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

You are, by your own admission, a vagabond.

Doctor Who Season 10 - Worst to Best
Season 10 has the cachet of an anniversary year, one in which two of its stories actively trade on the past and another utilises significant elements. As such, it’s the first indication of the series’ capacity for slavishly indulging the two-edged sword that is nostalgia, rather than simply bringing back ratings winners (the Daleks). It also finds the show at its cosiest, a vibe that had set in during the previous season, which often seemed to be taking things a little too comfortably. Season 10 is rather more cohesive, even as it signals the end of an era (with Jo’s departure). As a collection of stories, you perhaps wouldn’t call it a classic year, but as a whole, an example of the Pertwee UNIT era operating at its most confident, it more than qualifies.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983)
(SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk, and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. That doesn’t mea…

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ (or Zootopia as our American cousins refer to it; the European title change being nothing to do with U2, but down to a Danish zoo, it seems, which still doesn’t explain the German title, though) creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). It’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

So credit’s due to co-directors Byron Howard (Bolt, Tangled) and Rich Moore (of The Simpsons, Futurama, and latterly, the great until it kind of rests on its laurels Wreck-It-Ralph) and Jared Bush (presumably one of the th…

You can’t keep the whole world in the dark about what’s going on. Once they know that a five-mile hunk of rock is going to hit the world at 30,000 miles per hour, the people will want to know what the hell we intend to do about it.

Meteor (1979)
(SPOILERS) In which we find Sean Connery – or his agent, whom he got rid of subsequent to this and Cuba – showing how completely out of touch he was by the late 1970s. Hence hitching his cart to the moribund disaster movie genre just as movie entertainment was being rewritten and stolen from under him. He wasn’t alone, of course – pal Michael Caine would appear in both The Swarm and Beyond the Poseidon Adventure during this period – but Meteor’s lack of commercial appeal was only accentuated by how functional and charmless its star is in it. Some have cited Meteor as the worst movie of his career (Christopher Bray in his book on the actor), but its sin is not one of being outright terrible, rather of being terminally dull.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

You keep a horse in the basement?

The ‘Burbs (1989)
(SPOILERS) The ‘Burbs is Joe Dante’s masterpiece. Or at least, his masterpiece that isn’t his bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you masterpiece Gremlins 2: The New Batch, or his high profile masterpiece Gremlins. Unlike those two, the latter of which bolted out of the gate and took audiences by surprise with it’s black wit subverting the expected Spielberg melange, and the first which was roundly shunned by viewers and critics for being absolutely nothing like the first and waving that fact gleefully under their noses, The ‘Burbs took a while to gain its foothold in the Dante pantheon. 

It came out at a time when there had been a good few movies (not least Dante’s) taking a poke at small town Americana, and it was a Tom Hanks movie when Hanks was still a broad strokes comedy guy (Big had just made him big, Turner and Hooch was a few months away; you know you’ve really made it when you co-star with a pooch). It’s true to say that some, as with say The Big Lebowski, “got it” on fi…

Well, if we destroy Kansas the world may not hear about it for years.

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.