Movie Project Review: Broadcast News

• Title:  Broadcast News
• Director:  James L. Brooks
• Date:  1987
• Studio:  20th Century Fox
• Genre:  Romantic Comedy
• Cast:  William Hurt, Holly Hunter, Albert Brooks,  Joan Cusack, Christian Clemenson, Jack Nicholson
• Format:  Color, Widescreen
• DVD Format:  R1, NTSC

"Did you go to college? (pause)  So -- you're not well-educated, you have almost no experience and you can't write."  -- Jane
"Yeah, and I'm making a fortune." -- Tom

"So, don't get me wrong when I tell you that Tom, while being a very nice guy, is the devil."  -- Aaron

"This is one story they're not going to cover, 'course if the network doesn't cover it - it must not be important, so why worry about it, right?" -- Aaron

Broadcast News is a very funny, yet bittersweet romantic comedy.  In some ways it does follow the typical romantic comedy conventions -- girl is torn between two guys.  Or, rather, girl is friends with one guy who'd be great for her romantically -- but she's swept off  her feet, so to speak, by the handsome new guy she's just met.  A guy who flatters her at every turn.

But, besides the comic elements what makes this film work is how it introduces us to three people we end up emphasizing with - even when they are angry at each other, and making a few important points about the status of journalism in the US - without soapboxing or turning the film into an overly depressing drama.

The main characters are:  Jane (Holly Hunter) -- a woman so driven and tightly wound that she tells taxi drivers what route to take, and starts every day (or deals with stressful situations) by unplugging her phone and crying for a few minutes.  Jane is very, very good at her job as a Washington news producer.  And Jane's best friend is Aaron.

Aaron (Albert Brooks) is a professional reporter -- he knows his stuff, he knows how to write and how to produce / manage shooting news.  He's friends with Jane but also loves her and would like to be more than friends with her.  He's also supported Jane's fight against "entertainment as news".

Tom (William Hurt) is the new kid on the block -- even he knows he was hired for his looks and that he's not all that bright.  Jane argues with him that he can do something about that - he can study-up, and watch and learn from the other more experienced reporters.  Tom sees Jane and immediately falls for her - but at times, he almost seems to be acting like he sees her as a good career move, because he also has a one night stand with another female reporter at the Washington news bureau.

More serious plotlines include exposing entertainment news as NOT news; cuts to staff, especially actual reporters with experience, and faking the news.  Relatively early in the film, Jane and Aaron are in South America with a group of Contras who are fighting the Sandanistas.  A cameraman says something to one of the soldiers about his boots.  Jane strides in and screams that they are not in the business of making news, then explains to the soldier he can do whatever he wants.  The soldier puts on his boots.  Later - she's happy to have a shot of that because it makes a fine point in the story.

However, Tom's first story on his own -- a well-done piece about date rape, includes a cutaway shot to Tom, the reporter, tearing up.  At the very end of the film, Jane pulls the rough tape and sees Tom faking (or acting) his reaction - which was used in the finished news story.  She's livid - he doesn't see what's wrong with it.  In the end, instead of going for a week's vacation someplace warm, sunny, and with plenty of sand, together -- Tom goes alone, because Jane's realized she can't be with someone so contrary to her own ethics.

Meanwhile, Aaron has also decided to leave -- with the huge amount of cuts in the Washington bureau, and thinking Jane will be with Tom, or at the very least, never be in love with him.  He takes a job in Portland.

Jane is left alone -- not ending up with either of the two men in her life.

The film has two bookends -- the opening shows all three characters as children.  The end, taking place seven years later, shows Tom getting the network news anchor spot but refusing to be the managing producer controlling content -- instead, he asks Jane to do that, and she accepts.  Aaron is still in Portland, married, with one child.  Tom's engaged.  And Jane's still single, but "seeing a guy".  These bookends are a classy way of  introducing the characters and opening and closing the film.

Besides the entire film's critique of entertainment-as-news, and flash over substance; the film also introduces a very important concept:  budget cuts at national news networks.  At the end of the film, nearly thirty people lose their jobs at the Washington Bureau.  These are characters we've come to know and care about like our leads.  But Jane's promoted -- first female Washington Bureau chief;  Tom's also promoted - sent to London to be groomed for the network anchor position, and in disgust - Aaron quits and heads to Portland.  As the business manager is making the cuts, and the current anchor (played by Jack Nicholoson no less) shows up to show his support for people who have just lost their jobs, the anchor makes the comment about how awful it is that they had to cut so much from the news budget, "all because they couldn't program Wednesday nights", and says he wish he could do more.  The business manager says in an undertone, "Or they could have cut a million or two from your salary", then passes it off as a bad joke, a nervous joke.  The audience knows better.

I highly recommend seeing this film, it's enjoyable, the character's are great, and surprisingly enough for a romantic comedy - it actually has something to say.

Recommendation:  See it!
Rating:  4 of  5 Stars
Next Film:  Broadway Melody of 1940

A Blog of Their Own: Blogs as Cultural History

What is cultural history?  Sometimes dismissed as "women's history" -- cultural history is the history of ordinary people.  People who aren't the presidents, and kings or queens, or even the lord and ladies of the highest levels of society.  Yet, it often isn't the lowest levels of society either - because even with the invention of the printing press, and the implementation of widespread public (or free) education -- to be poor meant to be illiterate and to be illiterate meant to be poor.  In other worlds, when it comes to documenting the past -- the poorest of the poor still slipped through the cracks.

However, in the 1800s and early 1900s letter-writing and the keeping of journals and diaries were quite common.  So much so that often even the literature of the period was written as letters, journals, or memoirs.  And cultural historians of today look to the letters of the past to understand the normal people -- not just women but anyone who was, at the time, just average.

While watching the extra features for Sherlock I found one of the producers (I don't remember if it was Gatiss or Moffat, sorry) when talking about updating Sherlock Holmes made this curious statement:  "Dr. Watson wouldn't keep a journal or write memoirs - he'd keep a Blog".  Which got me thinking:  Blogs and all social media (and user-generated content) are the social history of today.  Or, at least for the historians of the future you'd think.

This is an important development.  In the 1980s and 1990s letter-writing virtually disappeared as phone calls replaced letters.  Not that the telephone didn't exist before then, but long distance calls were expensive, and international calls unreliable and extremely expensive - and the time on the line might even be limited by outside forces.  As e-mail also came on the scene in the late 80s and 90s - it replaced letters as well, but was ephemeral - e-mail was often read and deleted.  It wasn't going to be around for years.  Cloud computing (web services like Gmail) have increased the length e-mail sticks around but probably not to archive status.

However, now, blogs, Facebook and Twitter entries, etc, are allowing normal, average people the power to not only air their opinions and interests in a public forum, open to debate with often like-minded individuals, but hopefully to be kept for future historians to look at to understand the normal people of today.

And even in contemporary times - social media is becoming a force for breaking news.  During the recent unrest in Egypt -- one of the first things the government did was block social media sites like Facebook and Twitter - to prevent the unedited broadcasting of information by individuals.  And Twitter published a hack to get around the government censorship.  (I personally saw the Twitter Hack post - I was impressed).

When the earthquake hit in Japan, at first services were down -- but soon pictures were being sent, literally around the world by smart phone.  BBC News even had a story covering the content being generated by normal, everyday, average people in Japan - calling the Earthquake the first "viral" disaster - and pointing out how "for the first time" a natural disaster was being covered in real time, instead of in pictures later.

And, I actually still remember being on one of the Doctor Who forums when news of the London underground bombings hit.  (No, I don't remember which bombings, unfortunately, that is to say - what year.  I know the blame on the board started with the civil service (It was thought to be a "normal" blackout at first), then the IRA, then terrorists, before the news finally figured out it was quite the literally the "lone nut with a bomb".)  But I do remember finding it weird that I was finding out about this stuff going on in London, via a Doctor Who posting board.  I also remember having an argument with a friend afterwords when I tried to point out all the theories I'd heard.

So, anyway -- getting back to the point.  Blogs - journals of today, possibly the cultural artifacts of the future.

--Olivia