Not too long ago a bunch of E.C. writers had brunch. Over mimosas and blueberry pancakes, a question was posed: does After Hours hold up?
I don't remember the first time I saw After Hours, or whether I first saw it in a theater or on VHS or on cable. I do remember enjoying it immensely and watching it more than once in the 80s and early 90s. And though I hadn't seen it in probably 15 years, it always occupied a special place in my heart because of where it was set and where I was in my life when I watched it. So, how would I respond to it in 2009, now that the setting has become unrecognizable and I'm in a very different place? This is, after all, what we mean when we ask does a film hold up. So does it?
Yes.
The bigger question: Why? The bigger answer: For the same reasons all classic films hold up.
1. It is a story as old as the hills.
An Everyman trying to find his way home. Odysseus, anyone? If you care to, you'll find mythological references galore. It adds to the fun.
2. Schadenfreude never goes out of style.
It makes us feel good about ourselves and though we may not be aware of it we count our blessing that we are not that poor sap there on the screen. It's why reality TV shows featuring people who are walking disasters are so popular. (You have no idea how long I've waited to use the word schadenfreude in a sentence.)
3. The absurd never goes out of style.
After Hours reminds me of North by Northwest. Like the Hitchcock film, the plot matters not at all, what matters are the situations our Everyman finds himself in and/or the characters he finds himself interacting with. North by Northwest is one big excuse for Hitchcock's set pieces—there happens to be a photographer present who snaps away as Grant tries to get a knife out of another man's back and the photo becomes a piece of evidence that he plunged the knife in the man's back; a chase scene on the faces of Mount Rushmore; and of course, Grant, impeccably dressed, being chased by a crop duster in the middle of a corn field. North by Northwest is an incredibly funny movie when you view it as an absurd work.
After Hours is one big excuse for Scorsese to plunge straight-laced word processor Griffin Dunne into a world populated by freaky artists, posers, and fringe types, each tormenting him in their own special way. Temptress Rosanna Arquette, who quotes Henry Miller and gives new meaning to the word “unstable”; waitress Teri Garr, who is living in 1967 and whose bed is surrounded by spotlighted rat traps; Mr. Softee ice cream truck driver and community vigilante Catherine O’Hara, who delights in making sure Dunne won’t remember a telephone number that could possibly save his life.
4. A blistering pace never hurts.
A slow, deliberate pace can be death to comedy. After Hours is relentless. It seems like it's fueled by the 80s drug of choice, cocaine, and it leaves us, like its protagonist, breathless and unable to follow exactly how one event led to another and to another and to another and ...
5. It is a nostalgia piece and a period piece.
For people who were in the 16 to 26-year-old range during the 80s, and especially those who lived in the NYC area, it is a nostalgia trip; for people born after 1985, it's a period piece. The clothes, the hideous cable box with the row of buttons that made that awful clicking sound, the $1.50 subway fare, a SOHO that no longer exists, Rosanna Arquette! As I've professed many times before, I'm not a real film critic, so I don't have to unravel my life from this film. As a nascent artist in NJ who always lived in the shadow of NYC and made hit-and-run excursions into The City--oh, fine, go ahead, Outlaw, say it, bridge and tunnel--the bohemia portrayed by Scorsese was strangely alluring. After Hours was a cautionary tale I never heeded, because like its Everyman, I wanted some excitement, and NYC promised that. I'm curious to read what non-New Yorkers and younger folks think of this film.
6. It is of its time and outside its time.
I'm thinking of Bringing Up Baby and The Philadelphia Story, two films that I adore. Bringing Up Baby is pure screwball and there is no historical-political context. It's the story of a hapless man who is at the mercy of, and falls under the spell of, a woman who leads him through one disaster after another. We can date the film by its clothing, sets, actors, b&w photography, but nothing in the action or dialog takes me out of the film and makes me think the film is dated. The Philadelphia Story, on the other hand, clunks whenever "class" is brought up, and it's brought up a lot. There are no such clunkers in After Hours, it is purely in the moment. (By the way, I prefer The Philadelphia Story to Bringing Up Baby. Go figure.)
7. Martin Scorsese.
Of course 1-6 don't mean a hoot if the man behind the project doesn't have the chops to pull it off, and no one in their right mind would question Scorsese's chops. His frenetic camera suits the setting and story to a tee. The film is perfectly edited. He brings out the best in every actor on the screen. And like his early work, it has the edginess of a low-budget, run-and-gun independent film and the slickness of a big budget Hollywood movie.
Watch it again, or watch it for the first time, and let me know what you think. Is it dated or timeless?
