Category: Romantic comedy

Sullivan's Travels (1941)

Joel McCrea and Veronica Lake go on a journey of discovery – with a lot of jokes

Director: Preston Sturges

Cast: Joel McCrea (John L. Sullivan), Veronica Lake (The Girl), Robert Warwick (Mr Lebrand), William Demarest (Mr Jonas), Franklin Pangborn (Mr Casalsis), Porter Hall (Mr Hadrian), Byron Foulger (Mr Johnny Valdelle), Robert Grieg (Burrows), Eric Blore (Sullivan’s Valet)

Sullivan: I’m going out on the road to find out what it’s like to be poor and needy, and then I’m going to make a picture about it.
Burrows [his butler]: If you’ll permit me to say so sir, the subject is not an interesting one. The poor know all about poverty and only the morbid rich would find the topic glamourous.

Preston Sturges was one of Hollywood’s first writer-directors, a whip-sharp satirist. In Sullivan’s Travels he turned his guns firmly on Hollywood, satirising the industries self-importance. However, what he did so well was to counterbalance this with a genuinely insightful look at the urban poor and a celebration of the magic of the movies. The fact that he managed to cover this all in one movie – without making the film feel wildly inconsistent in tone – is quite some accomplishment.

John L. Sullivan (Joel McCrea) is a Hollywood director tired of making shallow crowd-pleasers. He wants to make a serious, social-issue film (called O Brother Where Art Thou?). When studio heads point out he knows nothing about the working man, Sullivan declares he will head to live the life of a drifter until he understands them. After several false starts, it isn’t until he meets a girl (Veronica Lake) that he starts to truly experience the life of the poor.

I’ve mentioned Sullivan’s Travels shifts in tone. In many ways, it’s a film that wants to have its cake and eat it – to be a satire of self-important move-making, and at the same time be an important movie. The extent to which it succeeds is a matter of taste: I can imagine plenty of people being thrown by the sudden shift in tone that kicks in for the final 40 minutes, after the slapstick and screwball comedy of the opening hour. But that’s partly the point. Sullivan’s Travels works because it puts all the objections you could make to a film “teaching” real people about their lives in that first hour – so you feel disarmed heading into the final half hour when the film does just this.

So that first hour first: it’s very funny. The scattergun satire of Hollywood folks is brilliantly done. The fast-paced dialogue of Sullivan and his studio bosses discussing his plans is wonderfully funny – how could you not like an exchange like this:

Sullivan: I want this picture to be a commentary on modern conditions. Stark realism. The problems that confront the average man!
Studio head #1: But with a little sex in it,
Sullivan: A little but I don’t want to stress it.

What’s sparkling about the exchanges is that Sullivan is just as out-of-touch and elitist as the suits, but with a higher degree of self-delusion. His attempts to head off onto the open road and live the life of the drifter are hilariously inept – his first sees him travelling with a “support team” (including a doctor, chef and media man); the second sees him accidentally return back to Hollywood. Sullivan wants to make a film about real people, but Sturges stresses he is as clueless and confused about the subject as any other rich Hollywood snob. The film has a glorious mixture of verbal acrobatics and slapstick pratfalls to demonstrate the comedy of this extraordinarily rich man (who at one point off-handedly runs through the features of his vast home) trying to relate at a distance to the poor.

It takes his meeting with Veronica Lake’s unnamed Girl for him to begin to understand the drifter’s life. Lake’s character remains unnamed, which is another joke on Hollywood – earlier Sullivan discusses women in films with the phrase “There’s always a girl in the picture”, so the plot shoe-horning a Girl in (without even naming her) as a sort of beggar Viola is, in itself, a neat parody of the structural conventions of Hollywood films. Anyway, it’s the introduction of this character that serves as Sullivan’s gateway into seeing what the world is like. Disguised as a boy (which allows plenty of neat gags in itself) the Girl takes Sullivan on a tour of shanty-towns and soup kitchens.

It’s here the tone of the film slowly shifts towards seriousness as we finally get to see the lives of paupers, in a film satirising a Hollywood director who wants to make a film about that subject. It’s wonderfully meta! Sturges shoots these scenes with tenderness and simplicity, without dialogue and scored only by gentle music. There are some small laughs on the way – but we never laugh at the poor and the overall impression is of the quiet dignity of these people just struggling to get by. It couldn’t seem further away from Sullivan’s privileged expectations. It’s quiet and it’s dignified.

Sullivan ends the film (for various reasons) as part of a chain-gang, and finally true suffering and gains the strength of character to acknowledge his own vanity. In one of the film’s most magical sequences, Sullivan watches a film with his fellow convicts and a poor black congregation. Unlike a sequence earlier where he watched a film with the urban middle class (hilariously then every possible breach of cinema etiquette is made, from crunching loud food to babies wailing) this audience are transported by the magic of a Walt Disney cartoon.

This sequence is justly famous, not only for its innocent charm, but also its ahead-of-its-time treatment of the black congregation. The congregation is open-hearted, intelligent and generous. There is a marvellous (and moving) rendition of Go Down Mosesand the black working class is contrasted with the dehumanising conditions of the chain gang. The whole sequence points out the underlying social injustice of America during this era. It’s wonderful – so well done you forget the film (in its jauntier first half) had a crude “white face” gag with its forelock-tugging black chef.

That’s the kind of film this is – a real mixture of genres, of views, of satire on social commentary mixed with real social commentary… Sturges throws almost everything at the wall here, and nearly all of it sticks. The underlying theme, if there is one, is the nature of class and privilege in America. Sullivan is well-off, from a rich background. He finds himself on a chain-gang when he is mistaken for the bums he is attempting to find out more about – but when he is revealed as a rich film director he is immediately released, despite still being guilty of the offence he was arrested for in the first place. In America, money talks and everyone else walks.

Sullivan’s Travels is probably not going to be everyone’s taste. Watching it, I missed the comedy of the first half during the more serious second half, cleverly done as the build of expectations was (how can you criticise the film, when the film is already criticising itself successfully?). Sure parts of it are dated, but it contains so many different types of film-making (screwball wit, Chaplin-esque pratfalls, animation, social realism, melodrama, romantic comedy) it’s almost a film school essay. It also manages to make its changes of tone throughout feel like natural developments.

All this and I’ve hardly mentioned the performances. The cast is full of brilliant character players, all of whom get their moments to shine – Sturges cast from a pool of regular actors, and he was a superb judge of distinctive faces and unique vocal delivery. Veronica Lake is very good – endearing but also sharp and smart as the Girl – but the film is totally anchored by Joel McCrea’s superb, low-key, straight-forward performance which resists all temptations to wink at the camera.

Sullivan’s Travels feels like a little known masterpiece – but it deserves being known better. It’s original, it’s funny, it’s moving, it’s clever and it’s packed full of great moments. It’s a wonderful example of old-school Hollywood looking harshly at itself – not only at its shallowness and formulaic nature, but also at its self-importance and self-satisfaction – but still acknowledging that the escapist pleasure it can give to people is valuable, that it can be a force for good, for all its faults. It tries to have its cake and eat it – but do you know what? It’s probably one of the very few films that pulls that off.

Clueless (1995)

Alicia Silverstone leads her in crowd troop in neat Jane Austen reimagining Clueless

Director: Amy Heckerling

Cast: Alicia Silverstone (Cher Horowitz), Stacey Dash (Dionne Davenport), Brittany Murphy (Tai Frasier), Paul Rudd (Josh Lucas), Dan Hedaya (Mel Horowitz), Elisa Donovan (Amber Mariens), Justin Walker (Christian Stovitz), Wallace Shawn (Mr Hall), Twink Caplan (Ms Geist), Breckin Mayer (Travis Birkenstock), Jeremy Sisto (Elton Tiscia)

The 90s saw a rash of films that reworked classics into US high-school settings, aimed squarely at the teenage market. One of the most successful of these was Clueless: a decent, just-smart-enough reimagining of the plot of Jane Austen’s Emma.

Austen’s wealthy, match-making heroine here becomes Cher Horotwitz (Alicia Silverstone) – queen bee of the in-crowd in her high school. Like Emma Wodehouse, Cher is smart, beautiful and taken to meddling in the lives of those around her, sure she knows best about how they should behave – and whom they should date. She can be selfish and self-obsessed, but beneath it is fundamentally good-natured. When new girl Tai (Brittany Murphy) arrives at the school, Cher sees the scope for a makeover project – but it’s Cher herself who undergoes the greatest transformation.

The obsessions with status that populate Austen’s world actually translate very well into the high school setting, with its in and out crowds. It also a very neat restructuring of the novel, hitting all the basic plot points of Austen’s story, with some smart translations into the modern world (Christian – the Frank Churchill role – is particularly well updated). The film is sprinkled with sharp lines and snappy dialogue exchanges, and the cast are certainly in on the joke, walking a fine line between parody and playing it straight. This all contributes to the film’s fizzing energy and its charming momentum – you can see why teenagers loved it, as Heckerling has a wry wink at the camera at the concerns of teenagers, but also celebrates their potential for fun and friendship.

Watching the film over 20 years on, it’s remarkable how successfully it used the limitations of Alicia Silverstone to such great effect. It’s a bit bizarre to think Silverstone was considered the next big star of Hollywood, considering how few of her films have made any impact since this. However, here her lack of depth and shading, her unmodulated voice and rather bland style somehow work perfectly with a character who is superficial and who believes she is far cleverer than she actually is.

Clueless is that strange thing – a star-making turn that didn’t make a star, but Silverstone clicks perfectly into this role, making Cher engaging and rather charming despite her self-obsession. She delivers what the film requires in spades, even if Cher’s late character blossoming seems something required for the film’s plot rather than growing truly organically over the course of the film.

This abrupt burst of “learning and growing” partly clunks because Heckerling shies away from Emma’s more negative characteristics – tellingly, Emma’s public shaming of another character is here given to a different character. Can’t have anyone not liking the heroine for a second can we? In fact this determination to make Cher constantly as likeable as possible does rather miss the point of the original novel. It also reduces the “tension” (we all know how stories like this end!) of whether the heroine has driven her love interest away through her mistakes and missteps – and with less for the heroine to learn about herself, and less damage to repair in the relationship with the object of her affections, there’s proportionally less emotional impact to the final happy ending.

Speaking of that romantic plotline, you also can’t talk about the film without also commenting on the fact that it makes a bit of a fudge around the attraction between Cher and Josh, who (the film is at very great pains to point out) are not actuallysiblings, but do share the same father/step-father. It’s actually quite a weird twist, but I suppose just as retrospectively unsettling as Mr. Knightley loving Emma from afar from a ludicrously young age. It’s funny though to watch the film fall over itself to hammer home the non-family relationship between the two characters early on, so we don’t start shrieking “incest” by its conclusion.

All in all, the film – like its heroine – is a sweet, but superficial, candyfloss concoction, without the depth that could have lifted it from pleasing popcorn fare to satisfying story.

Annie Hall (1977)

Diane Keaton and Woody Allen on the quest for love and romance. How much of this is autobiographical eh?

Director: Woody Allen

Cast: Woody Allen (Alvy Singer), Diane Keaton (Annie Hall), Tony Roberts (Rob), Carol Kane (Allison Portchnik), Paul Simon (Tony Lacey), Janet Margolin (Robin), Shelley Duvall (Pam), Christopher Walken (Duane Hall), Colleen Dewhurst (Mrs. Hall), Donald Symington (Mr. Hall)

Why is love so damned difficult? And, as it is, why do we keep setting ourselves up for a fall with it? Why are we all such relationship addicts? These are questions that Woody Allen tackles in Annie Hall, the film that elevated him from comedian to Oscar-winning cinematic super scribe (he won three Oscars for the film – Picture, Director and Writer). Does it deserve its reputation? You betcha.

Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) is a neurotic New York comedian (is it any wonder he was seen as synonymous with Allen himself?), twice divorced and incapable of maintaining a relationship. He meets Annie Hall (Diane Keaton, Allen’s ex-girlfriend playing Allen’s character’s eventual ex-girlfriend, using Keaton’s real name as a character name – confused?) over a game of mixed doubles tennis, and their immediate chemistry and shared sense of humour leads to a romantic relationship. Their only problem? Their innate neurotic self-analysis that stands forever in the way of maintaining a relationship.

Annie Hall is a deliriously funny film – I actually think it might be one of the funniest I have ever seen – with an astounding gag-per-minute hit rate. Allen uses multiple techniques to deliver gags: commentary, voiceover, celebrity cameos, an animated interlude, “what they are really saying” subtitles, flashback, direct to camera address – and the blistering parade of delivery styles never seems jarring, but ties together perfectly. Large chunks of the film are inspired high-wire dances where a punch-line is a few beats away, and the film never settles into a style or becomes predictable. So many of the jokes have become so familiar due to their excellence that it’s almost a shock to see them minted freshly here – and the fact they all land so effectively is a tribute to the performers.

In many ways, Annie Hall is a series of sketches loosely tied together with an overarching plot line. In fact Alvy’s constant commentary on events (a brilliant playing with conventional cinematic storytelling form), add to the feeling this is in some ways an illustrated stand-up routine by a gifted self-deprecating comedian. The material seems so synonymous with Allen’s personae (and the characters of Alvy and Annie so close to what we know about the actors who play them) it’s very easy to see the whole film as auto-biographical. Not that there’s anything wrong with that – particularly as the hit rate of the gags here is so phenomenally high.

But what makes this film such a classic is that it is more than a collection of excellent jokes. Allen is also telling a story about romance – or rather or need for romantic connection, and how easily we can sabotage or undermine this through our own mistakes, errors and (above all) neuroses. Alvy Singer is almost chronically incapable of embracing happiness and contentment, with every good thing merely an interlude between crises. Annie is the most promising opportunity he has had for long-term contentment – and still his neurotic self analysis gets in the way. As such the film is about the quest for love – and the title Annie Hall(not the character) is a metaphor for this – to Alvy Annie Hall represents the perfect relationship, something he (and indeed she as well) will never accomplish.

The film perfectly captures the dance of first meeting – the shy, stumbling early conversations of people who are attracted to each other but are both trying too hard (the subtitles here are a brilliantly funny choice – we’ve all thought to ourselves “what am I saying?” in that situation!). There is a wonderfully playful scene where Alvy panics over the cooking of lobsters – clearly playing up for Annie’s delighted engagement in it, as she photographs his distress. These photos appear in the background, framed on their wall, as their relationship breaks up relatively amicably later. At another point, Alvy attempts to recreate the same moment (same location, lobsters again) with a new girlfriend – only to be met with unamused, annoyed confusion. It’s a perfect little vignette that captures the magic of chemistry – and the difficulty of finding it or holding onto it.

Because what is striking is that Allen allows the relationship to break apart surprisingly early. Roger Ebert has written about Annie almost “creeping into” the film – and this is true. She is only briefly seen in the first 25 minutes (the first third of the film almost!) as the focus is on Alvy’s discussion of his background and childhood, and his past romantic failings and sense of disconnection from people. Then very swiftly after its establishment, the relationship is past its prime, with both parties finding it hard to keep the interest going. The second half of the film follows them amicably drifting apart – meaning this is probably the most romantic film about a long break-up ever made.

The film has a beautiful little wistful coda of Alvy and Annie meeting outside a cinema, each with new partners. In long shot we see them engage in an animated and engaged conversation while their new partners look on, nervously smiling. The magic link between them hasn’t faded away, and their importance to each other, and natural chemistry, hasn’t changed – but, the film seems to be saying, their natures work against them. It’s one of several touching moments in the film that demonstrate the heart that underpins the jokes. After their first break up, Annie calls Alvy round to get rid of a spider in the bath. He does so with comic incompetence, then in a still medium shot he comes to Annie in the corner of the frame sitting on the bed. They reconcile and then embrace tenderly – it’s a beautiful, moving, gag-free moment, all the more effective as its reality is contrasted with the humour throughout the rest of the film.

The film is a full of tender and real moments like these in between the jokes: it’s a nearly perfect balance between them. The parts are perfectly written for the actors: Allen is so brilliantly good here as Alvy that the character has essentially become the public persona of Allen (and allegedly his desire to never make a sequel was linked to his unease with the association between Alvy and himself). Diane Keaton (her real surname being Hall and her nickname Annie) also had this part perceived as a loose self portrait (her past relationship with Allen not helping). Truth told, it’s a very simple part and Keaton actually has to do very little in the picture beyond react (the focus is so strongly on Alvy) and deliver the role with charm – but she captures the sense of an era shift, a woman stuck between transitioning from the hedonistic 60s to the ambitious 80s, an ambitious free-spirit. The Oscar for the role was generous, but not undeserved.

For all the film’s emotional understanding and complexity, it’s the jokes though that you will remember, and they are glorious: Alvy’s schoolfriends telling us what they are doing now as adults; Alvy’s description of masturbation; the accident at the cocaine party; Christopher Walken’s monologue on driving; the puncturing of the pretention of a loud-mouth know-it-all in a cinema queue – it’s a blistering array of comic genius and it will have you coming back for more and more. It’s Allen’s most garlanded movie and it’s certainly the best balance he ever made between “the early funny ones” and his “later serious ones”. It’s simply shot, but told with heart, feeling and emotional intelligence and with dynamic, comic wit – it’s one of Allen’s greatest movies.

Pretty Woman (1990)

Hard bitten businessman meets prostitute: of course romance blossoms. Happens all the time right?

Director: Garry Marshall

Cast: Richard Gere (Edward Lewis), Julia Roberts (Vivian Ward), Ralph Bellamy (James Morse), Jason Alexander (Phillip Stuckey), Héctor Elizondo (Barney Thompson), Laura San Giacomo (Kit De Luca)

In a parallel universe there exists a gritty prostitution drama Three Thousand. Al Pacino plays a cool, heartless besuited executive who picks up a prostitute, played by Diane Lane. The prostitute is bitter and cynical and addicted to cocaine. Pacino needs a female face and pays her top whack for a weekend’s work with one condition – no crack for a week. However, addiction and bad company are hard to shake off, and Lane’s prostitute succumbs to addiction once again and is turfed out on the street. Realising her life is in the toilet, she closes the movie by catching a bus to Disneyworld (her childhood dream to visit) – hoping that tomorrow “will be another day”.

But that’s a parallel universe, where writer J.F Lawton’s original screenplay Three Thousand emerged onto screens in line with his vision. In this one, Garry Marshall and Hollywood realised that the same story, with a heft of rejigging and a dollop of charm, could become a modern Cinderella story. So in this universe it became Pretty Woman, a charming romantic comedy where a besuited executive (Richard Gere), who has mislaid his soul but is still a charming hero, picks up a wholesome, sweet prostitute (Julia Roberts) – and they both change each other’s lives for the better.

I don’t think such a film would be a hit today. Can you imagine the online backlash? Can you imagine the bashing a film would get that presented prostitution largely as just another possible career choice for a girl in Hollywood? Flipping heck, we’re currently going through a backlash against Ryan Gosling’s character in La La Land, so goodness only knows what the Twitterati would make of Julia Robert’s Vivian Ward in this.

But despite everything, Pretty Woman gets away with it. Julia Roberts oozes so much charisma and joie de vive that you let slide the fact that she is not 1% convincing as a prostitute – or that despite living on the streets and being practiced at selling herself for sex, she remains wholesome and untouched by the nastiness around her. But then that’s par for the course for the entire film – it’s a bizarre fairytale that’s told with such swooping charm and playfulness, and with such an old-fashioned lightness of touch, that it makes you feel churlish to point out that it’s rooted in something profoundly troubling and unpleasant.

Not surprisingly given the character’s initial appearance as a prostitute, Vivian is a role that half of Hollywood turned down before Roberts said yes. But her star-making combination of girl-next-door charm and the perfect amount of sass makes her totally endearing. She is brilliant. Equally Richard Gere gives a perfect low-key, Cary Grant style performance as the smirking executive. To be honest, he’s no closer to what a hard-bitten businessman would really be like than Roberts is to a real LA prostitute, but hell it doesn’t matter, you still come out of this movie wanting to give him a hug. As the guy sings at the end while our heroes embrace on the stairs, “This is Hollywood!”.

So despite the fact that it should really hit all your outrage buttons, and make you gag on its sentimentality, it’s funny, sweet and lovable enough that you just disengage your brain and go with it. The film does this because it taps brilliantly into the same class unease as we all feel – who hasn’t popped into a high class hotel or (most brilliantly of all) a high-class shop and felt (or been made to feel) “I don’t belong here…”. Despite its subject matter, it all feels endearingly old fashioned, like something from the 1930s. The old fashioned shooting style, the structure that owes a lot to fairy tales, the jaunty old school musical numbers, the restrained sense of sex – it’s all successfully mixed together to make us feel safe.

Away from the wonderful leads, Jason Alexander and Laura San Giacomo have the thankless tasks of showing us what big business sharks and Hollywood Boulevard prostitutes are probably really like, but handle them well. Hector Elizondo is marvellous as a cuddly hotel manager, part a sort of benevolent uncle to Vivian, part a smoothly charming and caring Henry Higgins (although of course, the idea that prostitutes are unknown at high class hotels is equally nonsense).

The film is old fashioned, demands you not think about it and has two perfectly cast, charismatic leads who rarely played these sort of parts better. It’s not remotely rooted in any sense of reality and don’t even begin to think about any sort of message this could send to anyone. Think about it – as millions and millions of people do – as a handsome prince sweeping a normal girl off her feet. Perfect cinematic comfort food.