Cameron Crowe envisioned William ending up with Polexia instead of Penny Lane in Almost Famous
Patrick Fugit told IndieWire that Cameron Crowe planned to pair up William with Band Aid Polexia
Film News Cameron Crowe
Almost Famous ends with Patrick Fugit’s teenage character William living in the same city as Penny Lane. It’s hinted that they could keep in touch and maybe continue their romance. But it turns out that Cameron Crowe envisioned William ending up with another “Band Aid” in the movie’s ending. While doing press to promote the “bootleg” extended cut that’s coming out on a 4K Ultra HD limited edition boxset, Patrick Fugit revealed to IndieWire that Crowe told him William falls in love with Polexia Aphrodisia years after their time together on the road.
“[Cameron Crowe’s] like, ‘But what William will discover is Polexia a few years down the line, and they will have a relationship. They will have this amazing chemistry that they didn’t really track [before] because, obviously William was infatuated with Penny Lane and Polexia was doing her own thing,’” Fugit tells IndieWire. “The idea [with Penny] was like, ‘Nope, it’s just this thing that happened, and it’s this fond memory, and it’s the first love and all that sort of thing, but it’s never going to manifest.”
It makes sense, since Anna Paquin, who played Polexia, is the same age as Fugit. And though it’s hinted that Penny Lane’s actually 16, Kate Hudson definitely does not pass as someone who could be a high schooler, so the big age difference between the actors is very jarring onscreen (Fuguit was 15 at the time of filming, and Hudson was 19). Though we don’t actually get to see that romance with Polexia play out in the bootleg cut, Fugit does confirm he shares more screen time with Paquin in this extended edition.
This bootleg cut also features an additional scene where Stillwater and the rest of the crew are part of a disastrous radio interview with Tenacious D’s Kyle Gass as the deejay named Quince. According to IndieWire’s Kate Erbland, “Quince nods off, leaving the band alone on-air, hot mics and all. What follows is a silly sequence that soon turns much more serious, as Russell and [character] Jeff start off ribbing each other, before revealing how they really feel about each other.”
159 Comments
This is one of the few movies where I definitely prefer the theatrical cut to the extended “Untitled” version. The movie’s already long enough and has enough time to hit all the intended emotional beats (and hit them well); the extra footage didn’t feel like it added much.
I’m just the opposite. Love the bootleg cut. I saw the movie once at the theater and then once on dvd before buying the bootleg version, more to get the CD of Stillwater songs than anything else. Haven’t watched the theatrical cut since. At this point, I can barely remember what the alterations are.
Yeah those songs are awesome. Especially that one…
Same! “Untitled” is one of my favorite movies. I’ve watched that cut pretty exclusively over the years that I’d be hard pressed to tell you what the differences are anymore. Maybe I should put that on my watch list for the coming weekend….I do remember thinking after the first time I watched “Untitled” that the story and characters seemed to have more room to breathe in the longer cut. As I enjoyed spending time with all of those characters, more was definitely better for me and I never looked back.
I am with you. I love the extended bootleg cut. The theatrical release is just too short for me.
With this movie, as with most “special edition” cuts, I find myself longing for a semi-special edition that puts back in a few key scenes (e.g., Penny’s birthday scene, which if I remember correctly fills in a pretty gaping hole in the narrative) and omits the numerous too-cute indulgences the director swept off the cutting-room floor. For instance, William’s sister’s nonentity of an ex-boyfriend literally climbing through a window to reinsert himself into the narrative. Or the expanded version of the scene where Stillwater reacts to the Rolling Stone fact-checker, in which the band praises Ed the drummer for being smart enough to give William the silent treatment, even though his biggest scene is where he blurts out that he’s gay.
lol the Donnie Darko directors’ cut where the psychiatrist tells Donnie he has been on placebos
I honestly never knew there was an extended cut. What’s the difference?
I think the theatrical cut is better too. Deleted scenes were deleted for a reason. I mean did we really need the origins of all the hotel trinkets from the opening credits?
“Kate Hudson definitely does not pass as someone who could be a high schooler” “Hudson was 19″Really? What is it about age 18 vs. age 19 that transforms someone so definitively? (It seems she might’ve been about 20 during filming? But at any rate, this isn’t Grease-style casting.)
I think part of it is that the character, Penny Lane, is so much more mature and worldly than William that it makes the character seem older. If I had had to guess prior to reading this article how old Penny Lane was in the film, I would have said mid-20s. In contrast to William’s utter naivete, she seems savvy. So I think it’s less that Kate Hudson couldn’t pass as a high schooler, it was that Kate Hudson as Penny Lane couldn’t pass for a high schooler. In a different movie with different styling and a different character, Hudson definitely could have been a convincing HS student. But the Penny Lane character, not so much.
That’s a great point. And it’s true, I think she’s pretty effective in conveying that aspect of the character.(Also, I see that a bunch of folks have commented on this while my comment was pending, lol.)
You’re still skirting awfully close to “She’s so mature for her age” territory.
I mean, not really. I’m talking about a fictional character that is purposely set up within the narrative to contrast her experience with the naivete of a 15-year-old boy. I am talking about a character seeming more mature in comparison to another character. That’s the whole point, and Crowe himself has said as much in an IndieWire interview from a few years ago: Crowe’s film script does not explicitly state Penny Lane’s age, which the director said was intentional given the character’s sexual relationship with another character. “I just figured, let’s not invite the wrong kind of debate,” he told the Times. “Penny in the day was an adult to me — they all felt like adults, even though they were adolescents — and I never really felt there was some kind of predatory experience going on. Maybe that’s because I was 15 and 16, and people just knew that I had some rose-colored glasses on because I just loved music. But if you had that sense about the movie, which was made 20 years ago about a time 20 years before that, I feel like we’re opening the blinds a little bit, letting in more sunlight and seeing who she is.”The film needs Penny to appear older and more mature or experienced than William. Because she is more experienced. And because William needs to see her experience contrasted against his own relative innocence. He needs to see her as more experienced, idealize that conception of her, and then gradually come to his own realization that the person and the lifestyle he is idealizing isn’t all it is cracked up to be.
That way, when William starts to grow up, his journey shows Penny the ways that she can regain some of her innocence, the ways that she can envision a life outside of the destructive cycles she enacts out on the road. This is not an instance of “she looks older than she is” creepiness. It’s just what the characterization and the plot need in order for the narrative to work. Neither I nor the film are trying to make the argument you’re claiming we are re: Penny “looking older than her age” and therefore being OK to sexualize or exploit.
I’ll just speak anecdotally, but I saw the film in theaters when I was 15, and I remember reading a review – I think it was Roger Ebert’s – suggesting that Penny Lane was probably only around 19 bc that was Hudson’s age. I was incredibly surprised, bc the character – and perhaps the actress as well – seemed so much older to me. And that’s not a backhanded comment on Kate Hudson’s appearance, I promise – she is absolutely stunning and obviously “youthful” looking, obviously. But no way would I believe Penny Lane to have been a teenager, let alone a high school student. At least not like any hs student I knew in 2000. The character is portrayed as so much more mature, although perhaps she is posturing, and carrying the kind of hurt that comes with years and experiences that crush childhood naivete. William on the other hand is ofc so much more sheltered, wise beyond his years in some ways, but very childlike in others: hence his enamored school-boy crush of Penny. I definitely would not believe Penny Lane was in hs if William was meant to be our example of a high-schooler.
a lot of people are commenting on this aspect of the article…but…some people who are older than high school age can pass as high schoolers and some can’t? is there some other level of complication I’m missing here? best example: Gabrielle Carteris no. Cailee Spaeny 100%. Also…people change a lot between 17-19, and a lot more between 15-19, so weird people are taking such issue with that statement.
I know for me, it’s simply that someone who’s 19 is only a year past high school age — aren’t most kids 18 when they graduate? I found it funny that someone would state that she “definitely” couldn’t pass as high school age just a year past the average graduating age. Wasn’t Gabrielle Carteris in her 30s for most of 90210?
I’m still not getting what there is to talk about: the writer is dealing with a specific instance. To the writer, Kate Hudson definitely could not pass as HS but the girl standing next to her could. Also, a lot of people just barely turn 18 by or within a few months of graduation, they are 17 for most of their senior year (i.e., 17 or less while they can be described as “in high school”). first day of high school to the middle of sophomore year in college is one of the biggest difference periods in terms of how people think but also how they dress and cut their hair after being exposed to people from around the country in college. You can’t get away with keds (even if a lot of people in college AND GRAD SCHOOL wear the same gross gray heather college hooded sweatshirt every friggin day) (kind of funnily, tv shows set in high school rarely have students wearing a lot of gear from whatever college they envision attending some day, or whichever team they root for…there’s always that guy decked out in Duke gear in every HS across the nation). And yes, Gabrielle Carteris is the eternal extreme example 🙂 but plenty of people from The OC and the new 90210 were rightfully dinged for the same thing
Yes, there’s Grease and 90120 etc. and all sorts of examples where folks in their 30s are playing high school students. This is a case where she’s one year —or 18 months, or whatever you prefer — past the age where she could actually be in high school. (And a person held back a year could be 19 in high school.) So I and other commenters think it’s a peculiar statement, as if 19-year-olds magically look drastically different from 18-year-olds (or 17.5-year-olds, whatever). Would Kate Hudson at 18 would like she definitely couldn’t be in high school, and if so, what happened to her in that year? Anyway, if you don’t get that, cool. I and others just thought it was an odd take.
That is because you are reading a general rule out of it. It is within the realm of possibility for somebody who is older than the age at which high school students commonly graduate to not appear to be younger than the age at which high school students commonly graduate. According to the article’s author, Kate Hudson in this movie is one example of a person who was older than the age at which high school students commonly graduate and very clearly did not appear, in his opinion, to be younger than the age at which high school students commonly graduate. There is absolutely nothing that is in any way an odd take about it, he thinks Kate Hudson didn’t look like she was in high school. You are like a dog with a bone that’s actually a piece of poop.“Your aunt martha gets social security? She does look exactly at the age at which one often receives social security”
“Pardon me while I call a mental hospital to have you involuntarily committed because of your accurate perception of my aunt martha’s age. What exactly are you implying happened to my aunt martha between ages 61 and 62 that made this so apparent?”
“I don’t know, maybe that 365 days went by?”
“That is insufficient and you are weird. (tips hat) GOOD DAY!”
Because I was bored:I dunno, looks pretty much the same to me.
What follows is a silly sequence that soon turns much more serious, as Russell and [character] Jeff start off ribbing each other, before revealing how they really feel about each otherWasn’t that basically the scene on the plane as they think it’s going to crash?
The mic scene takes place much earlier in the movie.
Probably one of the worst films released in the year 2000, and grossly overrated as heck. Gap Store fashion Rock ‘N’ Roll silliness. Film made me want to go on an all Polka diet.
“Probably one of the worst films released in the year 2000″You really had to have not gotten out much to say that.
Well, I am Amish.
Then what are you doing watching a movie? Or did you hold a print up to the sun?
So you saw it on rumspringa?
I know some Amish. And you, sir, are not Amish.
Exchange this film for American Psycho and we’re on the same page. And worse is it’s become this cornerstone for ‘edgy’ sort of fans to boot.
You’re thinking of Fight Club. American Psycho is best known these days for being a successful adaption of a difficult book as much as anything else.
That’s valid in that the book is pretty terrible.
The book IS terrible, and Brett Easton Ellis is a gross douchebag, for sure. What’s great about the film is that Mary Harron (the director) took Ellis’s douchebaggery at face value and turned it into satire by just letting the words sit there. The endless scroll of brand names and the minutia of various shades of white for business cards becomes funny. It works as self-parody.
If you read the book and keep THAT voice in your head, the idea that Bateman is actually this sad, venal little incel, incapable of relating to other people, and that most (all?) of the violence he commits is some wisted little inner fantasy, it becomes a better novel. Not a great one, by any means. Ellis still loves the sound of his own voice too much. But thinking of the novel as satire makes it readable and, in parts, pretty funny.I think of it in much the same way as ‘Fight Club’, except at least Palahniuk KNEW it was satire when he wrote it. It was a shithead fans that got it wrong. Ellis is exactly the type that would think Tyler Durden was the hero of the story. Harron showed him up by basically being Jon Stewart skewering Fox News. Just roll the tape and look incredulously at camera. “Can you believe this shit?”
Exactly, and one night like 15 years ago when I was leaving a movie and saw all of these young frat bros waiting in line for a midnight showing of Fight Club I thought to myself, these guys aren’t really in on the joke
The book… certainly has issues, but I don’t think it’s fair to say it wasn’t intended as satire. The endless flood of brand names is absolutely deadening, but if you pay attention to what he’s describing they’re all dressed like complete clowns and eating Seussian nonsense.The movie tones some aspects of this down and makes other aspects more overt, but they’re both going for similar criticisms of yuppie self-involved shallowness and the depths to which it corrupts the soul. The movie just makes it more clear by pulling the view out a bit, while the book forces you to read between the lines Bateman presents.The movie’s absolutely better, but it’s not a Starship Troopers situation. They’re both aiming in the same direction using most of the same tools.
I’m going to have to re-watch, cause I never got that Daily Show vibe. But it does make more sense. I think part of it is like the band Sublime in that the ‘fans’ of the film are worse than the band itself by an large.
That book is still terrible though. I get your point of it all being a fantasy and a sad one at that, but I still don’t believe it’s satire. I think like Tommy Wisseau and The Room, he meant that as an artistic statement and later after reviews tried to spin it another way.
The books is obviously satirical and it’s suggested several times that the violence is all in Bateman’s head.
Both movies came out in 99. And Fight Club is still great.
Actually only Fight Club came out in 2000. I could have sworn American Psycho came out that year too. I have to see AP some time. I liked the book when I read it, although that was 25 years ago.
Stop, please stop. I’m already dead.
well played
“DO YOU WANT LUNCH!?!”
Spot on and even more to the point is I’m pretty sure that the guy who hated so hard on Almost Famous is a scientologist
Of all the movies I saw at a second-run theater to get out of my un-air-conditioned apartment in the middle of a heat wave, Reindeer Games was certainly one of them.
It was a Christmas movie released in February which should tell you all you need to know.
Reindeer Games can literally not be the worst since it features a lil boob topless scene of Theron’s.
“And sometimes you do Reindeer Games” “See, that’s just mean.”
I’m not saying it’s Citizen Kane or anything, but I found Reindeer Games to be reasonably enjoyable. It has a decent premise and a good cast, especially the always great Charlize Theron. It’s an Elmore Leonard knock-off, but there are worse writers to steal from if you’re making a movie.
I wouldn’t say it was one of the worst films of 2000, but as far as my personal opinion of the critical reception vs. actual quality, the gulf was by far the widest of any film that year.
I never knew I was “allowed” to think what you just said. I’ve tried watching it all the way through, but I never really get anywhere. And I love the idea of this movie! And, yet, something about it…
I think there are a couple scenes that people really like that make them misremember how good the movie it is. When the chorus of “Tiny Dancer” kicks in on the bus, it’s a genuinely good moment, but that entire scene is actually pretty cheesy. It’s the perfect microcosm of the movie. Also, I thought Kate Hudson was actually dreadful in this, and have the same level of incredulity of people thinking she was good as I have over people thinking the movie was good.
I’d say my favorite and most enduring thing about this movie is telling music writers I know “This is not Cream magazine!” in my best Ben Fong-Torres imitation when they ask me their opinion on stuff they wrote. And also Jason Lee is pretty good in it.
I liked it overall, especially PSH’s Lester Bangs. That said, I do get the arguments that it glossed over the seedy side of 1970s rock; these singers wouldn’t just be drinking, smoking weed and experimenting with LSD, they’d be hard-core cocaine and heroin addicts. And many of the groupies (sorry, “band-aids”) would be addicts as well. Penny Lane doing it to get her fix isn’t quite so romantic.
I actually loved the movie, it was right age/right time for me (was 19 when it came out, had just started journalism school, and loved classic rock). However, anytime I stopped to think too hard about the “band-aid” dynamic, I feel too icky.
Same – the music. the humor, and the great performances sweep me along, but if I think about it very much, it’s a problem. More of one the older I get.
Yeah. No slight to the performances at all, especially SPH playing a bit part and absolutely nailing it, like he always did, and wow did KH just light up the screen. The writer surrogate as some kind of blameless and eventually triumphant hero (not as badly as The Perks of Being a Wallflower) gets worse over time. Does not even touch upon, she is actively ODing, so yeah, kiss her while simultaneously slut-shaming her, which felt wrong to me in 2000 and is not a recent revision. I notice that the paramedics avoided doing that and did not get a standing ovation.
FWIW, SPH is a *very* different thing than PSH. I assume, anyway.
Yeah, but I don’t need to see all that “realistic” hard drug use. I know it happened, but I’m ok with glossing over those elements.
Right? It’s not a documentary.
Yes, but now every story is expected to tell every story.“Almost Famous didn’t even TOUCH on the plight of the overworked amp builders of the 70s!!”
The part where he’s tripping on acid at a house party is a decent approximation of “realistic” hard drug use.
i can suspend my disbelief somewhat because it’s supposed to be from the perspective of a 15-year-old fanboy. and frances mcdormand is pure joy.but yeh. who knew “sex drugs & rock n roll” would be so disgusting?
I think it mostly makes sense, as Stillwater is getting big, but still on the way up when William meets them. The hardcore drug use, lawsuits, solo vanity projects, etc. are still a few years away for them.
My absolute favorite parts of the film were any time “Lester Bangs” was on screen. The rest was meh.
I’m not a big Cameron Crowe fan and I used to agree with you, but I watched it again a few weeks ago and I’ve changed my mind. I think my original opinion may have been colored by my hatred of Jerry McGuire which is completely awful, has no redeeming qualities, and makes me want to punch everybody involved.
You’ve seen/heard Patton Oswalt’s bit on Jerry McGuire? I can’t find that part alone on Youtube, but this clip has it after the Ambien bit.
I had the opposite reaction. Loved it when it came out, rewatched it recently and “this really doesn’t hold up.” Good performances, generally, but Cameron Crowe really has a schtick that is obvious in all of his movies, and the sexual power dynamics are pretty gross.
And the made up songs are crap especially that one…
I wouldn’t put it on my “worst of” list, but holy hell is it an overrated bit of treacly nonsense.
You’d think it’d be hard to make a movie about the life of a fifteen-year-old who gets to go on tour with a huge rock band as boring as the life of a fifteen-year-old who DOESN’T go on tour with a huge rock band…but here we are.
I mean, some of the biggest movies that year were that Jim Carrey Grinch thing and a movie about What Women Want starring *wince* Mel Gibson. Yikes.
Juse hold on a minute, Sugar Tits
How does it feel to be so wrong?
There are certainly much worse movies out there, but I don’t understand the love this movie gets at all, or why anyone would consider it a classic. Almost Famous is pretty much the definition of generic throwaway corporate entertainment product. It’s the cinematic equivalent of going out to dinner at Applebee’s. Perfectly adequate for those who like things safe, bland and mainstream, or for when you just want some easily accessible, inoffensive and forgettable filler food.
Almost Famous is a (barely) R-rated Wonder Years. It’s fine, it’s a decent feel good movie (though I do totally cringe at Zoe Deschanel’s character), it’s definitely overrated but overrated doesn’t mean it’s terrible.American Psycho is fantastic and a minor miracle. It only “sucks” if you’re going into it expect it to be a straightforward serial killer movie.
You really think her name is spelled Zoe? And how hard could you cringe? She’s onscreen for like 11 minutes.
Cool.
My low-grade musician brother reviewed the film thusly: You’re not supposed to f*ck underage groupies. They’re little girls with breasts, and that’s sick.
You must be real fun at parties.
HOT TAKE ALERT!!
Don’t know if it’s just me, but I would watch the kiszka out of a soft-focus exploration of teenage Frankie Yankovic groupies.
Go away troll.
William and Penny don’t have a “romance” – he has an unrequited crush that never pans out. Also, Polexia is barely a character in the movie, so I’m not sure why any of this even matters since there’s no reason why the audience should care whether they get together a few years down the line, but the age difference between Penny and William is never an issue in the movie.
Also, this piece makes it sound like the Bootleg Cut is brand new for the 4K release – it’s been available for 20 years.
That radio interview scene was already in the original director’s cut and is not new.
As far as I know, nothing in the new release is new; it’s just a remastering of both the theatrical edition and the original director’s cut.
Thank you for this. I thought I remembered it, too, but I had a copy of the screenplay so I thought maybe I had just imagined having seen it.
‘Polexia’ sounds like an eating disorder.
I… never though Hudson looked that much older than Fuguit? They looked about equally youthful to me.
Kate Hudson definitely does not pass as someone who could be a high schooler, so the big age difference between the actors is very jarring onscreen (Fuguit was 15 at the time of filming, and Hudson was 19).Man, this site really tries to have it both ways when it comes to age. Half the time anybody younger than 30 needs to be protected and coddled by anyone not within a year of their own age, and the other half the time once you hit 18 you’re a fully formed human being who can’t pass for a high schooler (Hudson, apparently) and whose every action is indictable in perpetuity (the Ellie Kemper nightmare). I mean, that quote doesn’t even make internal sense… a 19-year-old can’t pass as a high schooler?
Not just here, a good part of the internet is like that. They see it as liberal and progressive but it’s really a manifestation of the good ‘ol madonna/whore complex.
“a 19-year-old can’t pass as a high schooler?”Seriously, I went to school in the stix and there were at least a couple girls in every class who easily looked 19-20 when they were 16.
Seriously, I went to school in the stix and there were at least a couple girls in every class who easily looked 19-20 when they were 16.Same. I almost said something about referring to 15 and 19 as “a big age difference”, too, but I know that it would just be hijacked and I’d be accused of defending statutory rape.
I tend to dismiss people who throw around obvious dipshittery like that.
There’s a lot of historical context that people miss. Lots of things that are now unthinkable were normal 50 years ago. No 16 year old from today could possibly function at the same level as a 1971 16 year-old. There was more freedom because there wasn’t technology around to monitor kids. Pot was a lot less potent. The drinking age in most states was 18. Everyone smoked and lots of girls were on the pill. If you didn’t make the team, you weren’t playing on some expensive travel squad. Kids simply landed among adult responsibilities at far younger ages and were expected to be competent to handle baby-sitting, cooking, home repair, an afterschool job, etc. And, the boys were looking at the draft. It wasn’t better. It was just different. And, I worked shows, so let me tell you – those groupies were not wide-eyed innocents. They had no problems (in the main) passing for at least 18, and they had agendas. That is not an endorsement or approval for what went on; I too am no cheerleader for statutory rape. I am though, not going to get up in arms about a 19-21 year old musician getting together with a 17 year old girl in 1971.
They see it as liberal and progressive but it’s really a manifestation of the good ‘ol madonna/whore complex.Bingo.It’s amazing how a good chunk of so-called progressive internet’s gender ideas seem to come from the 1950s, and that their idea of progress is to simply try to rebrand the M/C complex*. *That’s gonna be my hip-hop name.
Not to mention that I knew a few people who graduated high school at 19, I mean duh, 19 is still within what I would call “high school age”.
I waited tables for years. If you looked under 30, I probably carded you. Because a loooot of 17-20 years looked 25.
Where I went to high school there were plenty of people who were actually 19 when they graduated.
WTF is your point or are you just taking a break from listening to Bill Burr complain about how tough it is to be a man ?
Note the genders.Older guy, younger girl? “Gross paedo exploiting an innocent girl!”Older girl, young guy (ie, how it is with Hudson and Fuguit)? “Nice.”
“Older guy, younger girl? “Gross paedo exploiting an innocent girl!”Older girl, young guy (ie, how it is with Hudson and Fuguit)? “Nice.”It’s almost as if there’s a power differential between the sexes. Crazy, huh?
Yeah, like how women can be paedophiles and no one bats an eye!
You know, you don’t have to post if you’re not ready to deal with the discussion at hand. I’m more than happy to wait until you actually have something to say.
I think my favourite bit about your post is how you’re hoping to deflect attention away from the fact you clearly aren’t ready to deal with the discussion at hand is by trying to accuse me of not being ready to deal with the discussion at hand.
Like I said before: you’ve got a very 1950s takes on gender roles that’s you’re desperate to try to rebrand as progressivism. You don’t see women as human, only as objects for you to save.
“you’re hoping to deflect attention”Well, you can rest easy then, since that wasn’t the objective. The objective was to point out that power imbalances seem not to figure into your thinking, which seems unwise.“Like I said before: you’ve got a very 1950s takes on gender role”I can concede that point if you’re willing to stipulate that power imbalance between the sexes is completely eradicated in the year 2021, but I’d suspect even you wouldn’t go that far. Am I correct?“You don’t see women as human, only as objects for you to save.”Always nice to see projection in the wild.
Oh, there’s only one person denying a power imbalance, and it’s you.I never actually denied there was a power imbalance anywhere – go on, show me where I said there wasn’t a power imbalance – what I pointed out was the differing reactions from when the gender roles are reversed: you’re cooling with women raping boys. And the fact that you’re willing to defend that is the power imbalance, right there. I pointed out a power imbalance, and you immediately denied it, just like you deny women agency. I’m saying no one should diddle kids. You’re saying some people should be allowed to diddle kids. And that makes you a creep.
Oh, I see, you’re doing a recognitions bit.Needs some work. Not enough passive-aggressiveness.
I could just call you a cunt, but I feel that would be too obvious and you clearly don’t know what one is.
Dude is cray cray
Now kiss.
There’s a major power differential between a 15 year old and a 19 year old regardless of their genders. The power differential between men and women is not enough to excuse the differing reactions to this particular situation, which is what you seem to be implying unless I’m misreading it (the sarcasm makes it hard to tell which side of the point you’re actually taking, honestly).
“There’s a major power differential between a 15 year old and a 19 year old regardless of their genders.”No one’s arguing otherwise. I was just pointing out that using age alone would be a mistake.
In this case, I really don’t think it is. It’s such a massive difference, socially, legally and developmentally, that it outweighs just about every other consideration. It makes no sense to me to consider one pairing okay and the other gross.
“It’s such a massive difference, socially, legally and developmentally”It sure is. Is it big enough to completely obviate the gender imbalance? IMO, no, not as things currently stand.“It makes no sense to me to consider one pairing okay and the other gross.”Again, no one’s arguing otherwise.
Again, no one’s arguing otherwise.
Then what was with your initial snarky reply to Cough Whitlam in which, after he pointed out the disparity, you said “It’s almost as if there’s a power differential between the sexes. Crazy, huh?”Because the tone only makes any kind of sense if you were arguing with that claim.
“Then what was with your initial snarky reply to Cough Whitlam in which,
after he pointed out the disparity, you said “It’s almost as if there’s a
power differential between the sexes. Crazy, huh?””I don’t see anything in there where I’m arguing that one pairing is okay and the other is not.“Because the tone only makes any kind of sense if you were arguing with that claim.”Or perhaps, as I explained already in subsequent posts, I was pointing out that viewing relationships through the single dimension of age and nothing else was a simplistic way of going about things?
viewing relationships through the single dimension of age and nothing else
Nobody was doing that. Acknowledging when an age gap is the most significant factor in a relationship’s appropriateness is not the same as disregarding all other factors, and the attitude that he was criticizing (people think it’s okay when it’s a boy with an older woman) is one you also happen to disagree with.
“Acknowledging when an age gap is the most significant factor in a relationship’s appropriateness”That’s what you were doing. The guy I was replying to was not. Further, the “attitude that he was criticizing” is not present either in the article or in any of the comments preceding his, so it’s a strawman to begin with.
That’s what you inferred on the basis of nada.
Then why the sarcasm. It certainly looked to everyone who read it like it was argumentative.
Then why bring it up?
I mean, Kate Hudson easily looks much older than him in the movie.
Does anybody know where my DVD of the Bootleg cut is? I haven’t seen it in years.
Have you checked behind the old Chesterfield in the basement?
Did you lend it to Chris? That dude never returns anything! If you see him, tell him I want my damn vhs tape of MST3K episodes I recorded off Comedy Central back NOW!
No extended cut! This movie is as close to perfect as you can possibly make.
You mean it’s*Puts on shades*Almost perfect *Feeeeeeeveeerrrer doooooog*
Wut?
The extended cut is pretty great. It adds loads of great jokes and character moments and gives breathing room to some important moments. Plus it really puts you in William’s shoes as you feel like “This is awesome but it’s kinda going on far too long”. I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone as their first watch, but if you like the movie, (which it spunds like you do, the extended cut is a lovely deep dive.
Wow Almost Famous, there’s a movie I haven’t thought about in at least a decade.
Now Google how old Fairuza Balk and Bijou Phillips were at the time of filming and say something about the scene where Fugit is in bed with them and Paquin.
I thought the movie heavily implied that Penny was continuing her itinerant lifestyle and William moving on from his hangup with her being part of his growth?Then again, it’s been a couple years since I watched this movie every day on TNT.
That was my first thought as well. It would have never occurred to me that Penny and William would be anything more than friends after the movie.
Agreed. And I don’t think I get the people who take Penny Lane’s saying that she’s 16 to William literally. She’s obviously joking about age; I believe the extended cut even has a scene celebrating her birthday where the mystery of her age is kind of a joke.The movie makes it clear that William is a kid with a hopeless crush and that Penny is much more romantically sophisticated. They end up teaching each other a bit about their own worth, through completely platonic means. I think the movie means Russell’s line at the end about how he and William are a better pair than either of them and Penny.
I bought her as 16. It fits in with the super creepy rock star lifestyle with the underaged groupies at the time. I mean Jimmy Page had a long multi-year “relationship” with a groupie who was 14 when they met. Billy Crudup’s character having a 16 old girlfriend on the side fits with that.
Totally. The theatrical cut ends with her hopping on a plane to Fiji (?)… without him.
Morocco!
The real Pennie Lane ended up returning to “normalcy” once the rose colored glasses came off. She wasn’t a lifer. That bears out in my experience in music scenes. Eventually the savvy ones realize that they don’t want to be the last ones at the party.
Seriously, it ends with her hopping on a plane!
I’m really sad that I can’t get a digital code for the Bootleg Director’s cut and can only get a code for the 4K theatrical. I’m trying to cut back on physical media and I want lazy access to my stuff.
It makes no sense to provide a 4K theatrical digital code, but not provide a 4K Bootleg Director’s code.
“Cameron Crowe envisioned William ending up with Polexia instead of Penny Lane in Almost Famous”
Did you even read what you quoted and wrote?
Her name was Polexia?! 20 years and I never new this.
Such a weird piece. A “news” article about another site’s interview with one of the movie’s actors talking about a character who’s barely in the movie and who nobody actually knows the name of (it’s never mentioned in the movie) and referencing the upcoming 4K release of a movie that’s been available for 20 years but the post talks about it as if it’s a brand new cut. I’m so confused.
I think Penny says Polexia a few times….i seem to recall it being part of her OD rant. “Polexia is leaving with Humble Pie” or something.
It sounds like an Italian-Mexican fusion dish.
I love the album Polexia did with Iron and Wine.
Wait! Anna Paquin was in Almost Famous?!(just watched that episode of Psych yesterday).
People, especially the young people of today, have no idea how young famous rock stars were back then, or how many groupies were 15-18 years old. That was just the “is” back then. Obviously, I’m not in favor of young girls banging rock stars, but at least during the time of the setting of the movie, the musicians and teens weren’t separated in age by decades and, to be truthful, sex among young people was more straightforward, thanks to the pill and the generation gap. When the rock band Free broke up after 5 years, the youngest guy was 20 and the oldest 23. Mick Taylor was 19 when he joined the Stones. Robbie Krieger was maybe 19 when he wrote “Light my Fire”. Bob Weir was 17 when he joined the Dead. You can go on and on. Similarly, no matter how revisionist we try to get, 16-17-18 year old girls getting married out of high school wasn’t unusual. 15-16 year old girls dating 21 year-olds wasn’t unusual, either. People simply took on more responsibilities at younger ages than they do now – I know that I must have been more stoned than I thought back when I complained on my cross-Europe backpacking trip at 16 (with only the money I had on me and a return plane ticket and a passport) that my parents infantilized me. It was fun, back when you were taught as much by your own experiences as you were in school.
Most of Paquin’s added scenes in the extended cut build Polexia’s crush on William, particularly her last scene where she asks him to write about her one day.
Anna Paquin has been in so much stuff that was unworthy of her. Almost Famous almost doesn’t count since she was barely in it
Flack is pretty good…leans too hard on being superdramatic in the second season, hopefully they balance it with more salacious fun in the third
this is not the deepest comment (and paquin was over 18 when the film was made and is age appropriate for me) but I was just looking at all of the pics from this from the coverage and was struck by how super hot she was in the movie
Anna Paquin was a big crush in 2000 when I was approximately 17 and all three of X-Men, Almost Famous, and Finding Forrester came out.
William and Penny having a romance? That’s such a bizarre take – that was never my impression of what was going to happen afterwards. Even as a young teenager, I would have never classified the “relationship” they had in the film as a romance. More that it was a colossal crush on his part, and a good friendship on her part. I always assumed Penny was going to go at it alone for at least a little while, after going to Morocco and other international destinations of intrigue. Maybe build her own path now that she was back home in her small town, perhaps inspired by William’s convictions. Romance was never on my radar.That is interesting to hear about Polexia. I remember Anna Paquin annoying me so much in the movie – she just generally annoyed me a lot at the time. She kept being cast in these ingenue parts I never thought she was good for – lol, call it petty, but I wasn’t a fan and it slightly irritated me she was in Almost Famous, perhaps my all-time fave movie. I am relieved her character was barely in the theatrical version. Give me more Fairuza Balk any day.
Wouldn’t it make even more sense that William end up with somebody not in the movie, but rather with, say, the female guitarist Wancy Ilson of the female-fronted Washington state-based band Aorta?
Strange that it’s reported from the perspective of Crowe’s plans for the character. This movie is quasi autobiographical, so William/Crowe definitely dates Polexia a couple years later. The full interview with Fugit is worth the read.
Still a creepy-ass movie no matter how long it is.
Penny Lane doesn’t pass as a 16 yr old bc that’s the point. Young girls playing at being adults with older musicians is a story almost as old as time. And showing Penny and William as the same age but so drastically different is the point.
“And though it’s hinted that Penny Lane’s actually 16, Kate Hudson definitely does not pass as someone who could be a high schooler, so the big age difference between the actors is very jarring onscreen (Fuguit was 15 at the time of filming, and Hudson was 19).” I totally disagree. I didn’t find it jarring at all and especially when the film was released I was unaware of any one having any issues with the actors real ages. It worked for what it was supposed to do.
I always wondered if Rolling Stone got a huge number of teen aged job applicants after that film was released since William’s first time was a foursome