Big Chill/Secaucus Seven

Cafe Society
1

In a thread elsewhere in CS, someone classifies The Big Chill as a “ripoff” of Return of the Secaucus Seven. The thread has run its course, so rather than bump it just to hijack it, I’m opening my own.

Tell me honestly, if you can remember: How widely seen was SS before the release of BC? How well-received was it? Did people go to see BC and say, “Eh, I’ve seen this before” or did SS lie dormant and only get resurrected when John Sayles was being lauded for Matewan? (Which I suspect.)

Because to be honest, I don’t see how Lawrence Kasdan “ripped off” SS. The script for BC was an extrapolation of his own experiences at the U of Michigan, and in fact, he and his co-writer may have been only marginally aware or even totally unaware of Sayles’s film.

And no offense, but I think SS is a dog. There’s no cohesion to it, the characters don’t have the interconnection and backstories that the BC characters have, and the premise (getting together for the anniversary of a protest they didn’t even get to) is, IMO, about as compelling as the presence of a Beach Party movie.

Now compare BC. The interaction between the characters is like a tennis match, the characters have been separated long enough to make a reunion more significant (more on that later), and the premise (funeral, suicide) is more topical.

And a lot happens, despite critics who say it’s all “dancing in the kitchen to Motown.” As if that was the only scene. How about the scene early on in which Mary Kay Place describes how she gave up being a public defender, because she had to defend actual, you know, criminals, and took a job as a corporate lawyer for a company who were “only raping the land.” When you’d think the environment would be more of a concern for her, and she’d stick to her guns and continue defending people who by law are entitled to a fair trial and representation, even if they are guilty as sin. But she sold out.

Then there’s the speech by JoBeth Williams’ husband. She has evidently fallen out of love with him, if she was ever in it, and other characters follow her cue and dismiss him. But late at night, he comes downstairs to raid the fridge, and muses to two of the guys about how most people just have to settle, even though they started out with high ambitions. More insight than his wife gives him credit for, and the scene adds more tension to events after he leaves and she stays.

And the scene where Kevin Kline is berating William Hurt for his attitude, particularly towards one of the local cops, who “happens to be a hell of a guy.” Something definitely changed between 1968 and 1983, if Kline objects talking back to a cop. Hurt holds his fire, then a few scenes later, delivers his return shot: “A long time ago we knew each other for a short while; that’s it.” (Or does he say that to Tom Berenger?) At any rate, compared to that, SS is home movies.

So those of you who remember back that far, when did BC start drawing comparisons to SS? And if you’ve seen both, which do you rank over the other?

(And I believe MKP’s speech is, if not the first mention in the media of a “biological clock,” at least the most influential.)

2

I was 20 when* The Big Chill* came out, and not nearly the movie geek I am today, but I immediately recognized it as owing a lot to TROTSS (which is an infinitely better movie). I had the supreme satisfaction, once I’d been around long enough, of removing *TBC *from the Recommended section at the video store where I work.

3

Okay, cite? On SS being a better movie, that is.

4

I thought “Return of the Secaucus Seven” was very good, although it’s been so long since I’ve seen it that I can’t remember it very well. But I did think of “The Big Chill” as an unofficial sequel, with basically the same characters. I even remember that when Chill came out out, I had pegged which SS character was the dead guy.

I think “The Big Chill” is definitely the better film.

5

My post is my cite.

:wink:

6

Well, all kidding aside, your post provided no examples.

7

Dude, are you serious? You can’t “cite” an artistic opinion. (What’re you, new?[sup]1[/sup]) I think *TROTSS *is a better movie than TBC, and there are critics I respect who hold a similar opinion. Though I’m sure there are critics who would disagree.

[sup]1[/sup] :wink:

8

Yeah, but you can state what that opinion is based on.

9

Just as an example, at the first place I looked–this newspaper–Dave Kehr called TBC a “slickly engineered complacency machine,” while he called TROTSS “the most modest and beguiling film (circa 1980) to come out of the independent feature movement.”

Now, again, this is not a “cite,” because it’s just an opinion; it’s just an example of the differing opinions you’ll find of these two movies.

10

I gave numerous reasons why I think BC is a better film than SS. What are your reasons for thinking SS is the better film?

11

Sigh. I haven’t seen either movie for 20 years, so there’s no way I can write a comparative review. I distinctly remember really liking TROTSS, and I distinctly remember greatly disliking TBC. I remember liking the characters, and the performances, and the truthfulness of the writing of TROTSS, and I remember feeling manipulated by a phony-feeling, pat, smug, complacent screenwriter, and lots of eyerolling, in TBC. I remember thinking that Kasdan had taken a nice, quiet, honest little film, and slicked it all up with a greasy shmear of phoniness just to reach a wider audience, and I remember feeling insulted that Kasdan thought that phoniness is what the audience wanted. Do I remember which phony line of dialog made me roll my eyes? Of course not. Am I gonna watch TBC again just to provide footnotes in a CS thread? Of course not. Though I may rewatch TROTSS just for the enjoyment of it.

This is not an argument you can win or lose, Rilch. You and I have different opinions about two movies; there’s no “proof” required, or possible.

(For what it’s worth–not much, really–TBC gets 70% at Rotten Tomatoes, and TROTSS gets 83%. Not that this is proof of anything beyond the fact that neither your opinion nor mine is fact.)

12

SS was known, but more as a respected minor film–one of those you were most likely to hear about by word of mouth. Not being much of a movie person, I’ve never seen it.

However, as I recall, it was mentioned from the very beginning as being at least similar to TBC – and some people did say that SS was the better film (but mostly movie people, because they were the only ones who’d seen it).

I’d say TBC was the thing that gave SS its biggest boost in common awareness, at least when TBC first came out. In fact, I’ve never heard of Matewan.

When I saw TBC, I didn’t see what all the fuss was about, and the situations didn’t get to me very much, even though I was in my late 20’s, so very aware of the arc from hippie to corporate. I just didn’t care about the people very much.

13

I’m not trying to win anything. What I’m looking for is reasons why someone would prefer SS to BC. Or reasons why they feel BC misses the mark. I hear over and over that BC is an inferior version of SS, but when I give the examples I gave in the OP, all I get in response is “SS is a real film, and BC is Hollywood,” or something to that effect, with no counter-examples.

I’m looking for a discussion, not an argument. There’s apparently something in SS that whooshed me, and I’d like to know what it is. What am I not getting?

14

TROSS seemed more real to me. I was involved in a bunch of 70’s protests and the cast and dialog was more authentic than TBC. I saw TBC as a rip-off, whether it was or not is known only by the filmmaker.

15

I liked them both, but Return of the Secaucus Seven (to name the film correctly) was clearly the superior. It was less slick, the characters more real and less Hollywood.

However, I wouldn’t say BC was a ripoff, simply because I doubt Kasdan was familiar with Sayles.

16

It’s really not anything that can be explained, like many such opinions. The characters in TBC felt like a screenwriter’s artificial creations; the characters in ROTSS felt like real people. There’s no diagram to be drawn, or list of points to compare. ROTSS made me think about people, myself, people I knew, etc. TBC made me think about Lawrence Kasdan’s typewriter.

17

That’s exactly it, and I suppose is the nature of independent filmmaking. The characters in SS looked like, sounded like, reacted like REAL people. The characters in BC looked like, sounded like, reacted like people in a Hollywood movie. The story was glitzed and drama’d up, and everyone had their lines polished. Everything was resolved by the end of the weekend with major confrontations and revelations, which is great fun to watch – I do enjoy the movie – but in no way authentic.

18

I am another one who preferred Secaucus to Chill although I liked them both. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen them, too, but what I think I remember is that ROTSS seemed to have a lot of heart and I related to the characters, having been in the same place (not physically). TBC was the extra-glossy Hollywood version and I did not buy that those folks had ever shared an experience I might relate to.

TBC was, in fact, compared to ROTSS at the time it came out.

It might be interesting to see the two again. I might have a completely different take now.

Also, might be worth noting, I saw Secaucus first. So it was already in my head.

19

I was one of those few who saw ROTSS before the Big Chill came out, and I was struck by how similar the two movies were. Whether you want to call it “rip off” “re-imagining” or “similar theme, different interpretation” is up to you.

In any case, I agree with those who think the Secaucus Seven beat the Kasdan Eight.

20

Okay, so SS was an off-Hollywood film, much talked about but not seen by everyone. That’s what I figured. And the people who prefer SS to BC largely do so because of the realistic feel, contrasted with BC’s polish.

The thing is, realistic is great, but for me, appreciation of SS was impossible to achieve because of the look and sound. The visuals were so overexposed and washed out, and I think I recall some shots that were not framed very well, and the sound was so muddy, I could barely follow the story. It honestly just seemed like a confused noise to me, and I wanted to know if, were I able to hear the dialogue properly, I would find the characters compelling. And if the visuals were better, would I feel more “in the moment,” watching it?

Is it on DVD? Perhaps I’d change my mind (although I am not going to stop liking BC!) if I saw a restored version. If you want proof that an indie film can have a cinema verite feel without looking and sounding like the whole thing was shot on Beta, check out Napoleon Dynamite. But, I’ve only ever seen ND on DVD (didn’t catch it in the theater), so perhaps SS didn’t look as bad as I thought when it was in theaters.