i mean obviously not young kids, as its r, and not older teenagers cuz its not raunchy
what was they a thinkin?
Fortunately, movie studios weren't as stuck on "aiming" for audiences back then as they are now. They used to just make good movies.
Imagine that...
"Where are all the good men dead, in the heart or in the head?"
- Grosse Pointe Blank (1997)
"Little Darlings" has a titillating premise, but is ultimately a cautionary tale, it seems to me. It seems to send the message 'don't be in a rush to lose your cherry'. Female bonding is also one of the big themes in this movie, so I would call it a 'chick flick'. So who is the intended audience? Adolescent girls. Of course some of them may have missed out in when it was in the theatres, due to it's R rating, but TV showings, and it's being available on tape / DVD, would make it more accessible to them.
shareI don't get it either. This film feels like an ABC After-School Special with just a bit of "adult" content. Really, I think this film would be rated PG-13 today, but even in 1980 it seems pretty mild for an R. I suspect the intended audience for this film snuck into the theater or saw it edited on TV.
shareNice seeing you around these parts... I can tell you weren't too wild about this one, but I'm still trying to figure out if you did - or, as seems implied, did not - like it, and why! Also, what was it you thought might have been intended as titillating, if you wanna clarify?
shareHi, Golden_Hawk! I remember you from the "Certain Fury" board. I still haven't gotten my hands on that film. Actually, I liked "Little Darlings," but I didn't love it. I gave it 7/10 stars.
It starts out as a sex comedy and turns into a teen buddy picture, which is an uncomfortable mixture in my book. I think it would have worked better had they turned up the raunch and dispensed with the "heartwarming" ending, or, better yet, had they turned down the raunch and made this a PG film for teens. The tone just didn't seem consistent to me.
As for the "titillation" factor, I was being catty with that word, but I think the early parts of the film where they play up Kristy McNichol's tom-boyishness and allude to her character liking girls (imagine that!) seemed to cut very close to home. Plus, a lot of the girls' talk and the swimming scenes seemed to be pretty suggestive, as you would expect from a sex comedy (though not from a buddy picture). Anyway, I don't think I'm explaining myself here – it just seems like this film has one foot in the water and the other on land.
Say, have you seen Tatum O'Neal as Cherie and Marie Currie's mother in "The Runaways"? She has a short but very memorable role before he character leaves the country. It's a pretty good film, though I wish Tatum was onscreen longer – though of course she wasn't the point of the film.
We also spoke on the Circle of Two board a while back! International Velvet next?
Thanks for the input on Little Darlings, I'm glad you liked it after all. I understand your issue with the tone of the picture, what I don't get, in fact, is why it isn't close to being an issue with me. Could be that the transition seemed appropriate/subtle enough to be viable (seems fair game to me to have the vulgar coating slowly washed away by genuine emotion, if done well); could be that I simply never got caught up in any of the mess/raunch - at 24, with Armand Assante as my primary proxy into the film, my viewpoint not unlike his, I can't but watch each display of childishness (food fights) and naiveté (lousy attempts at titillation) from afar, with a knowing smile akin to his own, 'girls will be girls,' their behaviour barely registering with me. The true essence of the picture always seems elsewhere to me, buried from the beginning within the compelling presence of both stars, reluctant players in the whole raunchy affair who come to find themselves throughout the film... exposing it at last for what it really is.
Oh yeah, The Runaways hasn't come my way yet, but I have read the script and it looks like it could be good... I understand it is more of a Cherie biopic, but there seems to be enough room to capture the flavour of the times and their music - which I like quite a bit! And yes, Tatum too in what could be a killer scene... great casting on the whole... should be great!
Oh yes, it was "Circle of Two"! Forgive me ... my memory isn't what it used to be, as I recall.
"Little Darlings" is one of those "time capsule" movies, both for the theme and its two major stars. I remember when it hit the theaters and everyone was talking about it. Unfortunately, I was just a bit too young to see it on my own then, but I caught it a few years later on cable, and now I have the VHS. I think that, even though it's ultimately a female "buddy" picture, it was actually quite bold for 1980 for exploring teenage girls' sexuality. So even though it doesn't necessarily go all the way with the raunch, it dips its toes into very sensitive waters and feels very honest for exploring the desires and doubts of teenage girls 30 years ago.
"The Runaways" is much better than I expected. I am decades removed from the "Twilight" fan base, and I was severely apprehensive about seeing Kristen Stewart as Joan Jett, but she does an excellent job. Michael Shannon is appropriately sleazy as Kim Fowley. It is, as you said, more centered around Cherie, which in my opinion drags the film down a bit because she wasn't the most interesting or most talented member of the band. Someone on the board suggested that if it had been titled "Cherry Bomb" or something else, you'd get the correct impression that this was really one person's story than the whole band's.
The film pays short shrift to Lita Ford (who is portrayed in the most abrasive terms), Sandy West (the drummer who recently died), and Jackie Fox (the bassist, who isn't even mentioned here but replaced by another girl). Cherie apparently has tended to fictionalize much of the band's stories in her books, so it's pretty clear to me that we're getting more of a piece of entertainment than an true-life account of the band. But it effectively re-creates the sprit of hope and insanity of the late '70s, and the music is excellent.
Say, have you read Tatum's book? I've been reading a lot of actresses' autobiographies lately, and I think I'll give that a try. It's a shame that, after such a promising start in "Paper Moon" and a handful of films after that, her career was derailed by drugs. Is she really back on track now? I hope so.
Sorry about the delay, I sure take my time around here!
Haven't purchased Tatum's book yet, I'm still toying with the idea of going for the leather-bound edition instead for a little extra. I do own the abridged audiobook version though (which she lends her voice to rather well) and that was quite a listen at least for a fan, very candid and heartfelt... quite revealing also in the sense that it made me understand the workings of her acting a little better, usually by implication. She seems back on track yes, with a supporting role in The Runaways, three lead parts in the pipeline, steady work on a great show, also having reconciled with Ryan. . .
I'm also curious about Cherie's book which I hear is going to be re-published some time soon (if it hasn't yet). It's true that her work outside the band wasn't as relevant as that of Joan Jett or Lita Ford although I can see why she might have seemed like the perfect entry point into the universe of The Runaways in dramatic terms - even if it's not quite the film we hoped for. I also heard legal wranglings were partially to blame for so lopsided a portrayal of the band? In any case it sounds like a title change was due yeah; I like Neon Angel (based as it was on her book), but Cherry Bomb, I think, would be more instantly recognisable by the public at large than even The Runaways, so I kind of don't get it.
By the way, I thought Kristen Stewart was pretty great in Adventureland (a nicely understated throwback to the 80s), compelling in a dark, almost Jett-ish sort of way, so couple that The Runaways and what do you know, I was actually happy to hear that she may land a part in the rumoured adaptation of On the Road!
Hello, Golden_Hawk:
No worries about the delayed reply. I have responses in my inbox from several months ago that I still haven't replied to. These are people I was chatting with for several weeks, and then (gulp) I broke the chain by procrastinating. Now I'm wondering how I can ever reconcile with them. Oh well, that doesn't apply to you.
Has Tatum really reconciled with Ryan? I don't follow either of them that closely these days. Last I heard was when Ryan put the moves on Tatum at Farrah's funeral because he didn't recognize her -- which is grotesque on so many levels but of course the grotesqueness is all in Ryan's court there. And I know Tatum's been in and out of rehab the past few years, so she's battling that as well. She looked great in "The Runaways" film, though, so whatever her habits were (I hope past tense is appropriate here), she hasn't lost her beauty.
That's great that you've heard the audio portion of the book. I've thought of giving those a try many times, but I'm so easily distracted I don't know how far I'd get. It's actually probably easier for me to read a complete book. In the past few years, I've read many actresses bios/autobios: Ellen Burstyn, Phyllis Diller, Shirley MacLaine, Jane Fonda, Teri Garr. How much "dirt" does Tatum dish on Ryan, John and herself in the book?
I shall check out "Adventureland," which I'm pretty sure I can get at my library. Lately I've checked out a couple of indie films with Kristen: "The Cake Eaters" and "Speak." She was good, not great, in my opinion, but it was probably because, like a lot of indies, the films didn't have strong direction or structure. Hopefully "On the Road" launches her into a solid film career and out of the "Twilight" zone (I have no interest in those, I must say).
Warped Record! Another response for your inbox.
I have seen The Runaways at last and enjoyed it immensely, more than I imagine I should have. It's actually a really good film if you let the atmosphere wash you over and block out the plot somehow (not that the plot wasn't good, just not my main point of interest). I thought both girls did a really good job for the most part, Kristen in particular was tremendous as Joan Jett.
Good quip there on her hopefully finding a way out of the Twilight zone; as much as I liked her in both roles I've seen her in I'm still not entirely sure if she's a genuinely talented actress or just a circumstantial one getting all the meaty parts. She doesn't strike me as being overly natural or anything but I sure like how she carries herself and the acting choices she makes. She's got time to improve, too.
I'm not sure you would like Adventureland as much as I have, by the way, seeing as you are sure to view it from a different angle, having lived those days firsthand... the movie strikes me as being a little filtered and romanticised in spots what with the music etc but I'm not complaining!
On Tatum and her book, she's quite harsh on John as well as Ryan (as well as herself) yes, bear in mind though that it's really more of a tell-all than a genuine autobio. I read it because I like her but I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it or anything. On Ryan, not only have they reconciled, they also seem to be looking to pitch a reality show to cover their progress in mending their relationship? Feels a little awkward just saying that, but I wouldn't judge. For the record, I thought Ryan's quip about mistaking Tatum for a "beautiful Swedish woman" was largely ironic and self-deprecating, likely meant to lighten the mood, that seems to be his style... but I understand the tabloids would rather look at it differently.
Hello, Golden_Hawk:
Sorry for taking so long to reply to your last message, but I suspect you understand. I'm finally getting around to answering some of the old posts from as long ago as November.
I also was surprised at how good "The Runaways" is. I had very low expectations for it and wasn't initially very pleased with the casting, but I think Kristen Stewart and Dakota Fanning did remarkable jobs – and I'm not easily impressed with either. I do wish the film had focused more on the whole band rather than mainly Cherie and Joan, but it was based on Cherie's book, so that was the source material. Michael Shannon was astounding in that film, I thought. It's nice to see Tatum in that film, but her role is so small she really didn't make an impression.
I thought you are right on the mark about Tatum's qualities as an actress. I don't think talent is necessarily a given, even for Hollywood "royalty" – they have to work at it. Tatum was superb in "Paper Moon," but she had strong direction there and she appeared to put everything in that role. As for most of her other films, not so much. Obviously her addictions and various other distractions have taken their toll on her film career, but I still don't think she's completely set on re-establishing her career. Of course, she's probably not getting the offers that she once did, but does she even care? I'm just not seeing it. It appears she was pushed when she made "Paper Moon," and there's no one to push her now.
I did manage to see "Adventureland" a few months ago after I found it at the library. It was very pleasant, and the music was superb, but it didn't leave much of an impression, to tell the truth. I remember thinking Ryan Reynolds seemed very miscast. It just seems like there were so many superb '80s films about adolescence and young adulthood that there isn't much to add to it these days for the generation that missed the era. And even the "bad" '80s films are still a lot more fun than some of the decent recent nostalgia films.
I still haven't gotten Tatum's book yet, but someday I will. First I'm hoping to read Keith Richards' "Life," and when I finish that, I want to tackle a few other recent music bios/autobios, like Rosanne Cash and Karen Carpenter.
Creepy old people?
shareI laughed out loud at your quote....
How and why this movie was *EVER* made is beyond me...a Pedo-Bears dream....and this came out during my "coming of age"....
no WAY this could be "remade" that's for sure....(and look at the "illustrious career" of it's Director..!! NO WAY, this could *EVER* get remade..
I managed a neighborhood second run movie theatre (remember those) when this came out and this movie did capacity business. The matinees were packed with kids and parents dropped them off.
shareThey would have been aiming for teenagers of course, with the largest appeal going to teenage girls. The US R' rating would have made it difficult though for the potential target audience for anyone under 17. In the UK it was rated AA' which was restricted to 14 and over, Australia had an M' rating which was just a recommendation for mature audiences over 15 and in NZ it was R13, restricted to audiences 13yrs and over. The UK, OZ and NZ ratings were all appropriately rated in regards to their respective classification system at aiming for the target audience.
I was a 13 year old male when I saw this at a cinema with my older sister and a female friend and we all loved it—didn't initially understand about the condom scene though and only laughed at the scene because the little fat girl blew one up like a balloon and it burst. Had to ask my sister about it. Went to see it again with a mate—was quite a popular film in NZ and was around for quite a few weeks—but he didn't like it; too soft and girly for him.
I find this film a wonderful time capsule and still enjoy it on repeated viewings. I find nothing controversial or wrong with it and anyone that does must be in denial or have issues. As if teenage girls don't think about boys and sex at a stage in their lives when puberty and hormones are raging. If anything, I find the film quite an accurate portrayal of teenagers—focusing mainly on the girls—and is spot on in capturing their naivety and outlook of the opposite sex. The film doesn't condescend to them and they learn an important lesson by the films end about friendship and intimacy and with Randy's character, shows how confusing it can be for boys sometimes in attempting to understand how girls feel.
The film is very well made with some lovely wide screen photography—saw this on a huge cinemascope screen and the film is crying out for a dvd release. The scenic atmosphere and songs add to to mood of the film—have only seen the original version with original soundtrack—and one of the best moving coming of age performances that I can recall by the radiant Kristy McNichol.
[deleted]
I find 'Little Darlings' one out of the box. It is quite a unique coming of age dramedy compared to many others of the era—even by todays standards. The fact that it still causes some debate with people as to the main sexuality theme and the honest conscientious manner in which it is presented, lets it stand on it's own ground. It is not a great movie by any means, but a very well made and good film for it's genre.
share