Note: Back to the Movies is a special feature on the FilmNerds blog in which Matt Scalici will be watching the Top 50 highest-grossing movies of 1983 in order from 50 to 1.

There are a lot of things about Terms Of Endearment that make it a unique Best Picture winner and indeed unique in the history of American film but I think fearlessness is the trait that sticks out the most. Cynicism and emotional distance are pretty much the norm when it comes to mainstream American film in the last 30 years in particular. To make a film so unafraid of talking about the parts of life that are the most difficult to think about takes a certain amount of fearlessness and James L. Brooks takes on each of these difficult emotional minefields with no fear of coming off as sappy or manipulative.

For audiences, there was no controversy or divided opinions. It was a runaway hit, the likes of which have rarely been seen for any film that bears any resemblance to Terms of Endearment. After opening nationally on November 25, Terms of Endearment kept on chugging at the box office, grabbing the No. 1 spot at the box office in seven different weekends (not all consecutive either). It remained in the top five at the box office all the way until March 16th of 1984, by which time it made over $88 million. The film eventually topped out at $102 million domestically and with a production budget of $8 million, it remains one of the most profitable films ever made.

To some critics in 1983, however, the sappy and manipulative labels were used to help them explain the seemingly inexplicable runaway success of Terms of Endearment. Brooks at one point felt the need to defend the film from such criticism, despite his movie’s overwhelming success with both audiences and most other critics, with a passionate yet reasonable explanation of what it truly means to be “manipulative” in your filmmaking:

“Okay, so what’s manipulative? This woman gets ill. That’s a manipulation? No, because we don’t ask anybody to feel the things you usually ask an audience to feel by virtue of that. We don’t ask them to feel sorry for anybody. We don’t jerk tears. And it’s not sugar-coated either. I think we serve truth, and I think we serve comedy. Truth first, comedy second. If you talk to five people about this picture, they end up talking about themselves; that’s how unmanipulated they are, there’s room for them to put their own lives and their own history in it. I don’t respect the thought process that comes up with an easy word like manipulation. There are shots to take at this picture. Not that one, though.”

Brooks is, of course, correct in his portrayal of his film as both deeply emotional but not sugar-coated. The emotions displayed by the characters in Terms of Endearment are unpredictable yet understandable, just like real emotions. You never quite know how you are going to feel about a given situation until you are living through it yourself and how these characters react to things like age, infidelity and death are not quite the reactions that you see in most movies, but neither are the reactions of most real human beings to similar situations.

Our two leading ladies are Aurora and Emma, a mother and daughter pair played by Shirley MacLaine and Debra Winger respectively. From the opening shots of the film it’s made clear that they have a bit of an unusual relationship as far as mothers and daughters go but it only seems unusual to us because the characters themselves are a bit odd. Brooks has become known over the years for making his characters a tad overly quirky but I think while Emma and certainly Aurora could be accurately described as eccentric, neither of them are too over the the top in their quirkiness.

The film spans a pretty considerable period of time, at least ten years, in the lives of these two women and shows us their individual struggles as well as the development of their relationship with one another. Emma runs off to marry a dopey English professor named Flap (Jeff Daniels) and soon has a gaggle of children with him while the widow Aurora attempts to find love and happiness in her advanced years. Without question the Aurora storyline is the more light-hearted and comedic half of the film, thanks in large part to the Oscar-winning performance of Jack Nicholson as Garrett Breedlove, Aurora’s amorous ex-astronaut neighbor.

As a 2011 viewer, Nicholson’s performance feels like a lot of other Nicholson performances. It’s Jack being Jack, the slightly drunken cad who does and says as he pleases even if it’s shocking to others. That said, this may be a case of a film establishing an idea that later became a trope and we certainly can’t fault a film for being endlessly copied later. At this point in Nicholson’s career he was one of the most respected dramatic actors in the business, just a few years removed from a terrifyingly intense performance in The Shining. Seeing Nicholson’s confidence and arrogance incorporated into a comedic character was a relatively new idea (he did it in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest but that’s not an entirely comedic performance and he was a much younger actor). I believe Terms of Endearment may have been the very first instance of Nicholson becoming the persona that he is today: the sunglass wearing, hard-partying, sharp-tongued playboy we’d come to see in many of Nicholson’s later roles, including Brooks’ As Good As It Gets.

Nicholson gets to play all his scenes opposite the film’s other Academy Award winner, Shirley MacLaine who is absolutely exploding with emotion in nearly every scene. She plays an irrational woman but a woman who simply embraces her intense emotions and runs with them.

And while MacLaine brought home the gold, her co-star and competitor in the Best Actress race in 1983 Debra Winger packs no less of an emotional punch as a woman who faces everything from poverty to homesickness to a cheating husband and eventually cancer and does it all without losing her sense of humor or her appetite for life. Winger’s Emma is an enormously complex woman but not complex in a dark way. She is in no way a perfect person, particularly as a mother. She takes care of her kids but doesn’t seem overly concerned with their emotional or psychological well-being. It’s almost as if she’s dragging them along with her through her life, another challenge to be overcome with her boundless optimism.

That said it’s hard to dislike anyone with as positive an outlook as Emma. Even when things are at their most dire, such as the heart-wrenching scene in which she tells her two older sons goodbye for the last time from her hospital bed, she never seems as though the troubles of her life have gotten the best of her.

There are later scenes during the portion of the movie focused around Emma’s illness that quickly switch between deeply sad and lighthearted, even funny. That shift in tone is what makes Terms of Endearment feel so much more like real life than most films of its ilk. People react in many different ways to difficult times, including using humor or trying to change the tone in the room. Brooks allows his character to experience their emotions but like any of us would want to in that situation, he shows them doing their best to maintain their dignity and composure.

There are a few supporting performances worth noting here as well, particularly the Oscar-nominated performance of John Lithgow as Emma’s kind-hearted and downtrodden Midwestern lover. His sad predicament is almost darkly funny though we certainly aren’t meant to feel anything but sympathy for him. Danny DeVito is also brilliant as a strange little character named Vernon, one of a group of older men who seem to hang around Aurora hoping to win her affection.

Terms of Endearment felt special and even revolutionary to audiences in 1983 because, like many of the greatest films ever made, it seemed to re-create life in a way other films hadn’t before. That’s a quest that filmmakers have always been on and continue to strive towards today but not all of them are able to achieve it while still maintaining their entertainment value. Terms of Endearment is the rare film that both entertains us and touches on something truly authentic.

DOWNLOAD: Back to the Movies Podcast – Terms of Endearment (with guest Ben Flanagan)

Next Up: We end our Back to the Movies journey by partying with the Ewoks! It’s Return of the Jedi.

This week on Cinematrimony, Matt and Francesca Scalici discuss Woody Allen’s ode to the City of Lights, Midnight in Paris. Find out why Matt thinks this could be Allen’s most commercially successful ever and what the non-Allen fan Francesca thinks of the film.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD: Cinematrimony – Midnight in Paris

The FilmNerds RoundTable returns with an all-new supersized podcast! Listen as Matt Scalici, Graham Flanagan, Ben Flanagan, Ben Stark and Craig Hamilton discuss J.J. Abrams’ nostalgic sci-fi thriller Super 8. To download the podcast, click the link below or find us on iTunes by searching ‘filmnerds’.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD – Super 8 RoundTable Podcast

This week on Cinematrimony, Matt and Francesca Scalici discuss J.J. Abrams’ ode to Spielbergian cinema, Super 8. Things get a little chippy as Francesca questions whether the film’s refreshing sense of nostalgia might be earning it a bit too much hype. Meanwhile, Matt hunkers down to defend the film as a potential early Best Picture contender.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD: Cinematrimony – Super 8

(WARNING: This podcast contains spoilers so don’t listen unless you’ve already seen the film!)

Note: Back to the Movies is a special feature on the FilmNerds blog in which Matt Scalici will be watching the Top 50 highest-grossing movies of 1983 in order from 50 to 1.

By far the most baffling title in the top ten list from the 1983 box office, Flashdance became a massive commercial success and remains to this day a major cultural touchstone in spite of being an absolutely, unequivocally awful movie. It was trashed by nearly every critic upon its release in April of 1983 and from the few reviews I’ve read, the critics back did nothing but point out the obvious: that this is a poorly directed weak script performed by mediocre actors. And yet the movie prevailed at the box office, not just as a surprising sleeper hit but as one of the most spectacular success stories of the early ’80s, hauling in almost $95 million domestically. That’s the equivalent of a 2011 film grossing $205 million – and we’re talking about a dance movie!

I should clarify what I mean by dance movie, since there’s not really a generally accepted name for this subgenre of movies that was essentially started by Fame in 1980. My best attempt at a description would be to say a dance movie is a film about professional dancers and plays out in a plot structure similar to that of sports movies, only in this case the sport is dance. The difference is that rather than trying to “win” at a sport, the characters in dance movies are striving to express themselves or achieve some kind of personal milestone through dance. A few good examples of this genre would be Footloose, Dirty Dancing and more recently movies like Center Stage and Step Up.

I confess I’ve always had a tough time understanding the appeal of this genre, though it’s clear to me that there’s a huge portion of the population that absolutely can’t get enough. I asked a friend of the FilmNerds crew, Suzanne Flanagan (who works with the famed Martha Graham Dance Company in New York and also happens to be the sister of FilmNerds contributors Graham and Ben Flanagan) for some insight into this subgenre, of which she admits to being a big fan:

“I think dance movies have wide appeal because their story lines are highlighted with raw talent. Like any sports movie, you’re getting that ‘wow factor’ mixed in with the American dream. Often, these movies are about characters defying the odds, and proving someone wrong. This scenario is the perfect recipe for a montage- which are always my favorite scenes.

I like dance movies because I like dance; it’s plain and simple, I love to be entertained. Dance is an expressive extension of the excitement and drama that we crave when sitting still for a movie.”

Suzanne also explained that as a fan of dance in general she enjoys watching older dance films to see the evolution of choreography over the years, certainly a scholarly pursuit that I have respect for although I don’t believe most fans of Flashdance appreciate it for its value as a historical document of early ’80s choreography.

One thing that Suzanne touched on there that I think is a very big part of this movie’s success (as well as the success of the genre as a whole) is the prominent role of musical montages in the film. Many critics (including Roger Ebert who absolutely excoriates the movie in his original review here) pointed out that the film seemed to be a series of loosely strung together musical montages that seemed more focused on fast-paced cutting, flashy imagery and music than on advancing the story or developing the characters. While I’d hardly want to call Flashdance a misunderstood film, I do think the critics at the time were incorrectly perceiving this clearly intentional directorial choice as unintentionally bad directing and editing work.

Two years before Flashdance hit theaters, MTV hit the airwaves and redefined the way American teenagers experienced music. Dance became a much bigger part of the music industry as it was very commonly featured in early music videos and I believe director Adrian Lyne’s experience as a commercial and music video director led him to immediately see the potential connection between what MTV was doing and what the viewers of a movie like Flashdance would like to see. Fortunately for Lyne, he had quite an impressive soundtrack to pull from for his self-contained music videos within the movie.

The Flashdance soundtrack album, composed largely of songs written by pop songwriter Giorgio Moroder (whose work we’ve already heard in Scarface and Superman III) was one of the first examples of a soundtrack and a film working in synergy to help drive sales for one another. Moroder’s title track “Flashdance…What a Feeling” performed by Irene Cara won the Academy Award for Best Original Song in 1983 and helped lead the way for the soundtrack album’s stunning 700,000 sales in the first two weeks of release. The soundtrack actually spawned a second Oscar nominated song, Michael Sembello’s mega-hit “Maniac”, but the song was later disqualified after it came to light that the song was written years before the film was even in production.

Most of the songs are used in sequences involving either star Jennifer Beals rehearsing or auditioning or one of her fellow “exotic dancers” at the nightclub she works in performing for the patrons. One of the major points picked on by many critics was the fact that this so-called strip club named Mawby’s features girls doing very intense dances on staged essentially fully clothed (meanwhile down the street the “evil” strip club features actual nudity). It’s an utterly absurd plot point but in a movie with so many other absurdities (like the fact that an 18-year-old girl has a job at a steel welding factory), it’s only a drop in the bucket of madness.

As self-contained music videos, many of these sequences are pretty impressive to look at, particularly the ice skating sequence about halfway through the film set to Laura Branigan’s pop hit “Gloria”. Lyne shows off his mastery of the frenetic filmmaking that had become so popular in commercials and music videos of the day and although the sequence has essentially nothing to do with the rest of the movie (the ice skater herself is a completely pointless character who has no impact on the life of our lead heroine) it does oddly grab my attention.

Probably the most famous sequence from the film, Alex’s rehearsal for the prestigious conservatory she’s been trying all these weeks to get into, was embroiled in a bit of controversy in the years following the film’s release when it was learned that Beals did very little of the actual dancing. In fact, three separate body doubles (including a man named Crazy Legs) substituted in for Beals during the more intense dance moves and the editing of the sequence, again criticized heavily by most critics, was almost completely geared toward trying to conceal the faces of the body doubles rather than being a creative choice by Lyne.

Despite the film’s overwhelming success at the box office, almost none of the participants went on to reach the heights they reached in Flashdance ever again, with the exception of Lyne who scored another massive and Oscar-nominated hit in 1987 with Fatal Attraction and two other popular sexy thrillers with Indecent Proposal in 1993 and Unfaithful in 2002. Beals made very little impact in the years following Flashdance and recently had a bit of a comeback as a TV star on Showtime’s The L Word and a handful of other rather unremarkable TV shows. Her male co-star Michael Nouri had an even less remarkable post-Flashdance career, starring mostly in TV movies and soap operas.

Sequel plans never materialized and even a recent attempt to create a Broadway musical based on the movie with music by Moroder couldn’t get off the ground. I think the weakness of the story has essentially kept the film from taking life in any other form but the phenomenal popularity of the music and the iconic dance sequences within the film will ensure this film’s long-term status as a cultural phenomenon of its time and a perfect time capsule of 1983 American pop culture.

DOWNLOAD: Back to the Movies Podcast – Flashdance (with guest Francesca Scalici)

Next Up: Jack Nicholson and Shirley McClain attempt to wring tears from my stony face in Terms of Endearment.

A blog post about the Pirates of the Caribbean movies? Man, I just keep digging myself deeper and deeper into this populist hole.

Avast, to the isle of Tortuga!

At this point, the fourth Pirates of the Caribbean film has made over $620 million worldwide. Its success makes the decision to green-light a fifth film a no-brainer for Disney and producer Jerry Bruckheimer, but I – along with most of the internet film nerd community – think there is reason to pause and re-consider an immediate course of action.

The dirt sheets are reporting that Johnny Depp isn’t sure he wants to come back for another turn as the series’ fulcrum point, Jack Sparrow. In addition, initial director Gore Verbinski has no interest in returning, and it’s questionable whether or not On Stranger Tides director Rob Marshall will be back. Reportedly, one of the series’ writers, Ted Elliot, has broken off a long-standing partnership with Terry Rossio and opted out of a fifth film, as well. Finally, the fourth film’s critical reception has been the lowest of all the (admittedly ill-received) sequels, with a 33% Rotten Tomatoes score.

So, we have the film nerds turning down a fifth helping, along with the lead actor, one of the writers, and a creative direction that is unclear and shaky. And yet, the newest film has a 65% user score on Rotten Tomatoes (granted, that’s barely passing), and again, has made over $620 million worldwide in just 12 days. Is it a bad business decision to overlook a lack of direction and meaningful interest for a potential cash-in on a popular brand? Yes, it absolutely is. The studio has a responsibility to itself to grow its brand, right?

Actually, no. I would argue that the ever-speedy downfall of Hollywood studios has been a blind determination to grow, despite most practical business sense pointing to the idea of diversification. Disney practices diversification across all of its interests, but doesn’t apply the idea to its stories, for some reason. The mistake the studio and the creative team behind this franchise have made is putting all of the stock of the Pirates of the Caribbean idea into the character of Jack Sparrow. There is no better evidence of this than this latest movie. My wife and I watched it this past weekend, and it is not the atrocious manifesto of Hollywood excess many critics have made it out to be. It is, however, a very boring and visually flat movie lacking a tangible emotional core. Say what you will about the first three movies – and maybe I’m alone in this – but by the end of At World’s End, I was invested in seeing Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley end up together. In On Stranger Tides, there is a muddy and confusing love story between characters played by Johnny Depp and Penelope Cruz that has the strangest, most unsettling conclusion of any love story I’ve ever seen. Seriously, it’s almost brilliant in its emotional chaos.

Regardless, with this Sparrow-centric and visually dead entry, Bruckheimer and Disney have completely forsaken what makes this franchise special: the world. Think back to the them park ride the first film was based on… Did you go on that ride a thousand times for one character? For the thrills? For the laughs? No, you went because it was the best, most immersing anima-tronic ride at DisneyWorld (or the original at DisneyLand, depending on your geography). What is so satisfying about the original trilogy? The world that Gore Verbinski created is alive. Yes, the scripts are overloaded, the motivations are hard to follow, the formula is cynically transparent. However, in addition to delivering memorable characterizations, Verbinski crafted a fantasy landscape that is amazingly real and textural. In one film, he LITERALLY has characters emerging from the production design, and you believe it immediately because of the sun-burnt and corroded veneer that is smeared all over everything you see.

To be honest, that’s what brought me back to the theaters for the third movie. I had a lot of problems with the annoying onslaught of sequel cliches and character quips in Dead Man’s Chest, but in the interest of full transparency, going to a Pirates movie during the summer is the next-best thing to going to the beach itself. The atmosphere and the whimsical, anachronistic tone of these things is like candy. I found the third film to be really satisfying as a conclusion to a high-stakes love story, and as a further expansion of the series’ world. I just want to spend more time in this era, in this place, with these rules, but On Stranger Tides flat-out failed at giving that to me. If further entries can’t perpetuate the world, the whole thing isn’t worth it. So, let me re-state one simple statement:

Jack Sparrow is a supporting character.

For this franchise to be useful, interesting, or profitable in a long-term sense, Disney/Bruckheimer have to diversify. They cannot just react and feed specific fan appetite, because Jack Sparrow is tethered to Johnny Depp, and Depp should have the freedom to roam. Seriously, we may have lost of one of the best actors of his generation to the cynical workings of the Hollywood system. Let the guy experiment without Disney or Tim Burton spurring it on.

"Lost my pearlies in the war!"

Disney should take hints from their biggest recent acquisition, Marvel. In their films and in their comics, Marvel tries hard to let the universe be king, rather than individual personalities. This allows stories to grow organically out of circumstance and contrast rather than marketing tactics or “screen” time. The Marvel Studio’s biggest cinematic misstep so far has been an over-reliance on star power in Iron Man 2. I am not against the star system, but in the game of expanded story universes, individuals must bow to a greater sense of place.

To be clear, nowhere in this post have I mentioned that I want this series to die. I just want it to survive healthily, instead of by artificial hype and repetition. So, here’s what would I like to see from the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, and what I think is necessary for the brand to stay alive beyond eventual fan fatigue:

1. Kick Out Jack Sparrow.

Again, Depp’s creation is a fun supporting character, but he’s become the false lead in this series. The “franchise lead hand-off” is a blockbuster maneuver that I can’t recall ever working, but it is something that seems to be happening to Jeremy Renner for both the Bourne series and the Mission:Impossible series. It’s a bold and painful move to separate a franchise from its MVP, but in a case like this, where the world of the story is so rich, I think it must be done.

2. An Expanded Universe.

Disney currently has at least two comics outlets: BOOM! and Marvel. A comic book series, like Dark Horse’s Star Wars comics, that explores ancillary characters and locations in the world of Pirates of the Caribbean would be fantastic, and a natural way to experiment and find new and interesting stories and creations. To be fair, On Stranger Tides does try to introduce a new direction in the form of a martyred missionary character, but the bored script and a dodgy performance just sink the attempt. A direction for a new feature should happen organically, grown out of fan interest in elements of the mythos presented in novels, video games, comics, and an animated series.

You could've tried a bit harder.

3. A Handbook.

Despite my appreciation for Curse of the Black Pearl and At World’s End, they’re plenty messy. In this world, a pirate seems to be a genetic malady. If an expanded universe does get created, things need to become clearer and stay that way. Disney: Pay Verbinski, Bruckheimer, Rossio, and Elliot a couple bucks to spend some time to make a “bible” for these stories. Rules, geography, and physical limitations are essential.

4. Some Respect.

On the great movie podcast All Movie Talk, co-host Stephen Keller once lamented that if only the American public had been more intelligent in 2003, we would have a Master & Commander trilogy rather than a Pirates trilogy. I agree with this to a certain degree, but I do appreciate the fantasy elements of these movies. That said, for my tastes, there could be more direct nods to the great swashbucklers in cinema history. Captain Blood, The Sea Hawk, and even Hook are adventures worthy of borrowing from and paying homage to.

Michael Curtiz' The Sea Hawk

5. Escape The Formula.

This latest film has only gone to show that the series has worked itself into a structural rut. It’s always a tricky balancing act to observe tradition and to fight formula in movie series. The case here is = [(Johnny Depp + Dueling Villians + Tragic Love Story + Sailor Mythology) Over Two Hours]. None of these, outside of the sailor mythology, are what make these movies special.  Color outside the lines, guys.

6. Thriftiness.

Here’s the big one. Disney/Bruckheimer are going to make fat bank off of another Pirates movie, so they’re logically going to spend another $200 million to make it. What if Depp isn’t on board, though? Will fans still come out to see it? It’s a sloppy catch-22, and should have been avoided by this point. If they’re serious about maintaining the Pirates brand, after testing the waters a bit with comics and games and animated series, the suits would be smart to show some thrift. Get a lean, mean script with interesting characters and a sharp dynamic, and shoot it for $60 million, with fantastic actors looking for a break. More studios could learn from District 9 and Hellboy, both of which created vivid, imaginative worlds for way less than $100 million. I should add that this is just a wiser practice in general. If Hollywood filmmakers could actually budget their mind-blowing allowances, there would be a lot more room to experiment and to make interesting movies, both of which – in the long term – make money.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

But there’s the problem, right? Studios like Disney and Bruckheimer and the rest need a fast turnaround to satiate investors watching quarterly profits. So, a lean, mean Pirates picture might not pay off with $600 million worldwide in 12 days. However, it may very well make $300 million over a few months, build word-of-mouth, make for a successful home video release, build interest in other stories within the brand, promote new characters in the world of the story, and ultimately pay off with a sequel that makes over $1 billion. If this seems like a sure thing, that’s because it’s EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED with the first and second films in the series. However, that kind of strategy takes more patience, more discipline, more risk, and more trial-and-error than bloated Hollywood studios can afford… or more than they think they can afford, at least.

Regardless, I wish the best for the franchise, despite feeling like one of the few internet movie geeks that actually enjoys these movies. I feel they’ve yet to reach their full potential, which is quite obviously within grasp. There really are some great adventure stories to be told in the world of Pirates of the Caribbean. But alas, until Jerry gets my fruit basket and starts returning my text messages, I’ll just have to settle for listening to Hans Zimmer’s amazing At World’s End score on loop while watching Corona commercials on YouTube.