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

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

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.