Denouement: Who Is Today’s James L. Brooks?

Will Leitch
·Editor

I'm still a little bummed about the news from this morning that James L. Brooks' 20-year production deal with Sony has been canceled. Now, this is a dumb thing to be bummed out about. First off: One should not let the cancellation of a mutually financially beneficial contract bum one out. This is just money, after all; James L. Brooks is gonna be just fine. (He certainly seems fine on his constantly entertaining Twitter.) No, it's not the particulars of the deal that makes me sad. It's that I grew up thinking James L. Brooks was the dominant creative force in movies, and now he's sort of being discarded like an outdated magazine subscription. (Kids, people used to "subscribe" to "magazines" that were on "paper.")

I mean, this is James L. Brooks. Here's the best way to describe how powerful James L. Brooks was: Not only would "The Simpsons" never have happened without him, people would show up in the early days of "The Simpsons" just as a favor for him, people who would never be involved with a cartoon. Remember how Albert Brooks -- credited as "A. Brooks" -- was the biggest celebrity "The Simpsons" could bring in, how having Albert Brooks attached to a show like that made you think it was a little smarter than the ads had made it look? Well, you probably don't remember that because you're not old, but trust me, it was true. Everything James L. Brooks touched was gold.

But I'm less interested in studio clout he had because, well, I don't really understand that stuff and I don't really care to. After producing/creating/writing some of the most beloved TV shows in history ("The Mary Tyler Moore Show," "Rhoda," "Lou Grant," "Taxi"), he stepped into the film world in 1983 with "Terms of Endearment." Brooks' first film, right out of the gate, won five Oscars, was nominated for nominated for 11 and almost surely made your mother cry at some point. Then he went out and made his second film, "Broadcast News," even better; a strange argument can be made -- and has been -- that "Broadcast News" both invented and destroyed the romantic comedy for the next 25 years. That was another hit. He also brought us Cameron Crowe and Wes Anderson. The guy had a perfect filmmaking record, he could spot talent and he was filthy rich. The guy could do no wrong.

Now there is this:

(Oy, what hearts this would break over at The Set. Don't tell them!)

Since "The Simpsons" debuted, Brooks has had "As Good As It Gets" -- a movie, as I mentioned earlier today, hasn't aged well at all and was already overrated when it came out -- and nothing much else that has worked. ("Spanglish" is still the worst of his films.) Those first two films were so good, and his reputation so ingrained, that it took 20 years (and one huge flop) for Sony and Brooks to part terms. But the man has been off for a while. He's got something great left in him, without question. Maybe having the teeth-kicking of "How Do You Know" will bring it out of him.

For now, though, is there anyone working at the level of Brooks, making the type of intelligent, heartfelt, emotional comedy-dramas that still sort of bear his stamp even though he hasn't made one in decades ... is there anyone doing a Brooks right now? It's tough to find them. The closest parallel is almost certainly Alexander Payne, though he hasn't had nearly the financial success of Brooks and, notably, has yet to put together a great female role (at least not one for a woman out of high school). And he's definitely the only one doing on a wide studio scale. The only real contenders we can think of are in the indie realm, from Nicole Holofcener to Miranda July to Mike Mills to, maybe, if you're squinting, Jason Reitman. We're sure we're missing some, right?

What about Judd Apatow, you say? Surely, Apatow aspires to a Brooks-ian reach and depth ... but we've seen James L. Brooks, and friends, "Funny People" is no James L. Brooks.

That's to say: Alexander Payne, who is operating at optimum efficiency right now, truly on top of the movie world in a way he's never been (particularly of "The Descendants" turns out to be a hit, which we think is a real possibility) ... and he's still not even close to where Brooks once was. Which is just another sign of how far he's fallen. (Well, as much as an extremely wealthy, charming, intelligent person who is beloved by millions and is probably taking a bath in diamond juice as we speak can "fall.") Can we ever have a Brooks again? In a "Twilight," Brett Ratner age? I'm a little afraid no one will even bother trying.