It's Too Simple, Actually
-or-
Everyone Has Reversals, But So What?
All right. Call me a naysayer.
Love, Actually is a big ol' cheat of a movie.
Good stories get complicated-- either through events and actions and shifting circumstances, or they get emotionally complicated.
Here, all we get is reveals and reversals. What are reveals and reversals if we don't see the characters struggling toward them? Instead of investing in characters, and watching them go through the tough stuff, in this movie we simply swap out to a different story (there being so many stories to follow). Instead of the tension of "Will this person do what they need to do?" the characters are simply presented with a problem, and then they either solve it or they don't.
The example I'll pull is the Colin Firth story. A classic problem (love with a language/class barrier) and a classic rom-com finale: the serenade. Well, pardon me for wondering who this character is, and who his love interest is, and why we think they should be together, other than the fact that the movie's telling me so.
Love, Actually is a movie built around its romantic (and occasionally tragic) money shots. Where do we traditionally see money shots?
Right: porn.
This is porn for romantics.
Romantic comedies these days often, sadly, feel cynical. But I don't think it gets much more cynical than throwing a series of unearned rom-com payoffs together and calling it a movie.
If you want to write porn, well, I can't stop you.
But imagine, just imagine for a moment, that the film followed half the number of characters, and we actually got to spend some time with those people. To care about them, beyond their archetypes. To think of them as something beyond "the woman played by Emma Thompson". Imagine how lovely and lasting the film could have been.
I love Richard Curtis. He's contributed more to the romantic comedy genre in the last two decades than any of his peers. But this was below him.
It's possible I'm saying this just to lure any lurkers out there into posting comments in anger.
But no, actually.
-or-
Everyone Has Reversals, But So What?
All right. Call me a naysayer.
Love, Actually is a big ol' cheat of a movie.
Good stories get complicated-- either through events and actions and shifting circumstances, or they get emotionally complicated.
Here, all we get is reveals and reversals. What are reveals and reversals if we don't see the characters struggling toward them? Instead of investing in characters, and watching them go through the tough stuff, in this movie we simply swap out to a different story (there being so many stories to follow). Instead of the tension of "Will this person do what they need to do?" the characters are simply presented with a problem, and then they either solve it or they don't.
The example I'll pull is the Colin Firth story. A classic problem (love with a language/class barrier) and a classic rom-com finale: the serenade. Well, pardon me for wondering who this character is, and who his love interest is, and why we think they should be together, other than the fact that the movie's telling me so.
Love, Actually is a movie built around its romantic (and occasionally tragic) money shots. Where do we traditionally see money shots?
Right: porn.
This is porn for romantics.
Romantic comedies these days often, sadly, feel cynical. But I don't think it gets much more cynical than throwing a series of unearned rom-com payoffs together and calling it a movie.
If you want to write porn, well, I can't stop you.
But imagine, just imagine for a moment, that the film followed half the number of characters, and we actually got to spend some time with those people. To care about them, beyond their archetypes. To think of them as something beyond "the woman played by Emma Thompson". Imagine how lovely and lasting the film could have been.
I love Richard Curtis. He's contributed more to the romantic comedy genre in the last two decades than any of his peers. But this was below him.
It's possible I'm saying this just to lure any lurkers out there into posting comments in anger.
But no, actually.
posted by Jennica at 11:14 p.m.
6 Comments:
I totally agree - I felt cheated by this movie. Any one of these threads could have easily been spun out into its own feature - it just felt lazy, like pulling a bunch of ideas out of the junk drawer and cobbling them together. I'm annoyed that none of these stories will ever be their own film - they deserve better. (except perhaps the story about the porn stand-ins. That was about right for the format)
The lack of character time made the Liam Neeson story with the kid just cheesy and inappropriately funny, instead of touching. It was forced to rely on OTN dialogue to communicate stuff we could have learned other ways if there had been time - I mercilessly mock the "are you sad because your mom died?" "No, I have a crush on a girl" exchange to this day. Lame!
This movie pissed me off. When I was watching it, I was laughing and crying and doing all the things the movie wanted me to do. Then, about five minutes afterwards, I started thinking about the "plots", the "characters" and became more and more angry. We were all ripped off by this movie. If he had just gone with three of the plots, it woulda shoulda coulda been sooooo great. It totally felt like the writer was just going through his ideas notebook and through a bunch of them together because he needed the cash to buy his wife something ridiculously expensive. Grr. I'm shaking my fist at you Love, Actually.
You know I love Curtis, but when I taught a one-day seminar on his work, I had to classify ACTUALLY as a "guilty pleasure" that showcases the best and the worst in him -- shows you what can sometimes happen when a writer directs his own stuff; I think Newell and others managed to rein in his more sentimental tendencies.
Best, for example -- the Bill Nighy storyline, and worst -- well, you and Julie and M have already cited plenty. What also bugs me is an odd subtext -- what's up w/ how so many of the stories are "older man of power and status with younger woman of none?"
Interestingly, there's a poignant "older lesbian couple" subplot, cut from the pic but available on the DVD, that's quite nice... actually.
Here's the thing, everything you said about Love, Actually is dead-on right. There were too many storylines, and none of them got the amount of air time that they should. It might have been better as a mini-series (BBC style) where we got to see one couple per week and get more development. We do only get the reveals, reversals and resolutions to everyone's stories (and in the case of the two naked stand-ins I don't think we even get the reversals or the resolutions).
But I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't care. It probably makes me a bad writer, and I'm okay with that. I loved this movie. It made me laugh, it made me cry and when the movie was over, I didn't want to leave the theatre. I just wanted to stay in that world. So while the flaws are obvious, I'll overlook them. Because, silly reason though it may be, this movie made me happy. And sometimes that's all you want.
Hey, someone has to write the porn.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Huh. Just when you think you're being controversial. Oh well, I'll settle for divisive!
Julie & M-- Good points about the junk drawer/notebook of stuff thrown together. My understanding is that "Amelie" actually began that way... but works because the main thread (Will the girl who sets up others to be loved find love herself? Classic Emma syndrome.) is solid?
Mernitman-- Hadn't even thought of the power dynamic issue. Yikes! So true.
Dionne-- Hey, I hear you. (I expected to hear more comments like yours!) Wow, a BBC miniseries of the same stories would've been amazing. I hadn't gone there. You also raise an important (and maybe unanswerable question): does a movie "work" if it makes people happy, regardless of story "flaws"? We all have our movie pleasures, guilty or not. Anyone else want to weigh in on this?
Nicholas-- Thought you were more of a "Baby It's Cold Outside" man.
Post a Comment
<< Home