The Not-At-All Ironic Case for “Love Actually”

Michael Sarko December 17, 2011 10

Right off the bat, I’ll admit that I’m not a Christmas person. This season full of earwig songs, clashing colors and increasingly unnecessary shopping frenzy leaves me cold. That said, I’m a staunch defender of Love Actually, the 2003 parade of rom-com conventions that writer/director Richard Curtis almost certainly intended to become a Christmas classic. Through a dizzying combination of earnestness and parody, Love Actually transcends everything that should make it an insufferable slog. Or at least that’s the way I see it. The film has a reputation that is divisive at best. I’m here to stand for its merits in spite of its obvious flaws.

The beauty of Love Actually begins and ends with Curtis’s dedication to well-worn tropes of romantic comedy. Few of the storylets that make up the film’s bald-faced tapestry diverge from cliche, but that’s part of the fun. Pretty much any of the individual “movies” within the movie would be awful as a stand-alone feature, but the fact that few of them occupy more than 10-15 minutes of actual screen time renders them palatable and even enjoyable. We don’t have to sit through the interminable middle bits that pad out most rote love stories, only the essential scenes of each. The result is an unbroken procession of memorable moments and sharp lines. Sure, none of the characters are especially deep, but then they wouldn’t be in a stand-alone movie anyway.

It also helps that the cast is so game throughout. Whereas the typical romantic comedy is populated by flavor-of-the-month actors or familiar faces blatantly pursuing an easy paycheck, Love Actually makes the most of a fun ensemble. Liam Neeson gets to be tragic and fatherly, Hugh Grant gets to be exceedingly British, Alan Rickman gets to go dark and Laura Linney gets to be comically frazzled. None of the cast play against type, but the end result is like seeing a showcase of why we like these performers in the first place. Really, who wants Colin Firth to show up and not play the guy who hides a deep well of emotion beneath a cripplingly reserved exterior? Like a box of assorted chocolates, the ensemble is satisfying precisely because their performances are familiar. There’s nothing bold or unusual in the offing, all the better for a collection of sweet things.

What’s most important (at least to me) about the success of Love Actually is that it’s not all happy endings. This is the mistake Garry Marshall continues to make with his cheap knock-offs of the LA rom-com tapestry model. The likes of Valentine’s Day and New Year’s Eve send their broad collection of archetypes hurtling inextricably toward the best of all possible conclusions. In a format that is already inherently false, these closing cavalcades of happy ring hollow. Love Actually is about 60/40 happy-to-sad by film’s end, though one of the “happy” endings (Kris Marshall’s absurdist sex comedy visit to America) is mostly a parody to begin with, dropping the ratio to a more or less even split between happily ever after and sadly surviving. All the while, the sad bits don’t come off as manipulative. They don’t exist purely to elevate the happy moments, but to create a full spectrum that places the varying emotional notes in context.

And as for why Love Actually also succeeds as a Christmas movie, it’s all about framework vs. message. The worst Christmas movies suggest or outright say that the holiday has some inherent meaning, then attempt to impose that meaning on reality. They’re treacly message movies about charity, family unity or faith. That, or wantonly ironic wallows that use the cheery yuletide atmosphere to drive home as much pain as possible. The truth is, Christmas (or any holiday) isn’t about one thing. Rather, it’s a period of heightened emotions full of memories, hopes and self-reflection. Love Actually uses the intensifying properties of Christmas to add urgency and even believability to its many romantic comedies, never really commenting on what Christmas itself is supposed to mean.

So, while I’m happy to avoid any version of Miracle on 34th Street, eager to shoot down the glib treatment of fairly serious subject matter in It’s A Wonderful Life and quick to cringe every time Linus trots out his churchy monologue at the end of the otherwise inoffensive A Charlie Brown Christmas, I’ll gladly admit to having a soft spot for Love Actually. When the jingle bells start ringing, I’m always compelled to drag out that old DVD, caught somewhere between the guilty pleasure of  rom-com dim-sum and a surprisingly masterful work of cinema.

  • http://sportsmyriad.com Beau

    Terrific film. Some storylines are stronger than others, and I’m too much of a wimp to watch Laura Linney cry every Christmas. But it’s fun and threaded together nicely with Bill Nighy’s decadent rock star.

  • http://robertcashill.blogspot.com BobCashill

    While LOVE ACTUALLY is a shrug for me (no romantic comedy should run 136 minutes, something even Garry Marshall knows) you avoid the 1947 MIRACLE ON 34th STREET at your peril. While indeed a “Christmas movie” it’s far from Christmas treacle. 

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    Nighy kills in this, but whenever he gets to be flamboyant he kills.

    If I have any major beef with Love Actually, it is that I fear it inspired the twin bowel movements of Valentine’s Day and New Year’s Eve (the movies, not the events). While completely unrelated, there is a sort of “aha moment” of the movie’s construction that meant somebody was going to be delivering a star-studded turd eventually, composed of half-digested versions of this production.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    True. I also will wholeheartedly vouch for A Charlie Brown Christmas.

  • Michael Sarko

    It’s unfair to blame a work of art or the artist for inspiring bad art. I won’t deride “Love Actually” for being an obvious influence on Garry Marshall’s twin terrors any more than I’ll deride Nirvana for being the favorite band of ever dire Nu Metal outfit to poison the late 90′s/early 00′s music scene.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    That was part-snark from my perspective, of course. But there is a point to be made that with this movie you at least felt something for the characters. With the others there were so many characters and not a single interesting story arc among them.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve always thought Love Actually to be quite underrated. And Thomas Sangster, the actor who plays Sam (Neeson’s stepson who takes up the drums in order to impress the girl he’s got a serious crush on) is the voice of Ferb on Disney’s Phineas and Ferb, which has been the best cartoon for kids and parents for quite some time.

  • http://www.chimesfreedom.com Chimesfreedom – Pophistory

    Nice piece.  Your comments about the whole film being something better than the individual stories is right on point.  One aspect that I had not considered is your point about the stories being split between happy and sad.  When I think of the movie offhand, I think of the happy endings, but when I watch the film what makes it so good is the balance from some of the other stories.  And, as you note, that is a lesson that other imitation films have failed to learn.  You made me want to pop in my DVD tonight. . . .

  • http://twitter.com/Ovurmind Viktor Ovurmind

    The Terminal was an airport movie about relationships within a human space, I like to look at Love Actually as an airport movie where the relationships are flying into the gate and out. 

    We watch various lives take off and touch down and that is what makes the story fascinating to me, once you take out the metaphor with the airport, it becomes a Christmas movie that is the inverse of Magnolia.

    I loved it because the typical Brit humor flies in and out through all forms of comedic destinations and arrivals.  Then there is the music that has its various flight paths, whether it is the tale of a washed up artist making one last come back hit or the rather poignant touching down of “Both Sides Now” by Joni Mitchell.

    The overall effect is that this is one movie that I can always revisit, it never seems to grow old or tire, because it is as fluid as the imagination we take off in and the imagination with which we land.  I agree the parts don’t make it, but the whole is surprisingly (as they would say in East London) terriiiific … and all that without mentioning Hugh Grant . . .

    I guess that is also what provides to the meaning of “beauty is in the eye of beholder”.

    [v.o.M.]
    “viktor ovurmind” @thoughtspaces:twitter

  • Jsleroux

    Couldn’t agree more! Love Actually transcends the horrible hollywood offerings of late and encompass a heartwarming universal message that I enjoy over and over!