Brats

Spearheaded, directed, and starring Andrew McCarthy – a card carrying member of the notorious 1980s group of up-and-coming actors deemed the Brat Pack – Brats is a star-studded documentary that functions as a lesson in perspective. Released on Hulu yesterday, the film also shows that that some labels are forever, whether the people involved like it or not. But let me back up a minute.

For those who aren’t pop culture fans, have been living under a rock the last 40 years, or do not care about teen movies that launched the careers of McCarthy, Emilio Estevez, Molly Ringwald, Judd Nelson, Rob Lowe, Ally Sheedy, and Demi Moore, the Brat Pack name was given to this group of incredibly famous actors by New York Magazine writer David Blum. As the story goes, Blum was supposed to be writing a feature about Estevez but it turned into a scathing commentary on the faces of The Breakfast Club, Sixteen Candles, Pretty in Pink, The Outsiders, and St. Elmo’s Fire, among other now-classic movies. What happened next made history as these seemingly-invincible actors became branded with a not-so-nice label that, at Estevez puts it in the documentary, made them “kryptonite” to each other.

Following the 1985 article, the aforementioned actors were no longer seen in movies together and, we learn, retreated from one another outside of the spotlight as well. In an effort to put the past behind him, McCarthy decided to contact his 80s buddies – who apparently he hadn’t spoken to in 30 years –  to get their thoughts on the consequences one article (that appeared in one magazine that probably was on newsstands for one week) bestowed on their professional and personal lives.

First of all, it blew my mind that McCarthy hadn’t seen anyone in three decades and yet most of them were willing to talk to him – on camera. In person interviews were conducted with core Brat Pack members Moore, Estevez, Sheedy, and Lowe, as well as “adjacent” members Lea Thompson, Timothy Hutton, and Jon Cryer. Although it’s clear that they have all grown up and aged well, each one has a different opinion regarding the impact of the Brat Pack moniker. For example, Estevez and McCarthy are still bitter – or maybe hurt is the more appropriate term – but Moore and Lowe have made peace with it. Maybe it’s because they continued to do well in their respective careers, but they seem to have a different understanding of the article:

Moore: “Why did we take it as an offense? Because we were young.”

Lowe: “Being in the Brat Pack changed not only our lives but what entertainment is.”

They aren’t wrong and clearly have not let this label bother them the way it still bothers McCarthy and Estevez. Moore and Lowe also point out that a lot of what the article said was more about the author than it was about them. And that brings me to the most interesting interviewee – Blum himself. As McCarthy waits to enter the writer’s apartment, his nervousness is palpable as he gets ready to confront/talk with the person he blames for negatively changing the trajectory of his life. Their conversation is fascinating because, all these years later, Blum isn’t sorry for what he wrote. He was trying to make a name for himself as a writer living in New York and coming up with a catchy term for twenty-something actors who were the talk of the town was the way to do it. The look on McCarthy’s face as he’s absorbing this information is captivating because we are watching (in real time) his realization that something he’s taken personally for 40 years was not personal at all. It was work.

Another interesting aspect of the documentary is who decided to opt out – Nelson and Ringwald – and we only get a reason regarding the latter. Ringwald wasn’t interesting in drudging up the past which is fair and Cryer confirms that. As for Judd, what we hear throughout the 90-minute documentary is that Nelson is unreachable and nowhere to be found. On another note, the fact that Tom Cruise was in so many movies with Brat Packers but never got lumped into the group is interesting – especially since the 1980s marked the first time in pop culture history that movies were made about young people, starring young people. In addition to Cruise, photos of Matt Dillon, Anthony Michael Hall, and Michael J, Fox are shown throughout the film.

What sets Brats apart from other documentaries is that fact that it was made by McCarthy – someone who experienced the Brat Pack rise and fall. Because he’s the one doing the interviewing and was part of it all, he gets the real answers from his (former?) friends and coworkers which is refreshing, fun, and heartfelt. I wonder how McCarthy feels now that everything is out in the open. Did he gain perspective on why taking this article personally for so long was more detrimental than it should have been? Or is he right about how offensive if it was (still is) to be called brats when they were just trying to be successful in a tough industry?

After watching the documentary, I read Blum’s article again and there are definitely places where he takes unnecessary shots at the actors – mostly Estevez, Nelson, and Lowe – that seem to come from a place of jealousy. In addition to talking about all the women who fawn all over the three actors, Blum points out that none of them went to college or took proper acting lessons – with the exception of McCarthy. And that begs the question – does McCarthy feel like he’s finally shed the Brat Packness of it all? Has he gained perspective and let it go? Or does he still think that Blum owes him a retraction?