Skip to main content

He made me look the wrong way and I cut off my hand. He could make you look the wrong way and you could lose your whole head.

Moonstruck
(1987)

(SPOILERS) Moonstruck has the dubious honour of making it to the ninth spot in Premiere magazine’s 2006 list of the 20 Most Overrated Movies of all Time. There are certainly some valid entries (number one is, however, absurd), but I’m not sure that, despite its box office success and Oscar recognition, the picture has a sufficient profile to be labelled with that adjective. It’s a likeable, lightweight romantic comedy that can boast idiosyncratic casting in a key role, but it simply doesn’t endure quotably or as a classic couple matchup the way the titans of the genre (Annie Hall, When Harry Met Sally) do. Even its magical motif is rather feeble.

Which is – and I had to recheck, so lacking in import is it – that the characters’ romantic entanglements are brought on/exemplified by the occurrence of a particularly large, bright moon, very similar to the one that accompanied the courting of Loretta Castorini’s (Cher) parents (Olympia Dukakis as Rose and Vincent Gardenia as Cosmo). Loretta, engaged to Danny Aiello’s Johnny Cammareri, falls for his much younger, one-handed brother Ronny (Cage), while Rose gets wise to Cosmo’s philandering and indulges an innocent flirtation with John Mahoney’s college professor Perry, a serial-dater of his much-too-young students, who inevitably dump him (invariably by throwing a drink over him).

When Cage isn’t on screen, the proceedings are quite low-key, revelling in screenwriter John Patrick Shanley’s observations of the New York Italian community/family. Indeed, while there are stories of the stresses director Norman Jewison underwent getting the final breakfast scene right, one mostly comes away with a sense of the proceedings being too affable and relaxed, with insufficient zip to really leave more than a mildly pleasant aftertaste. There is, of course, room for that, and it’s probably exactly that inoffensively amenable quality that found such a willing audience (let’s not forget, the biggest movie of the year was offensively inoffensive Three Men and a Baby).

Cher is pitch-perfect in the lead role; this was her peak year, acting-wise (a trio of roles), topped off by an Oscar, and I think it’s fair to say, aside from a pre-nose job supporting turn in Silkwood, it’s her best performance, one in which she shows an easy, unflappable comic timing as she’s confronted by the foolish, vain men in her life. Dukakis is very nearly as impressive (why, she won Best Supporting Actress over the marvellous Anne Ramsey in Throw Momma from the Train), wryly no-nonsense about her husband’s pursuits and allowed free range in an unguarded dinner conversation with Mahoney (experiencer of a late transition to acting, he was in his mid-40s before he started attracting attention on the big screen).

There is, it has to be said, a cumulative knock-on to enlightened man Shanley writing these wise, world-weary female characters, despairing of the overgrown man-children in their lives (“You’re a little boy and you like to be bad” Rose tells Perry at one point). Premiere’s big beef with Moonstruck was precisely this: “what makes this movie less than the intoxicating meditation on romance that many have dubbed it is the men in their lives – childish, selfish, ridiculously neurotic”. I wouldn’t go nearly as far as labelling Moonstruck a miss, but it is diminished somewhat by this essential imbalance.

It helps, however, that Cage, Aiello, Gardenia and Mahoney service their neurotics with due verve. Aiello, like Mahoney a late comer to movies and only becoming a fixture in the wake of this and Radio Days (Do the Right Thing, Jacob’s Ladder, and of course Hudson Hawk would follow) is the less-than-romantic mother’s boy who has to be told by Loretta to get on one knee to propose (“It’s a new suit” he complains).

He’s also blamed by brother Ronny for the latter losing his hand in a bakery accident, after which Ronny’s fiancé left him; Ronny’s a seething mass of misbegotten clichés, not remotely a character, so it needs someone as wired as Cage to knead him into larger-than-life form. His speech about the loss of his hand is the most famous thing about Moonstruck, and it’s all Cage (“I lost my hand! I lost my bride!”), the actor parading body language inspired by Rudolf Klein-Rogge in Metropolis. Later, he takes Loretta to the opera, because it’s obviously recognised shorthand for possessing a profound soul and bottomless emotional depths (and naturally, Loretta weeps).

Ronny’s quickly tamed by Loretta, though, following a dose of cod-psychology in which she tells him he bit off his own hand (“You can’t see what you are and I see you, guy. You are a wolf”), and in response, he carries her to bed. The seventeen-year age gap between Cher – who insisted on the actor – and Cage doesn’t seem like a thing because Ronny bears no resemblance to your average 23-year-old, and because Cher, even playing greying, could be ten years younger than she is (Loretta’s only four younger). His physicality here is curious too, more resembling a young Stallone in his sloppy earnestness than flourishing the cool, hyper-styled drawl of Wild at Heart or the Looney Tunes wackiness of HI in Raising Arizona. In those early scenes, he brings a crazy energy to Ronny, and accordingly can’t help but infect anything in the vicinity (look at Peggy Sue Got Married for further evidence of this knack); he’s like Crispin Glover but with box office cachet. By the time of the final breakfast scene, though, Ronny has been thoroughly normalised, the wolf tamed, rather diluting what made the film such an intriguing prospect.

Uber critic Pauline Kael applauded the picture, with the caveat that it was “at times… a little too proud of its quaintness”; I think it’s too slight and innocuous, and self-consciously cute with the Italianate embroidery, to deserve the artful “rose-tinted black comedy” tag she awards it. Jewison and Shanley (who took home the Best Original Screenplay Oscar) don’t do anything to really make you want Loretta and Ronny to get together (other than knowing Johnny isn’t right for her, so Ronny’s the one by deflection rather than worthiness), meaning that, ultimately, it’s a romcom by theme and association rather than one engaging with the fates of its main characters in a way the audience can sufficiently get behind (Johnny is, essentially, a cypher, his thoughts only engaged with via Loretta). It’s a nice movie, but an inessential movie, such that it’s a prime example of one where you have to be prodded to recall it actually was a Best Picture contender.




Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

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.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

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.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

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.

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.

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Moonraker (1979) Depending upon your disposition, and quite possibly age, Moonraker is either the Bond film that finally jumped the shark or the one that is most gloriously redolent of Roger Moore’s knowing take on the character. Many Bond aficionados will no doubt utter its name with thinly disguised contempt, just as they will extol with gravity how Timothy Dalton represented a masterful return to the core values of the series. If you regard For Your Eyes Only as a refreshing return to basics after the excesses of the previous two entries, and particularly the space opera grandstanding of this one, it’s probably fair to say you don’t much like Roger Moore’s take on Bond.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

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.