Daily Archives: Sunday, April 10, 2016

  • Lover Come Back

    Delbert Mann (1961)

    Carol Templeton is a rising star in the world of advertising.  Doris Day, who plays Carol, is a misfit in the Madison Avenue of the early 1960s – and not just because she’s a high-flying female.   Carol’s incongruousness in New York is intentional – and meant to be comical: she’s from Nebraska – but Doris Day comes from another world in terms of personality.  Radiating hygienic rectitude, she’s like a bossy school teacher among the louche male executives.  Delbert Mann’s direction and the script by Paul Henning and Stanley Shapiro seem to want to make Carol ridiculous but they succeed only superficially.  She wears a sequence of hats that look silly and stick out like sore thumbs on the crowded New York street.  She often looks overdressed below the neck too but this is partly because Carol is conspicuous as the only woman on screen who’s not either a floosie dancer or a mere secretary.  She also keeps being outwitted by her professional nemesis Jerry Webster (Rock Hudson), whose creativity is limited but who’s a world-class schmooze-artist.  Since Carol doesn’t claim to be sophisticated, it seems unkind to poke fun at her gullibility – but the film-makers’ attempts to do so don’t really work anyway because of Doris Day:  she’s so electrifyingly competent that she’s invulnerable.  When Carol trips on something left lying on the floor of an apartment, Day’s false steps look almost choreographed – the trip emphasises her physical comedy skills and indeed her balance.  When she kicks off her shoes casually, the effect is one of fine precision.  The downside of Doris Day’s dazzling briskness, on this occasion, is that it detracts from the romantic comedy that Lover Come Back is meant to be.

    The plot is all about deception.  Jerry Webster pretends to be Dr Linus Tyler, a chemist whom Jerry’s hired to concoct a product which doesn’t exist but which, for reasons not worth explaining (the satire of advertising mores is very obvious), Jerry and his company president (Tony Randall) need to exist.   I was drowsing shortly before the first scene in which Rock Hudson passes himself off as the unworldly inventor and I wondered if Carol too was dissimulating but she wasn’t:  it was just the artificiality in Doris Day’s playing.  Carol falls for Dr Tyler:  when he turns out to be a man she’s never met but whom she knows she loathes she switches neatly from infatuation to hopping- mad censure and is sufficiently self-possessed to exact immediate, humiliating revenge on Jerry.  She’s self-possessed in spite of having drunk a glass of champagne and the fact that you’ve been led to believe that one drop of alcohol will be enough to make her helpless.  Forgetting this frailty at a crucial moment for the sake of plot convenience is a cheat – especially when the real Dr Tyler’s invention then turns out to be an intoxicating candy which does disable Carol:  she sleeps with Jerry and wakes up to find herself married to him.

    In a rushed finale, she gets the marriage annulled but, after giving birth to a baby who’s the fruit of their one-night stand, Carol decides she wants to marry Jerry again.   This upbeat ending has the opposite effect:  there’s been nothing to suggest that Carol and Jerry (as opposed to Carol and Linus Tyler) could live happily ever after so their remarriage seems a hellish prospect, and leaves you with a feeling more unpleasant than anti-climax.  Lover Come Back fails to deliver as rom-com – on the premise that opposites attract and true love eventually overcomes all tensions between them.  It delivers only on its own determination to show Carol Templeton as having learned her lesson for trying to succeed in a man’s world, by becoming the wife and mother that a woman is meant to be.  The same thing happens in Pillow Talk (also co-written by Stanley Shapiro) – the Doris Day character is a career-girl interior decorator destined to be a homemaker – but there’s a difference in the chemistry between her and Rock Hudson in the earlier movie.  In Lover Come Back, Day simply switches her feelings on and off, according to what’s needed at a particular point of the story.

    Rock Hudson is amusing and pleasantly relaxed.  He’s playing a man who’s pretending to be a man who (as the nerdy scientist) isn’t cut out for marriage:  Hudson’s own life – as so often when you see his films at this distance in time – gives the film an unintended edge.  But his inherent gentleness makes some of the broad comic routines that Hudson is asked to go through more appealing than they would be with a more vivid, dynamic performer.  His good looks lend Linus Tyler’s tentativeness and modesty a peculiar charge.  Tony Randall, as Jerry’s boss, is funny, combining a dapper exterior with scarcely suppressed hysteria in his voice.   With Jack Kruschen as the real Dr Tyler, Edie Adams as a chorus girl, and Jack Albertson.  The songs have the feel of trying, and failing, to replicate the perky energy of earlier Doris Day-movie title songs.   The incidental music by Frank DeVol needlessly underlines the characters’ emotions and reactions.

    19 July 2013

  • Lovely & Amazing

    Nicole Holofcener (2001)

    On the evidence of this, her second feature, and Please Give (her fourth), Nicole Holofcener has a set outlook on the world and on human relations – and a narrow illustrative range.  In Lovely & Amazing, as in the later film, she depicts women whose lives pivot on a conflict of neurotic obsessions with looking good and doing good.  Elizabeth Marks (Emily Mortimer) is an actress, anxious that she’s not getting decent roles because she’s not sufficiently sexy.  She also collects and gives a home to stray dogs.  Her fiftyish mother Jane (Brenda Blethyn), out of the socially responsible goodness of her heart, has adopted Annie (Raven Goodwin), an African-American child whose birth mother was a crack addict.  That same heart is also set on liposuction (in more ways than one – Jane foolishly hopes the surgeon might fancy her).  While she’s in hospital for the treatment, the already obese, eight-year-old Annie takes the opportunity to put on make up and have her hair straightened by Lorraine (Aunjanue Ellis), a black ‘Big Sister’ volunteer.  Jane is made to pay for her physical vanity and Elizabeth for both her vanity and her sentimental kindness to animals.  The liposuction goes seriously wrong and Jane’s hospital stay is much longer than the day surgery she expected.  Elizabeth’s latest discovery bites her and she has to have her lip stitched.  As with Please Give, there’s a lot of fractious bitterness in evidence but the score (this time by Craig Richey) supplies a softening leaven. Again it’s Catherine Keener – playing Jane’s eldest daughter Michelle (an out-of-paid-work artist) – who provides human complexity of a more substantial kind.

    In Please Give the men’s parts were few and minor.  The only sizeable one was the protagonist’s flabby, unfaithful husband and Holofcener’s attitude towards him seemed more contemptuous than hostile.  She shows herself more of a misandrist in Lovely & Amazing.   It seems that the only way a man can be tolerable is if he’s almost comically innocuous – like the teenager Jordan (Jake Gyllenhaal), from the one-hour photo shop which Michelle is reduced to working in; or not as appalling as his character type would lead you to think – like the sex-machine egotistical actor Kevin (Dermot Mulroney).  Elizabeth does a reading with Kevin to test their ‘chemistry’ for a TV series.  After she’s failed the test, he starts a relationship with her.  (It’s striking that when Holofcener takes a negative female stereotype that’s how she stays – Elizabeth’s imperturbably insincere agent (Christine Mourad) is an example here.)  If a man is a more or less conventional husband or boyfriend, he’s liable to be a shitty bore:  Michelle’s husband (Clark Gregg) won’t have sex any more and is two-timing her; Elizabeth’s boyfriend (James Le Gros) is a humourless scientist and a deadening belittler.  The best a male can be is disappointing.  At the end of the film, when Jane is ready to come home, all three main characters do without the men who’d looked promising.  Michelle, after a late-night meeting with Jordan in her car, has been arrested for statutory rape of a minor (although we assume charges won’t be pressed).  Kevin invites Elizabeth over to his swimming pool but she decides she can do without him.  The liposuction surgeon (Michael Nouri) was happily married.

    I enjoyed Lovely & Amazing more than Please Give.  One reason for that is negative:  the new movie, which I’d looked forward to seeing, left a rather dismal residue.  I was primed to be lowered by this film too – and consequently wasn’t.   There were also positive reasons, though.  In spite of the tensions in their relationships, Jane, Michelle, Elizabeth and Annie are fond of each other – there’s a sense of the resilience of family as well as sisterhood here.   The main positive is the cast.  Nicole Holofcener seems excessively dependent on the charm and talent of performers to give substance and nuances to the roles she writes but she casts shrewdly and she directs actors well.   Keener is the emotional centre of the film but she’s well supported by Brenda Blethyn and Emily Mortimer.  Jane’s anaesthetic seems to have curbed Blethyn’s enthusiasm for overdoing her characters – both she and Keener are experts in delivering sotto voce expletives.  Mortimer just about manages to prevent Elizabeth’s kookiness from grating on your nerves.  I could rarely make out what Raven Goodwin as Annie was saying but this little girl has an odd, imposing presence – she seems spiritually years older than Elizabeth (or even Jane).  Jake Gyllenhaal and Dermot Mulroney enrich the film hugely.  Mulroney manages with great skill and humour the sequence (difficult for both actors) in which the naked Elizabeth asks Kevin to appraise her:  while very experienced in seeing naked women, he increasingly enjoys the novelty of delivering a critical analysis of what he sees.  The twenty-one-year-old Gyllenhaal (Lovely & Amazing was released just a few weeks before Donnie Darko) is believable as a teenager and empathetic with the character of Jordan:  he lights up the screen immediately and the film is re-animated each time he reappears.

    26 August 2010

Posts navigation