Introduction to Part I

This volume aims to demonstrate the breadth and significance of Amy Heckerling's film and television work, an oeuvre most closely associated with the teen genre. Released in 1982, Fast Times at Ridgemont High draws from the male-oriented sex quest film of the time, such as Porky's (1982). However, with a focus on female characters, and a proto-feminist perspective in the film's nonchalant treatment of abortion, Fast Times saw Heckerling carve out a particular space for herself within the genre. Heckerling did not return to the teen film until 1995, with the enormously successful Clueless, which made a star of the film's lead, Alicia Silverstone. Markedly less successful was Loser, which, five years later, followed Jason Biggs as a rural outcast finding his feet at university in New York City.

Heckerling fully capitalized on the growth of teen television as a result of a widespread expansion of cable and satellite television networks that occurred in the 1990s. As a result, she produced television series following up on the characters of Fast Times and, later, Clueless. Examining the latter in particular, Susan Berridge explores differences in medium specificity as they relate to the romance narrative of Clueless. While the film version draws from the romantic comedy genre, centering on the burgeoning attraction between Cher (Alicia Silverstone) and Josh (Paul Rudd), Berridge observes the differences in television as a medium that allow the Clueless series to grant greater importance to the friendship between Cher and Dionne. As a result, Berridge's essay contributes to ongoing debates on the relationship between medium, genre, and narrative.

Secondly, Zachary Finch investigates the sexual politics of Heckerling's work in teen film. Observing Stacy's emotional growth throughout Fast Times, which sees her reject casual dalliances in favor of meaningful romance, and Cher's proud status as a virgin in Clueless, Finch questions the sexual politics of Heckerling's teen work. Examining the nuanced presentation of Paul in Loser as sensitive yet virile, Finch concludes that Heckerling's construction of masculinity and femininity alike does much to dispel the myths of the sexual aggressor and gatekeeper respectively.

The final essay in the section, by Mary Harrod, takes its cue from the multilayered and endlessly referential qualities of Heckerling's teen work.