Just watched this for the first time and WOW
It was really bad. Was it a hit in its day?
"I earn about 3 times what you likely do. My wife earns more...trailer trash."-Holiday Hobo
Kill yourself, millennial!!!1
share
MovieChat Forums > Footloose (1984) Discussion > Just watched this for the first time and...
No it wasn't really bad and YES it was a hit in 1984.
Punk
You know what? I just saw this for the first time as well, and my reaction is Wow!, but a Wow completely unlike the OP. What a wonderful celebration this is, with a completely unexpected subtext of repression and self-loathing. First, I've always known that this film launched Kevin Bacon's career, and, after all, who doesn't like Kevin Bacon? I have always thought him to be a capable and engaging actor, with impressive career resilience, as in "the six degrees of Kevin Bacon." The sheer physical prowess and passion that he brought to THIS role surprised the toadstools out of me! The boy had some SKILLS back in the old days! I've read the complaints that it's cheesy and that you don't like the music. It was supposed to be a cheesy, money-grab for-stupid-kids movie, but then, just like the Post Office, it fucked up and did something right. It told us that our dreams CAN come true, even if we hate ourselves because we hate where we find ourselves, and that, I promise you, is a blessed message. I've read that the music is not good. The 80s era was not good for pop music. Songs like Let's Hear It For The Boy are definitely Tin Pan Alley (potboilers) and not Gershwin; but the title tune and the visceral I Need A Hero ("He's gotta be strong/And he's gotta be fast/And he's gotta be fresh from the fight," that was also the theme song for a WONDERFUL, pure-cheese-and-proud-of-it-but-fuck-you-because-we've-cast-Jon-Erik-Hexum-as-our-hero TV series, Cover-Up, about high-fashion models engaged in espionage) KICK FREAKING ASS in any era! I was alive when these songs were new, and my Nostalgia Filter is on Beyond High, but there are some compositions that are timeless, e.g., Amazing Grace or Dvorak's Symphony No. 9, From The New World. I am also impressed and moved by how this movie quotes Scripture to defend and promulgate Dance as being something at once holy and human, a celebration and manifestation of The Spirit that He has put in us.
share
Yeah, go figure.
๐
I really like the movie. It has a great story to it and the soundtrack, needless to say is great!
share
That's why they make chocolate and vanilla.
๐
[deleted]
That line's from Dirty Dancing. Footloose is superior to both IMHO.
share[deleted]
My other (recent) post on this thread explains why I favor Footloose -- it's entertaining, but also contains quality mind food.
The popular Dirty Dancing is compelling for what it is, but it's hindered by dubious writing. For instance, you'll roll your eyes at the idiotic misunderstanding where Baby's father assumes Johnny's the one who got his partner pregnant and, for some strange reason, no one sets him straight. Not to mention, the characters always say the wrong thing at the wrong time, which perpetuates the misunderstanding.
Also, the sexual union of Johnny & Baby is both premature and unbelievable in light of the time period, Baby's age (17 years-old) and her upbringing. Frankie Avalon was once asked about his early 60's "Beach" movies if the male-female relationships were as "squeaky clean" as portrayed and he answered (paraphrasing): "As a teen back then 'going all the way' wasn't even considered an option." The obvious exception would be disreputable kids from the "other side of the tracks."
Moreover, the fact that Johnny is having sex with the doctor's daughter, a minor at that, can't win any points in his favor. Hence, even without the misunderstanding there's little reason for the father to warm up to Johnny. So why does the doctor show respect for Johnny at the end -- a dude who's fornicating with his daughter and is clearly much older than her as well (at least five years). Such blatant flaws smack of lazy writing and are offensive to anyone with an ounce of intelligence.
In the 60's it was more normal to have sex around 15 or 14 years of age, wasn't it, it was at the time of sexual revolution and having relationships with older men was even more further in the past encouraged, as even 12 years old have been forced into marriage with older men. Absolutely normal, it's less so only in this modern culture, definitely not 100 years ago or the 60's, as far as I know at the time people had no problem with that. But her father was definitely not approving of her relationship because they felt he's from the wrong side of the tracks, in the 80's things didn't need to be explained, just implied and suggested, at the time people used to have more imagination, holistic perception and didn't need explanations or details as much, hence why lots of things were not purposefully shown and explained in films to allow the audience more power and space for their imagination. People didn't focus on that. But her father turning around and respecting Johnny had also a lot to do by seeing how he helped her with self confidence and as a dancer. The father was clearly a very judgmental person.
By the way, we don't even really see them 'doing it' , instead we see them dancing,touching/kissing/holding each other. Old fashioned classic filmmaking - show little/leave the rest for the audience.
To me in terms of quality Dirty Dancing can't compare to these films though, as it is an iconic film that set a new bar and was not a victim of the time as it's been widely celebrated throughout the years the same like Indiana Jones and other timeless films, it seems like pretty much everyone knows Dirty Dancing. Millions of people quote it wherver I go, etc. While many people I know haven't watched Footloose or Flashdance, or don't remember them, that's just my experience.
I appreciate your well-worded defense of Dirty Dancing, which SEEMS to be the most popular of the three films even though Flashdance was the most successful at the domestic box office ($95 million) followed by Footloose ($80 million) and then Dirty Dancing ($64 million). Yet I feel Footloose is the best of the lot for reasons stated elsewhere on this thread.
As noted above, the main problem with Dirty Dancing is the idiotic misunderstanding where Baby's father assumes Johnny's the one who got his partner pregnant and, for some strange reason, no one sets him straight. Not to mention, the characters always say the wrong thing at the wrong time, which perpetuates the misunderstanding. This is really eye-rolling writing.
The events of Dirty Dancing take place in 1963, which was just before the counter-culture movement and the corresponding sexual revolution. The results of this revolution can be observed in Woodstock (the movie) wherein that 15 year-old girl kept referencing "balling" her boyfriend, who looked to be around 16-17. So I get where you're coming from.
But the events of Dirty Dancing take place just before that cultural upheaval and don't involve hippies. The early 60s were the time of Gidget and the Frankie Avalon & Annette Funicello beach flicks. I'm not saying that no teenager ever had premarital sex at that time, but rather that the general mindset was, as Frankie put it, " 'going all the way' wasn't even considered an option." Sexually speaking, it was "squeaky clean" -- generally speaking -- and much in contrast to the hippies of the late 60s.
I distinctly remember something in Dirty Dancing strongly suggesting that Baby & Johnny had sex, but Iโll have to give it a re-watch to verify.
I stayed away from this popular film for years because of Roger Ebert's scathing review and the fact that I thought the story was about some big city fop moving to a small town and dancing on the tables of the local high school, etc. I was wrong (and so was Ebert). The main character, Ren (Kevin Bacon), is no dandy -- in fact, he can kick some arse if necessary -- and he's not dancing through the halls of the high school every other scene.
The reason "Footloose" is an iconic 80's flick is obvious: It has that cinematic magic that pulls you in and gives you a good time. This is just a really entertaining movie.
But it also has depth: We understand Rev. Shaw's grief, but his legalism isn't doing his people or town any good. I also like how Shaw isn't made out to be the clichรฉd villain. This is a good man thinking he's doing the right thing for his town, and in many ways he is, but the legalistic spirit he cops is sapping the life out of him, his family, his congregants and his town. Does he have the wisdom to see his error and re-route?
I saw it for the first time here too and I was born in 78. This movie was okay, not enough rock n roll songs though for me, but overall it was a good balance of music numbers for not overdoing it. At least one thing I like about the 80s is that movies were usually not long - around 1,5hr long.
share