Filmy Residue

I got to see an "old" movie from 1987, the other night, called "Broadcast News."  I remembered it as a goodie -- a classic starring fave actors William Hurt and Holly Hunter.  It was the 80s, you know.  Sure, it had all the cheesy-ness of the 80s, a bit of gloss, a bit of dumbed-down interactivity inherent in commercial films, but there was indeed something more, here.  The dialog was sometimes clever. What wasn't said was just as important as what was. And the movie played slow, really slow, compared to today's big box office busters. No violence, not much sex (with just a glimpse of William Hurt's backside).  Why would anyone want to watch this thing?

I watched it because there was a story.  Yes, unrequited love (nothing new in Hollywood), a thin expose on phony newscasters, but nothing quite like the sledge-hammer, in-your-face "story"-telling of the recent Avengers film.  "Broadcast News" is a far cry from being the best move ever made, don't get me wrong. But I couldn't help notice that movies told a story, they were more like books, instead of headlines. Substance mattered, even if it was only a cute romantic comedy drama fairy tale.  Viewers had time to think, too, when scenes didn't race by, from one ridiculous flashy, jittery scene to the next. I think we were treated with respect, as if we had an attention span, like we could be interested, provided the right circumstances.

I saw the new Batman film today. I was looking forward to it, but I just couldn't bring myself to rush to the theater on Friday, after what happened in Colorado. So, I saw an early Sunday matinee.  Even with all the action and explosions, the flashy scenes, the cool costumes, people couldn't focus on the big screen in front of them. No, all over the theater, was the glow of smaller-screened cell phones. Throughout the entire film. Thank god there was a good story, or I might have been driven mad with their distraction.