrupulous – reasoning in choosing “precipitous” over “precipitate”. The scene, the exchanges, the dialogue, possess an energy largely absent elsewhere. Capturing that might have been the secret to Bright Lights, Big City being a success.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who’s got the Figgy Port?

Loki (2021) (SPOILERS) Can something be of redeemable value and shot through with woke (the answer is: Mad Max: Fury Road )? The two attributes certainly sound essentially irreconcilable, and Loki ’s tendencies – obviously, with new improved super-progressive Kevin Feige touting Disney’s uber-agenda – undeniably get in the way of what might have been a top-tier MCU entry from realising its full potential. But there are nevertheless solid bursts of highly engaging storytelling in the mix here, for all its less cherishable motivations. It also boasts an effortlessly commanding lead performance from Tom Hiddleston; that alone puts Loki head and shoulders above the other limited series thus far.

Here’s Bloody Justice for you.

Laughter in Paradise (1951) (SPOILERS) The beginning of a comedic run for director-producer Mario Zampa that spanned much of the 1950s, invariably aided by writers Michael Pertwee and Jack Davies (the latter went on to pen a spate of Norman Wisdom pictures including The Early Bird , and also comedy rally classic Monte Carlo or Bust! ) As usual with these Pertwee jaunts, Laughter in Paradise boasts a sparky premise – renowned practical joker bequeaths a fortune to four relatives, on condition they complete selected tasks that tickle him – and more than enough resultant situational humour.

Damn prairie dog burrow!

Tremors (1990) (SPOILERS) I suspect the reason the horror comedy – or the sci-fi comedy, come to that – doesn’t tend to be the slam-dunk goldmine many assume it must be, is because it takes a certain sensibility to do it right. Everyone isn’t a Joe Dante or Sam Raimi, or a John Landis, John Carpenter, Edgar Wright, Christopher Landon or even a Peter Jackson or Tim Burton, and the genre is littered with financial failures, some of them very good failures (and a good number of them from the names mentioned). Tremors was one, only proving a hit on video (hence six sequels at last count). It also failed to make Ron Underwood a directing legend.

You nicknamed my daughter after the Loch Ness Monster?

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (2012) The final finale of the Twilight saga, in which pig-boy Jacob tells Bella that, “No, it's not like that at all!” after she accuses him of being a paedo. But then she comes around to his viewpoint, doubtless displaying the kind of denial many parents did who let their kids spend time with Jimmy Savile or Gary Glitter during the ‘70s. It's lucky little Renesmee will be an adult by the age of seven, right? Right... Jacob even jokes that he should start calling Edward, “Dad”. And all the while they smile and smile.

It’ll be like living in the top drawer of a glass box.

Someone’s Watching Me! (1978) (SPOILERS) The first of a pair of TV movies John Carpenter directed in the 1970s, but Someone’s Watching Me! is more affiliated, in genre terms, to his breakout hit ( Halloween ) and reasonably successful writing job ( The Eyes of Laura Mars ) of the same year than the also-small-screen Elvis . Carpenter wrote a slew of gun-for-hire scripts during this period – some of which went on to see the twilight of day during the 1990s – so directing Someone’s Watching Me! was not a given. It’s well-enough made and has its moments of suspense, but you sorely miss a signature Carpenter theme – it was by Harry Sukman, his penultimate work, the final being Salem’s Lot – and it really does feel very TV movie-ish.

Somewhere out there is a lady who I think will never be a nun.

The Sound of Music (1965) (SPOILERS) One of the most successful movies ever made – and the most successful musical – The Sound of Music has earned probably quite enough unfiltered adulation over the years to drown out the dissenting voices, those that denounce it as an inveterately saccharine, hollow confection warranting no truck. It’s certainly true that there are impossibly nice and wholesome elements here, from Julie Andrews’ career-dooming stereotype governess to the seven sonorous children more than willing to dress up in old curtains and join her gallivanting troupe. Whether the consequence is something insidious in its infectious spirit is debatable, but I’ll admit that it manages to ensnare me. I don’t think I’d seen the movie in its entirety since I was a kid, and maybe that formativeness is a key brainwashing facet of its appeal, but it retains its essential lustre just the same.

I’m just glad Will Smith isn’t alive to see this.

The Tomorrow War (2021) (SPOILERS). Not so much tomorrow as yesterday. There’s a strong sense of déjà vu watching The Tomorrow War , so doggedly derivative is it of every time-travel/alien war/apocalyptic sci-fi movie of the past forty years. Not helping it stand out from the pack are doughy lead Chris Pratt, damned to look forever on the beefy side no matter how ripped he is and lacking the chops or gravitas for straight roles, and debut live-action director Chris McKay, who manages to deliver the goods in a serviceably anonymous fashion.

As in the hokey kids’ show guy?

A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t think Mr Rogers could have been any creepier had Kevin Spacey played him. It isn’t just the baggage Tom Hanks brings, and whether or not he’s the adrenochrome lord to the stars and/or in Guantanamo and/or dead and/or going to make a perfectly dreadful Colonel Tom Parker and an equally awful Geppetto; it’s that his performance is so constipated and mannered an imitation of Mr Rogers’ genuineness that this “biopic” takes on a fundamentally sinister turn. His every scene with a youngster isn’t so much exuding benevolent empathy as suggestive of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang ’s Child Catcher let loose in a TV studio (and again, this bodes well for Geppetto). Extend that to A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood ’s conceit, that Mr Rogers’ life is one of a sociopathic shrink milking angst from his victims/patients in order to get some kind of satiating high – a bit like a rejuvenating drug, on that score – and you have a deeply unsettli

What's a movie star need a rocket for anyway?

The Rocketeer (1991) (SPOILERS) The Rocketeer has a fantastic poster. One of the best of the last thirty years (and while that may seem like faint praise, what with poster design being a dying art – I’m looking at you Marvel, or Amazon and the recent The Tomorrow War – it isn’t meant to be). The movie itself, however, tends towards stodge. Unremarkable pictures with a wide/cult fanbase, conditioned by childhood nostalgia, are ten-a-penny – Willow for example – and in this case, there was also a reasonably warm critical reception. But such an embrace can’t alter that Joe Johnston makes an inveterately bland, tepid movie director. His “feel” for period here got him The First Avenger: Captain America gig, a bland, tepid movie tending towards stodge. So at least he’s consistent.

Why don't we go on a picnic, up the hill?

Invaders from Mars (1986) (SPOILERS) One can wax thematical over the number of remakes of ’50s movies in the ’80s – and ’50s SF movies in particular – and of how they represent ever-present Cold War and nuclear threats, and steadily increasing social and familial paranoias and disintegrating values. Really, though, it’s mostly down to the nostalgia of filmmakers for whom such pictures were formative influences (and studios hoping to make an easy buck on a library property). Tobe Hooper’s version of nostalgia, however, is not so readily discernible as a John Carpenter or a David Cronenberg (not that Cronenberg could foment such vibes, any more than a trip to the dental hygienist). Because his directorial qualities are not so readily discernible. Tobe Hooper movies tend to be a bit shit. Which makes it unsurprising that Invaders from Mars is a bit shit.