Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

La Binoche

Fatal Attraction (1987)

Recommended Posts

This R-rated thriller opened at #1 with $7.6M in the Fall of 1987...and spent the next 2 months at the top, eventually ending its run with an incredible $157M domestic and $320M WW. 

 

It's weird to imagine a drama/thriller about middle aged adults making such a box office killing and becoming the zeitgeist hit of the decade. Would sadly never happen today. 

 

1646620341-TimeGM1.jpg

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, John Marston said:

 

 

Again. That what you're choosing to see. The filmmakers intended no political message 

 

The filmmakers ultimately have the single career woman turn out to be a one-dimensional murderous nutcase and a psycho, and to have the wife conveniently forgive her lying cheating husband for the sake of preserving the family unit. Look, I'm usually the first to roll out the "It's just a specific story about specific characters" argument, but not when the story is so obviously and ridiculously contrived. In this case, not all of the filmmakers may have intended or agreed with the end result - we know that the ending was heavily rewritten, and Glenn Close strongly fought against it - but what ends up onscreen is still their responsibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

 

The filmmakers ultimately have the single career woman turn out to be a one-dimensional murderous nutcase and a psycho, and to have the wife conveniently forgive her lying cheating husband for the sake of preserving the family unit. Look, I'm usually the first to roll out the "It's just a specific story about specific characters" argument, but not when the story is so obviously and ridiculously contrived. In this case, not all of the filmmakers may have intended or agreed with the end result - we know that the ending was heavily rewritten, and Glenn Close strongly fought against it - but what ends up onscreen is still their responsibility. 

 

"Responsibility"? We're talking about a damn movie here! Gues you're one of those moral guardian types?

 

And even then, if that is how the filmmakers felt (which they didn't) they still had the right to do so 

 

its fine that you feel this way, lots of people regardless of wherever they lean can read certain messages into movies that make it seem the movie is against them, but I think most people don't. That ls why this movie was so huge and still remains popular today 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, John Marston said:

 

"Responsibility"? We're talking about a damn movie here! Gues you're one of those moral guardian types?

 

 

its fine that you feel this way, lots of people regardless of wherever they lean can read certain messages into movies that make it seem the movie is against them, but I think most people don't. That ls why this movie was so huge and still remains popular today 

 

 

Responsibility in the sense that they create the finished movie and put their names on it. They may not be responsible for how people are going to react to the work, but they sure are for the work itself. (Unless it gets taken away from them, which didn't happen here.) And in this case, again, you don't have to "read" a message into the movie - it expresses a clear point of view, starting off as a complex tale about infidelity, and then abandoning the complexity and neatly dividing the characters into good guys and bad guys. It's not subversive or anything - it flatly tells the audience where its sympathies lie. And it isn't knowingly trashy fun - it keeps up a veneer of respectability no matter how dumb and hysterical it gets. It may be a movie for adults, but there's nothing adult about it, which is really what I was saying in my original response. It's a conservative movie that became a hit in a conservative era. Doesn't take a "moral guardian" to recognize this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jake Gittes said:

 

Responsibility in the sense that they create the finished movie and put their names on it. They may not be responsible for how people are going to react to the work, but they sure are for the work itself. (Unless it gets taken away from them, which didn't happen here.) And in this case, again, you don't have to "read" a message into the movie - it expresses a clear point of view, starting off as a complex tale about infidelity, and then abandoning the complexity and neatly dividing the characters into good guys and bad guys. It's not subversive or anything - it flatly tells the audience where its sympathies lie. And it isn't knowingly trashy fun - it keeps up a veneer of respectability no matter how dumb and hysterical it gets. It may be a movie for adults, but there's nothing adult about it, which is really what I was saying in my original response. It's a conservative movie that became a hit in a conservative era. Doesn't take a "moral guardian" to recognize this. 

 

 

 

again, you're talking about things most people don't care about

 

 

you're also assuming only "conservatives" like this movie 

 

 

you're also seem to be thinking that a so called "conservative" message in a film is unacceptable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Marston said:

 

 

 

again, you're talking about things most people don't care about

 

 

you're also assuming only "conservatives" like this movie 

 

 

you're also seem to be thinking that a so called "conservative" message in a film is unacceptable

 

maybe, but I care.

 

not really.

 

no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.