"CATCH YOU FUCKERS AT A BAD TIME?"

The Client

July 20, 1994

And now we come to a 1994 artifact that doesn’t seem that dated culturally, except it’s in a genre – the legal thriller – that doesn’t really exist on this level anymore. Not as a slick, shot on location, big time theatrical summer release.

THE CLIENT is the third movie adapted from a novel by John Grisham, after THE FIRM and THE PELICAN BRIEF (both released in 1993). The book was his fourth, also released in 1993. The movie had a $45 million budget (more than THE SHADOW, SPEED or CITY SLICKERS II, almost as much as THE FLINTSTONES!) and was a big hit, making $117 million worldwide. Movies like this were a big deal then!

This one is directed by Joel Schumacher, his followup to FALLING DOWN (<—click on that, it’s one of my better reviews I think), and adapted for the screen by first-timer Akiva Goldsman and Robert Getchell (ALICE DOESN’T LIVE HERE ANYMORE). It’s kind of a weird story, honestly. Eleven year old Memphis trailer park tough kid Mark Sway (Brad Renfro) and his little brother Ricky (David Speck) sneak off to the woods to smoke stolen cigarettes, and they see a guy (Walter Olkewicz, TWIN PEAKS: FIRE WALK WITH ME) pull up in a car and attempt suicide by carbon monoxide. When Mark tries to be a good samaritan the guy pulls him into the car and tries to pivot to a murder-suicide.

Turns out he’s a mob lawyer from New Orleans who’s being forced to testify and would rather commit suicide. He babbles about somebody named Barry “The Blade” Muldano and a body buried near a boathouse. Mark and his brother manage to escape, but witness the guy blowing his own head off.

Will Patton (AFTER HOURS) plays a police officer who finds Mark hiding nearby, brings him home, helps his mom (Mary-Louise Parker, BULLETS OVER BROADWAY) bring little brother Ricky, now catatonic, to the hospital, even though she has no insurance. The kid stays catatonic and “very sick” with P.T.S.D. for the rest of the movie.

I was tempted to take Patton as his character from the David Gordon Green HALLOWEEN trilogy, but then he started acting sinister. He’s so sneaky about trying to prove Mark heard something from the lawyer that you assume he’s with the mob, trying to eliminate witnesses.

It’s actually the opposite. He’s finding evidence for U.S. Attorney “Reverend Roy” Foltrigg (Tommy Lee Jones, last seen in BLOWN AWAY) to prosecute the fuckers. Reverend Roy is called Reverend Roy because he sounds like a preacher and quotes the Bible. He’s one of those hot shot, rock star, household name U.S. Attorneys, just like all of the U.S. Attorneys you and I know about and could name and have posters of in our locker. He’s very vain and only cares about getting on TV all the time, characteristics we know because of a couple of good scenes where he’s preoccupied with that sort of thing, and also because of a terrible one where talking heads on TV straight up say that about him. (Schumacher and Goldsman have never been known for trusting their audience.)

The kid worries he’ll get killed if he talks, so he keeps lying about it and then walks around downtown Memphis looking for a lawyer to defend him, and comes across Reggie Love (Susan Sarandon, THE HUNGER, THELMA & LOUISE, LIGHT SLEEPER). There’s a fun scene where Mark goes to meet with Roy and his gang, asks if he should talk to a lawyer, and they say no, lawyers are a pain in the ass. He asks to go to the bathroom and Reggie comes in and reveals that she’s representing him and recorded them saying that.

So Reggie is impressive and enjoys sticking it to the man, but also the kid lies to her, they get in some fights, his mom gets mad at her thinking she’s trying to be his mom (and we learn that she has some failed mother issues). But she tries to stand up for his rights, his trailer is burned down, he gets locked in a women’s jail but escapes, they go off and figure out where the body is themselves and there’s some running and being shot at by mobsters and that sort of business.

Also there’s a part where Reggie comments on Mark’s Led Zeppelin t-shirt and he says “What were the names of their first four albums, Miss Groupie?” I only heard of that stereotype about sexist guys quizzing women about a band they like in recent years, but I guess it’s been around for at least 30. (She waits until she’s about to leave to ace his quiz, of course.)

Grisham is from Memphis, and I enjoyed seeing his city in the movie. Of course, Schumacher seems like as much of a tourist there as me – he gets a shot of the Elvis Presley Memorial Wing in the hospital, has a mobster with an Elvis Pez dispenser, and an Elvis impersonator in the E.R. He’s big on making everybody sweaty all the time, and some of the dialogue and accents seem like patronizing stereotypes of low income southerners to me.

The goofiest, most Schumachery touch is the introduction of Barry “The Blade” Muldano (Anthony LaPaglia, ONE GOOD COP), who looks like exactly the jackass you picture when you hear that ridiculous name. We first meet him as a knife, a gold tooth and a dangly knife-themed earring enjoying a maraschino cherry in a club called “DESIRE.” He has a gold watch, rings and chain and a snakeskin suit with no shirt. It’s really a shame this guy didn’t get to hang out with Saul Rubinek’s character from GETTING EVEN DAD. They seem to be going for the same vibe.

The mobsters in this like to wear loud shirts, what we would now call Dan Flashes shirts. I went into Memphis tourist mode and remembered this store called Lansky Bros. in the Peabody Hotel. It opened on Beale Street in the ’40s, catering to the music scene and eventually becoming associated with Elvis because he supposedly looked in the window all the time as a teenager and then when he became a superstar they provided much of his clothes. I saw some flashy shirt there I kinda liked and then looked at the price tag and it was hundreds of dollars, so I will have to wait until I too become a superstar to shop there. Anyway I was half way convinced these guys were supposed to be regulars there and it was a really good detail, but then I remembered they’re supposed to be from New Orleans. False alarm.

This is one of those crazy casts you sometimes see due to a combination of some-of-these-people-became-more-famous and they-used-to-make-movies-with-casts-like-this. You got J.T. Walsh (RED ROCK WEST) as an FBI guy kissing Reverend Roy’s ass to try to get a better assignment, Ossie Davis (JUNGLE FEVER) as a righteous judge in one scene, Anthony Edwards (DELTA HEAT) as Reggie’s right hand man, Bradley Whitford (A PERFECT WORLD) as one of Roy’s shitty assistant dudes, Kim Coates (THE LAST BOY SCOUT) as a weirdo mob enforcer, William H. Macy (THE LAST DRAGON) as a nice doctor, William Sanderson (THE ROCKETEER) as an FBI agent, and Dan Castellaneta (narrator, SUPER MARIO BROS.) as a paparazzi named Slick.

I wouldn’t say this is a movie I like, but I didn’t have a bad time watching it. Like many thrillers of the era, it’s kinda dumb, but pretty well crafted. It’s exhilarating to see a shot where The Blade is in a crowded club and then walks out onto a crowded New Orleans street. They didn’t need to do it, but they did it. That’s what they did back then. Movies! The nineties!

What’s really odd about it to me (besides the inciting incident being bizarre) is that a plucky lawyer going against the odds to protect the little guy from the system makes it feel like a message movie, but if it is one then the message is about one of the least sensational civil rights matters. Yeah, the kid shouldn’t be forced to testify if he doesn’t want to, but also there really is a murder, it would be cool to have that information, and ultimately he does give it to them. It’s just kind of an odd, circumstantial principle to crusade for in a novel and movie. Maybe this comes out of Grisham’s background as a lawyer. He’s making his lawyer complaints. There must have been some preachy U.S. attorney who really got on his nerves.

Renfro is the secret weapon to making the movie watchable. He had not previously been an actor, and was living with his grandma in a trailer park outside of Knoxville when casting director Mali Finn found him. Schumacher was looking for an authentically tough non-actor, and Finn supposedly considered 5,000 kids around the country before settling on Renfro. Even though they have him dressed in a silly tough kid costume consisting of an adult-sized flannel with the sleeves ripped off he comes off very real. And there are truly few things more painful to watch than a perky child actor pretending to be tough, so it’s kind of a miracle that Schumacher found such a kid and got such a natural performance out of him. I really have not joined the posthumous “Schumacher was actually good” brigade, but I gotta give him credit for that one.

And Sarandon is really something too – in fact, she was nominated for an Oscar for best actress. It doesn’t feel substantial enough for that, but maybe that’s a good thing. It’s a thoroughly likable character and she’s got some alcoholism and stuff in there without having to get too melodramatic about it. In a Joel Schumacher movie! I was attached to her enough that it was very sweet when she had to say goodbye to the kid at the end and gave him a big hug. Jones is also good, obviously, without having to dominate the movie. Just a pinch hitter who gets in there, shows off a little, tries a bit of an accent, then steps aside. (But maybe he got antsy for attention, because in the next year he’d do his two most over-the-top and in my opinion worst performances.)

THE CLIENT made money, it got good reviews, and it’s one of the only movies where one of the bad guys gets startled by a raccoon and shoots it with a silenced pistol. Otherwise it’s less memorable than many of Schumacher’s films, but more tasteful. For whatever that’s worth. I’m CLIENT-neutral, I guess.

* * *

Legacy:

The following year there was one season of a CBS TV show version, with JoBeth Williams as Reggie and John Heard as Roy. It was definitely based on the movie, not just the book, because Ossie Davis reprised his one scene character Judge Harry Roosevelt on 13 of the 22 episodes.

Renfro was a big discovery, of course. He won a bunch of “Young Star” awards, starred in THE CURE and TOM AND HUCK the following year, over his career appeared in APT PUPIL, BULLY, GHOST WORLD, an N.E.R.D. video, and more. Tragically, he spent much of his life in and out of rehab and jail, and died of acute heroin/morphine intoxication at only 25.

Schumacher, Goldsman and Jones all reunited to make BATMAN FOREVER, for which they were presumably paid well, though they also had to go on with their lives knowing deep down that they made BATMAN FOREVER.

Schumacher later did another Grisham movie, A TIME TO KILL, which I remember as being much more ridiculous and offensive than this, but it made Matthew McConaughey into a movie star, so that’s not a bad thing.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 23rd, 2024 at 6:42 pm and is filed under Reviews, Drama, Thriller. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

31 Responses to “The Client”

  1. A friend of mine grew up near Renfro around the same time. He didn’t know him personally, but he said after Renfro became an actor the general vibe among kids was everyone calling him a sellout and a fake etc. That bummed me out, I can imagine how being a trailer park kid who made it big could make it feel like you never really belong in Hollywood, and then you go home and people there don’t accept you anymore (and apparently, he wasn’t the most popular kid before his career). I was born in ’85 and as a kid I did NOT like most child actors I saw in the ’90s, but Renfro was one of the few I liked/respected (and Elijah Wood has always been My Guy). Ghost World is one of my favorite movies that I watch every year or so, and every time I think about Renfro’s lost life and potential.

  2. Man, the “John Grisham movie” is something that you have to explain to younger people, but simply can’t! For a while in the late 90s and early 00s it seemed like we would get every year a new one. Even Francis Ford Coppola and Robert Altman directed each one. And in Germany they are even harder to distinguish, because they all have similar titles (which probably was a marketing gimmick that was brought over from the books). DER KLIENT, DIE AKTE, DIE FIRMA, DIE JURY, DAS URTEIL, etc. I saw parts of one and still have no idea which one it was.

    If you think about it, lawyers were such a big part of 90s popculture. Okay, it was mostly Grisham and David E. Kelley, but it was strange how at one hand they were usually the butt of “Haha, lawyers suck and they are evil and greedy” jokes, but the super smart one who knows how to play the system was the hero of so many stories. And dammit, shows like LA LAW or actually made it look like a really cool job!

    Thank god that trend is over. It went out on top with BOSTON LEGAL*, but I don’t miss it.

    *We still had some courtroom shows and movies afterwards, but none ever became such a popculture hit.

  3. Brad Renfro IS The Client!

    That scene in the trailer probably played before every movie that summer.

    “Do I need a lawyer?”
    What for?
    “To protect my rights.”

  4. Agree CJ Holden – the John Grisham movies (and related legal thrillers where the courtroom is the battle field) are a thing of the past that is hard to explain to the younger generations… I think I saw most of them back in the days, but it was not my favorite genre. But they could always attract good actors – especially in the second roles – and that is maybe their only worth today…
    I wonder what killed that genre – was it simply because there was not much more to tell (they tend to be all built around the same type of narrative, so not a million ways to be innovative) or was it just that lawyers were no longer cool in the 21st century? Or maybe – without being political – the idea of justice became such a blurry mess nowadays that this type of movie could not stick in today’s climate?

  5. I read the first four Grisham books when I was a teenager and could read a book every two or three days so I’d read anything I could lay hands on. They were fine but soon I realized that I just didn’t care about lawyers. Nowadays when I read a plot synopsis that contains the words “lawyer,” “D.A.,” “prosecutor,” “counselor,” or “legal,” I put the book back on the shelf. I started finding it kind of sad that a culture that used to fantasize about swashbucklers, cowboys, war heroes, and space explorers now mostly wanted to fantasize about being some honkey in a suit filling out paperwork all day. What happened to our sense of adventure?

    I’m not 100% sure I watched any of the movies. I must have seen THE FIRM, right? We all saw THE FIRM. It was inescapable. None of us remembered what collective madness drove us to it but we all saw it anyway. That’s just the way we did it in the 90s. We drank Snapple and we saw THE FIRM whether we wanted to or not.

  6. “I started finding it kind of sad that a culture that used to fantasize about swashbucklers, cowboys, war heroes, and space explorers now mostly wanted to fantasize about being some honkey in a suit filling out paperwork all day.”

    In all fairness, the 90s popculture lawver was an appealing hero! Constantly outsmarting his enemies, knowing every loophole to stick it to the man and safe the little guy while being able to make big bucks and spend his nights in huge apartments. Plus: Depending on how unrealistic the stories were, they got their hands dirty, got in fist fights and were shot at when they played detective because the cops were corrupt or too incompetent to get his client off the hook.

    Now the stories, yeah, unless they contained a huge chunk of David E. Kelley quirk, I usually didn’t care for legal dramas, but I can see why during a time when swashbucklers didn’t exist anymore, cowboys were just watching cattle in the desert, we had live broadcasts from war zones that destroyed the “boy’s own adventure” myth of war heroes and space exploration lost all its magic, society dreamed of being the smartass who uses his intellect to beat the system with its own weapons.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a huge wave of people going to law school in the 90s and then dropping out quickly once they realize that it is a boring job with lots of paperwork.

  7. I started finding it kind of sad that a culture that used to fantasize about swashbucklers, cowboys, war heroes, and space explorers now mostly wanted to fantasize about being some honkey in a suit filling out paperwork all day. What happened to our sense of adventure?

    World war II changed the stakes?
    I don’t know, Perry Mason was the top rated show in the country for like ten years and that debuted in 1957 (but was a top rated radio drama for like 10 years before that). Perhaps after boiling in your own sweat while being eaten alive by malaria carrying insects in the south seas, or baking in a north African desert–all while being constantly shot at–watching Errol Flynn pretend to have such adventures on a backlot would not be your choice of an evening’s entertainment.

  8. I was just talking to someone the other week about lawyer is that interesting kind of job that has both “scummy” and noble/high-prestige frames (and sometimes both), even inside a monoculture of the 1980s-1990s.

    The cool thing about good lawyers in good lawyer movies is that they fight for truth and justice with their minds, and they combine investigative and argumentative/speech skills as well as general strategy/gamesmanship in a structured competitive adversarial environment. If you like the idea of winning by outsmarting and out-talking / out-framing-the-situation, it is appealing. Plus, often there are good emotional stakes. I loved RAINMAKER (at the time, at least, it’s been a minute), and the “You must be stupid. stupid. stupid.” line still sticks with me. A good legal drama can be very gripping, at least for me and all the people who used to dig them.

  9. Saw this too long ago to remember much about it but preferred Cruise/The Firm over Grisham’s other adaptations.

    Vern, hoping you write a Primal Fear review for a 1996 series one day.

    Now that’s top tier 90’s court room thrillers and one of the best “holy shit who is that??” a star is born performances from Edward Norton.

  10. Skani- agree w/ ya on The RainMaker. Underrated.
    One of the better ones.

    Side thought-I wonder if Gene Hackman was a big Grisham guy (I can’t imagine that) drawn to his characters or he was just grabbing pay checks. I haven’t looked but I’m thinking he was in at least three.

  11. Not too long ago, I watched The Burial with Tommy Lee Jones and Jamie Foxx, and it got me thinking about the lawyer genre. My theory about their popularity in the 90s is that they delivery a lot of pulpy thrills, but they’re dressed up enough that the respectable public can enjoy them. I feel like in the 90s people scoffed at anything that was deemed too “low brow.” Or at least that seemed like a constant concern.

    I also imagine that they’re ideal for actors. They’re dialogue heavy, and the stars get to preen in front of the camera because the nature of the genre calls for a bit of over acting in the court room.

    Anyways, The Burial was one of the better versions of these. It’s helped along by Jones and Foxx who genuinely make the film better thanks to their presence.

  12. One of my favorites of this genre was probably “A Civil Action”, where Travolta has to prosecute some companies for poisoning water or something, and the movie keeps subtly implying he’s not a great lawyer (previously he was an ambulance chaser). And then halfway through the movie the companies hire Robert Duvall as their lawyer, but he’s some sort of Genius Superlawyer and Travolta is immediately hopeless. Like Duvall was playing a guy who used to be a heroic cool lawyer, and now that he was older with less standards he was wielding his powers for evil.

  13. Reading this review made me say to a friend: Remember when we used to read John Grisham novels and then go to see movies based on John Grisham novels in the movie theater? That was weird.

    The only ones I read were The Firm, The Pelican Brief and The Client and those are also the only movies I’ve seen, but thinking about it sent me to wikipedia where I learned the dude has written 47 novels, including a new novel about Mitch McDeere from The Firm just last year. He also has 4 books about the Matthew McConaughey character from A Time to Kill. He has had 10 movies made of his work and the last one to come out was in 2004 and it was Christmas with the Kranks starring Tim Allen and Jamie Lee Curtis.

  14. One thing that was always fun about the Grishams is they would just be STOCKED with great actors doing a good adult drama. I love legal dramas. But yeah, The Rainmaker is the best Grisham. Great entertainment like they don’t make now, it’d be a show and be super drawn out…I prefer the Grishams that are more about the court cases and less about some thriller element.

    “I started finding it kind of sad that a culture that used to fantasize about swashbucklers, cowboys, war heroes, and space explorers now mostly wanted to fantasize about being some honkey in a suit filling out paperwork all day.” What a silly statement, as if the 90s was stocked with too many adult dramas…this is literally the time when swashbucklers were making a comeback (The Mummy, The Shadow, The Phantom, Zorro) as well as all the other candy blockbustery shot released week after week. Fuck you even had a return to jungle adventures with stuff like Congo and Jurassic Park. It’s not like there had never been pulpy legal or even detective types of books written for adults, or many movies that were legal dramas. Not everything has to be pitched to teenage boys or emotionally stunted adults who are just looking for a cinematic blowjob.

  15. Wait, are you telling me there were OTHER books? Entire other genres even? Wow, what a fascinating rebuttal! You have entirely negated my utterly non-conclusive personal observation! It’s almost like I wasn’t making a definitive blanket statement covering the full scope of publishing and entertainment with an offhand remark I intentionally prefaced with a qualifier ensuring it was merely a vague impression and not an objective declaration of truth! You got me!

    As always, fuck off.

  16. Y’all keep saying these things went away, but exec’s are still greenlighting Aaron Sorkin scripts.

    Now it’s time for ANOTHER thrilling deposition!!

  17. I can see why you would count TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7, but I think that’s different, it had the hook of being a period piece with famous historical figures in it, it wasn’t just a thriller about an intrepid lawyer. And it still didn’t catch on with audiences.

  18. Nobody said that such movies don’t exist anymore today, but you gotta admit that they aren’t the popculture event that they used to be. Someone mentioned THE BURIAL, that one went straight to streaming. We don’t get every year a new, big, courtroom drama with an all star cast from a writer who could sell books AND movies just by having his name on the poster. I just recently learned that David E. Kelley had apparently a new lawyer show on Apple TV. 20 years ago this would’ve been must-see TV! Now it’s just another show in the streaming void.

  19. I feel like, and before you start pecking holes in this it’s *just* a feeling at this point, the late 80s into the 90s, let’s say c.1987-1994 in particular, was sort of the rebirth or maybe the last hurrah of “the adult” as a key pop culture demographic; you’ve got the Grishams and the Clancys and all the similar travellers flying off book shelves and later Blockbuster racks, all the programmers we were talking about in the RENAISSANCE MAN thread were things that actually played in theatres and were sometime significant hits, and there was a music genre called “adult contemporary” that was actually popular and often led to greater album sales than the grunge and hip-hop and techno and what not that we more readily associate with the era. This isn’t the stuff that’s remembered from the era now, but it was there, and it was big. I think at a certain point the audience that turned out for this stuff started to stay home and watch TV, many of them are probably those who made YELLOWSTONE such an under-the-radar smash. By the end of the 90s many of us decided actually we’re pretty comfortable in this suspended adolescence thing, and that was OK because wider society was more interested in selling us merch to go along with it than it was with providing us clear pathways to the milestones previously associated with adulthood anyway. There’s probably a decent socio-economic analysis to be made about why this “for serious adults” stuff was so popular then and went away, but it wont be by me.

  20. I think the simplest explanation is just that mid-budget adult dramas aren’t sweeping movie theaters anymore, they’re doing well on streaming because even the most well-lit courtroom doesn’t really cry out to be seen on the silver screen. As mentioned, Yellowstone, but also Suits, Bosch, Reacher, The Terminal List, East of Maretown. Stuff like The Irishman and Killers of The Flower Moon are essentially anachronisms because everyone else is doing them as eight-hour prestige TV.

  21. What killed the legal thriller? I think that the biggest factor that contributed to the genre’s demise was that the so-called “Trial of the Century” began the following year in 1995. The real-life drama of the televised trial deflated the fantasy of legal thrillers, and it showed that lawyers are not heroic. Even if you didn’t tune in daily to watch the proceedings,
    you couldn’t get away from news of the trial. People just got courtroom fatigue.

  22. I don’t get the attitude that middlebrow dramas based on the kind of novel one buys at an airport are the true thinking man’s grownup version of cinema, whereas movies that create new worlds and new imagery and show people becoming more than they thought were capable of is the dumb stuff for babies.

    The only part of that argument that I agree with is that realistic dramas require research – in particular, to write a legal drama you have to know the law pretty well. I think of legal dramas as TV filler, but on the other hand I wouldn’t know how to write one (at least not without a pretty steep learning curve).

    Who are these people who want even our dreams to be small?

  23. I tend to think Kaplan is right, plus, a general evolution in tastes toward darker, grittier, solidly R-rated fare in the “prestige TV.” I think the core audience for the Grisham joint has maybe just aged up and out to an extent, so, there is just less of an audience for the PG-13 or soft-soft R “adult contemporary” drama film of the 1990s. Two Michael Keaton joints come to mind. SPOTLIGHT was really good and in a similar vein to a Grisham (very ERIN BROKOVICH or CIVIL ACTION even if not about lawyers) , and I think you don’t see much of that making it to theatre anymore. Then there was that DOPESICK film or mini-series that went to Hulu. I have not seen that, but I think that is largely what happens to these sort of things anymore. Specifically in the legal genre, there was the PEOPLE VS OJ and just recently that PRESUMED INNOCENT remake — both streaming joints. The last genuine film in this wheelhouse that i know of is probably that movie THE JUDGE with RDJ and Duvall — I never saw it.

  24. No Curt, your reasoning is like when I talk about a movie being bad and someone will always chime in with the standard “what did you expect, an Academy Award Winner?” No dawg, I’m not asking for the remake of The Haunting to win Best Picture, but how about it not being shit? I wouldn’t even expect Jim Wynorski to try and get a local award for his new stuff, but some minimal amount of effort would be nice.

    Adult dramas are what they are…movies made more for adults that are more character and dialogue based. Adults were never flocking to the average Godard movie, we’re not talking high art. Just not movies based on being over when the bad guy gets impaled.

  25. Also yeah, it’s clear tv has taken the mantle of the adult drama…Dopesick as mentioned would have been a movie back in the day. Unfortunately for theaters, tv is perfect for the middle aged person who doesn’t want to go through all the trouble of getting to the movies to see something.

    People vs OJ was great! I didn’t see the second season of that show but the Lewinski season was also really good, especially the one where the entire ep is them holdimg her in a hotel room and trying to get her to flip. That was a sweet hour of legal drama right there.

  26. Muh, you appreciate legal dramas more than I do and I respect that. And I think we might agree that a healthy culture includes stories that deal with the real world we live in, not genre/fantasy stories exclusively.

    But too often, when I see the phrase “adult drama” used as a seal of approval it tends to mask some unexamined prejudices, equating quality with bland reassuring familiarity and lack of innovation.

    I’ll admit to being puzzled that someone who dismisses “movies based on being over when the bad guy gets impaled” would be hanging out in an online community devoted mainly (though not solely) to action movies and violent horror movies, whose host wrote a book about Steven Segal movies and whose favorite film is DIE HARD.

    You might be right that the average “adult” doesn’t like Godard movies or action and adventure movies, but to me that is a tragic loss, not a badge of honor. Lacking imagination or intellectual and artistic curiosity is not a sign of superiority, despite what many self-appointed cultural gatekeepers want us to believe.

  27. Life is not 1 or 100. Of course I don’t dismiss the tyeps of movies where the bad guy gets impaled. Just making comparisons and kind of making fun of M, who always seems to complain when any movie has scenes of dialogue and not just tough guys shooting at each other. In no world in which we live or any alternate world have Grisham adaptations been seen as high art. Adult drama is just kind of a subheading…and not to say they are deep, just do I think 10 year old me would be like “oh boy, let’s watch the legal maneuvering of Kenneth Branagh in The Gingerbread Man! No I don’t, although I very well may have liked The Rainmaker or some of the others because they were more entertaining and/or pulpy. But I def would not be watching Dopesick.

    The average adult certainly does like action movies. The movies they put on Netflix is almost perfectly geared for 40 year olds. My dad mostly watched that stuff, he wasn’t watching dramas but he’d watch Jason Statham movies over and over. But to him, even Breaking Bad was too slow and artistic, he didn’t make it past three episodes. 10 year old me probably wouldn’t have been into that show either.

  28. I feel like “adult drama” is one of many subgenres that are quietly, maybe innocuously, “coded”. Like “Dad TV”, which usually means “Straight White Conservative Dad TV”, as if Dads can’t be anything but.

  29. Maybe, but I do think there’s a difference. Adult drama can be anything and usually is more of a movie without maybe a specific genre…even though Grishams are legal movies which are their own genre. But what’s Goodfellas but an adult drama…but it’s a gangster movie so no one calls it that. Killers of the Flower Moon is certainly one.

    But “Dad TV” absolutely, 100% no foolin’ describes my dad and what he watched. In terms of older movies it was maybe some Clint Eastwood stuff (no 50s Gary Cooper shit, that was for pussies). TV was like Married with Children and Two and a Half Men…if you could make a sitcom around obnoxious white smarmy dudes he was into it. Loved Judge Judy so he could see idiots yell at each other (ps he believed a whole lot of conspiracy shit on the internet), Mostly they were “middle aged white guy kicking ass” movies. Walker Texas Ranger was MADE for him…undemanding, generic, with Norris doing some uninspired fighting. But his collection would be John Wicks which he literally would watch every night, James Bonds, Steven Seagal, he LOVEd Statham…remember when Stath would crank out like three movies a year, those were all great.

    Now, it’s not to say those movies can’t be good…but I think Dad TV and Dad Movies do speak to a certain type of person who consumes a type of media and doesn’t go too far beyond that.

  30. Agreed, “adult drama” is a very flexible term, and that’s why I have become wary of it.

    Sometimes it does refer to films, shows and books that are intellectually stimulating, challenging, ambitious and thought-provoking.

    But too often the term is a way for the square and the stuffy to assert their limited tastes as superior. Too often I’ve seen older reactionary types deploy the term as a mic-drop in place of an actual argument for why they can’t engage with newer styles and genres that might be more innovative.

    So to me “adult drama” has the same implications as the music label “adult contemporary”. It means something to placate you at the dentist’s office, not something that is actually more sophisticated.

  31. FWIW, I did not mean “adult contemporary” as a derogatory term, although I can see how it would be taken that way. As a kid, I viewed it as a drama or thriller (more suspense/procedural than action) targeted at a middle-aged adult demographic. It’s basically defined by its target ticket-purchasing demographic and as being the “remainder” genre after you remove action, sci-fi/fantasy, straight comedy, rom-com specifically, western, and horror. There are a lot of lighter, semi-action-y type films I would put in this bucket for this era. 80s and 90s and early 2000s films starring people like Anne Archer, Richard Gere, Kevin Costner, Susan Sarandon, Annette Bening, Sean Penn pre-action-star Liam Neeson, Eastwood crime dramas, Grisham flicks, non-action Harrison Ford joints. I see the legal or investigative thriller as a kind of subset of the adult contemporary genre, though admittedly there is overlap or edge cases. THE FUGITIVE is maybe a little more actiony. I would include “erotic thrillers” of 90s in this sub-genre. One of the defnining elements for me is that these were wide release, major studio pictures with identifiable stars and that were not obvious rock-em-sock-em action or obviously “genre pictures” of some clearly identifiable type (e.g, sci-fi, western).

    There also are definitely rom-coms that I would class as adult contemporary, if you want to focus narrowly on the target demographic. A rom-com with Meg Ryan in the 1990s is definitely adult contemporary, though not a drama.

Leave a Reply





XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>