**Spoiler alert!**
I feel like a hypocrite, because I love a lot of this movie (and own it) but also hate the last ten minutes every single time I've seen it. And just don't get those who fall to pieces over the character of Aaron, played by Albert Brooks, who's frankly one of the most unlikeable asses I've ever seen onscreen.
Although the performances (lead and supporting) are all superb and worthy of all the praise they got, "Broadcast News" is one of those that sounds better -- and feels better -- than it is. In retrospect, it's one of those whose moments have come up often for me -- the young Jane's "obsessive" speech, Joan Cusack's dash with the videotape, Jane's disastrous public speaking event, etc.
But in reality while the movie's witty and beautifully acted, I always secretly feel James L. Brooks let us viewers down. He is widely publicized as being unable to come up with an ending for his characters -- hence the hideous non-ending which embarrasses the Hunter character unnecessarily and adds further loose ends to a movie already full of them. Brooks should have held true to the spirit of the story -- which was obviously going to be an ending in which Jane chooses style over substance (Hurt) -- or substance over style (Albert Brooks).
Although frankly, Brooks's character is such a petulant, insecure, acid-tongued and (worst of all) verbally abusive ass that I can't imagine any woman going for him. I loathed this character and never found him likeable in any way. Just MHO, but the guy never deserved Jane for a single moment. His behavior throughout the last half of the film is incredibly cruel, without the right to be so, as he has never been Jane's lover (and she has never treated him as one) -- just a friend to whom she's kind because she knows he has feelings for her. And an undeserving one at that.
And then we have William Hurt, who fabulously plays the slightly dim -- yet very perceptive and lovable news anchor who catches Jane's eye. While written to be a laughingstock, Hurt manages to find the humanity in his character, making him attractive, willing to learn and improve, and honest (even when it comes to his own failings). So every time I've seen this, Jane's decision to punish Hurt comes across as false to me, and as having very little ethical merit. And of course -- any news producer worth her salt would've known ages before how that interview was filmed, so the final chapter's drama is poorly manufactured.
And the ending (or non-ending) just flat sucks. It's an embarrassment to Jane's character and Hunter's lovely brave performance -- why is it that the heroine of the film in this footnote scene a few years later is the one person who hasn't seemed to have moved on? Yuck. Brooks wimped out.
I feel like a hypocrite, because I love a lot of this movie (and own it) but also hate the last ten minutes every single time I've seen it. And just don't get those who fall to pieces over the character of Aaron, played by Albert Brooks, who's frankly one of the most unlikeable asses I've ever seen onscreen.
Although the performances (lead and supporting) are all superb and worthy of all the praise they got, "Broadcast News" is one of those that sounds better -- and feels better -- than it is. In retrospect, it's one of those whose moments have come up often for me -- the young Jane's "obsessive" speech, Joan Cusack's dash with the videotape, Jane's disastrous public speaking event, etc.
But in reality while the movie's witty and beautifully acted, I always secretly feel James L. Brooks let us viewers down. He is widely publicized as being unable to come up with an ending for his characters -- hence the hideous non-ending which embarrasses the Hunter character unnecessarily and adds further loose ends to a movie already full of them. Brooks should have held true to the spirit of the story -- which was obviously going to be an ending in which Jane chooses style over substance (Hurt) -- or substance over style (Albert Brooks).
Although frankly, Brooks's character is such a petulant, insecure, acid-tongued and (worst of all) verbally abusive ass that I can't imagine any woman going for him. I loathed this character and never found him likeable in any way. Just MHO, but the guy never deserved Jane for a single moment. His behavior throughout the last half of the film is incredibly cruel, without the right to be so, as he has never been Jane's lover (and she has never treated him as one) -- just a friend to whom she's kind because she knows he has feelings for her. And an undeserving one at that.
And then we have William Hurt, who fabulously plays the slightly dim -- yet very perceptive and lovable news anchor who catches Jane's eye. While written to be a laughingstock, Hurt manages to find the humanity in his character, making him attractive, willing to learn and improve, and honest (even when it comes to his own failings). So every time I've seen this, Jane's decision to punish Hurt comes across as false to me, and as having very little ethical merit. And of course -- any news producer worth her salt would've known ages before how that interview was filmed, so the final chapter's drama is poorly manufactured.
And the ending (or non-ending) just flat sucks. It's an embarrassment to Jane's character and Hunter's lovely brave performance -- why is it that the heroine of the film in this footnote scene a few years later is the one person who hasn't seemed to have moved on? Yuck. Brooks wimped out.