MovieChat Forums > Broadcast News (1987) Discussion > William Hurt or Albert Brooks

William Hurt or Albert Brooks


Aaron is beyond hot IMO. I just don't see how Jane can possibly even THINK about choosing Tom. Aaron had a personality, was always making Jane laugh AND was incredibly cute. Tom was just kinda tacky.

reply

Aaron was so much more interesting. Tom was so boring and humorless.

reply

That must be why William Hurt got an Oscar nomination.



reply

That must be why William Hurt got an Oscar nomination.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Must have been a slow year.

His acting was really good, though, but not oscar worthy. There was no great deal emotional range in the part. Although, many nominees and winners who play the 'oscar worthy roles' sometimes take away from the film when you are like 'jeez, great acting!' but THIS role isn't noteworthy, but good.

I guess in a way that is how it should be....



They're so flamboyant and melodramatic, it just makes me want to set myself on fire.

reply

So did Albert Brooks, for Best Supporting Actor.

reply

he got the nomination because he didn't go full retard

reply

I personally can't see WHY William Hurt got an Oscar nomination. I mean, his character was just ... nothing.

reply

I know what you mean. Albert Brooks' performance was excellent, Holly Hunter was sensation and even though I'm a huge William Hurt fan, I think its his worst performance. I don't know why he got the oscar nomination for Best Actor? Anyway, a great movie.

reply

Because Hurt had just won the year before (Kiss of the Spider Woman) and this movie got huge hype at Oscar time via critical acclaim and campaigning. It didn't win any Oscars, however.



Even a broken clock is right twice a day

reply

I agree it was not one of WH's better performances but I think the character was meant to be rather vacant and boring -the typical pretty boy news man who's promoted for all the wrong reasons.
I wonder if a different actor would have made different choices for the character of Tom and tried to make him more interesting or at least likable.I think WH took a chance in playing him in such a bland ,shallow way.

reply

I think Hurt probably acted the part as it was written. And I don't understand how a funny, smart and compassionate character like Brooks could lose out to Hurt. I can see how Hunter was physically attracted to Hurt but wih her ethics and brains she should be emotionally drawn to Brooks. It's not as if Brooks looked bad, he's a nice looking guy.

reply

When mentioning ethics and brains you just forgot a factor in the brain functions: HORMONES.
Remember Adam, Samson, Julius Ceasar, Marc Anthony, Cleopatra, Robert Burton, Liz Taylor, Napoleon, Eisenhower, Jack and Bob Kennedy, Prince Charles, Bill Clinton, Michael Jackson, Pee Wee Herman, and a couple of others?
Well, Jane found out she had some hormones flowing that night, after she met Tom. None of it while hanging around Aaron.
It happens all the time. With bees and flowers, too.

If pigs had wings the sh*t of this world would be perfectly shared

reply

victover is right. When you really watch aaron and jane, there is NO zang. A classic case of friends with no sexual chemistry.
i think william hurt gave an excellent performance, because Tom is really villanous in many ways because of the business he finds himself so successful at for all the wrong reasons, yet he is in many ways likeable and really rather quirky, not a sterotype at all. More of a real peson who happens to meet many of the sterotypes of an eventually successful tv anchor in the news environment that would value his sexy tv guy qualities above all else. i thought hurt did a great job.

reply

Of course, it's that je ne sais quoi! But your list of historical figures, past and present, is so intriguing. Enlighten me, please, to the common thread that links Adam in Eden to Michael Jackson with pauses along the way in Egypt, Buckingham Palace and the White House, before we stop at PeeWee's Playhouse?

Maybe it's all in the hair. Remember Diane Chambers and the rain coat guy?

reply

"...I don't understand how a funny, smart and compassionate character like Brooks could lose out to Hurt."

If you were a smart and compassionate guy who was about a 6 or 7, you'd understand.

reply

I found it so hard to buy the movie's premise--that William Hurt's character was meant to be dumb--when William Hurt himself brought such intelligence to the role, as he always does. I'm a William Hurt fan myself, and that's why I dug up this movie to watch it. I will happily forget the movie, but it's to the credit of William Hurt that he brought some life to what was a pretty dead character. As for as movies about journalism go, this isn't even worth mentioning. Did they really have to drum the point on and on, instead of presenting a discussion like the better movies do?

She's as nervous as a very small nun on a penguin shoot

reply

There's no room here for this debate because if Aaron ever had any chance with Jane it must have been long before Tom entered the picture.
I think it was a Seinfeld episode where the answer surfaced: "If you want anything with a girl, don't ever let yourself pulled into the friendship cauldron"
Or something like that.

If pigs had wings the sh*t of this world would be perfectly shared

reply

Aww, I love both of them in different ways. Tom/William Hurt has the movie star good looks, but Aaron/Albert is quirky-cute in a real guy sort of way. There was something so endearing about Aaron, and I also liked his snarkiness.

Tom..well I love the scene where he kind of clasps his hands over his heart when he sees Jane (after the part where she says to herself, "If he doesn't see me soon, we're not meant to be together."). It was cute the way he was with her. They just weren't very compatible.

reply

Albert Brooks also got an Oscar nomination- for best supporting actor. What's everyone upset for Hurt getting in when Brooks did too?

reply

I disagree, I thought William Hurt did a great job portraying a sort of bland everyman who accidentally landed a career as a newscaster. Brooks' character...more intelligent, sure. Funnier...I guess. More attractive...hell no. Even though he might have been more intelligent, he was also far too idealistic and far too bitter. That kind of idealism and shock over how superficial the world is...that's cute on a sixteen year old, not on an adult man. But then again...since Jane shared his immature idealism, they seemed to be a perfect match. Except who wants to date a twin? They really seemed to have a platonic vibe. I think that the fake tear was disgusting, and with Jane's sensibilities I can see how it would be a dealbreaker for her. But I still don't think she'd end up with someone like Aaron, who probably matches her too much and who she likely has zero physical attraction for.

reply

rtcnz, i couldn't agree more. if i were jane, i would be with aaron in a nanosecond over mr. bland & boring pretty boy tom.

she must have been subconsciously thinking that tom's good looks would help fulfill some self-esteem void in her. but, aaron was already her friend and they shared a proven history and a respect for one another. i can't figure it out.

aaron is so funny and sexy and smart and sexy and sweet and sexy and accomplished and sexy.

this is one of the best movies ever. ever.

reply

Aaron was the perfect match for her, they are both smart, relatively unattractive eggheads who have some depth to their personalities. Jane was an idiot in one sense, she should have seen through Tom long before, in fact she did and then got taken in by his good looks.

reply

Between the two,Tom had more power, is better looking and probably will earn more money, all of which often trumps personality and brains.

'Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac' - Henry Kissinger

reply

OMG, Aaron was awful! Yes, the character was well acted, but that's why I hated him so much. How can anyone be on the side of the character who sabotaged Tom's relationship with Jane just because he couldn't have her?

The night she should have spent with Tom, Aaron emotionally blackmailed her out of leaving him, and then coldly dismissed her once he had ensured he'd ruined their night.

Aaron was whiney, needy, jealous, petty and pathetic. Brilliantly acted but NOT the hero of this movie.

Hurt was everything he was supposed to be and his portrayal of the character was perfect.

Holly was great but I didn't like her character.

Don't argue with idiots-they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience

reply