For those of us who were kids in the 1980s, Brooke Shields was a goddess. By 1981, she was a world famous model and actress. She even had her own doll! So, when renowned director of gorgeous teenagers, Franco Zeffirelli (remember Romeo and Juliet?), decided to bring a film adaptation of Scott Spencer’s 1979 novel, Endless Love, to the big screen, the stunning Brooke Shields was a natural choice to play Jade Butterfield, the object of the main character’s obsession.
As I was too young to see this classic 1980s film when it came out, I had to depend on its reputation for being schmalzy and over the top. I finally had the chance to see it in college. I thought it would be a typical teen drama. Two crazy kids falling in love. She’s probably rich and out of his league. They overcome some obstacles, but love conquers all. All the cliches of a teen movie. Nothing could be further from the truth.
This movie starts out with the couple madly in love from the start of the film. Jade comes from a family of wealthy eccentrics, David comes from a family of political activists who fight for socialist causes. It becomes clear that things are not “typical” for any of these people. Her mother sits on the steps while the teens make love in the living room. David is more than obsessed with Jade, his obsession is her entire family.
David sneaks in and out of their home at all hours of the night to satisfy their growing passions. Jade is in such a constant state of arousal that she sneaks into her father’s (a doctor) medicine cabinet to steal sleeping pills so she can actually get some sleep. Finally, her father decides it’s too much, and banishes David from the house. David, however, does not take this well.
He gets a brilliant idea from a buddy at school (played by a very young Tom Cruise) to do what any lovesick boy would do: Set fire to her house! Why? So he can be the one to “rescue” the family, be a hero, and get back into their good graces. And as insane as this plot is, I did find myself both engrossed and entertained. Yes, my mind stopped every now and then and thought “Wait – What?” but I did enjoy it. So, naturally, I was compelled to read the novel that this strange film was based on.
Scott Spencer didn’t disappoint. The novel begins with David setting the fire. He tells us his story, we see him struggle with the aftermath of what he has done, and learn bits about his relationship with Jade. The novel is a dark one for sure. This is not a sweet romance. David is not a typical teen, experiencing first love. He is deeply obsessed with Jade, and it is disturbing rather than romantic.
The family is also more than just eccentric. Much is made of Jade’s mother, Anne. It is true that Anne in the Zeffirelli version bizarrely watches her daughter have sex. In the novel she seems to feel jealous of her daughter, lusts after David herself, and is annoyed that her daughter borrowed her diaphragm to sleep with her boyfriend. David doesn’t sneak into the house, he is almost a permanent fixture in their home. We learn that the family has even bought them a bed to make their sex life easier. Wow.
The biggest change from the film is Jade herself. Jade, as written, is no Brooke Shields. She is ordinary. Brown hair, flat chested, sleeps a lot. It’s hard to see why David is willing to go to extremes to try to win her (and her family) back. While there are some differences between the novel and the Zeffirelli film, the film at least attempts to follow the major plot points.
Then, ten years ago, someone decided that they needed to remake the film. As when any film gets remade, one has to ask “why”? Why is a remake necessary? But, I thought, maybe this will be more accurate to the novel. More of a study of mental illness and obsession than a romance? Not willing to pay full price to see this at the movies, I rented it on Amazon. All I can say is that they got the names of the two lovers correct, and at some point there is a fire. That’s all.
This version, which came out on Valentine’s Day in 2014, stripped away any of the originality of the novel and the first film. Directed by Shana Feste, this rehash is about a beautiful rich girl (played by Gabriella Wilde) who somehow lives an isolated life with her wealthy parents and brother.
And to ensure that no cliché is left out, David (played by Alex Pettyfer) is poor. He is the product of a single parent household. He has to wear his dad’s only suit to a party. So, like Leonardo DiCaprio in Titanic, or Ryan Gosling in The Notebook before him, David loves Jade with no hopes of wooing her. And, like every other cliched romance before it, the couple falls in love, much to the disapproval of the mean dad. And, well, that’s pretty much it.
There is zero depth to any of these characters. She has a gay brother, but he is far from interesting, sadly. I missed Zeffirelli’s Butterfields! Give me the great James Spader as the haughty older brother. Give me Don Murray as patriarch Hugh, playing the trumpet at a wild high school party and the questionable way he holds his teenage daughter. These are people I actually want to see what zany antics they will come up with next. This is a family, who, in the opening of the novel, are sitting in front of a fireplace dropping acid while they spend a non-typical Saturday night at home.
So why do a remake or retelling of a novel and film and tear out everything that made this crazy story so entertaining? That, I cannot tell you. All I can tell you is that the remake is lethargic, predictable, and completely devoid of anything interesting. The “dating the poor guy” trope isn’t particularly fascinating, and even then, has been done in much better ways.
Discover more from Filmotomy
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
