When I read the opening paragraph from Lechuguilla's review, I thought "That's exactly what I was thinking!" It reads (abridged):
"Maybe when it was first released, this film... wowed viewers with its bawdiness and clear-cut clash of values. But thirty years later, with the internet, cell phones, and gay rights, the underlying premise... strikes me as outdated and largely irrelevant..."
In my opinion, I think the film was as successful as it was only because it "dared" to broach a subject that was, at the time, considered titillating, immoral and slightly naughty. People could feel like they were indulging in a bit of raunchy voyeurism that skirted the limits of acceptable morality. It bordered on slightly wicked, yet allowed one to keep one's social (and self-righteous) moral virtue and rectitude intact.
Now, 30-plus years later, the film is dated by any standard. It was a vehicle for Parton (who does a passable job as Miss Mona)and Reynolds (who is miscast and mediocre at best), a toss-away attempt at cashing in on an excellent and popular stage production at the time.
Viewed as a quaint example of 1980s entertainment, it's moderately successful even now. But there isn't enough enduring substance to hold up over time.
If it were re-made today, I think it could probably succeed if the emphasis on titillation and sex was refocused on the relationships between the main characters and the struggle over the morality of the times.
But as it stands, it has become an archaic and somewhat droll museum piece.
"Maybe when it was first released, this film... wowed viewers with its bawdiness and clear-cut clash of values. But thirty years later, with the internet, cell phones, and gay rights, the underlying premise... strikes me as outdated and largely irrelevant..."
In my opinion, I think the film was as successful as it was only because it "dared" to broach a subject that was, at the time, considered titillating, immoral and slightly naughty. People could feel like they were indulging in a bit of raunchy voyeurism that skirted the limits of acceptable morality. It bordered on slightly wicked, yet allowed one to keep one's social (and self-righteous) moral virtue and rectitude intact.
Now, 30-plus years later, the film is dated by any standard. It was a vehicle for Parton (who does a passable job as Miss Mona)and Reynolds (who is miscast and mediocre at best), a toss-away attempt at cashing in on an excellent and popular stage production at the time.
Viewed as a quaint example of 1980s entertainment, it's moderately successful even now. But there isn't enough enduring substance to hold up over time.
If it were re-made today, I think it could probably succeed if the emphasis on titillation and sex was refocused on the relationships between the main characters and the struggle over the morality of the times.
But as it stands, it has become an archaic and somewhat droll museum piece.