MovieChat Forums > Morning Glory (2010) Discussion > Rachel McAdams's character is repulsive

Rachel McAdams's character is repulsive

posted 13 years ago by fletcbk
14 replies | jump to latest

This is probably the most repulsive character I've seen in a movie this year, with no values or intelligence, made all the worse by the fact that she's shoved down our throats as a likable, sunny hero we're supposed to root for.

She is obnoxiously "perky" (which is fine, but this is more like 5th grade stupidity for a grown woman) the entire movie and never grows up as a person. She never learns anything, acts like she has something to teach a legendary newsman like Mike Pomeroy, and never listens to anyone wiser than her.

The most repellant thing about her character is that she's stupid. This isn't someone who's deep down smart but thinks cheap stunts appealing to the masses will bring in big ratings, she is one of those idiots who enjoys those stunts. The fact that she is so gleeful about resorting to lowest common denominator tactics to bring in ratings made me really cringe whenever she was on screen.

And instead of portraying this woman as the type of village fool ruining the news for the sake of ratings or have her get her success but mourn the loss of her soul, Harrison Ford's character is portrayed as the one who needs to change or "grow up." This man who wants to actually use the news for what it should be used for is depicted as this arrogant baby who could really learn something from the McAdams character. Utterly stomach churning

[–] europolski_88 13 years ago

I respectfully disagree.

This is actually a pretty fair representation of the broadcast world... like she says to Ford's character, "we can either get the ratings up, or have a lot of high-minded ideas and NOT be on the air." You have to know your audience, know what your audience is looking for and wants, and know what piques their interest, and what causes them to look for the remote. Becky did just that - she buried her head in those ratings charts and figured out what it was that REALLY got the viewers excited, and went with it.
That it turned out to be a little more fluff than news, well, on a morning show, that's not so surprising, as morning newscasts do alternate between the fun/fluff segments and hard news. Too much of either is not good, as this movie's plot pretty much showed: too much hard news of the stone-faced Mike Pomeroy variety is dull, boring, unengaging... too much mindless chatter like that of Lisa the "rejuvenizator" is purely obnoxious.

Also, when you think about it, he was hired as an anchor on the morning show... you gotta be an anchor on the morning show then, and watch any morning news program and you'll see that there's the banter, the chuckles, light-hearted convo and stories, to take the weight off the more serious stuff. That's what morning shows are there for, to give people a roundup of what's up, but do it in a comfortable way while they're literally eating their breakfast and sipping tea or coffee. Until he realized that Becky was a good producer and was going to leave and started doing the cooking segment, Mike Pomeroy was essentially refusing to do his job.

I have written freelance for a site called Examiner.com, and my topic was "foreign policy." Well, imagine my surprise when I had poor viewership of my articles... because people tend to gravitate more towards entertainment, gossip, sex&dating, food, etc... things that had little to nothing to do with my assigned topic. So no wonder when I saw other "examiners" that wrote about those things getting the top-5 viewerships month-to-month, while I struggled.
People don't always just want hard, serious stuff... and if that's your audience, you gotta adapt, or fall behind.
That's reality, in both these online freelancing websites, and in broadcast television especially.
How many TV shows, be they dramatic or sitcom, have you seen on various networks that YOU liked, for instance, but didn't really resonate with much of the rest of the polled population? And you were frustrated to not see the show renewed for another season, or even picked up past the first six episodes? That's just how it is: if the ratings are in the crapper, and they STAY down there, and then actually find a way to get EVEN LOWER, then you get cancelled. Simple as that.
So Becky actually did what she needed to do, she did her work, did her research, and found out what was needed to make the show work. If she was STUPID as you say, then she would've just let the show linger on for the six weeks and not bother to change anything in a vain hope that it will get better. But she became proactive and got the ratings up. Kudos to her, I'd say :p

[–] fletcbk 13 years ago

I have to admit that you probably don't want a convo about this as you responded three months after my initial post (I left the thread for dead a long time ago but stumbled upon it now). What you're essentially advocating is that everything she did was okay because it kept the show on the air. BUT why does it deserve to be on the air if you have to make it a piece of **** to keep it there? That's the only true side to it. Examiner is junk and it SHOULD go out of business, you dumbing yourself down just to compete with tabloid trash isn't responsible journalism.

It is no shocker to me that world events don't sell as much as celebrity gossip but you know what? That isn't something to emulate. Just because people would rather watch the Kardashian wedding than starving Somalians doesn't mean that's what you give them. Here's something you probably don't know: news used to lose money. It is only a recent trend that TV news be ratings driven and suck up to the lowest common denominator. PLUS, what McAdams's character is doing is even worse than what's on most Daytime TV in reality, so the movie is doubly repulsive for suggesting this is the way Daytime TV ought to go.

Your argument is--I guess--that as long as you stay in business you're a "winner" or a smart person but the ones who get cancelled are the idiots, and that really couldn't be more wrong. What this movie advocates is a character that will do (literally) anything to stay on the air, will throw any cheap trick she can, and constantly tries to browbeat the only actual newsman in the room into submission (and yet somehow she has a high horse early on about Ty Burrell's character's work ethic, what a hypocritical piss ant). To say that this lady is a role model or smart or something to aspire to is, I'm sorry, a pretty dumb thing to say.

[–] DC-Tiki 13 years ago

You only bring up some pretty valid points that I hadn't considered but tend to agree with.

[–] DenLilleHavfrue85 12 years ago

Fletcbk, I see what you're saying and I understand - I don't know how people can be so immersed in Jersey Shore or the Kardashians and just ignore what's going on in the real world. However, I can see what the person that replied to you is saying as well. Darfur, AIDS issues in third world countries, the tragedy that is the government of Burma - all important things to know about and to care about. But there has to be some kind of balance. I personally can't devote all of my energy to learning about starving Somalians 24/7, and I doubt you can either. You comment on the IMDb forums and you watched this film so you obviously make plenty of time for entertainment yourself.

Becky clearly had very high regard for Mike's prestigious career in journalism as evidenced by her initial reaction to meeting him in the elevator and then in her dogged attempt to recruit him to her show. But she also knew that she was hired to produce a morning show and not the evening news. She needed lighter stories in addition to the more heavy-hitting ones. Also, keep in mind that morning shows are much longer than the 11 o'clock news, so there's more room (and a necessity) for a variety of topics.

Also, the other poster was very respectful to you and presented his/her opinion in an intelligent manner. In my opinion, it was unnecessary for you to insult that person in such a pompous, arrogant way.

"I don't want to make money. I just want to be wonderful."

[–] jnic7594 11 years ago

I have to agree with europolski here. Morning shows like the Today show and similar shows try to balance entertainment and news. That's the way they've been for many years because, by doing this, they appeal to a wider audience. Plus, many people tune in for some of this light news and entertainment on morning shows because they don't want to be inundated with heavy news stories while they are heading off to work and starting their day. If people want to see straight news with no frills, then they can tune into CNN or any other strictly news station. Most know not to tune into morning shows for the same type of coverage. The bottom line is, as a morning show, Daybreak is competing with other morning shows that have similar content. If they changed it from entertainment news to strict news, then they are moving in a totally different direction and would likely loose even more viewers. I think what you wanted to see was a strict news show, and that's not what morning shows are about.

[–] cold_sky 11 years ago

Actually, I know someone exactly like that character. I can't agree with you on the repulsive thing, that's an opinion, but her character is kind of the point. Some people in real life are like that. I mean, by the end of the film, you get the usual morale: don't let your job become you and don't become your job. Enjoy life. Of course, her understanding of the morale is to put the phone in the fridge and have sex.

Which isn't unlike the person I know irl either. So very believable, imo. Even if you didn't like it :)

[–] jquick99 11 years ago

I don't know about "repulsive", but she sure is annoying as hell. I couldn't take 10 minutes of her.

[–] IMDbeans 11 years ago

All I want to say to that is:
1) you apparently don't understand comedy
2) you apparently don't understand television!

[–] parisel 11 years ago

I couldn't watch it because of Rachel Mcdams. She has to learn that mugging isn't acting. You have to do more than have an insipid smile on your face all the time.

I guess it's like looking at clouds. You see one thing and I see another. Peace.

[–] CatalinaThePirate 11 years ago

But don't you think that was the whole idea? The role asked for that kind of character. I loved the whole "Are you going to ...sing?" gag because that's what Becky was! Over the top! I found it interesting that Becky began to do her hair a little differently when she finally understood - she wanted to be taken more seriously. So she didn't take the Today Show job? Maybe Becky didn't make a HUGE leap to respectability (which IMO would have been a bit more unreal), but she figured out who she was and how to enjoy life as well as the job (and so did Mike). What good is it if you find you are at the top of your game, but miserable?

The role of Becky Fuller required the kind of acting you think is Rachel McAdam's fault. McAdams has done many roles that didn't ask her to smile insipidly, and done them well (IMO). The character of Becky just wasn't your type. <shrug> No need to criticize an actor for doing her job.

Semper Absurdus

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

But don't you think that was the whole idea? The role asked for that kind of character.

Exactly!

Judged by some of the threads on this board (the OP's being a prime example)there seem to be a sizeable number of posters who have completely misread the themes of this movie.

It is not attempting to advocate soft early morning news over hard news.

The fact is there is a demand for products such as Daybreak, whether we like it or not. I personally rarely ever watch them.

But the movie is concerned with the dynamics involved in resurrecting a successful format of the show. The prime mover in such a reboot is Becky the executive producer and yes, she is an energetic, resilient, creative, positive professional. She has to be to drag the production team along with her on the vision she has for the show.

I really liked her character and can only shake my head in disbelief, when others use terms to describe her such as the OP has done.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fletcbk 9 years ago

You know what it is? The kind of person that would probably watch this movie is probably more on the page of Rachel McAdams than Harrison Ford.

I just feel like the kind of people who would get what I'm saying might have skipped this movie entirely because it looked so ***** and thus wouldn't be on here commenting at all.

[–] sockscats-1 9 years ago

Repulsive is too strong a word but i do agree with the "obnoxiously perky" line. She was way over the top but sexy as hell.

One of the major failures of the film is that they never get you to really give a damn about her. You almost want her to get dumped or fired.

Seems to me we had a film that just tried way too hard to be cool and hip and an actress trying too hard.