December 4, 2010: Love Story
I’ve seen Love Story (1970) before, but not for quite some time and I was ready to revisit it. My wife had recently read the book and was interested in a comparison with the film, so we watched it together. Is it a good thing or a bad thing that I found it hard to distinguish whether this film was moving or dreadful?
I won’t get into details about a couple of significant departures from the structure and intent of the book, but Erich Segal adapted his own novel for the screen so one might assume that the changes were in keeping with his wishes. However, the nature of the film business is such that Paramount Pictures executives probably had something to say about how things were put together, so it may not be obvious whose wishes were respected. Keep in mind that I’m reviewing the movie and not the book.
In short, this is the story of two college kids who fall in love at first sight, and manage to make it work despite some personality conflicts between them, their very different backgrounds and the reservations of their parents. Then tragedy strikes, as it always must in a movie destined for smashing box office success. And this was quite the low-budget sleeper hit in its time, before the days when Steven Spielberg and George Lucas forever changed the way commercial moviemaking was done.
Directed by Arthur Hiller, Love Story falls at a point in his career sandwiched between two films written by Neil Simon (The Out-of-Towners from 1970 and Plaza Suite from 1971), so it’s clear what the studio was going for – light comedy with characters who have realistic aspects but can’t be quite real. And that’s pretty much what we get here, with hints at greater character depth which never really pan out, mostly because they don’t have to. The young man has father issues, but they are sketched so broadly that the interaction between them is clearly constructed for dramatic purposes and couldn’t have been the tone between two actual people in all the time they spent together day-to-day through two decades. That contrasts with the fresh and modern (for the day) wordplay between the two young lovers, which was a big change from the typical film of the time, since by 1970 there had so far only been a handful of examples which broke that mold. This is probably a big contributor to the popular appeal of Love Story, since the sappy story laid on top of unrealistic actions doesn’t really hold up to a critical examination.
So is this a great film or not? I’ll go with not. The snappy dialogue, while manufactured and unrealistic, is clearly deliberate and admittedly entertaining, but I have a hard time classifying it as brilliant. I maintain similar reservations about Juno (2007), which gets a lot of praise for its stylisically deliberate but unrealistic wordplay among teenagers. There’s also a bunch of handheld camera work in this film, which was not a terribly common technique at the time since those cameras still weighed a ton, but it lends a more intimate feel to the production. Some strange dissolves between scenes and the horrible ADR looping are just indicative of the technology of the time. So if I like the dialogue and the visuals, then why don’t I like the movie? Well, I think the main character, played by Ryan O’Neal, just isn’t likeable or consistent, and I think we’re expected to ultimately like him. That disconnect leaves me cold about the whole thing, wondering how this woman can stand to be with him for all those years, how his father can be expected to deal rationally with him, and how the audience can just ignore this part of his personality and get on with things. It’s worth noting that from what I know about how this character is handled in the book, I’d probably like it better. Ali MacGraw, as the young lady, does a great job bringing a certain energy and courage to her character, but it’s perhaps the less challenging role since she’s obviously supposed to be magnetic and sympathetic and doesn’t give us any reason to feel otherwise. Love Story is a movie with some nice little moments which come from good writing and acting, and it’s a historically notable film for its box office success and the part it played in the modernization of Hollywood, but I might not go so far as to call it a “classic”.
Confounding entry in rom-com movie history.
Post a Comment