BEFORE: This time Cary Grant carries over - another classic romance, but all I really know about it is from its appearance in "Sleepless in Seattle".
Coincidentally, the TCM world tour goes on a European cruise today, after a stop in the Midwest for "Splendor in the Grass", "Boys' Town" and "North by Northwest", it's on to Greece for "The Guns of Navarone" (seen it), "Z", and "Never on Sunday" and then Italy for "8 1/2". I really should watch that last one, but I've got no interest in Fellini. I'm opting out again today and recording "Paul", last year's film about a couple of slackers who find an alien. That's more my kind of film.
THE PLOT: A couple falls in love on a cruise and agrees to meet in six months at the Empire State Building - but will it happen?
AFTER: Another coincidence - this film and the two before it all featured characters who were engaged to others, before meeting "better" partners. Which is a tricky thing for a movie plot - without overly disparaging someone, like portraying them as abusive, how do you get across that a person's fiance is unsuitable? In this one, we never really get to know that much about the main characters' intended spouses, so we have to assume that they're somehow imperfect, or perhaps incapable of providing that movie-magic "spark".
So international playboy/slacker Nickie Ferrante (Grant) and former cabaret singer/kept woman Terry McKay meet aboard a cruise ship - which admittedly is a distorted reality of its own, apart from the conventions of the land-based world. I mean, come on, all those buffets, and cocktails, and fancy dinners every night! Who wouldn't fall in love?
But there are a few hitches in the equation - how do we know that their love is sincere, that they're not just both looking for a way out of their weddings? Or that they're not being affected by the scenery, or the sea air? Not to mention that if someone in a (presumably) monogamous, committed, almost-married relationship starts falling for you, what makes you think that they'll end up being faithful to you? Doesn't past history suggest future behavior?
Am I right to imply that Ferrante is marrying for money, and McKay is getting married since she doesn't feel she has any other options? So what they find on the cruise ship is real love, just because they can finish each other's sentences? Or am I reading too much between the lines here?
They agree to meet again in 6 months, on top of the Empire State building - and in that time, Ferrante's going to give this "work" thing a try, to see if he can do it. What was he doing before that, living off a trust fund? He takes up painting again - but I'm not sure if I'd equate that with holding down a 9 to 5 job. And she's going to start singing in nightclubs again - because there's no chance that she'll meet someone new in the interim that way.
I don't know, the pieces didn't really come together for me on this one. So much of the interplay depended on coincidence, and in some cases, miscommunication. Not as much miscommunication as was seen in "Bringing Up Baby", but still... Two people had a fling on a cruise, and it just seemed like they couldn't (and perhaps shouldn't) make it work on land. The Act 5 "darkest before the dawn" moment doesn't always work in a romantic plotline. Plus, there were a number of scenes (at the parochial school music class in particular) that just seemed to go nowhere.
This is how I see it: I've been on cruises twice, and they represent an augmented reality, to say the least. If you start a relationship on a cruise, you shouldn't expect it to work on dry land any more than you should expect to have a fancy dinner every night, or visit a casino or an ice cream bar at 2 am. Look at the way the main characters act when they come off the cruise - he's going to make it work as a starving artist (really?) and she's going to get back into the nightclubs. Watch the early rounds of "American Idol" auditions and you'll see tons of people who are just as delusional. Yes, one of them is going to be super-famous, but there are 5 stadiums full of people trying out!
Then we've got the extra complications with Nickie's fame (though I'm not really sure why he's famous, since that painting career never took off). How many high-profile relationships have gone the distance? Only a few - now, is that because:
A. People who reach a certain level of fame tend to be self-centered egotists who would have no problem using their fame to find a new love, so why stick around and make it work?
B. Famous people are just like regular folks, and it's hard to make love last in any relationship - but since they're in the spotlight, their romantic troubles are just hyper-publicized.
or:
C. What does it matter? Love is fleeting, relationships are hard, and when it's gone, it's gone.
Either way, it seems weird for people to set these arbitrary deadlines, like "I'll see you in 6 months" or "If we're both not married when we turn 35". How could these things NOT affect the relationships people are already in? If you make a pact with someone like this, won't you be thinking about it all the time? That's got to affect the day-to-day relationship you're already in, at least on a subconscious level. At the very least, you'll seem distant and distracted, and your partner will know something's up. Bottom line - that's not my definition of romance, but your mileage may vary.
RATING: 4 out of 10 telegrams
No comments:
Post a Comment