One of the weird Christmas trends of the past few years is the cottage industry that has sprung up consisting of endless thinkpieces that trash the holiday film Love Actually. On the one hand, I get the vitriol—it's corny as hell, occasionally nonsensical, and it definitely wriggles and squirms under the scrutiny of the modern political lens. On the other hand, the persistence of internet critics foaming at the mouth to tear down a still-popular Christmas movie has my contrarian senses tingling.
You should also know that, regardless of how I feel about the movie, me and Pam still watch Love Actually every December. That doesn't mean that I'm more likely to jump to defend it. It just means that I'm familiar enough with it that I'm in a position to give an informed opinion. Not expert opinion. I'm just saying that this isn't one of those things where I'm watching a film once and running to the blog. I've watched it every year since Pam and I had our first Christmas together in 2010.
You should also know that, regardless of how I feel about the movie, me and Pam still watch Love Actually every December. That doesn't mean that I'm more likely to jump to defend it. It just means that I'm familiar enough with it that I'm in a position to give an informed opinion. Not expert opinion. I'm just saying that this isn't one of those things where I'm watching a film once and running to the blog. I've watched it every year since Pam and I had our first Christmas together in 2010.
I think the main issue I take with most of the hot takes I find when googling "love actually is not good" is that everyone complains that the film is "unromantic." I don't think that's wrong, but I think it's missing the point. That's being distracted by the genre tag of "romantic comedy." I don't think that the film, at any point, claims to be "romantic." It has something to say about love, but love can take many forms. Love can be painful. Love can be gross. Love can be inappropriate. Love can be completely fucked up. Love Actually presents the idea of "love" as all these ideas and more. It doesn't matter if the film itself believes that it is presenting love in this way, as long as we the audience are able to interpret it as we see fit. That interpretation could start a discussion, and if it does, then we must consider the film worthy of annual viewing.
That's important, though—what does Love Actually says about love versus what it thinks it's saying about love? I'll concede that its presentation of the idea is creepy and backwards at certain points. The most infamous scene, with the cue cards, is the best example. Mark is a fucking creep and a terrible friend and, when you think about it, kind of abusive. And yet, by stalking his best friend's wife and making a truly noxious gesture on Christmas Eve with the stupid, stupid, stupid cue cards, Love Actually seems to be saying that all of this is okay, that Mark is in the right here, that there really is nothing creepy about kissing your best friend's wife after negging her for a decade.
I, along with most viewers I assume, disagree with Love Actually in that, no, Mark actually sucks. (I probably overshot the natural point where I should've said that I have already made this argument on the blog.) But the think about that argument is that it is about the character of Mark. The discussion is whether Mark is good or bad. That discussion is not necessarily connected to the discussion of whether Love Actually is good or bad. You can't just say that Mark sucks and thus Love Actually sucks. And I actually don't think that Love Actually does enough to make it 100% clear its intentions. I think it's ambiguous enough that they could leave it open for interpretation whether Mark sucks or not. We, of course, interpret that he fully sucks, but that's part of the joy of the movie.
I guess I'm arguing that "love" is the MacGuffin here. It's integral to the plot, but it doesn't need to be fully formed for the film to say what it has to say. Or maybe that the absence of love is as important as love? Or that different interpretations of love cause conflict? Say, between Brits and Americans, between adults and children, between those in power and those subjugated by power, between husband and wife, and on and on, the very idea of "love" appearing different to different groups of people. And hey, if Love Actually is clunky in the various ways it presents these ideas, then we all get a good laugh out of it.
I'm arguing that there is room for a postmodern view of Love Actually. Just because people call it a "romantic comedy" and it occasionally appears to be unromantic doesn't necessarily mean that it's a failure. Just because it says "love is all around" and then shows various situations in which love is completely absent doesn't mean that Love Actually is lying to you. It is instead laying down one thesis and then pulling the rug out from under you. The characters are thin by design. They aren't people, they are ideas, and they are conduits through which you must examine your own life. Meanwhile, this game plays out over general themes of the holiday season, i.e. the perfect time to examine the self and to examine life and what it all means.
That's important, though—what does Love Actually says about love versus what it thinks it's saying about love? I'll concede that its presentation of the idea is creepy and backwards at certain points. The most infamous scene, with the cue cards, is the best example. Mark is a fucking creep and a terrible friend and, when you think about it, kind of abusive. And yet, by stalking his best friend's wife and making a truly noxious gesture on Christmas Eve with the stupid, stupid, stupid cue cards, Love Actually seems to be saying that all of this is okay, that Mark is in the right here, that there really is nothing creepy about kissing your best friend's wife after negging her for a decade.
I, along with most viewers I assume, disagree with Love Actually in that, no, Mark actually sucks. (I probably overshot the natural point where I should've said that I have already made this argument on the blog.) But the think about that argument is that it is about the character of Mark. The discussion is whether Mark is good or bad. That discussion is not necessarily connected to the discussion of whether Love Actually is good or bad. You can't just say that Mark sucks and thus Love Actually sucks. And I actually don't think that Love Actually does enough to make it 100% clear its intentions. I think it's ambiguous enough that they could leave it open for interpretation whether Mark sucks or not. We, of course, interpret that he fully sucks, but that's part of the joy of the movie.
I guess I'm arguing that "love" is the MacGuffin here. It's integral to the plot, but it doesn't need to be fully formed for the film to say what it has to say. Or maybe that the absence of love is as important as love? Or that different interpretations of love cause conflict? Say, between Brits and Americans, between adults and children, between those in power and those subjugated by power, between husband and wife, and on and on, the very idea of "love" appearing different to different groups of people. And hey, if Love Actually is clunky in the various ways it presents these ideas, then we all get a good laugh out of it.
I'm arguing that there is room for a postmodern view of Love Actually. Just because people call it a "romantic comedy" and it occasionally appears to be unromantic doesn't necessarily mean that it's a failure. Just because it says "love is all around" and then shows various situations in which love is completely absent doesn't mean that Love Actually is lying to you. It is instead laying down one thesis and then pulling the rug out from under you. The characters are thin by design. They aren't people, they are ideas, and they are conduits through which you must examine your own life. Meanwhile, this game plays out over general themes of the holiday season, i.e. the perfect time to examine the self and to examine life and what it all means.
Is Love Actually a good movie? I have no idea. I can only argue that it's worth watching, and that I think people are being just a little too myopic when they say it's too dumb to watch. A weak argument on my part, for sure, but I also don't feel comfortable being part of the blogging monolith of naysayers.
No comments:
Post a Comment