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

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Just a little whiplash is all.

Duel (1971) (SPOILERS) I don’t know if it’s just me, but Spielberg’s ’70s efforts seem, perversely, much more mature, or “adult” at any rate, than his subsequent phase – from the mid-’80s onwards – of straining tremulously for critical acceptance. Perhaps because there’s less thrall to sentiment on display, or indulgence in character exploration that veered into unswerving melodrama. Duel , famously made for TV but more than good enough to garner a European cinema release the following year after the raves came flooding in, is the starkest, most undiluted example of the director as a purveyor of pure technical expertise, honed as it is to essentials in terms of narrative and plotting. Consequently, that’s both Duel ’s strength and weakness.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Ours is the richest banking house in Europe, and we’re still being kicked.

The House of Rothschild (1934) (SPOILERS) Fox’s Rothschild family propaganda pic does a pretty good job presenting the clan as poor, maligned, oppressed Jews who fought back in the only way available to them: making money, lots of lovely money! Indeed, it occurred to me watching The House of Rothschild , that for all its inclusion of a rotter of a Nazi stand-in (played by Boris Karloff), Hitler must have just loved the movie, as it’s essentially paying the family the compliment of being very very good at doing their very best to make money from everyone left, right and centre. It’s thus unsurprising to learn that a scene was used in the anti-Semitic (you might guess as much from the title) The Eternal Jew .

You are not brought upon this world to get it!

John Carpenter  Ranked For anyone’s formative film viewing experience during the 1980s, certain directors held undeniable, persuasive genre (SF/fantasy/horror genre) cachet. James Cameron. Ridley Scott ( when he was tackling genre). Joe Dante. David Cronenberg. John Carpenter. Thanks to Halloween , Carpenter’s name became synonymous with horror, but he made relatively few undiluted movies in that vein (the aforementioned, The Fog , Christine , Prince of Darkness (although it has an SF/fantasy streak), In the Mouth of Madness , The Ward ). Certainly, the pictures that cemented my appreciation for his work – Dark Star , The Thing – had only a foot or not at all in that mode.

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Sleep well, my friend, and forget us. Tomorrow you will wake up a new man.

The Prisoner 13. Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling We want information. In an effort to locate Professor Seltzman, a scientist who has perfected a means of transferring one person’s mind to another person’s body, Number Two has Number Six’s mind installed in the body of the Colonel (a loyal servant of the Powers that Be). Six was the last person to have contact with Seltzman and, if he is to stand any chance of being returned to his own body, he must find him (the Village possesses only the means to make the switch, they cannot reverse the process). Awaking in London, Six encounters old acquaintances including his fiancée and her father Sir Charles Portland (Six’s superior and shown in the teaser sequence fretting over how to find Seltzman). Six discovers Seltzman’s hideout by decoding a series of photographs, and sets off to find him in Austria. He achieves this, but both men are captured and returned to the Village. Restoring Six and the Colonel to their respective bodie