DOWN WITH LOVE review

I suppose I’m old-fashioned in a lot of ways. Of the 8000 or so movies I have here at the house, the vast majority of the titles are pre-1970’s. I’m the sort of guy that loves my old Shaw Brothers and Bruce Lee Kung Fu films to the digital wire removal work done today. My favorite type of Musicals were made in the 30s at Warner Brothers & RKO. My absolute favorite science fiction films are from the 1950’s. I suppose the only genre that I can’t pinpoint my favorite era on, would have to be the CRIME FILM, and that’s cuz I just love them from the 30’s through to today, there’s never been a real weak period for that genre for me.

However, the genre of the Sex Comedy, my favorite time period was from the mid-1950’s through the early sixties at 20th Century Fox. Man did they know how to make em. Oh sure, around that time Universal had Rock Hudson and Doris Day, but Fox… Fox had Marilyn Monroe and Jane Russell and Jayne Mansfield and Tony Randall and Tom Ewell. The reason I preferred the Fox ones were that their women were hotter, their men were more funny and neurotic and their films were just paced breathlessly. The music, gags and innuendoes flew fast and furious.

Once the Hayes Code disappeared, the Sex Comedies became more juvenile, masturbatory, crude and well… “adult,” in that teenager sort of way. Oh sure, because of the Hayes Code, it meant a very chaste film, where sex was always on the other side of an altar, and was never something to really give in to, though every character kinda always wanted to. It was just understood that the tease was better than the act… cinematically speaking. That the question of will they or won’t they, was better than the funky monkey.

Frankly, what this repression did was caused folks to go Sex Crazy in the Fox films. The babes were busty and the mere sight of cleavage left a man stuttering and clumsy, and the girl always knew she had him. It was a by-product of the Femme Fatales angling their way into the comedies… fully aware of their sensuality and nursing it to the eager public willing to swallow every drop. Of course, it began with Mae West, but this was where it really blossomed.

DOWN WITH LOVE is a throwback, an homage or a rip-off of that era depending on your take on such things. In a way it feels like Frank Tashlin directing a Rock Hudson & Doris Day film with his energy, humor and sense of tease. For those that don’t know… Frank Tashlin directed two genius works of Sex Comedy called THE GIRL CAN’T HELP IT and his best… WILL SUCCESS SPOIL ROCK HUNTER? And Rock Hudson & Doris Day of course made PILLOW TALK, LOVER COME BACK and SEND ME NO FLOWERS. They were fun light films, but no where near as filthy and playful and exciting and big as… well, say WILL SUCCESS SPOIL ROCK HUNTER?

Peyton Reed is obviously a fan of this era and genre. He’s lovingly recreated not just 60’s era New York, but a very specific fantasy world that only existed in Technicolor Cinemascope of the period… The New York of this particular Genre. It is… Beautiful. Absolutely magical in the best sort of nostalgic manner. Now the film never quite is as great as WILL SUCCESS SPOIL ROCK HUNTER? Or BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S or THE APARTMENT. Mainly because it has the unfortunate folly of following in those films’ footsteps. HOWEVER, it is absolutely delightful. A film to giggle, laugh, cheer and just be damned happy about.

DOWN WITH LOVE was written by the writing pair of Eve Ahlert and Dennis Drake and the material isn’t particularly original or groundbreaking, but when you look around at all the same old romantic comedies year after year set in the here and now… There’s just something wondrously fresh feeling about placing a romantic sex comedy in the midst of the Sexual Revolution when Men still had clubs just for them and women… Well they were secretaries, wives and mistresses… At least in the popular media of the time. This is that delicate period where women began to burn bras and demand sex when they wanted it and not the other way around. Imagine if Hugh Hefner got sick and tired of Gloria Steinem, but with the devilish deliciousness of say a Dorothy Parker or Elinor Glyn, and went on a secret mission for the sake of all mankind to put a halt to this Women’s Empowerment thingee. Meanwhile, she was set on destroying everything he stood for, but neither had seen one another. OH sure… I can hear you rolling your eyes and say, didn’t I just see this sort of thing in HOW TO LOSE A GUY IN 10 DAYS? Sure, there’s a certain amount of plot crossover, but here… Here, the setting, the time period and the amount of IMPORTANCE that’s being invested into their situations… Well it just makes ya giggle… and with Eve Ahlert and Dennis Drake’s dialogue and the delivery of it by Ewan and Renee… It just sparkles and lives.

Ewan McGregor’s Catcher Block & Zip Martin is definitely one part Rock Hudson from PILLOW TALK and one part (the tender part) of Don Murray’s classic Beauregard ‘Bo’ Decker. He’s that suave, confident, debonair scoundrel. Seemingly ripped straight out of a the soul of early sixties era PLAYBOY magazine… The very embodiment of that proud manly man spirit that pronounced to the world that men were MEN and women will be nude. That type of fellow whose libido makes Harpo seem chaste. A wolf in wolf’s clothing with a wolf’s den for his howling carnalities. He enters a room knowing that every eye is on him and every ear hangs upon his words. He is definitely the very cock of New York City circa 1962 and his crow can be heard screeching from the pages of KNOW magazine like a waterfall of testosterone. He’s James Bond without the mission… He files his “adventures” and continues to just be one helluva charming bastard. Despicable, yet fantastic.

Renee Zellweger’s Barbara Novak is somewhat more complicated. She’s written a women empowerment book entitled DOWN WITH LOVE, a book about shedding the co-dependency of men, thus empowering themselves to walk this Earth as equals, not just on paper, but in terms of career, sex, ambition and command. Her character is apparently from up in Maine and while she wants sex without the complication of love, and while she knows that chocolate causes the same chemical reaction in the brain as sex does… Well… She’s a mystery. What does Barbara Novak want? Is it success, power, deep dicking and happiness? Or is there more to it than that? Renee is absolutely aglow in this film. Her costumes, hair and makeup anoint her as one of the cutest horny girls I’ve seen on film in quite some time.

Their characters are at odds and on the same side at all the wrong and right moments. Ewan’s accent mastery is creepily perfect, Renee’s “fuck me” eyes are scrumdiddliumptious and how this all plays out is just so damn sweet that… well, you’d swear you’d just eaten a whole mess of fine chocolate.

Also of note in the film is the wonderful work of David Hyde Pierce, who does an excellent Tony Randall, even though Tony Randall is in this film too! His neurotic pansy man that dreams of being the man that Catcher Block is… well, he’s just a delight. But it isn’t necessarily a stretch for him. His work in this and Soderbergh’s FULL FRONTAL (the only great character in that film) just makes me hope that he continues to get great roles to play. As of now, I just don’t get to see near enough of him in film.

Complaints?

Well the film starts off with the vintage 20th Century Fox Technicolor logo followed by that classic CINEMASCOPE extension… and I was so happy, because I love seeing vintage studio logos on screen, but then fucking REGENCY puts their obviously CG modern day graffiti logo to completely undo all the good will that Fox had just done. So, I’m complaining about Regency’s Company Logo appearing on the film for one.

Two, while I understand in modern film we have to credit everyone with those end credits, I just wish the last thing on screen had been, “Filmed in HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA, U.S.A.,” but hey… that’s just the type of geek I am.

Oh, and in the Beatnik scene, I really wish Dick Miller was on site walking around with a clay cat.

SO – what does this mean for FANTASTIC FOUR?

Well, Peyton Reed showed a remarkable mimic ability with this film, a far more dynamic and visual flourish than we’ve seen in any of the AUSTIN POWERS films that were trying to recapture the era. And with BRING IT ON being exactly what that film was supposed to be, I’d say that Peyton Reed has shown adept skill at tonally nailing the films he’s attempted thus far.

Can he shoot action? Haven’t a clue. But he certainly shows the skill to tell a story and thankfully isn’t making fun of any of the contrivances that he’s adapting here. If he takes the same care in adapting FANTASTIC FOUR as he did in adapting the late 50’s early 60’s sex comedies… Then we should have very little to worry about. At this point, I just wish he’d shoot FANTASTIC FOUR in the same period, so we could finally have an utterly timeless Marvel to marvel at.