University of Virginia Library

CINEMA

Romeo And Juliet Without Shakespeare

By Paul Chaplin
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

I am amazed that "Love Story"
has become the controversial book,
and now film, of 1970. Certainly
there were better books and films,
but one cannot escape any
conversation without the pure
goodness of Erich Segal's book, and
now Arthur Hiller's film, being
waved as a standard for future
works of fiction and cinema. The
nation has even been blessed with
one of President Nixon's
off-the-record rave reviews of the
film.

One cannot ignore the curious
history of "Love Story." It was
originally a film script turned down
by six studios. Paramount picked
up the option when All McGraw,
successful star of "Goodbye
Columbus," cried over the script.
The film was quickly shot, and
Segal was asked to "novelize" his
script for publication. A mass
saturation campaign on television
and the cuteness of the skinny
book skyrocketed it into the
number one position on best-seller
lists.

Other Problems

The book is
dialogue that presents itself as
witty, but is tedious, stale, and
often embarrassing. The film is
similarly hampered by the book's
major flaws, one of which I feel is
the recognition that the material is
extremely familiar and has been
handled better by others before
Segal. Another problem is the
characterization, but the film
suffers with the addition of poor
acting, sloppy direction, and an
overly schmaltzy soundtrack.

All McGraw plays Jennifer
Cavilleri in the manner in which she
should have played Brenda
Patimkin, namely as an absolute
bitch with an obscene foulmouth,
which is her defense against the
world. This is not to say that
Jennifer Cavilleri should not be
portrayed in this manner; Miss
McGraw's performance gives the
cardboard figure some character
which Segal didn't. I simply would
have preferred for her to have
avoided being so smug and a little
more human.

Poor Acting

The weak performance of Miss
McGraw tends to make Ryan
O'Neal appear to be the more
appealing of the two characters. His
performance is surprisingly
confident and controlled and, I
hesitate to use the word, a highlight
of the film. The very weak father
characters are played by John
Marley and Ray Milland. Mr.
Milland's presence adds
considerably to the limited strength
of Oliver Barrett, III, but Phil
Cavilleri is as confusing as his
vaguely drawn counterpart in print.

Hiller's direction is clumsy and
heavy handed. Miss McGraw
delivers one of her cute lines and
walks out of the frame so we can
see O'Neal's reaction. Then he does
the same, complete with walkout.
The snow frolic lacks imagination,
but will be called lyrical by some.
The hand held camera is senseless,
yet the rapid circular tracking shot
during the wedding is the biggest
joke. You can actually get dizzy and
nauseous when Hiller's camera goes
spinning around his characters. The
squash games are tired looking and
confusing. The only good thing
Hiller has done is in avoiding slow
motion and different color film
stocks and other camera tricks.

Banal Music

Francis Lai's score is banality at
its worst. The music is a rare blend
of his own style, made popular in
"A Man and a Woman," and faked
Chopin and Mozart. After the final
confrontation between O'Neal and
Milland, you can actually predict
when the thousand violins will blare
from behind the screen, and as soon
as they do, there won't be a dry eye
in the house.

There are several things about
"Love Story" that annoy me. The
first is how everyone associated
with the film is calling it a new
creation, a type of rebuttal to nasty
"X" and "R" rated films. I can
count several films which have had
better treatments of love, and were

better made, such as "Women in
Love," "Midnight Cowboy," "The
Sterile Cuckoo," or "The Boys in
the Band." "Love Story" tries to
capitalize by touching as may bases
as possible, while still being "clean
and wholesome."

This is my second complaint.
Both Segal and Hiller were very
shrewd with the handling of the
material in the film. "Love Story"
pulls as much as it can from other
successful films, a device
Hollywood never tires of playing.
Remember "Little Fauss and Big
Halsy?" "Love Story" is like
"Romeo and Juliet" without
Shakespeare. It borrows the snow
from "Doctor Zhivago" and gives it
the same treatment "Elvira
Madigan" gave picnics. The
tinkering piano score also recalls
"Elvira," and in a strange way, the
similarity of these two films
continues through the end scenes.

Major Fault

My final objection is the
horrible ending. Since all college
students are alienated from their
parents and society (as well as
current film heroes), Oliver Barrett
IV must be also. His father comes
to help him, but is too late. Oli
rushes off murmuring the
McKuenish statement "Love means
never having to say you're sorry,"
and sulks about his "beautiful girl
now dead." How ludicrous! The
beautiful symmetry of Segal's thin
novella is sacrificed to make a
"now" movie. In the book the
reconciliation is necessary and the
film demands a similar ending.
Without it, Oli is spiritually dead
and cannot conceivably exist
beyond that Central Park bench.
We wonder what he learned from
Jenny's death, if indeed he did
learn anything. Certainly there is no
love or respect for his father, which
was the only good quality possessed
by Jenny. Oliver is sill a child, but
he is as smug and superior as his
dead wife was.

I cannot understand how
anyone can actually sit back in his
seat and feel sorry for either of
these two characters. Paramount
should have either given us the
novel's ending with Oliver matured
and grown up, or given him a gun
so he could end the film like
"Elvira Madigan," and complete the
only possible outcome for his
life. "Love Story" is the most
deceptive film of 1970, which has
successfully used schmaltz and kitsch
to dupe the American public into
swallowing its morally sadistic
outlook on life.

(Now at the Paramount)