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

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.