Written by Cameron Crowe
Produced by Cameron Crowe and Art Linson
Directed by Art Linson
When a creative person happens to reach an artistic crossroads, I wonder if that creative person realizes it at the time.
For this latest installment of “Savage Cinema Revisits,” I turn my attention to a filmmaker I have celebrated on this site ever since its inception. Writer/Director Cameron Crowe is a filmmaker whose work has touched me on such a profound level that it could only be described as “spiritual deliverance.” While not terribly prolific, his work over the years, including “Say Anything…” (1989), “Jerry Maguire” (1996), “Almost Famous” (2000) and “Vanilla Sky” (2001) are all hugely romantic works that have each spoken loudly to my soul as they have each detailed the passions and pains of characters trying to understand the love they have and share for music, their careers, and each other.
For me, the world is, for a time, a much better place when Cameron Crowe releases a film and this year may prove to be especially beautiful as Crowe is set to release not one, not even two, but three films! His first releases, arriving six years after the unfairly maligned “Elizabethtown” (2005) will include, “The Union,” a documentary the follows the recording process of Elton John and Leon Russell’s current duet album; “Pearl Jam Twenty,” a documentary chronicling the 20 year odyssey of the alternative rock giants and “We Bought A Zoo” starring Matt Damon in an adaptation of the Benjamin McKee memoir.
But before we blast into the future, we must return to Crowe’s cinematic past and discover that aforementioned crossroads I spoke of at this entry’s outset. After all of Cameron Crowe’s success and the fierce integrity that he has projected in his works as a consistent thematic thread, there remains one blemish upon his cinematic record. A blemish so apparently ugly that the film is the definition of a “rarity” on VHS and it does not exist on any DVD or Blu-Ray format at all. Most telling, if you happen to venture over to Crowe’s personal website, there is absolutely no mention of this film whatsoever. It is as if the film in question was never created and therefore never seen. However, dear readers, the film in question has been seen and every once in that proverbial blue moon, you just may catch it on a cable channel, just as I did about a month ago as I stumbled upon it while absently scrolling through the grid before heading off to bed for the night. The film, of which I have been speaking of so cryptically, is entitled “The Wild Life.”
Released in the late summer of 1984, just a few months after the release of John Hughes’ game changing “Sixteen Candles," “The Wild Life” was promoted as being some sort of a quasi-sequel to Crowe’s grand cinematic entrance (as directed by Amy Heckerling), “Fast Times At Ridgemont High” (1982). While Crowe’s name had not fully registered with me at the time (I was 15 in 1984), “Fast Times At Ridgemont High” had the personal glory of being the very first film about teenagers and designed for teenagers that I had latched myself onto.
A TREMENDOUS FIRST STEP
The legend of “Fast Times At Ridgemont High” is as follows. Cameron Crowe, after completing his adolescent journalistic tenure at Rolling Stone magazine at the age of 22 (as beautifully depicted in “Almost Famous”), utilized his still boyish looks to covertly enroll as a Senior at a California high school to investigate, report and compile a chronicle of the lives, loves, jobs and sexual exploits of the students. That chronicle became a beautifully written novel (which is currently out-of-print but WELL WORTH the hunt), which then became the now classic film, which is nothing less than the “American Graffiti” of the 1980s, as it launched the careers of many of that film’s participants, in front of and behind the camera (including Forest Whitaker and blink and you’ll miss them appearances by Anthony Edwards and even Nicolas Cage then using his given name of “Coppola”).
“Fast Times At Ridgemont High” told the story of a school year in the lives of a band of California teens who religiously convene for fun and employment at the local mall. Innocent Freshman Stacy Hamilton (Jennifer Jason Leigh in her film debut) is best friends with the more experienced Linda Barrett (Phoebe Cates), who coaches Stacy in the ways of sex and love in the cafeteria (the notorious carrot fellatio scene) as well as at work in a mall restaurant. Shy Mark “The Rat” Ratner (Brian Backer) receives his own sexual and romantic counsel from the school ticket scalper Mike Damone (an extraordinary Robert Romanus), dubbing his romantic technique, “The Attitude,” as classically explained, “’The Attitude’ dictates that you shouldn’t care whether she comes, stays, lays or prays. That whatever happens, you’re toes are still tappin’. When you have that, you have ‘The Attitude’.”
Judge Reinhold memorably portrayed Stacy’s older brother Brad Hamilton, a Senior B.M.O.C., with the perfect girlfriend, the prime employee position at All American Burger and deeply in love with his car, which he has dubbed “The Cruising Vessel.” Yet, his plans for an epic Senior Year implode with break-ups, unemployment and yes, that unforgettable sequence of private masturbation and public humiliation. And of course, in the most iconic role of the film, Sean Penn joyously starred as the perpetually tardy and perpetually stoned surfer Jeff Spicoli, whose eternal quest for “tasty waves” and a “cool buzz” are consistently challenged and thwarted by the uncompromising History teacher Mr. Hand (the late Ray Walston in an equally iconic performance that never compromised his character’s integrity).
“Fast Times At Ridgemont High” was a blast of cinematic sunshine teenagers that stood head and shoulders above every other release in the “teen sex” genre of the early 1980s. I happened to see it for the first time on a pay TV channel one year after its theatrical release, just mere weeks before I began high school, and I cherished it tremendously. While my Chicago upbringing and social circle did not resemble the antics depicted in the lives of these California teens, I somehow inherently knew that what I was watching, while extremely funny, raunchy and envelope pushing, was a defiantly honest presentation. A brief throwaway moment where a classroom of students all gleefully inhale a deep whiff of the potent ink from a mimeograph machine, I knew that this was a film that got the teenage experience completely correct.
Additionally, the film was not all bawdy fun and games and it also worked as a cultural commentary about a new generation of kids facing extremely adult issues they were obviously not prepared for or ready to handle during a tenuous developmental stage filled with endless emotional, physical and psychological transitions. Even the pre-requisite T&A of the genre had a subtle spin through the directorial eyes of Heckerling, who presented every sexual encounter in the film as one of uncertainly, embarrassment and ripe with true consequences, as seen mostly through Stacy’s abortion. It cannot be denied that it is quite difficult to gather much of a prurient delight in the sights of a completely naked Jennifer Jason Leigh when her suitor experiences premature ejaculation or when the object of your masturbatory fantasy (in this case, Phoebe Cates in what was reportedly the most paused sequence on VHS) walks in on you. Very clever, knowing and a perceptive way to circumvent the exploitation of teenage girls in that genre.
Furthermore, and according to the DVD commentary by Crowe and Heckerling, the grand success of that film was an organic one. The film originally received an X rating, ensuring the film would receive no advertising and would barely be released at all. After making the necessary edits (including a sequence full frontal male nudity—note the hypocrisy of the genre), the film garnered its R rating and was then released solely in a tiny number of California movie theaters. The teenagers spoke and loudly as the film earned nearly half of its film’s production budget in its opening weekend. Strong word of mouth ensured the film’s release nationwide and endless showings on cable and home video sales and rentals have cemented the film’s popularity and affection in pop culture.
Most importantly, the character of Jeff Spicoli and his trademark catch phrases of “Hey bud! Let’s party!!” or “Awesome!!! Totally awesome!”” are now pop culture standards and let’s face it, “Bill and Ted,” “Wayne and Garth,” and “Beavis and Butthead” would not exist if not for this happily stoned surfer dude. The shadow of Jeff Spicoli remains immense and still influential and the sight of the notoriously reticent Sean Penn in a “Fast Times” retrospective DVD special feature shows how much affection he still holds for this character.
Yes, that was a lengthy preamble to the main feature but I felt it necessary in order to give the main event, so to speak, its proper context. I again return to the word “organic” in describing the success and longevity of “Fast Times At Ridgemont High.” No one could have possibly known what the response to the film would have been at the time of its creation, or even moreso when Crowe wrote and published his original novel. The love for the film could not be manufactured. The proverbial lightning in the bottle could not be purposefully conjured. It just HAPPENED!
Of course, Hollywood being Hollywood, any success worth having is one to be repeated so Crowe was enlisted again, along with Producer/Director Art Linson, to create another ode to the teen years and produce a work the film’s one sheet poster promised would be “Something Even Faster” than “Fast Times At Ridgemont High.” And so, “The Wild Life” was born.
GROWING PAINS
“The Wild Life” spends one week in the lives of five characters in their mid to later teens as they all wind down the final days of summer vacation in California. Eric Stoltz stars as Bill Conrad, a high school graduate, and bowling alley employee itching to begin his new life of young adulthood as a resident of the Club Horizon apartment complex (seeds of Crowe’s 1992 film “Singles” may have been planted here). His 15 year old brother Jim (Ilan Mitchell-Smith), is a petulant trouble maker burying his more sensitive sensibilities in favor of an unhealthy obsession with the 1960s and all things related to the Vietnam war, including a friendship with the mysterious war veteran Charlie (Randy Quaid). Bill is also nursing jealous feelings and a broken heart over Anita (Lea Thompson), the high school Senior he dumped prior to his graduation, employee of Donut City and who is now secretly having an affair with a lecherous, and married, police officer (Hart Bochner). Anita’s best friend is the extremely serious minded Eileen (Jenny Wright), who is also about to begin her Senior year of high school and is employed at a clothing store run by Harry (Rick Moranis), who has a crush upon her. But, Anita’s heart once belonged to her ex-boyfriend Tom Drake (the late Christopher Penn), high school Senior, local wrestling champion, Bill’s best friend and future apartment roommate and yes, completely irresponsible party animal, who is intent upon winning her heart back.
All of this seems to be right up Crowe’s alley, and truth be told, there are elements to admire about “The Wild Life.” The film possesses a fine cast, (three of whom would soon become part of John Hughes’ cinematic universe in 1985’s “Weird Science” and 1987’s “Some Kind Of Wonderful”), generally engaging characters, a surprising and welcome darker tone than “Fast Times” and the one and only film score by composed and performed by Edward Van Halen. And yet, all of the elements just did not fit together and as I have been writing fairly frequently, everything comes down to a matter of tone. It is the overall irregular tone of “The Wild Life” that ultimately derails it. Instead of the joyous euphoria that filled audiences at the conclusion of “Fast Times At Ridgemont High,” I distinctly remember exiting the movie theater screening of “The Wild Life” with nothing more than a confused shrug set to the tone of disinterested mumbles of the disappointed teenage audience that exited with me. I re-watched “The Wild Life” several times during my high school years and every now and again as I have viewed Cameron Crowe’s ascent in his wonderful filmmaking career and it continues to confound me as all of the parts just don’t fit together. Simply, it is uncomfortable viewing a film that has so much going for it just to see it fall. “The Wild Life” was a critical and box office failure to such a degree that it damaged Crowe’s film career just as it was truly beginning and Director Art Linson, who has continued his career as a Producer, never helmed another feature film again.
THE CROSSROADS
As Cameron Crowe once stated in a 1984 interview with The Movie Magazine, “A group of theatre owners even sent in a petition to the studio begging them to have us make Fast Times II. But I wanted to move forward, to take some growing-up steps and assume a slightly different focus.”
A-ha!! There it is. “The Wild Life” is a film that is at war with itself as Crowe’s higher artistic and storytelling ambitions clashed with the business side of Hollywood and the perceived baser pleasures of the lowest common denominator of the audience. Remember, Crowe did not direct this film. He was the screenwriter, traditionally and depressingly, the least important person upon a film set. And while he was one of the film’s Producers, who really knows how much artistic control he was able to enact as this was his second film experience and the gatekeepers were demanding “Fast Times II.”
For one thing, “The Wild Life” shows the differences of having a male Director in the still lucrative “teen sex” genre rather than a female Director. The film has it’s fair share of T&A, but without Amy Heckerling’s subversiveness at play, “The Wild Life” tastelessly comes off as just another “Porky’s” (1982). Tom Drake shows up at Eileen’s bedroom window ready to make yet another plea for her to take him back but not before we, the audience, gains a lengthy peepshow of Eileen undressing. And the less said about the truly regrettable and extended sequence set at the Les Girls strip club the better. But, worst of all is the film’s attitude about all women. They are all either sexual playthings, whiny or bitchy and whenever Crowe tries to inject true character into any of these women then more rowdy party antics via Tom Drake are ushered onto the screen so as not to let these joy-killers take up too much screen time.
Eileen is the film’s most forward thinking and conceived character (for this particular film genre during this particular time) and is easily the film’s most unfairly marginalized. At one point, before she and Anita take an evening out for themselves, she expresses that she would not ever get married until she had her career firmly in place and possessed her own money. A bold statement for the “teen sex genre” in 1984. But, most of her scenes are just variations of Eileen scrambling from Tom’s lusty grasps exclaiming that she can never get back together with him and that it’s over. It is as if all of Jenny Wright’s scenes as Eileen were left on the cutting room floor and it is a shame as she certainly presents a command and an authority much needed for a film like this.
Yet, upon watching “The Wild Life” again, I think the greatest problem of the film and the largest conceptual conflict is the function of Tom Drake as a character. It certainly is not the fault of Christopher Penn, who obviously threw himself into this role without abandon. And I am not certain the problem is necessarily down to Crowe’s screenwriting. Again, it is the tone. What are the filmmakers trying to say with this character? What do they think about this character? What is it that they want for us, the audience, to take away from this character? The conflict in this film rests heavily on Tom Drake’s shoulders.
As presented, Tom Drake is the life of the party and is always on the hunt for one. He is the untamed id, the uncontrollable “wild” of “The Wild Life,” and he is clearly designed to be a cinematic pied piper or Peter Pan, hoping for the teens in the audience to join him in reckless, raucous, endless drunken fun. But, Tom Drake is also insufferable and even as a teenager, I didn’t like this guy. Sort of like the trio of bad boys from Todd Phillips’ “The Hangover” (2009), this is the precisely the kind of male figure I would typically steer clear of and beyond that, Tom Drake is the kind of person I would steer clear of. He is a complete narcissist, a “man-baby,” an emotional infant who desires what he wants whenever he wants it and most importantly, regardless of any potential consequences for anyone else.
Tom is habitually late for his bowling alley job with Bill. He talks himself into being Bill’s roommate yet declines to do his fair share of the upkeep, grocery shopping and apartment finances. He is essentially an alcoholic who drives drunk everywhere. He has failed in his relationship with Eileen but desperately claims that he wants her back, but why? He asserts that she is engaged to him yet goes out on a bender at the strip club, holding parties at the apartment night after night. And in a bit of character description that is not terribly clear, it seems as if Tom Drake flunked his Senior Year of high school, and by the end of this fateful week, he is being forced to repeat it in the fall. The only stitch of ambition arrives in one line of dialogue where he bemoans his life in high school and wishes that he could be teaching wrestling to children. Beyond that, Tom Drake is a character with no goals, no virtue, no shame and no consideration for any other soul. But, he’s so fun, right? He can’t be all that bad. We’re supposed to cheer on his antics even as Bill gets evicted from the apartment he has been waiting to live in, right? I’m really not sure if that was what Cameron Crowe was going for but it seems that it was definitely what the movie studio wanted.
“The Wild Life” is an inorganic experience, one where we can see all of the work at attempting to catch that lightning in the bottle again, instead of allowing these characters to exist freely and allow the audience to embrace them for who they happen to be. Throughout the film, Tom Drake utters the short phrase, “It’s casual,” and it obviously feels as if the filmmakers were attempting to create a catchphrase and the result is phony. The party sequences are lugubrious in their length and devolve into a prefabricated chaos and the result is tiresome, weakening all of the characters and their situations. And by film’s end, as four of our characters return to high school for the beginning of another year and Van Halen’s synthesized score plays over the ending credits, we are simply left with a disinterested yawn. Is that all there is?
Cameron Crowe was faced with a major dilemma with the failure of “The Wild Life.” Would he soldier on with films that the Hollywood suits wanted or wound he follow his heart, his vision and his integrity, allowing the box office chips to fall where they may? Thank God for the arrival of James L. Brooks into Crowe’s life as he befriended the young, aspiring filmmaker when no one else would speak to him after the death of “The Wild Life.” For it is Brooks we have to thank for encouraging Crowe to follow his own singular voice and keep writing and to ultimately encourage him to make his directorial debut with a little film called “Say Anything…”
I wish more filmmakers would take the time to truly examine the kinds of films they are putting out into the world. Is it work they truly believe in? As Marcy Tidwell (Regina King) vehemently demands to know from Jerry Maguire (Tom Cruise), “What do you stand for???”
I love the writing and films of Cameron Crowe because he stands for a pureness of heart, even if and especially when it goes against the grain. He creates openhearted works for us to be filled with and to interact with. And if we do not connect the first time, the films will wait patiently for us to try them again sometime in the future. He produces honest works of art that are of a certain rarity these days in our instant gratification and at times, morally and emotionally bankrupt society. They are uncompromisingly “uncool” and that’s what makes his films works to champion and hold above our heads just like Lloyd Dobler’s boom box. That glorious romanticism is exactly what has made his films endure.
If it took the experience of “The Wild Life” for him to reach a crossroads into becoming the filmmaker he is today, then it was a crossroads worth confronting.
No comments:
Post a Comment