A while back, I wrote about asking the right questions when we engage with film. Pointing out supposed plot holes or being mad that a film did one thing instead of what we expected is not real criticism. Instead, we ought to be asking “why” in order to understand what the film was trying to say and how it was trying to say it. This can be easy for original films with unique stories, but significantly harder if the film is a sequel, reboot, reimagining, or adaptation of prior source material. I believe this creates a problem for a lot of people. How often do we hear things like, “The book was much better.” Or, “It’s not as good as the original.” Or, “[Insert character name here] would never do that in the comics.” Without opening ourselves up to new interpretations of characters or stories or letting characters grow beyond our preconceived ideas of them, we close ourselves off to the potential of enjoying a film. This is a continuation of my “Adaptations” series. This week, we discuss Valley Girl (1983 & 2020).
I am giving myself a challenge with this one because the original Valley Girl is one of my favorite 80s movies. How do I discuss differences and their changes to a film without sounding like I am tearing it down? Starring Nicolas Cage and Deborah Foreman, the story, loosely based on Romeo and Juliet, tells the story of two high school lovers. Julie, a valley girl, and Randy, a punk kid from Hollywood. Both films essentially tell the same story with a few alterations in the remake which change the focus and meaning behind the story. The remake stars Jessica Rothe and Josh Whitehouse.
Unlike the original, the remake has been worked into a jukebox musical featuring songs like Cyndi Lauper’s “Girls Just Want To Have Fun,” Joan Jett’s “Bad Reputation,” A-ha’s “Take on Me” and many, many, many other hit 80s songs. This is perhaps the biggest and most obvious change between the two films. Instead of standard exposition dumps, the musical medium utilizes songs to convey to the audience the inner emotions of the characters. This change; however, does not add anything new or unique to the story rather it functions to immerse the viewer in the world of the 1980s. Not the real 80s as we know it from watching films of the era, but the idea of the 80s. The one dominated by neon, spandex, crazy hairdos, and nothing but hit singles. Not that they did not have those in the 80s, but it was different than the over-stylized look we see when a modern movie is set in the 80s. At one point, adult Julie (played by Alicia Silverstone - an addition I will address below) says, “That’s just how I remember it.” A playful nod to how we all imagine the 80s. This takes the setting of Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley in the 1980s and applies a sort of hyper-realism to the entire story.
The characterization of Randy and Julie is also different in the 2020 film. In an attempt to give the characters more depth, it is revealed that Julie has aspirations other than being in a relationship and wants to go to fashion school. Before she meets Randy, she is already expressing doubts about the things she and her friends do when they hang out. When her friends ask about what store they should shop at next, Julie suggests they leave the valley and explore. A suggestion that the other girls recoil at. Randy is still a punk kid from Hollywood, but now he is in a band with his friends. It also seems like he has dropped out of High School. Giving the two protagonists these additional aspirations takes them from the “everyman” characters they were in the original and turns them into the sort of archetypes we expect from a modern romantic comedy. We know that life is messy and people have dreams and desires which can complicate relationships. Throughout the film, Randy and Julie lose focus on their dreams in pursuit of each other. Both dreams are meant to symbolize something greater than a silly romance and what they could have if they left California.
Another big change is the inclusion of adult Julie. The 2020 film is framed as a flashback with adult Julie telling her daughter about a romance she had in her teen years. Yes, the implication of that sentence is correct. In the 2020 version, we find out that Julie and Randy do not stay together. Randy goes off and becomes famous with his band, and Julie starts a successful fashion company. They finally realize what will bring them the most fulfillment in life, and it does not include the other one. Because of this framing device, we occasionally get a commentary from Julie’s daughter about what is happening and Julie provides additional context.
There are also minor characterization changes in the 2020 film which collectively have a bigger impact on the story. Julie’s parents (Judy Greer and Rob Huebel) are now a set of overly protective suburbanites. Julie’s friend Karen (Chloe Bennet) hooks up with Julie’s ex-boyfriend, Mickey (Logan Paul). Julie’s ex-boyfriend’s name is changed from Tommy to Mickey so they can include that song. Randy’s band has a girl in it (Mae Witman). The changes to Julie’s parents are meant to contrast with Randy’s relationship with his parents. Randy does not have parents and because of this when he overhears the negative things Julie’s father says about him, it causes a negative emotional response that creates tension in his relationship with Julie.
The original is, by all comparisons, a fairly straightforward Romeo and Juliet-type romance. Like any other teenager in a film from the 80s, Julie and Randy do not have any aspirations of their own. Everything is about the here and now for the two of them and their friends. Nothing is more important than their friends. Nothing is more important than their romance. Every choice they make is motivated by one of those two things. Julie is embarrassed when Randy shows up at her parent’s restaurant she works at because she does not want Randy to think of her as a working girl. Randy takes job after job to get closer to Julie again after she dumps him because nothing is more important than getting her back. We look at this and think it is superficial and shallow, especially by today’s standards, but this is more in line with how teenagers think and behave. This shallowness extends to how Julie and Randy’s friends view each of them. Julie is from the valley, and that is bad according to Randy’s friends. Randy is from Hollywood and that is bad according to Julie’s friends.
Both films deal with the idea of judging a book by its cover. Where the original is satisfied with showing the different worlds Randy and Julie inhabit as extensions of the two characters the remake wants us to think that Randy could be a bad egg with the anger and jealousy he feels as Julie continues to orbit the world her friends and ex-boyfriend inhabit. This is present in the original, but it is more subtle and reserved where the remake makes his outburst bigger and more showy in a way that is fitting of the caricature style.
The differences in the remake change the film's emphasis from a story about superficial labels to one about superficial romances. The original film is focused solely on the romance between Randy and Julie. It shows how the worlds they inhabit are different but there are some similarities. The party at Suzi’s (Michelle Meyrink) house might look nice and suburban, but Randy overhears the girls talking about sex and drugs in the bathroom. The club Randy later takes Julie to might be dingy with loud music, but how different is the behavior at the club versus Suzi’s party? They’re both still High School kids. The inclusion of the framing device and Julie’s aspirations in the remake are the two things that primarily change the focus of the film. This is no longer a romance but a story about a romance. Julie learns, albeit offscreen in an exposition dump, that her romance with Randy is just a fling that was never meant to last. It was a High School romance that they both outgrew as she pursued her aspirations for herself. Julie’s aspirations add a feminist theme to the film. The song “Girls Just Want To Have Fun” is sung in direct contrast to Julie talking about how she does not necessarily want to be tied down to a man. She wants to pursue her own dreams.
In writing about the differences between both Valley Girl films, I have doubled down on my love for the original, but I also gained a small amount of appreciation for the remake. The differences are not as vast as they seemed while watching the film. A musical veneer can do that. I do not hate the remake, but I am not the target audience for the film. I think the remake is made for people who see nothing but problematic behavior in films from before the current era as it seeks to remedy those. But to do that does a disservice to the era of films that came before. Valley Girl (the original) is one of those films that deals with things we have all experienced to some extent in our lives. Pressure from friends and peers to behave a certain way and try certain things. Romance from different worlds. It is much easier for me to relate to that than romance or friends getting in the way of pursuing a dream. It might be different for you.
I hope that this post in the “Adaptations” series was enjoyable and helped to show differences do not always make an adaptation bad. Let me know if there are any other films you want me to dissect or compare.