Thirty years ago, I probably watched Quick Change roughly 30 times, thanks to a generous rental policy at our local 20/20 Video. But until the other night, it had been 25 years, give or take, since I had seen Quick Change, Bill Murray’s only directorial effort (actually he co-directed it with the film’s screenwriter, Howard Franklin). I was worried the film might not hold up, but I was wrong about that.
In Quick Change, Murray plays a discontent New Yorker who disguises himself as a clown and robs a bank in order to escape a failing and over-priced New York City. The robbery goes well, but the getaway is a circus (see what I did there?). At every turn, the city’s troubles conspire to remind Murray and his accomplices why they’re so determined to GTFO.
Smack-dab in the middle of a five-film run that began with Scrooged (1988), followed by Gostbusters II (1989), What About Bob? (1991), and Groundhog Day (1993), 1990’s Quick Change should’ve been a hit. But Quick Change bombed at the box office, and all these years later, even hardcore Murray fans don’t seem to know that one of the greatest comedic talents of our time directed a wry caper that has plenty to say about the failures of American society at the tail end of the 20th century.
Maybe Quick Change struck the wrong note at the time because our culture felt more triumphant in 1990. We (some of us, anyway) were still enjoying the the high of the deregulated, coked-out 1980s. We had also won the Cold War (America, fuck yeah!). Maybe Murray’s only directorial effort fell flat with audiences because it expressed a cynicism about the American Dream slumbering Americans just didn’t want to hear at the time. Or, maybe the studio’s marketing team just couldn’t figure out how to sell a story where the audience is asked to root for the bad guys.
Honestly, I don’t know why Quick Change failed. But I do know that it’s worth revisiting. After all, sometimes the difference between a good film and a flop is just timing. That randomness shouldn’t sit well with filmmakers or audiences, but just like troubled city depicted in Quick Change, the randomness of success and failure is inescapable.
Have you seen Quick Change?
What’s your favorite Bill Murray film?
If you were going to rob a bank, what would your disguise be?
Feb 22, 2022·edited Feb 22, 2022Liked by Michael Estrin
I want to say I saw it, since I was a big Bill Murray fan that the time. But after watching the trailer, I don't think so. Maybe the disappointment with Ghostbusters II turned people off Bill Murray at the time. Or maybe it was the clown costume. Many people hate clowns. Or maybe something else overshadowed it. Anyway, it looks like it is worth a look.
Never even heard of Quick Change. Fascinating! It’s hard to pick a favorite Bill Murray movie, but my instinct says Caddyshack. I went as Carl for Halloween and bought a gopher puppet to “chase.” Then again, I’ve also gone as a Ghostbuster. Groundhog Day is a perfect movie. Augh!
Had not heard of Quick Change. My husband and I watched it tonight and both loved it! Hard to believe it didn't do well. Thanks for the recommendation!
Thanks for the recommendation, I will give it a try! My vote is for Lost in Translation (2003) with Murray, Scarlett Johansson, Giovanni Ribisi. (Sofia Coppola, dir.). A little unsung gem. The scene where he holds her bare foot was priceless. A different kind of delicate intimacy not usually seen in films. Plus very bizarre views of a very bizarre city - Tokyo.
"Maybe Quick Change struck the wrong note at the time because our culture felt more triumphant in 1990. We (some of us, anyway) were still enjoying the the high of the deregulated, coked-out 1980s. We had also won the Cold War (America, fuck yeah!)"
Quick Change has long been one of my all-time favorite movies! I rarely talk to anyone who's familiar with it, let alone anyone who likes it.
Imagine my surprise, therefore, when I find someone who knows Quick Change, likes Quick Change, and who's also politically minded!
The following is an article I once wrote, many years ago, about Ronald Reagan (whom I do not like for the obvious reasons listed below: i.e. #"Deregulated"InQuotes #CokeHasAlwaysBeenStrictlyRegulatedAsADirectResultOfProgressivePolicyBeginningWithJosephBidenTheSoCalledArchitectOfTheSoCalledWarOnDrugs #Propaganda #ObviousPropaganda #PropagandaOfTheMostObviousSort):
RONALD REAGAN AND THE MYTH OF DEREGULATION
It's high time we dispel once and for all the absurd myth that Ronald Reagan was somehow for deregulation.
Statistically speaking, the size of bureaucracy, in terms of sheer civilian manpower, increased dramatically under Reagan, so that by the time he was finished, there were well over 200,000 more government workers than in 1980, when he took office.
In fact, the size of government under Ronald Reagan grew astronomically in virtually every way. To wit:
At the end of the first quarter of 1988, government spending had increased to 28.7 percent of the national income (“national income” refers to the private money generated by the hard-working citizens of this country). To put that into better perspective, this figure is even higher than Jimmy Carter’s outrageous numbers: in his final year as president, Carter maxed out at staggering 27.9 percent. Indeed, both Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter cut government spending far more efficiently than Ronald Reagan. Here are some of those numbers, which don’t lie:
Under Reagan, Social Security spending went from 179 billion in 1981 to 269 billion.
Farm programs skyrocketed: 21 billion to 51 billion.
Medicare jumped from 43 billion in 1981 to 80 billion in 1987.
During the Reagan era, federal entitlements alone rose from 197 billion to 477 billion.
Reagan promised the people that he would “abolish” the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. He did no such thing. On the contrary, these budgets more than doubled under Reagan. In his own words: “We’re not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have.”
In addition to not cutting, however, Reagan also upped the spending a few notches, thus: the Gross Federal Debt went from 900 billion to 2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter simply doubled it; Reagan tripled it.
Spending habits (which are a better gauge of government size than are taxes) increased under Reagan’s leadership in almost every way. But in any case, Reagan hardly cut taxes: by the end of 1987, government revenues, a good indicator of taxes and tax cuts, were nearly identical to those of Carter.
Reagan’s Economic Recovery Act, so-called, was negated a year or two later by his Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA).
He furthermore placed a five-cent-per-gallon tax on gas.
He hiked up taxes on the trucking industry.
He succeeded in increasing the Social Security tax – to the tune of 165 billion. In terms of foreign trade, Reagan was the most mercantilistic since Herbert Hoover: import restriction doubled under Reagan, and quotas were placed on countless products.
Foreign aid went from 10 billion to 22 billion.
Reagan also supported seatbelt laws and federal airbag laws.
Reagan increased regulation of the auto industry by not opposing that monstrous thing known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ).
In the final analysis, Reagan, like all the other bureaucrats, was just another interventionist. So please don’t be fooled.
If the mark of a minimal government is a government which, in Thomas Jefferson's words, "extends only to such acts as are injurious to others" (i.e. which limits itself to protection against the initiation of force), then Reagan was about as far from that as any President ever, right or left.
I've only watched "Ghostbusters" completely... *backs away slowly*
I want to say I saw it, since I was a big Bill Murray fan that the time. But after watching the trailer, I don't think so. Maybe the disappointment with Ghostbusters II turned people off Bill Murray at the time. Or maybe it was the clown costume. Many people hate clowns. Or maybe something else overshadowed it. Anyway, it looks like it is worth a look.
Never even heard of Quick Change. Fascinating! It’s hard to pick a favorite Bill Murray movie, but my instinct says Caddyshack. I went as Carl for Halloween and bought a gopher puppet to “chase.” Then again, I’ve also gone as a Ghostbuster. Groundhog Day is a perfect movie. Augh!
Had not heard of Quick Change. My husband and I watched it tonight and both loved it! Hard to believe it didn't do well. Thanks for the recommendation!
Thanks for the recommendation, I will give it a try! My vote is for Lost in Translation (2003) with Murray, Scarlett Johansson, Giovanni Ribisi. (Sofia Coppola, dir.). A little unsung gem. The scene where he holds her bare foot was priceless. A different kind of delicate intimacy not usually seen in films. Plus very bizarre views of a very bizarre city - Tokyo.
"Maybe Quick Change struck the wrong note at the time because our culture felt more triumphant in 1990. We (some of us, anyway) were still enjoying the the high of the deregulated, coked-out 1980s. We had also won the Cold War (America, fuck yeah!)"
Quick Change has long been one of my all-time favorite movies! I rarely talk to anyone who's familiar with it, let alone anyone who likes it.
Imagine my surprise, therefore, when I find someone who knows Quick Change, likes Quick Change, and who's also politically minded!
The following is an article I once wrote, many years ago, about Ronald Reagan (whom I do not like for the obvious reasons listed below: i.e. #"Deregulated"InQuotes #CokeHasAlwaysBeenStrictlyRegulatedAsADirectResultOfProgressivePolicyBeginningWithJosephBidenTheSoCalledArchitectOfTheSoCalledWarOnDrugs #Propaganda #ObviousPropaganda #PropagandaOfTheMostObviousSort):
RONALD REAGAN AND THE MYTH OF DEREGULATION
It's high time we dispel once and for all the absurd myth that Ronald Reagan was somehow for deregulation.
Statistically speaking, the size of bureaucracy, in terms of sheer civilian manpower, increased dramatically under Reagan, so that by the time he was finished, there were well over 200,000 more government workers than in 1980, when he took office.
In fact, the size of government under Ronald Reagan grew astronomically in virtually every way. To wit:
At the end of the first quarter of 1988, government spending had increased to 28.7 percent of the national income (“national income” refers to the private money generated by the hard-working citizens of this country). To put that into better perspective, this figure is even higher than Jimmy Carter’s outrageous numbers: in his final year as president, Carter maxed out at staggering 27.9 percent. Indeed, both Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter cut government spending far more efficiently than Ronald Reagan. Here are some of those numbers, which don’t lie:
Under Reagan, Social Security spending went from 179 billion in 1981 to 269 billion.
Farm programs skyrocketed: 21 billion to 51 billion.
Medicare jumped from 43 billion in 1981 to 80 billion in 1987.
During the Reagan era, federal entitlements alone rose from 197 billion to 477 billion.
Reagan promised the people that he would “abolish” the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. He did no such thing. On the contrary, these budgets more than doubled under Reagan. In his own words: “We’re not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have.”
In addition to not cutting, however, Reagan also upped the spending a few notches, thus: the Gross Federal Debt went from 900 billion to 2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter simply doubled it; Reagan tripled it.
Spending habits (which are a better gauge of government size than are taxes) increased under Reagan’s leadership in almost every way. But in any case, Reagan hardly cut taxes: by the end of 1987, government revenues, a good indicator of taxes and tax cuts, were nearly identical to those of Carter.
Reagan’s Economic Recovery Act, so-called, was negated a year or two later by his Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA).
He furthermore placed a five-cent-per-gallon tax on gas.
He hiked up taxes on the trucking industry.
He succeeded in increasing the Social Security tax – to the tune of 165 billion. In terms of foreign trade, Reagan was the most mercantilistic since Herbert Hoover: import restriction doubled under Reagan, and quotas were placed on countless products.
Foreign aid went from 10 billion to 22 billion.
Reagan also supported seatbelt laws and federal airbag laws.
Reagan increased regulation of the auto industry by not opposing that monstrous thing known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ).
In the final analysis, Reagan, like all the other bureaucrats, was just another interventionist. So please don’t be fooled.
If the mark of a minimal government is a government which, in Thomas Jefferson's words, "extends only to such acts as are injurious to others" (i.e. which limits itself to protection against the initiation of force), then Reagan was about as far from that as any President ever, right or left.
That is, until now.
I think I've only comletley seen "Ghostbusters" ... *backs away slowly*