Reviewers who call this a great comedy, must be kidding. This is one of the most depressing movies I've ever seen. I can't tell if the filmmakers intended to make a social commentary on disaffected youth. But surely we're not meant to laugh at the sight of emotionally detached, morally empty teens?
Oh, I'm aware that teenagers do stupid things, and I'm not appalled by the portrayal of drug use, sex, etc. These things happen. I *am* appalled by the notion that life-changing events such as losing one's virginity, getting pregnant, or having an abortion can be considered "no big deal". These characters don't think before they act, and they don't seem to *feel* anything afterward. This is what disturbs me about "Fast Times", and this is what I (thankfully) can't relate to.
It's interesting that TV shows like "Dawson's Creek" were criticized for their supposedly unrealistic depiction of teens with large vocabularies, who made a "big deal" out of everything, and discussed their feelings. However, at least those kids *had* thoughts and feelings! As an intelligent, sensitive kid, so did I. Guess I didn't have the universal teen experience. But personally I'd rather read or watch a story about adolescents who overanalyze and feel deeply, than one where kids act like unthinking zombies. Shouldn't storytellers encourage growth and depth, rather than perpetuating a shallow way of life?
Apparently Cameron Crowe went undercover in a high school and based his story on real events, which, frankly, scares me. Was this truly the '80s generation? Is this the current generation? And when making a film, is it enough to hold up a mirror to reflect society? Or shouldn't the filmmaker go a step further to comment on what he sees? Maybe even try to make the world a better place? True, many viewers are turned off by films that seem "preachy", but if writers/directors are skilled enough, I believe they can get a message across effectively. The best stories have a *point*, a lesson to be learned. I cannot figure out what "Fast Times" is trying to achieve.
Other than to gross me out. For instance:
A 15 year old girl loses her virginity to an older man she barely knows (who *must* be able to tell she's inexperienced and underage, but doesn't seem to care), outside, while staring at graffiti. Is this supposed to be a comment on how degrading and meaningless sex can be? On the fact that first times are rarely enjoyable, especially if you don't feel anything for the other person? A warning to choose your partner wisely? Perhaps, but it's certainly unpleasant to witness. And difficult to understand why she goes through with it. Stacy moves on to her next sexual partner like she's changing shoes, then casually asks the boy to pay for her abortion, as if she's asking him to buy her a soda. Is this meant to be *humourous* or is it just bad acting? The aftermath of the abortion is also treated like it's "no big deal", when in fact it would be a painful process, both emotionally and physically. Should I ignore that and simply praise the film for being brave enough to let a character go through with an abortion when movies/TV tend to push the pro-life agenda? I'm pro-choice, but I still find it unsettling that "Fast Times" seems to be sending the message that making this choice, and going through the actual physical ordeal, is as easy as pie.
Is this movie condoning/glorifying casual sex, casual...everything? Or just...showing it...without taking a moral stance? If so, the filmmakers might be as emotionally detached and ethically bereft as the characters! I have to wonder whether they didn't make their message (if there is one) clear, out of a desire to appeal to the masses, to avoid possibly alienating their target audience with anything too "preachy". Could be no noble intent here, merely the use of controversial topics/scenes for shock value, and to get attention/make money.
Was the ending a feel-good finale because the "nice guy/geek" gets the girl? The problem with that is, we never see her grow a brain or have an emotional epiphany about what/who she wants. Stacy just seems to let things happen to her. The conclusion feels as random, empty and pointless as the film in general.
I want to praise Phoebe Cates though. She took what could've been a clichéd, one-dimensional role (sexually-experienced, bad-influence best friend) and gave it depth. You can sense that she figured out her character's motivations, and it comes through in her performance. I was most impressed by her scenes, and don't know why Jennifer Jason Leigh gets more critical acclaim - there's nothing going on behind her eyes, and such a blank void/"innocence"/childlike mental state, only makes her sex scenes seem more exploitative. Unfortunately the film treats Phoebe as a sex object too, with that gratuitous fantasy scene. Phoebe was insecure and sought reassurance about her acting, only to be treated like a bimbo-model. I can understand why she quit the movie business, with all the degrading trash she had to do. Shame she wasn't given more opportunities to prove that she really could act! The other actors made no impression. I didn't find Sean Penn's stoner dude act amusing as it's reputed to be.
For the life of me I can't understand why "Fast Times At Ridgemont High" is hailed as hilarious or the ultimate teen movie. Ironically it evoked reactions in me that were lacking in the film itself, namely it made me THINK and FEEL (despair!) But if you want to laugh and feel good, I'd recommend these truly funny films:
good-natured goofy fun: ADVENTURES IN BABYSITTING (1987), CAN'T HARDLY WAIT (1998)
clever, satirical, dark humour: HEATHERS (1989), THE CRAFT (1996), SAVED! (2004)
great blend of realism & wish-fulfillment, relatable characters and psychological/sociological truth: THE BREAKFAST CLUB (1985), SOME KIND OF WONDERFUL (1987)
Oh, I'm aware that teenagers do stupid things, and I'm not appalled by the portrayal of drug use, sex, etc. These things happen. I *am* appalled by the notion that life-changing events such as losing one's virginity, getting pregnant, or having an abortion can be considered "no big deal". These characters don't think before they act, and they don't seem to *feel* anything afterward. This is what disturbs me about "Fast Times", and this is what I (thankfully) can't relate to.
It's interesting that TV shows like "Dawson's Creek" were criticized for their supposedly unrealistic depiction of teens with large vocabularies, who made a "big deal" out of everything, and discussed their feelings. However, at least those kids *had* thoughts and feelings! As an intelligent, sensitive kid, so did I. Guess I didn't have the universal teen experience. But personally I'd rather read or watch a story about adolescents who overanalyze and feel deeply, than one where kids act like unthinking zombies. Shouldn't storytellers encourage growth and depth, rather than perpetuating a shallow way of life?
Apparently Cameron Crowe went undercover in a high school and based his story on real events, which, frankly, scares me. Was this truly the '80s generation? Is this the current generation? And when making a film, is it enough to hold up a mirror to reflect society? Or shouldn't the filmmaker go a step further to comment on what he sees? Maybe even try to make the world a better place? True, many viewers are turned off by films that seem "preachy", but if writers/directors are skilled enough, I believe they can get a message across effectively. The best stories have a *point*, a lesson to be learned. I cannot figure out what "Fast Times" is trying to achieve.
Other than to gross me out. For instance:
A 15 year old girl loses her virginity to an older man she barely knows (who *must* be able to tell she's inexperienced and underage, but doesn't seem to care), outside, while staring at graffiti. Is this supposed to be a comment on how degrading and meaningless sex can be? On the fact that first times are rarely enjoyable, especially if you don't feel anything for the other person? A warning to choose your partner wisely? Perhaps, but it's certainly unpleasant to witness. And difficult to understand why she goes through with it. Stacy moves on to her next sexual partner like she's changing shoes, then casually asks the boy to pay for her abortion, as if she's asking him to buy her a soda. Is this meant to be *humourous* or is it just bad acting? The aftermath of the abortion is also treated like it's "no big deal", when in fact it would be a painful process, both emotionally and physically. Should I ignore that and simply praise the film for being brave enough to let a character go through with an abortion when movies/TV tend to push the pro-life agenda? I'm pro-choice, but I still find it unsettling that "Fast Times" seems to be sending the message that making this choice, and going through the actual physical ordeal, is as easy as pie.
Is this movie condoning/glorifying casual sex, casual...everything? Or just...showing it...without taking a moral stance? If so, the filmmakers might be as emotionally detached and ethically bereft as the characters! I have to wonder whether they didn't make their message (if there is one) clear, out of a desire to appeal to the masses, to avoid possibly alienating their target audience with anything too "preachy". Could be no noble intent here, merely the use of controversial topics/scenes for shock value, and to get attention/make money.
Was the ending a feel-good finale because the "nice guy/geek" gets the girl? The problem with that is, we never see her grow a brain or have an emotional epiphany about what/who she wants. Stacy just seems to let things happen to her. The conclusion feels as random, empty and pointless as the film in general.
I want to praise Phoebe Cates though. She took what could've been a clichéd, one-dimensional role (sexually-experienced, bad-influence best friend) and gave it depth. You can sense that she figured out her character's motivations, and it comes through in her performance. I was most impressed by her scenes, and don't know why Jennifer Jason Leigh gets more critical acclaim - there's nothing going on behind her eyes, and such a blank void/"innocence"/childlike mental state, only makes her sex scenes seem more exploitative. Unfortunately the film treats Phoebe as a sex object too, with that gratuitous fantasy scene. Phoebe was insecure and sought reassurance about her acting, only to be treated like a bimbo-model. I can understand why she quit the movie business, with all the degrading trash she had to do. Shame she wasn't given more opportunities to prove that she really could act! The other actors made no impression. I didn't find Sean Penn's stoner dude act amusing as it's reputed to be.
For the life of me I can't understand why "Fast Times At Ridgemont High" is hailed as hilarious or the ultimate teen movie. Ironically it evoked reactions in me that were lacking in the film itself, namely it made me THINK and FEEL (despair!) But if you want to laugh and feel good, I'd recommend these truly funny films:
good-natured goofy fun: ADVENTURES IN BABYSITTING (1987), CAN'T HARDLY WAIT (1998)
clever, satirical, dark humour: HEATHERS (1989), THE CRAFT (1996), SAVED! (2004)
great blend of realism & wish-fulfillment, relatable characters and psychological/sociological truth: THE BREAKFAST CLUB (1985), SOME KIND OF WONDERFUL (1987)