Skip to main content

Okay, dad. Let’s do it. Let’s go get the shit kicked out of us by love.

Love Actually
(2003)

(SPOILERS) The movement to denounce Love Actually, presenting all the reasons you shouldn’t like it in a doomed and self-righteous attempt to counteract its alleged status as a (the?) new Christmas classic, rewarded by essential viewing at that time of the year, appears to have eclipsed the film itself. Going by Google, at any rate (and Google never lies). I wouldn’t seek to take an axe to Richard Curtis’ confection on the basis of its regressive qualities however – how many romcoms are truly praiseworthy in that regard? – but because, for the most part, it’s too offputtingly calculated, in writing, in performance and in its resort to studied sentimentality, to take away many positives. It’s like eating an entire tin of low-grade chocolates and feeling very queasy afterwards; Love Actually’s a Quality Street experience.

I’m trying to recall my response first time round, as I hadn’t revisited the picture in total since I saw it at the cinema. I think I saw it in line with Curtis’ post Notting Hill tipping point, whereby all he had left was to repeat himself, only this time via a series of edited highlights. I don’t think I was so much offended as left insensible, overcome with treacle. I do recall that I liked the Bill Nighy sequence; now, it looks like the culmination of his overexposure in playing a Nighy type, but then, it represented his big breakthrough (I think Still Crazy half a decade earlier was the first time I’d really registered him).

Which is to say, Nighy’s still appealing, but as with most of the writing here, Curtis overplays his deck and the character of Billy Mack becomes the movie’s signature line in all-consuming smugness. How could you resist the fading popstar playing a Christmas-ised version of Love is All Around in his birthday suit while aiming (very mild) swipes at Ant or Dec? And how can you resist Curtis infusing all his characters with very middle-class and endearing potty mouths (except for the working-class ones, who are endearing to the middle-class ones because of their working-class potty mouths)?

Love Actually is shot through with the fuckity-fuck legacy of Four Weddings and a Funeral, then almost a decade past, in much the same way sitcoms, of which Curtis was obviously an experienced hand, are reliant on the repeated, applause-generating catchphrase or pratfall. But with Love Actually, there’s added cynicism, right down to lifting Love is All Around from Four Weddings’ hit single. It isn’t just cynical; it’s incredibly lazy, in the same way that music lover Curtis – see Yesterday – applies obvious standards to pep things up in shorthand where the writing isn’t doing the heavy lifting.

Accordingly, there’s a pop-culture puerility throughout, where taste is as mass-culture as possible. It’s there in Liam Neeson and son Thomas Sangster watching Titanic together – itself a sub-About a Boy relationship, culminating in a young terrorist running free in Heathrow aided and abetted by his dad and a devious jewellery salesman. In the congregation at Keira Knightley and Chiwetel Ejiofor’s wedding bursting into All You Need is Love. In the wish-fulfilment fantasy casting (in some cases self-referentially so, but nevertheless) based on Curtis’ FHM subscription (Claudia Schiffer, Ivana Milicevic, January Jones, Elisha Cuthbert, Shannon Elizabeth, Denise Richards). And in the Henry Higgins/Eliza Doolittle of Hugh Grant’s PM and Martin McCutcheon’s junior staffer (but with added fat jokes). It’s even there with the in-jokes: Andrew Lincoln’s stalker has Rear Window prominently on his video shelf. Wouldn’t Peeping Tom have been more sinister/ appropriate?

Partly, the issues with Love Actually relate to tone. Partly, the issues relate simply to it not being very romantic, its broadcast intent (culminating in real people arriving at Heathrow as an allusion to this all relating to real world affection in some perverse way). Tone-wise, Curtis veers all over the place. The Kris Marshall sequence, like the Nighy one, is overtly ludicrous and so gains points for achieving what it sets out to – Marshall goes to America convinced that the girls there love an English accent and is promptly surrounded by hot promiscuous babes dying for a piece of him. Martin Freeman and Joanna Page, getting to know each other as stand-ins on a sex film also manages to sustain itself, contrasting the mundane and heightened, and unlike much that we see here, places a value on relationship rather than love at first sight as the answer to all life’s woes.

The rest of the stories are odd in many respects, however. Laura Linney’s self-defeating graphic designer finally lands Rodrigo Santoro and then doesn’t, due to her devotion to her mentally ill brother; it seems rather shallow and one-note (what, they aren’t even going to try for a remount?), but for the really rather stark, raw scene of her visiting her sibling (Michael Fitzgerald) in a care facility.

In the Alan Rickman/Emma Thompson plotline, Rickman is, on the one hand, preyed upon by evil office floozy Heike Makatsch (she has no character trait other than being a wanton seductress), making it one of the most cartoonish of the collection. On the other, Thompson’s reaction on realising he is conducting a dalliance is genuine and moving, as saying nothing, she goes off alone, breaks down, composes herself, and returns to the family (earlier, however, she has to fend off horrible Curtis lines like “No one’s ever going to shag you if you cry all the time” to grieving Neeson, which comes after the Bay City Rollers blares out at his wife’s funeral – Curtis has a song for every occasion).

Those pockets of insight only serve to emphasise how shallow the whole is, and so the references to 9/11 (messages of love were sent by those on the planes, not hate, Hugh informs us sagely) and political idealism (Hugh again, calling out US President Billy Bob Thornton not because he’s baulking at the special relationship – Curtis’ attempt to comment the Blair-Bush cosiness – but because he tries to pull a Chelsea on McCutcheon) seem particularly cynical, misplaced and yes, even offensive.

I should mention the Colin Firth episode, I guess, but it’s particularly limp. Possibly it would have worked better with Grant, but as it is, it’s an indifferent “falls in love and asks to marry girl who doesn’t even speak English after he sees her in her undies”. At least the Knightley and Lincoln plot stands out for how wrong it is. That somehow, she thinks his keeping wank videos of her wedding is romantic enough that he deserves a kiss, and he duly resolves to get on with his life and marry Kate Moss (which he does in the Red Nose sequel, meaning Curtis is consistent if nothing else).

I was also struck by the age gaps in Curtis’ pairings off, which aside from Linney’s (doomed) attempts (a mere eleven years) are entirely skewed towards the men. Thirty-year-old Lincoln is creepily obsessing over an eighteen-year-old. Rickman is being pursued by someone 25 years younger. Hugh has sixteen years on Martine, as does Colin on Lucia Moniz. And Neeson’s eighteen years older than Schiffer. Lust Actually?

That’s par for the course, of course. What turns me off Love Actually the most, besides the annual Grauniad articles, is that it’s so synthetic. It’s every sincere and comic impulse Curtis has had over the years distilled and Xeroxed. If you like his brand, you’re quids in. If you’re unconvinced, you’ll likely swear off for life, actually.


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

Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

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

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

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.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.