As this infrequent series of discussions enters its second year, I noticed that all of the films discussed to date were selections from The 80’s. The series was designed to discuss the pop culture films of my youth, and for some reason I neglected the second half of “my youth” that occurred after the prime of Arsenio Hall (ask your parents).

Thus, today’s entry finally takes us into the era of Reebok Pumps and Luke Perry. Trying to decide which 90’s films I wanted to include in the series was tricky, because with ten years less legacy, it’s a bit trickier to tell which ones are truly pop culture classics, and which ones I just remember fondly. Likewise, with many potential entries being in heavy rotation in the information age, it’s a bit trickier finding people who haven’t seen them.

But to get us rolling, we look to perhaps the quintessential 90’s teen movie: CLUELESS.

Its Austenian roots give it the potential to age gracefully…but a film that loaded with cultural quips might not hold up near as well as some of us think. Miss Stevee Taylor from New Zealand was equal to the task of judging with fresh eyes.

Here’s what she had to say…

Ryan McNeil: How was it that you hadn’t seen the film before?

Stevee Taylor: I don’t know why I hadn’t seen it sooner, seeing as I’m in it’s target audience. I guess it’s because we don’t have it at our DVD store. like most things.

RM: What did you think of the film now that you’ve seen it?

ST: I really liked it. Of course, it wasn’t as good as Mean Girls, which is the best teenage girl comedy ever, in my opinion. But this movie has the things which I secretly kinda like to see in movies: kooky fashion, first-world problems and slightly stupid characters. Because no matter when the movie is made, this kind of stuff is always relevant. And it’s always nice to see the world through superficial eyes every now and again!

RM: Glad to hear you dug it, was there anything in particular that you liked about it?

ST: I like seeing the world through superficial eyes every now and again. I liked the various pop culture references. I liked how silly the girls were. And I liked Paul Rudd. It was a really funny and enjoyable movie.

RM: Did you know it was an adaptation of Jane Austen’s “Emma”?

ST: I actually only found that out after I’d watched the movie. Mind you, I’m not very clued up on Austen…she’s one of the authors that I’ve stayed away from (in both books and adaptations)

RM: Well, maybe given that you liked CLUELESS you should give the BBC’s EMMA a look, or even the Gweneth paltrow version.

ST: I shall give them a look!

RM: You mention the pop culture references. You found them cute? I ask because I started to grin with how dated they made the film feel.

ST: Yes, they made the film feel dated too. But I have this strange thing where I can adapt to any time period and laugh at the references. I must admit, though, I found it weird to watch a film made back in the day when Mel Gibson was considered a ‘hottie’!

RM: Are teenage boys dressing any better now?

ST: No. Well…some can dress well, but I’ll be the judge of that when I go to the ball this week. However, some teenage boys reeeeeally need belts!

RM: Was there anything in particular that you didn’t like about the film?

ST: Hmmm, there was one thing I didn’t like/get: Was Cher actually popular? Because while she seemed to have the clothes and the money, she seemed awfully alone (well, apart from Dionne and Tai). And also, the ending reminded me too much of the cheesy 90s family movies that were on every Sunday afternoon. I used to hate them!

RM: Cher isn’t traditionally popular. She has her little circle of good friends, but beyond that she knows more people than she actually *likes*. That is sorta sad now that I think about it – nice catch. Actually, on a slight sidenote, Alicia Silverstone was actually my high school crush.

ST: What ever happened to Silverstone? She was so good in this.

RM: Silverstone just made some bad casting choices after this and missed her window. Pity huh?

ST: It is a pity, she looked like she had a huge future after this.Back to the movie, the ending reminded me too much of the cheesy 90s family movies that were on every Sunday afternoon. I used to hate them!

RM: The ending is a little fluffy in the way everything works out for everybody. I certainly can’t fault you there. Any other flaws?

ST: Yes – I didn’t really believe that the characters were only 15/16. They acted extremely mature for their age, especially compared to some of the people that I know.

RM: The age actor you bring up is a good one, and a continuing problem with Hollywood. They seem hellbent on cast twenty-something’s to play teenagers. As an adult I continue to find that off-putting; guess you’re saying that as a teenager you do too?

ST: Its horrible, because they don’t look like teenagers at all. They make actual 16 year olds look like 5 year olds. Its weird.

RM: Does the film seem materialistic at all?

ST: Yes, it is a little materialistic. But most of the time, that’s what teenagers are actually like.

RM: Teenagers are still materialistic? I’d have thought things would have change d in the 13 years since I was one. So you don’t see them as OVERLY materialistic?

ST: Yes, most teenagers are still materialistic. But not overly materialistic, like they were back then.

RM: speaking of “back then”, was it jarring at all to see Brittany Murphy looking so different than you were probably used to seeing her?

ST: Yes, it was jarring. I knew that she was in it, but I didn’t recognise her at first. She was really good too, even though her character got quite annoying.

RM: How so?

ST: I just found her really irritating…the way she talked, the way she acted, the way she changed just like that.

RM: So on the whole, would you say the film has aged well? Well enough to recommend to someone else?

ST: It has aged surprisingly well, but then again, its no Mean Girls. I still loved it though, and I would recommend it to someone else.

RM: That’s twice you’ve compared the two films – what does MEAN GIRLS do for you that CLUELESS doesn’t?

ST:I think that Mean Girls has a better storyline. And it’s also a lot easier to connect with Cady rather than Cher (because Cady appears to be mostly normal). Mean Girls is in my top ten favourites, so it’s pretty hard to beat it!

RM: Fair enough, but back to the matter at hand – what would you score CLUELESS on a scale of 1 to 10?

ST: I would score it an 8 out of 10. Really enjoyable film that I wouldn’t hesitate to watch a few more times.

8 Replies to “Talkin’ CLUELESS with Stevee Taylor”

  1. I love Clueless! I remember many years back telling my then tomboy friends how great it is and they just rejected it, calling it “too pink”. Now they love it, obviously.
    I agree with Stevee in the part that Mean Girls is by far the superior, but Clueless has its own charm. I loved Cher, and in fact she was so much nicer than Emma Woodhouse. Paul Rudd too is brilliant, and that scene when she realises she loves him, with the fountain and all, is one of the cutest scenes ever.
    I miss Alicia Silverstone. She played like a psuedo-catlady in The Art of Getting By, to which I said “As if!”

    PS. Kids are still very very very materialistic.

    1. It’s cool being a few steps ahead of your friends, isn’t it?

      I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that kids are still materialistic. Perhaps part of me thought that was a biproduct of the 90’s that went away in the 13 years that have passed since I was a teenager. Like taking better care of the environment.

  2. I love Clueless! I was 15 the first time I watched it, but that was when it first hit VHS circa ’96. It was also the very first dvd I owned (along with 10 Things I Hate About You).

    I do have to say I find it odd Stevee that you have a problem with the adults playing teens in Clueless (you can even see Jeremy Sisto’s wedding ring in one scene!), but not in the comparable Mean Girls, when both follow the same casting pattern. Main heroines Alicia Silverstone and Lindsey Lohan were both 18 or 19 when their respective films were made, as were one of the other girls in their cliques (Brittany Murphy and Amanda Seyfried), while the remaining cast of teen characters were all played by actors in their early to mid 20s. For both casts, I thought most actors looked young enough, with a few exceptions. I actually don’t have a problem with older actors playing teens in a fun comedy like this, but if the film aims for realism, then I prefer the actor to be closer in age (as in no more than a year’s difference of their character).

    Stil glad you liked it overall! I’d like to hear your thoughts on 1989’s Heathers someday.

    1. I don’t know what it is, but for some reason, actors playing teenagers (whether they’re teenagers or not!) never look like actual teenagers to me. They probably just looks different in America than they do in NZ…or something like that!

      I should really get around to watching Heathers one day!

      1. I don’t think it’s a NZ thing – I notice it here all the time. It could just be that there aren’t enough actual teen actors to fill out the ranks, but I’m noticing it more and more as I get older. (Living right next to a high school isn’t helping either)

        Teenagers look like teenagers – young adult actors that can dress down a few years still don’t look like teenagers.

  3. How have you avoided this? That takes some severe skills, with two older sisters I never had a shot. Of course, one of the reasons I appreciate this one so much is that it’s veritable proof that Jane Austen’s legacy will never die.

Comments are closed.