I don't think anyone who saw Risky Business when it was released in 1983 has forgotten it, and I don't know of anyone that dislikes it. It's probably the same for the 90% of current American adults who've seen the film. An unusual storyline mixing teenage male angst, comedy, reflections on materialism, sex, catch phrases, classic scenes, charismatic young stars appealing to both the boys (Rebecca de Mornay, and boy, was she appealing) and girls (Tom Cruise), perfect music in the right setting (remember the train ride with Phil Collins' In The Air Tonight and the hypnotic music of Tangerine Dream?), all of which kept the viewer off-balance. Was the movie a comedy, a romantic comedy, a black comedy, a drama with comic touches, a teen fantasy film, a serious social commentary? It depends how you view Joel (Cruise) and Lana's (De Mornay) characters, particularly the ambiguity surrounding Lana. Was it all a setup or was it real? Or both at the same time? Yes, no, maybe.
Risky Business was the first film directed by Paul Brickman. Despite it's huge commercial and critical success, it was also his last directorial venture; a choice made by Brickman after he lost an argument with the studio over the ending of the film.
The theatrical version of the film ends with two scenes; the first a dinner between Joel and Lana in a swank Chicago restaurant, where Joel inquires about their future and whether it was all a set up, interspersed with cuts to Joel's fellow business club members making their presentations. It then closes with a second scene of Joel and Lana walking through the park exchanging casual repartee with a humorous turn on the dialogue from their very first encounter, leaving open the possibility that their relationship may not be over.
Brickman hated that second scene which was added at the studio's insistence after the original shooting ended. For Brickman, Risky Business was ultimately a tragic story and the walk through the park, with its light heartedness, shattered the feeling he wanted the viewer left with.
Below is the original ending, as intended by Brickman. To me, it makes clear that Joel now has the upper hand in the relationship - he's going to Princeton after all, since "Princeton can use a guy like Joel" (which only happened because he followed Lana's advice) and it is much clearer that both Joel and Lana know their relationship is doomed and she will not have a good ending.
Some things I noticed:
In the first scene below in which Joel finds out he's going to Princeton and embraces his Dad, the embrace and the position and look on his face is identical to Lana's embrace and look when, earlier in the film, Joel comes to her after being expelled from high school, and Joel's Dad has his head bowed in the same way as Joel does in his embrace with Lana. Joel is now as cynical as Lana. You can do your own comparison; watch below and then watch the earlier scene. (This scene is the same in both the Brickman cut and the theatrical release, I just hadn't noticed the parallels with the earlier scene before).
There is a continuity problem with the original scene in the restaurant. When it starts, it is full day outside but when Joel and Lana embrace it suddenly looks like early evening.
While I think the original ending is actually better, the final line "Isn't life grand?" is not as effective as the last in the theatrical release, "The time of your life, huh, kid?"
What do you think?
Nice article, thanks for posting.
ReplyDeleteI loved the film so much and have seen it so many times - I can't imagine how I would have felt about the alternative ending. I guess I just see them both as parallel stories now, an either or option.
I grew up watching the film as a teenager in the 80s and later in life I had chance to live in the area it was filmed.
Your definitely right that the original last line is so much better, I felt like it spoke to me directly at the time.
Still one of my favourite movies
Ya, the last line has to be "Time of your life, huh kid?". "Isn't life grand?" just seems like it is trying too hard.
ReplyDeleteI also don't mind the 2nd ending in the park with the playful exchange between Joel and Lana, but it isn't necessary.
As I love the theatrical ending and as much as I know it’s unrealistic especially in real life, I really do wish that Joel and Lana end up together permanently because of the onscreen chemistry of Tom and Rebecca even if it isn’t realistic storyline wise!!!!
DeleteI just wanted to add a comment here to mention thanks for you very nice ideas. Blogs are troublesome to run and time consuming thus I appreciate when I see well written material. Your time isn’t going to waste with your posts. Thanks so much and stick with it No doubt you will definitely reach your goals! Have a great day!
ReplyDeleteA Social Media, Public Relations and Influencer Marketing Agency
Well Said, you have furnished the right information that will be useful to anyone at all time. Thanks for sharing your Ideas.ifrs 16 uae
ReplyDeleteGreat Blog, Thanks for sharing
ReplyDeleteTeam audit company in uae and
aroma oil
Good articles, Have you heard of Mr Benjamin, Email: 247officedept@gmail.com --WhatsApp Contact:+1-9893943740-- who work with funding service they grant me loan of $95,000.00 to launch my business and I have been paying them annually for two years now and I still have 2 years left although I enjoy working with them because they are genuine Loan lender who can give you any kind of loan.
ReplyDeleteI have always thought this movies has one of the best endings of any movie. Sorry Paul, the Studio is right. The ending where she sits on his lap makes her devalues her and that is a shame. Cruise is great, but the complexity of Lana makes the movie this the 80's Graduate. The Studio ending puts her on equal footing and we are left to hope they both make it big.
ReplyDeleteCandidly, "Time of your life, huh kid?" gives the ending a great deal of it's power and leaves you feeling satisfied. "Isn't life grand!" has nothing to do with the movie at all!
Excellent work! Keep it up. You wrote it very well
ReplyDeletewww.lge.com.pl
Interesting article. I have bookmarked your site for future reference. Please check my latest post on the Cost of accounting services in the UAE and let me know what you think. https://www.aaconsultancy.ae/cost-of-accounting-services-in-the-uae/
ReplyDeleteI just stumbled upon this article after watching Risky Biz again. It’s likely been over 25 plus years since my last viewing and initially seen when it was basically new(er) circa 1984. In my prime 80s years in all of their cheesy grandeur I was enamored by the story. As I age I ponder now how things have changed. The whole underage school boy (usually deemed more acceptable) sex romp with older girl has completely different social, moral and ethical implications. I suppose he was around 17 and Lana likely hovered past 21 not that the proximity of age green lights it all. Back then I loved the Porsche 928 this model (1979 thibk I’ve seen) now I find pretty hideous. It’s as bulbous and egg like as his mom’s mantle egg. I find Paul’s version above kind of hollow and it makes the film run outta gas even more than the parting banter in the original cut did. Lot of emptiness I felt watching it again. Missing in my cut seemed like soundtrack tunes. Journey’s After the Fall & Springsteen Hungry heart were absent like possibly removed due to copyright issues perhaps I dunno kind of dulled the moments I recalled. Still a timeless coming of age movie that shaped me as a young teen and early adult! Thanks for penning the article because I never knew!
ReplyDeleteQuestion, how is it immoral for a 21 and 17 year olds to be involved romantically or sexually if they’re are over the age of consent in most U.S. States? The same argument applies to Dirty Dancing and Baby and Johnny 25 and if I remember right!!!! Nothing inappropriate about either relationship in my very humble opinion!!!!
DeleteNo continuity issue. In the restaurant scene it appears to be late afternoon in the Hancock bldg, 95 floors up with huge windows facing east. Tons of light even at sunset, and east facing so no 'colors'. In the 20-30 minutes it could take to leave and walk/cab to the park, it'd easily go from light out to full dark.
ReplyDeleteI remember this movie well, have seen it many times and just watched it again on Netflix. For me, it holds up very well in all respects. I think lots of guys of teen or college age could related to Joel's anxieties about growing up, having sex for the first time, and getting into college. I did - had anxiety dreams of skipping class and then having to take a final exam at the end of the semester for years; no sexy neighbor in the shower though.
ReplyDeleteJoel's parents for the brief time they are on screen are great "My house. My rules." And yes, you have to suspend disbelief that the Porsche would be fished out of Lake Michigan and repaired so quickly or that Joel could get the furniture off the lawn and back in the house during his parents' short drive from the airport (I live in Chicago, that drive is a half hour to 40 minutes at worst). But it's fun just to go with all that.
I like both endings. Brickman's is darker for sure but the ambiguity of the relationship is a reasonable place to leave it rather than the more boyfriend-girlfriend vibe of the theatrical release. It's just a wonderful movie either way.
The continuity error is not referring to the darkness coming after the restaurant in the alternative ending. It is referring to the transition from light to dark when DeMornay comes to sit on his lap. It is kind of jarring once it is pointed out.
I think the studio ending is the right one - Joel finally "learns something" and is on equal footing with Lana. To me, Lana represents the allure of business - shiny and sexy, but in the end the real money is in exploitation (sanitized to "human need fulfillment" and "what the heck.") Guido (aspiring oligarch) is the person calling the shots the whole time, and Lana, far from being a victim, is moving up to be "assistant to the oligarch." Guido keeps Joel around because he knows he will be able to exploit Joel too, once he humiliates Joel enough so there is no question about who runs the show. Which is why it is important Joel quotes Guido at the end, and not some random "ain't life grand." The positive tone is completely appropriate, as they might all have pretty good lives going forward if they can be the exploiters and not the exploitees...that's the real "life lesson."
ReplyDeleteA lot of layers and subtlety in this movie, but only the studio ending makes sense to me. It's a great example of a work of art that was (in this case) improved by the studio overruling the director (the studio cut of Cinema Paridiso is another example of this.)
I really like your take on this movie. My husband & I just recently rewatched it. Thank you!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUnlike traditional financial reports like the balance sheet and income statement, management accounts are specifically designed for internal use by business owners and managers. They provide detailed, timely, and actionable insights into the financial health and performance of different aspects of the business.
ReplyDeleteMight want to get your facts straight and not claim that this was Brickman's only film as a director.
ReplyDelete