Skip to main content

Welcome to my world of erotica.

The Look of Love
(2013)

Michael Winterbottom likes his sexy romps. He also likes his collaborations with Steve Coogan. Now, for the first time, he combines the two! Winterbottom seems to be in constant search of something new, be it style, genre or subject matter. This comes in tandem with an unfussy, get-to-it approach to filmmaking. He rarely makes dross, but one gets the impression that, if only he took the time to finesse his material, he’d be more likely to make films that were consistently really good. Rather than merely respectable. He’s dependably experimental I guess you could say. The Look of Love is a biopic of smut-peddler Paul Raymond, at one point the richest man in Britain. In chronicling his less than salubrious life and career Winterbottom has made a respectable enough movie, but unfortunately it’s a long way from being really good.


Coogan plays Raymond, from his early days compering nude tableaus at his variety shows (it was only an offence if the girls displayed moving wares) to his rise with London strip club the Raymond Revue Bar. He channels his profits into property (we see him giving both his daughter and granddaughter a tour of his many investments; asked why he has so many, he answers that it “confers respect”). By the ‘70s he is staging theatrical revues, and it’s during this period that he leaves wife Jean (Anna Friel), who has been hitherto willing to indulge his loose behaviour, for performer Amber (Tasmin Egerton, pretty but leaving little impression). It’s also the point that he takes on Men Only, a top shelf magazine edited by Tony Power (Chris Addison).


Winterbottom and Coogan have a relatively benign view of Raymond. His debauchery is shown (at least at first) to be cheerful and good-natured, and Jean only takes him to the cleaners (winning the biggest divorce settlement ever in Britain to that point) when his relationship with Amber becomes all excluding. The Men Only antics are seen from as a progression from terribly British naughty postcard/ Carry On humour. Accusations of degradation to women are met with quips and rejoinders from Raymond. It’s all a bit of harmless fun. On the back of the post-‘60s liberation, it seems that Raymond is able to assume a vaguely anti-establishment position. If we aren’t quite encouraged to get behind him, we are supposed to be amused by his relaxed abandon. When his revue Pyjama Tops receives scathing reviews, he pronounces “To be described as the worst play in the last 25 years is almost as good as being the best play in the last 25 years, because people are going to talk about it, and that’s all that matters”. He even prominently displays the rebuke “arbitrary displays of naked flesh” on the billboard, the assumption being that all publicity is good publicity. Amber, re-named Fiona Richmond for the purposes of Men Only, asks “penetrating questions” as she travels “around the world in 80 lays”. Raymond picks up where Sid James et al were too innocent to continue.


But the heart of Winterbottom’s film is Raymond’s indulgent relationship with his daughter Debbie (Imogen Poots). If director and lead actor are unable to lay bare Raymond’s inner life (they lay bare nearly everything else, however) they are at their best dealing with his hopeless inability to observe the appropriate boundaries as a parent. Not just with Debbie; this is further emphasised by scenes with his sons. One is from his first marriage, with whom Raymond is either unwilling or unable to make any connection. Debbie’s brother is openly hostile, having moved to Miami with Jean. He dotes after his daughter, and serves her up a succession of theatre projects. Rather than being honest about her failings, he closes a show purely on the grounds that it is haemorrhaging money. When she develops a voracious coke habit, father joins in; his only caveat is that she should consume the good stuff. He even does her a line when she’s in labour. When Amber leaves him, unwilling to compete with his hedonistic lifestyle, we see more clearly the lonely and isolated life he leads. His is the classic story of money not buying happiness. He’s at a loss in the opening scene, set in 1992, when he asked about the death of Debbie (who died of a heroin overdose). He gave her everything she could possibly want; how could it come to this?


If Winterbottom wisely doesn’t push the moral reproof, the problem is that he doesn’t push much at all. This is a smoothly oiled period piece, revelling in the currently fashionable ‘70s milieu and taking delight recreating its excess. But it proves resistant to saying anything much beyond the obvious. Coogan is very good, carrying off both Raymond’s charm and sadness. When he takes to the dance floor with Debbie’s friends, he’s like a derelict version of Jason King; talking the talk but with none of the debonair or loucheness. If Raymond remains something of a mystery, one is partly left with the impression it’s because he was empty somewhere deep inside (uncharitably, one might point the finger at Matt Greenhaigh’s unfussy script; Greenhaigh might have carved himself a little too comfortable a niche as a screenplay biographer). I wasn’t so sure about the impressions though, as that seems more like Coogan schtick (who knows, perhaps Raymond was the Mike Yarwood of the porn world). Poots is outstanding, spiralling vulnerably and affectingly out of control. I’ve read a few criticisms of Friel, but I thought she was fine (and also very game). As for Addison, he’s cast to type as an oily weasel; alas, his enormous beard fails to render him unrecognisable.


There’s a vague feeling of déjà vu throughout; we’ve seen this story before in a variety of incarnations. And Winterbottom’s vision of the seedy ‘70s is rather spruce and swish compared to the tawdriness one would expect; we’re closer to Austin Powers than grim skies and men in dirty macs. Most problematically, despite strong work from Coogan and Poots, the tragedy doesn’t have the necessary impact. In the end, The Look of Love comes up short because there isn’t much going on beyond the obvious; it’s all one long seedy high time, until it’s not. Perhaps because Winterbottom is unable to break from a rather literal retelling of Raymond’s (pecuniary) rise and (emotional) fall. By some distance The Look of Love the least of Coogan and Winterbottom’s hitherto fruitful pairings.


***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Believe me, Mr Bond, I could shoot you from Stuttgart und still create ze proper effect.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
(SPOILERS) Some of the reactions to Spectre would have you believe it undoes all the “good” work cementing Daniel Craig’s incarnation of Bond in Skyfall. If you didn’t see that picture as the second coming of the franchise (I didn’t) your response to the latest may not be so harsh, despite its less successful choices (Blofeld among them). And it isn’t as if one step, forward two steps back are anything new in perceptions of the series (or indeed hugely divisive views on what even constitutes a decent Bond movie). After the raves greeting Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan suffered a decidedly tepid response to his second outing, Tomorrow Never Dies, albeit it was less eviscerated than Craig’s sophomore Quantum of Solace. Tomorrow’s reputation disguises many strong points, although it has to be admitted that a Moore-era style finale and a floundering attempt to package in a halcyon villain aren’t among them.

The Bond series’ flirtations with contemporary relevance have a…

Remember, you're fighting for this woman's honour – which is probably more than she ever did.

Duck Soup (1933)
(SPOILERS) Not for nothing is Duck Soup acclaimed as one of the greatest comedies ever, and while you’d never hold it against Marx Brothers movies for having little in the way of coherent plotting in – indeed, it’s pretty much essential to their approach – the presence of actual thematic content this time helps sharpen the edges of both their slapstick and their satire.

On account of you, I nearly heard the opera.

A Night at the Opera (1935)
(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers head over to MGM, minus one Zeppo, and despite their variably citing A Night at the Opera as their best film, you can see – well, perhaps not instantly, but by about the half-hour mark – that something was undoubtedly lost along the way. It isn’t that there’s an absence of very funny material – there’s a strong contender for their best scene in the mix – but that there’s a lot else too. Added to which, the best of the very funny material can be found during the first half of the picture.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

This better not be some 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea shit, man.

Underwater (2020)
(SPOILERS) There’s no shame in a quality B-movie, or in an Alien rip-off done well. But it’s nevertheless going to need that something extra to make it truly memorable in its own right. Underwater, despite being scuppered at the box office, is an entirely respectable entry in both those arenas from director William Eubank, but like the recent Life (which, in fairness, had an ending that very nearly elevated it to the truly memorable), it can’t quite go that extra mile, or summon that much needed sliver of inspiration to set it apart.

I still think it’s a terrible play, but it makes a wonderful rehearsal.

Room Service (1938)
(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers step away from MGM for a solitary RKO outing, and a scarcely disguised adaption of a play to boot. Room Service lacks the requisite sense of anarchy and inventiveness of their better (earlier) pictures – even Groucho’s name, Gordon Miller, is disappointingly everyday – but it’s nevertheless an inoffensive time passer.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Goodbye, Mr Chimps.

At the Circus (1939)
(SPOILERS) This is where the brothers sink into their stretch of middling MGM movies, now absent the presence of their major supporter Irving Thalberg; it’s probably for the best this wasn’t called A Day at the Circus, as it would instantly have drawn unflattering comparisons with the earlier MGM pair that gave them their biggest hits. Nevertheless, there’s enough decent material to keep At the Circus fairly sprightly (rather than “fairly ponderous”, as Pauline Kael put it).

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…