Manohla Dargis of the L.A. Times reviews the new Down With Love (I have no idea if the movie is any good or not—the NY Times likes it, but the ads for it do not seem promising). But what triggered my eye-roll reflex was Dargis’ pompous, full-of-herself review, which begins,
“Starting in 1959, over the course of five years and three movies, Hollywood’s most famous closeted homosexual made love to Hollywood’s favorite symbolic virgin, entertaining multitudes as legions of Miles Davis listeners and Norman Mailer readers shuddered to their core. The only people who took the Doris Day and Rock Hudson pairings seriously were the executives who reaped a profit and such touchingly naive pop consumers as my aunt, who once expressed heartfelt regret that her favorite performer, Liberace, had never married.”
I don’t know about you, but I liked the Doris Day/Rock Hudson comedies! Sure, they were silly fairy tales; they were supposed to be! And frankly, Miles Davis has never been my cup of tea, and I think Norman Mailer is a perfectly terrible writer. I get the feeling that Manohla Dargis protests too much: I’ll bet she sits there eating Cheez Doodles and agonizing over whether Joey and Rachel will get together after all.
I wonder if she took equal exception to the “soapy theatrics” of Sirk’s films when reviewing Far From Heaven–probably not because his (brilliant) films are thesis-worthy heavyweight dramas, while the Hudson/Day films were (gulp) comedies.
Actually, the most famous H/D film, Pillow Talk, is a bit of a clunker–I saw it recently and was surprised how stilted it was; it seemed to overexert itself in the comedic heavy-lifting. My favorite has always been Lover Come Back*, which has a much better groove. But Tony Randall’s a riot in all of them. I’ll be seeing Dw/L tomorrow morning, so will hopefully report back soon…
I might also add that Rock and Doris (as well as Tony and Thelma, of course) were brilliant light-comic performers, with expert touch and timing. I have nothing against McGregor and Zellweger, but they have big shoes to fill.
I love the concept of the romantic comedy, particularly in this revival format. However, I don’t think this is going to find much of an audience in today’s world. My mom took me to see Pillow Talk when I was a kid, and I loved it! Everything was so sanitized, with just enough naughtiness that Rock and Doris didn’t come off as “squares”.
The world moves way too fast these days. I don’t think the Under 30 bunch will even give it a second look. But I think I might give it a try, for nostalgia’s sake. I don’t care for Ewen MacGregor, but Renee is a doll!
Manohla Dargis is the worst film critic I have ever read, and the only one for whom I harbor a seething, festering hatred.
Her grandiose, elliptical, self-praising bastardizations of reviews (I’ve seen some that never addressed the movie being reviewed or gave you any inkling of its content) used to only pollute the LA Weekly, a free rag hereabouts. I couldn’t believe the bad judgment of the Times when they recently hired her. You can, and should, discount everything you read by her.
That said, I’m hopeful about Down With Love. The premise and concept seem charming, but reviews have been decidedly mixed. But if Dargis hates it, I’m in.
I had been blissfully ignorant of Manohla Dargis till now, but she sounds like Michiko Kakutani, the NY Times’ notoriously tetchy book critic (affectionately referred to as “Bitchiko”).
I like Ewan McGregor (“Me an’ who?”), but Renee Zellweger looks like an apple-head doll to me.
Her face seems much less squinchy in this film than in previous outings. I’m thinking that she’s finally a big enough star after Chicago to demand CGI face-lengthening.
I think there’s something endearing about her squinchiness. Ewan’s OK but he looks like he’s friggin six years old. A little too pretty for my taste. Heh. Applehead doll.