Loser

Starring: Jason Biggs, Mena Suvari, Greg Kinnear, Dan Ayckroyd

In past films such as “Clueless” and “Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” Amy Heckerling has shown a real knack for getting her finger on the pulse of the younger generation. In “Loser” she may have gone to the well once too often. Though not without appeal, including good performances by the stars, the movie never develops the themes that could have raised it above the level of standard issue romantic comedy. Jason Biggs (who has been highly visible lately, appearing in “American Pie” and “Boys and Girls”) plays Paul, a wholesome kid from the sticks, who wins a scholarship to some unnamed university in big, bad New York City. Once there, he has trouble fitting in; he is ostracized because of his bumpkin mannerisms and victimized because of his willingness to trust people. This is promising ground for a comedy of manners, or social satire, but Heckerling, after a strong start, veers off into conventional territory. Paul meets Dora (Suvari, the teen temptress in “American Beauty”) who, despite her Goth attire and familiarity with petty larceny, is immediately identifiable to everyone in the audience as Paul’s true soul mate.

Dora, meanwhile, is involved in a demeaning relationship with the despicable Professor Alcott (an effective Kinnear, playing nicely against type). A love triangle of sorts develops, with Paul trying to protect Dora from being hurt by the dastardly Alcott. It hardly comes as a surprise that, in the end, true love triumphs. All of which is well and good, but Heckerling has missed her (and our) opportunity. She has always been interested in the way teens and young adults learn to deal with their differences and accept their individuality. In “Loser,” that would have been the most interesting aspect of the story to pursue. She could have explored the ways in which Paul and Dora, both marginalized (though for different reasons) find strength in each other and learn to accept who they are and revel in their differences. Instead, she falls back on run-of-the-mill romantic fodder: trips to the museum, cute kittens, pizza and rental videos.

What is she saying, that the way to realize your potential is to follow the mainstream line? Towards the end of the picture, Paul even changes his rube haircut, so that he looks more like, well, a movie star. After having his feelings hurt once too often, he says, “I have to learn to stop trusting people.” That is hardly a sentiment to make us sit up and take notice. In fact, it seems to suggest that Paul actually is a loser, or was. A finer and more entertaining resolution would have been to make Paul’s virtues--his trusting nature--turn out to be his real strength and salvation. Heckerling also aims low by making the torments Paul endures so obvious and one dimensional. All of his roommates are arrogant, cruel, and occasionally criminal, louts, who abuse Paul at every turn.

In fact, it seems that in all of New York, Paul does not meet a single decent person (save Dora, of course, who has issues of her own), and he must contend with indignities that seem extreme even for the most party-oriented college scene. It would have been more effective, and meaningful, if she had portrayed some of the thrill involved in collegiate exploration, and forced Paul to wrestle with the appeal such activities do in fact hold. Instead, she makes the choice about as tough as choosing between a firing squad and a feather bed, and there is no drama in that. Dora, too, has problems that have the potential to be much more compelling than they are allowed to be. She is broke, forced to work as a waitress in a seamy bar, has an obviously dysfunctional relationship with her mother, not to mention her problem with Professor Alcott. If ever there were terrain ripe for some true feminist self actualization, Dora’s life would be it.

But Heckerling sidesteps all of it. All of a sudden Dora squares her shoulders and shakes off her troubles like a bad case of the sniffles. Worse yet, she seems only to find happiness on the arm of a man (a nicer man, to be sure, but still... where is Gloria Steinem when you need her?). In the end, the characters would have been more interesting had they risen to the challenges presented to them because of--as opposed to in spite of--their distinctiveness. “Loser” makes the resolutions too easy. Paul finally takes a swing at one of his evil roommates with only about ten minutes to go in the picture (and then only because the boor impugns Dora's honor) when most of us would have taken a baseball bat to him hours before. Dora finally dumps the evil professor (apparently because she remembers how cute Paul is), but we don’t even see that interaction; Dora just shows up and announces it. Paul solves his academic dilemma simply by dropping the offending professor’s class (why didn’t he think of that 90 minutes earlier?). All of this takes place in about the final two minutes of the picture, and we all know real life doesn’t usually work that way. The lingering sense that things have wrapped up a little too neatly is amplified by the epilogue titles, purporting to show the fate of each of the characters. They are played for laughs, which fine if comedy is all you are after. But Heckerling is usually after more than mere laughs. She has shown the ability to mix humor with truth in the past, and that makes her failure to do so here all the more regrettable. (7/31/2000)