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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).