Skip to main content

Okay, I’ll be as normal as hell.

Love Story
(1970)

(SPOILERS) There are some movies you studiously avoid but sense that, in the fulness of time, you owe it to yourself to see, just to confirm the uninformed opinion you already have on them. Mamma Mia’s one, and someday, perhaps when the world has awoken anew as a transhumanist paradise, I expect I shall brave those infernal waters. Love Story’s another, a movie that has become the very cliché of the woefully clichéd chick flick. It’s everything I expected and less, but it has the undeniable redeeming quality of being mercifully short.

That may be because there’s miniscule plot to speak off. Unfortunately then, while Love Story isn’t a long movie – it’s suggested that its brevity boosted its success, since cinemas could get in more screenings per day – it does rather go on and on by dint of not having a lot going on. That, and a severe shortfall in charisma on the side of its stars. The movie’s tear-sodden success surfed the perfect package of insipid drippiness, a simple but earworming tune (and title) and a couple of young pretty people. Pretty vacant ones. Oh, and tragedy. As Pauline Kael put, it a “‘contemporary’ R. & J. story”. Only, without any other discernible characters, Ryan’s dad aside, and thus suffocatingly insular.

I struggle to find positives. I’d note, for all its idiot sheen, director Arthur Hiller (never an auteur, as See No Evil, Hear No Evil readily attests) lends the material a naturalistic milieu, with real locations – including elite haven Harvard – and handheld camera. That doubtless upped the relatable ante – the Harvard part aside – for many of its swooning, inconsolable audiences. It needs the verisimilitude, as neither Ryan O’Neal nor Ali McGraw bring it.

Kael demolished the picture in expert fashion, observing “Those who are susceptible to this sort of movie may not even notice that Ali McGraw is horribly smug and smirky, though if you share my impulses, whenever she gets facetious you’ll probably want to wham her one”. And it’s true. I couldn’t for the life of me figure why – Bob Evans’ infatuation and the success of Goodbye, Columbus aside – Jenny was supposed to be appealing, with her insistently diminishing “What do you think, preppy?” snoots at rich jock Oliver (O’Neal). I was put in mind slightly of another Ally, Sheedy, in The Breakfast Club. Except that Sheedy’s a really good actress, not the sort whose “attempts at classy repartee are destroyed by nose-flaring, lip-curling amateurishness”.

On the other hand, Kael was generous to the studiously indifferent O’Neal, who “knows how to be emotional without being a slob”. Evans, self-aggrandising even when he was announcing himself as self-deprecating, was the major motive force behind the movie (his biography reads like Bogart if Bogart were a drama queen). He recounts how eight actors turned the picture down: “Conversely, any one of the brilliant eight would have become ‘fuck you’ rich making this ‘piece of shit’. Oh, and by the way, it was nominated for seven Academy Awards, including best actor and best actress”. Yes Bob, but how much did it do for either’s career? I mean, obviously, McGraw got McQueen and jettisoned Evans, while Ryan got Kubrick. But the latter only because bean counters mistakenly assessed him as someone audiences wanted to see (Love Story, Paper Moon, What’s Up, Doc? are about the extent of it. You know, Paper Moon – the one that should have been called Ryan's Daughter).

Hiller didn’t want O’Neal (understandably): “Let’s use Christopher Walken. He’s a legitimate actor”. That would have been commendably bizarre, but I doubt it would have saved the picture. Curiously, Evans recognised the Love Story was wafer thin, aghast at the first cut: “Just two pretty faces, Ali. No plot, holes as big as the Boulder Dam”. His solution was silence (“bike rides, car rides, running through the park together”). Montages, in other words. That’s quite shrewd, in fairness. But it doesn’t make Love Story a good movie, just a saleable one. One opening on Christmas Day. Well, it has a lot of snow.

Along these lines, I searched vainly for dramatic nourishment. You have to buy into these obnoxious kids’ – well thirty-year-olds playing a half decade or so younger – doomed romance. Without that, there’s nothing. Ray Milland is great, even in the cornball part of the manipulative, class-ridden father. I was curious to learn the novel ends with Oliver’s reconciliation with dad; it’s a shame this was lost, as that’s the his is the sole potentially engaging role.

There’s also a very young Tommy Lee Jones in one scene. Very young meaning he only looks about forty, rather than 24 that he was at the time. I was going to make a joke that Love Story might have been more interesting had Oliver, in common with many Ivy League schools, joined a secret society, but it seems Segal based Oliver both on Harvard graduate Jones and his roommate Al Gore

The picture, in its own low-calorie way, is trying to be zeitgeist-y, with its rejection of religion and the older generation’s rules (be they marriage or money). Kael dressed this up with “It deals in private passions at a time when we are exhausted from public defeats, and it deals with the mutual sacrifice of a hard-working, clean-cut pair of lovers, and with love beyond death”. Which sounds sociologically astute, but the success is really an example of not knowing there’s a gap in the market until you happen upon it (the largely female audience would return again and again). It wasn’t one that could be repeated, because whatever perverse alchemy Love Story wielded was based neither on stars nor script, but rather the idea of what the package represented at that moment.

Evans might have been right to a degree, then, in his vainglorious assessment that “Men and women equally hungry for an all but lost emotion – romance – kept returning to Love Story. More than a film, it was an aphrodisiac, a phenomenon”. That’s blarney and blather, of course, and I doubt the male contingent was going willingly, but Love Story exerted a draw in a similar way to Titanic quarter of a century later. I suspect the sequel – Oliver’s Story – flopped partly because no one who saw the original wished to be reminded of the malaise that washed over them eight years earlier. And because O’Neal was never a star.

Time Out’s Geoff Andrew dismissed Love Story as “Dated before it was made” and “The bland mating of love and leukaemia”. The novel was written after the script but became a bestseller prior to the movie’s release; Kael noted the publishing phenomenon (“One can be sure that movie companies will now take a new interest in the script-into-novel market”). This would be the decade of The Exorcist, The Godfather and Jaws, all publishing phenomena (if not script to text, they’re near enough in terms of sudden combined might).

Anthony Holden has it, in The Secret History of the Hollywood Academy Awards, that Love Story was nominated “by virtue of its huge commercial success” (see also the later Titanic). He doesn’t stop there, though, suggesting it was also down to “the fact that its female lead, Ali McGraw, was married to the head of Paramount, Robert Evans”. Why, the temerity of the accusation! And Robert, such good pals with spotless rap-sheet elite-stooge luminary Henry Kissinger and all! This kind of thing isn’t/wasn’t uncommon, of course. But even if one is inclined to give Love Story a free pass based on populism (it shared Best Picture nominee space with Airport that year), there’s considerably less leeway in deducing how it was that either McGraw or O’Neal managed Best Actress and Best Actor nods for their torpid turns. “Evans’s clout around town was in itself enough to win McGraw a Leading Role nomination” attested Holden.

“Love Story didn’t open, it exploded” boasted Evans. The only hint of that pull to a cold, unwaveringly dry eye fifty years on is the insistent Francis Lai theme, the leading blub of the opening line (“What can you say about a twenty-five-year-old girl who died?”) and the ridiculous – but ridiculously memorable – poster line “Love means never having to say you’re sorry”. Writer Erich Segal went on to unparalleled lack of success in his various adaptations. Among them was A Change of Seasons, in which Anthony Hopkins romps in a hot tub with Bo Derek. Surely, it’s time for the multiple Oscar-winning jab dodger’s lost classic to be rediscovered? What do you say about a fifty-year-old movie that made you want to run and hide? Love Story’s very dull, and absent of drama or charm, but it isn’t actually awful for the most part. Like its leads, it’s devotedly indifferent.


Popular posts from this blog

Ziggy smokes a lot of weed.

Moonfall (2022) (SPOILERS) For a while there, it looked as if Moonfall , the latest and least-welcomed – so it seems – piece of apocalyptic programming from Roland Emmerich, might be sending mixed messages. Fortunately, we need not have feared, as it turns out to be the same pedigree of disaster porn we’ve come to expect from the director, one of the Elite’s most dutiful mass-entertainment stooges, even if his lustre has rather dimmed since the glory days of 2012.

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

All I saw was an old man with a funky hand, that’s all I saw.

The Blob (1988) (SPOILERS) The 1980s effects-laden remake of a ’50s B-movie that couldn’t. That is, couldn’t persuade an audience to see it and couldn’t muster critical acclaim. The Fly was a hit. The Thing wasn’t, but its reputation has since soared. Like Invaders from Mars , no such fate awaited The Blob , despite effects that, in many respects, are comparable in quality to the John Carpenter classic – and are certainly indebted to Rob Bottin for bodily grue – and surehanded direction from Chuck Russell. I suspect the reason is simply this: it lacks that extra layer that would ensure longevity.

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

I work for the guys that pay me to watch the guys that pay you. And then there are, I imagine, some guys that are paid to watch me.

The Day of the Dolphin (1973) (SPOILERS) Perhaps the most bizarre thing out of all the bizarre things about The Day of the Dolphin is that one of its posters scrupulously sets out its entire dastardly plot, something the movie itself doesn’t outline until fifteen minutes before the end. Mike Nichols reputedly made this – formerly earmarked for Roman Polanski, Jack Nicholson and Sharon Tate, although I’m dubious a specific link can be construed between its conspiracy content and the Manson murders - to fulfil a contract with The Graduate producer Joseph Levine. It would explain the, for him, atypical science-fiction element, something he seems as comfortable with as having a hairy Jack leaping about the place in Wolf .

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.

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

Gizmo caca!

Gremlins (1984) I didn’t get to see Gremlins at the cinema. I wanted to, as I had worked myself into a state of great anticipation. There was a six-month gap between its (unseasonal) US release and arrival in the UK, so I had plenty of time to devour clips of cute Gizmo on Film ’84 (the only reason ever to catch Barry Norman was a tantalising glimpse of a much awaited movie, rather than his drab, colourless, reviews) and Gremlins trading cards that came with bubble gum attached (or was it the other way round?). But Gremlins ’ immediate fate for many an eager youngster in Britain was sealed when, after much deliberation, the BBFC granted it a 15 certificate. I had just turned 12, and at that time an attempt to sneak in to see it wouldn’t even have crossed my mind. I’d just have to wait for the video. I didn’t realise it then (because I didn’t know who he was as a filmmaker), but Joe Dante’s irrepressible anarchic wit would have a far stronger effect on me than the un