Risky Business: Classic Or Dud

'Risky Business' confused me when I saw it aged 14 or so, alone in my bedroom. I didn't understand the plot. He was setting himself up as some kind of pimp, right? That's terrible!

But the Ally-referenced subway climax was very sexy indeed. There was something about the way he took off her knickers. And, as I said, Phil Collins' 'In the Air Tonight' was a strangely seductive choice of musical accompaniment. In fact, the whole film has a weird soundtrack - isn't it mostly done by Tangerine Dream?

Tom Cruise in it = hot boy action, there's no doubt.

xoxo

I hate his fucking teeth. And Nathalie don't forget Tom has to stamp his feet in every single movie, it symbolizes anger I have been told, you know the absence of The Smile.

Also I look good in briefs.

Just saw this for the first time, and I was totally confused about what the witer/director's intent was. Obviously the movie aimed to be something a bit more than your typical coming-of-age story, but it wasn't quite clear what the director's view was about free enterprise: was he pro or against? It felt like the way the whole pimping operation was portrayed made Joel a hero, but then again he lost the money to the real pimp, but then again he got accepted to Princeton... And the movie's atttitude towards the prostitutes was weird too: on one hand they weren't portrayed as your typical pathetic victims, but on the other hand they felt almost too clean and wholesome. As a whole the movie felt like it was trying to do an early satire on eighties get-rich culture, but too often it kept falling back to teen comedy.

I love the style of it, it's a very attractive film (visually and musically) and wouldn't get made today. The main story and chain of events is so preposterous from the nature of Lana to the salvaging of Joel's Dad's car to how much they manage to plan and experience over what is presumably just a weekend...but in the end like the Princeton interviewer guy I'm won over by the sheer style and charm of the fantasy. That's the 80s for you.

I want to know why Paul Brickman didn't make more films because this seemed like such a stylish well directed affair.

I think the movie takes place within one week or so: Joel is seen going to school on several mornings, and the parents return on Saturday, so the party takes place on Friday evening.

According to IMDb:

SPOILER: Writer/Director 'Paul Brickman' had a completely different ending for the film with a rather pessimistic tone, with Joel being denied admission to Princeton and he and Lana sitting on the roof of a building overlooking the city pondering his future and hers, and for once Lana lets her guard down. The studio however, wanted a "feel good" ending, because this was the popular theme of teen movies at the time, so both versions were shot and shown to a test audience and it was agreed that their preference would be the ending for the film.

This is kinda weird, since the studio-approved "feel good" ending makes it even bigger a satire, since Joel gets to Princeton presumable because the interviewer guy is so impressed by his pimping, so "Princeton needs people like him". The omitted ending would've been less satirical and more typical for this kind of a film.

this is such a great movie

25th anniv DVD out, with Brickman's original ending included.

I probably haven't seen it in 20 years. It seems to me Cruise found the ceiling of his talent here; if only he hadn't been encouraged to go "beyond" it.

"original ending"?

this movie is horrible

oh sorry didn't see above posts nevermind

Pauline Kael compared the Cruise character to Antoine Doinel! But then went on:

There's a stale cuteness in the idea; it's like a George Bernard Shaw play rewritten for a cast of ducks and geese. Directing his first feature, the screenwriter Paul Brickman is overdeliberate, and his control is so tight that there are no incidental pleasures--there's nothing but the one thin situation. De Mornay's Lana is the only person left with any trace of individuality; she's mysterious, supple--a golden blonde with an inward-directed smile, like Veronica Lake, but taller and with a greater range of expressiveness.

Watching this for the first time since seeing it with my dad (my idea) when I was 12.

Love the hyper-accurate geography in the chase scenes and otherwise.

Love young Joey Pants.

Curtis Armstrong auditioned for Downey's role in Less Than Zero.

The Tang Dream soundtrack is actually, effectively raunchy.

This would make a great double bill with Collateral. Cruise basically gives the same line readings and runs the same way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJVouCbneGM

Oops, meant to say: I wonder if Curtis Armstrong auditioned for Downey's role in Less Than Zero.

It's as if Michael Mann made a John Hughes script.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117801630?refCatId=13&query=paul+brickman

While nearly every young actor had auditioned for the role of Joel, including Sean Penn, Gary Sinise, Kevin Bacon and John Cusack, none quite fit the bill. The producers went so far as to shoot a screen test with Kevin Anderson opposite "Will & Grace" star Megan Mullally, but no one was convinced that they'd met the match.

It's as if Michael Mann made a John Hughes script.

― The Freewheelin' Rebecca Black (Eazy), Monday, August 22, 2011 11:41 PM (8 months ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

except the script is way better than anything john hughes wrote!

love this movie.

Yes, this is good movie!

the director has crazy control over the tone of a movie that should/could have been all over the place.

huh i didn't know about the alternate ending, i want to see that.

Could totally see this again after all these decades. Been listening to the T-Dream soundtrack which is ace.

The strange un-charm of Tom Cruise is noticeable even here.

it's kind of an appropriate un-charm for michael mann's ~vibe~ though...

it's not actually michael mann.

cruise is cute here! he actually seems like an 18 year old. something started to go horribly wrong around top gun era though.

Paul Brickman explains whatever happened to him.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/02/risky_business_director_some_people_like_the_visibility_i_dont/

i dont understand this movie at all

i guess that aligns me with tuomas but

at its best, RB completes the most inevitable 'young entrepreneur' joke. I also thought of it when I was walking some guy in Park Slope who was telling his son, about 10yo, the advantages of going to law school even if you weren't going to practice.

i wonder which ending folks prefer (those who have seen the original ending, which is on the blu-ray and perhaps the DVD). the director thinks the ending that was released was too cheerful, but i think if anything the ironies are bolder and more unsettling than in the more overtly downbeat original ending.

From the interview Morbs linked above:

The working title was “White Boys Off the Lake.”

except the script is way better than anything john hughes wrote!

amateurist otm. For a self-congratulatory celebration of the North Shore ruling class, I'll take this over Ferris Bueller in a heartbeat.

i enjoy ferris bueller, but it's amazing how much it borrows from risky business. i think even the last-act attempt at gravitas derives more than just the destroying-daddy's-car aspect from RB. i mean, if you've gotta steal, steal from the best, right?

hmmmm, do you really find this a self-congratulatory celebration, Tarf?

tbh, I haven't seen it in years..."self-congratulatory" maybe isn't the term. But a celebration, yeah.

Double-feature it with The Social Network.

I've always watched the movie as a black comedy take-down of yuppie Reagan capitalism. Kid (young entrepreneur) pressured to make it big, does so by literally remaking himself as a pimp, all while being schooled by a real pimp, who teaches him cut-throat take no prisoners economics.

I mean, I like Ferris Bueller a lot, but this is soooooo much darker.

yeah I find this movie disturbing. It doesn't feel as celebratory as Ferris Bueller (which I really can't stand anymore); or if it is celebratory it's in a more self-aware, creepy way.

i like the ambivalence that comes across in RB. it's obviously a satire of capitalism (or a certain kind of capitalism) but there's such a real delight coming from the two main characters.

i can see how the director preferred the original ending, since it kind of pulls the rug out from under the whole premise. we realize that joel's class privilege is really what matters, that he's going to succeed in a way that lana, with all her enterpreneurial talents, will never succeed. that ending makes the film a more explicit critique of american society. the ending in the release version, in which both characters seem headed for better things, is more hopeful, but also seems to be making a point about capitalism's essential amorality.

i dunno, maybe i'm coming around to preferring the original ending.

in a way it doesn't matter because both endings are put together so convincingly (which is funny since brickman shot the ending that was released sort of against his will). and the whole film has such a command over its shifting tones that it sells whatever it's selling. it's amazing that brickman was able to do that his first time out as a director, even more amazing/depressing that he only followed it up with one film.

I've always watched the movie as a black comedy take-down celebration of yuppie Reagan capitalism.

Tom Cruise is creepy and uncharming, and the Tangerine Dream-scored sex scene made me question the erotic sanity of straight people for years.

in the audio commentary tom cruise sticks up for the release ending and his reasoning is actually pretty smart.

btw the yuppie phenom started in 1984-1985 when Reaganism finally, ah, trickled down. 1982-1983 when this film was filmed the recession still going on.

I see it as a celebration too, but one that takes a kind of sick pride in things that Ferris Beuller would prefer not to address at all

xxp

I don't much like FB, but it's clear that Ferris is playing the game at the level his rivals insist on.

Rooney, the maitre d, his parents.

xpost

interesting reaction! i think you'd have to admit, though, that given the success of RB and tom cruise's subsequent career, an awful lot of people /did/ find him pretty charming. i honestly can't imagine that the film would really work if his character weren't a bit charming. the script goes out of its way not to really make him a smug asshole.

though the more i think about it, when you consider how the original ending accentuates/resolves certain themes, it really is a movie about class privilege, even though it's ostensibly a kind of perverse celebration/critique of enterpreneurship and upward mobility.

sorry, i was responding to alfred saying he didn't find cruise's character charming.

the whole film has such a command over its shifting tones that it sells whatever it's selling. it's amazing that brickman was able to do that his first time out as a director, even more amazing/depressing that he only followed it up with one film.

Men Don't Leave, a pretty good and underrated movie, also does tonal shifts well.

fb, rb >>>>>> all u chumps

Cruise has always been creepy and uncharming in my estimation

xp

fb, rb >>>>>> all u chumps

― lag∞n,

we all think you're a righteous dude

right on

tbh I haven't seen RB since the first Clinton term so a rescreen is in order

btw i'm not sure the film needs to making a certain point, or taking a coherent stance vis-a-vis capitalism/yuppies/etc. to be worthwhile. in fact like a lot of films i think the ambivalence or contradictions give it a lot of its charge.

i actually like tom cruise a lot as a screen presence, although i have to admit that he lost a fair bit of his charm around "top gun." after that point he was never as convincing playing underdogs or showing elements of vulnerability.

like u can h8 tom cruise fine but its inarguable that every one of his movies is the finest movie ever released

I've watched A Few Good Men many times over the years on cable and Cruise's drunk scene and shouting make me crawl under the kitchen counter.

ha! well, i did enjoy edge of tomorrow, although the ending made little sense even by the standards of these type of films.

there are moments in risky business where cruise's character expresses worry or vulnerability or confusion that i don't think latter-day cruise could pull off at all.

its because of the radiant charisma xp

i keep referring to the original ending so i might as well post it for those who haven't seen it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KnW9_viA7Q

http://cdn.pophangover.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/creepy-tom-cruise-animated-gifs-1.gif

Cruise is likeable enough in this, even Kael thought so.

Broderick as Bueller makes my skin crawl (in the 15-20 mins I've lasted with it).

agree Edge of Tomorrow is great, the first Cruise film I've ever enjoyed. agree also that the tacked on happy ending makes no sense whatsoever.

xpost

what /doesn't/ quite work in that original ending is lana's sudden neediness. it's like the ending is making a theoretical point -- which is darker and more left-correct (or just more correct, period) than the released ending -- that doesn't quite come off in dramatic terms.

i wonder if that's why geffen objected to it, or if he just didn't want a downbeat ending because who does?

You're likable enough, Tom.

xpost

re that animated .gif: weirdly tom cruise playing other people often seems like more of a real person than tom cruise playing tom cruise

so, Peter Sellers syndrome?

this is my favorite movie, by like a million miles

the only way I can imagine this movie being viewed as a celebration is if you also view it as a fantasy wish-fulfillment movie, but I think it is way too dark for that. Ferris Bueller is much more clearly a fantasy wish fulfillment, which makes it more of a celebration.

i definitely think a lot of people probably read it as a fantasy, i'm not sure you can entirely explain its popularity otherwise.

because it is very well made and it is very entertaining?

well, yeah, of course. but i think its function as a wish-fulfillment fantasy is one part of its success.

and i think it kind of /works/ as a fantasy, though it works as a critique too.

the original ending destroys the fantasy, or at least lays bare its class underpinnings. so like i said it's more accurate in a sense, or more obviously critical. but i actually don't think it works as well as the release ending.

as wish fulfillment goes, I'm not sure many would want what happened to Tom Cruise to happen to them, aside from sex with a beautiful hooker or whatever.. Bueller as much more clearly a fun time.

I'm with am that not knowing what it's supposed to be scene to scene doing isn't a flaw; the sketches and class underpinnings are still clear.

Bueller as much more clearly a fun time.

he ate pancreas!

as wish fulfillment goes, I'm not sure many would want what happened to Tom Cruise to happen to them, aside from sex with a beautiful hooker or whatever.. Bueller as much more clearly a fun time.

― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, December 3, 2014 11:41 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

really? he gets to sleep with rebecca demornay (and the ending implies they'll stay together as business partners and lovers), is headed to yale and a "bright future." i mean it's not unadulterated "fun" like ferris bueller (which would render that film insipid if it weren't so charming in other respects), but i think it satisfies the wish-fulfillment requirements.

Princeton i think

princeton, right.

which has a kind of poetic aptness. prince-ton. he's a prince of the UMC.

...and lana will always be a serf, essentially.

Cruise's drunk scene in AFGM is awful and I laugh whenever he cries, as in Magnolia and EWS.

EWS is kind of waxworks in general, for better and for worse.

I guess his crying in Born on the 4th was OK bcz penispenisbigfatfuckingpenis.

Don't say penis in this thread!

Yeah, but the wish fulfillment comes at the expense of his innocence! That's why he wears sunglasses!

right, i'm not saying it's not complex, just that among other things it works as a wish-fulfillment fantasy.

Yeah, but the wish fulfillment comes at the expense of his innocence! That's why he wears sunglasses!

America's Loss of Innocence and 80's Shade-Tippin'

Dave Cool to thread

also, the loss of innocence, as it often is in a bildungsroman, is bittersweet rather than unequivocally bitter.

quoth the professor

The cynical/dark message I always got was that money=success, or that money rules all, and not in a cute way. He's a virginal, nerdy,relatively innocent kid who crashes the car, gets in debt to a pimp, becomes a pimp himself, blows off his Princeton interview, and what happens? It all works out for him. He ends up ahead. He can get away with saying "what the fuck" because he has the fuck-you money/power to back it up. Hence at the end the dark glasses and rebellious cigarette. He's been corrupted. Like Booger, he has it all figured out. Ferris Bueller is just rich kids getting away with it. Risky Business is a kid realizing *how* you can get away with it, and accepting the price for the personal gain. As coming of age tales go, it dives right into the deep end. I still can't see it as wish-fulfillment, because it clearly comes at a cost, a cost he is more than willing to accept: his innocence. Ferris Bueller just ends up with back where he started. Joel can't go back again.

right... but you don't think that scenario is alluring to some folks? or has some allure at least?

it is totally alluring

to assholes

see also The Godfather, Goodfellas, Glengarry Glen Ross etc

And, again, The Social Network.

yeah but those have obviously antisocial heroes, risky business presents joel as pretty likable and normal, no?

Which is what makes it tragic. He's a good kid gone bad.

so. Michael Corleone!

Yeah, in a sense. But he had family business pressure. This is a little different. Maybe like young don Corleone? Sees the opportunity and takes it.

well closer to a nascent Tony Soprano except he didn't have to move to the suburbs from the city. (and he's not following in his father's business)

An aside, but I was just remembering how exciting the early scene was when I saw this as a kid, the scene at the airport where we're seeing Joel's parents speaking to him specifically through his POV.

That specifically recalls the parallels noted in '83 to The Graduate. (This kid would've gone into plastics eventually.)

nah, he wouldn't go into manufacturing. late capitalism dictates that he work in finance.

but yeah i think there are explicit nods to the graduate, as much as a means of contrast as comparison. benjamin is a sad sack who finds a direction in his life via love, joel finds it via making money.

also benjamin feels terrible that he's become a whore, in RB everyone is a whore.

well it was Morning in America

I fear Im wrong bc I've initially sided with Tuomas and Alfred but like ...the characters don't behave like real people. Motivations make no sense. Lana's character doesn't feel like a person. Prostitution is treated like a good time had by all. I guess I'm supposed to think the movie wants me to see this as a transparent reflection of society but it feels so unreal I struggle

Or maybe I'm just being the dude who thinks born in the usa is about how America rocks idk

Lol how often do people in movies, let alone teen comedies, however smart, behave like real people?

That Salon interview Morbs posted a year ago is a treat. Could've totally seen a Brickman Rain Man working. Elevator sequence would've been something.

And haw, i remember this strip.

http://i.imgur.com/dgPH9tJ.jpg