SOMEONE TO LOVE
A Film Review by Manavendra K. Thakur
Copyright 1988 by Manavendra K. Thakur and The Tech
Reproduced with permission.
1987 108 mins. United States English Unrated Mono Color 35mm/1.85
Cast: Orson Welles, Henry Jaglom, Andrea Marcovicci, Michael Emil, Sally Kellerman, Oja Kodar, Stephen Bishop, Dave Frishberg, Geraldine Baron, Ronee Blakely, Barbara Flood, Pamela Goldblum, Robert Hallak, Kathryn Harrold, Monte Hellman, Jeremy Kagan, Michael Kaye, Miles Kreuger, Amnon Meskin, Sunny Meyer, Peter Rafelson, Ora Rubens, Katherine Wallach.
Credits: Written and Directed by Henry Jaglom. Produced by M. H. Simonsons. Associate Producer: Judith Wolinksky. Director of Photography: Hanania Baer. Sound: Sunny Meyer. Assistant Editor: Ruth Wald. Songs by Diane Bulgarelli, Stephen Bishop, Dave Frishberg, and Jerome Kern & Ira Gershwin.
Studio: Jagfilm
Distributor: International Rainbow Pictures / Castle Hill Prods.
9165 Sunset Boulevard 1414 Avenue of the Americas
Los Angeles, CA 90069 New York, NY 10019
(213) 271-0202 (212) 888-0080
Henry Jaglom has remained outside the Hollywood mainstream for more than a decade and a half, and he's quite proud of his role as a maverick. A close friend of Orson Welles, Jaglom has written and directed seven films since 1970, each costing less than $1 million. He has insisted on total artistic control over them all, looking inward for the source material of his films. For example, his 1985 film ALWAYS examined his divorce from actress Patrice Townsend and was shot entirely in the house they had shared. Whenever a filmmaker (and artists in general) focus on themselves in this manner, they typically find themselves accused of wallowing in self-indulgence. This sort of criticism doesn't faze Jaglom. "To get something of universal value," Jaglom said in a telephone conversation, "you have to focus on one specific issue" rather than appealing to the lowest common denominator. Of course, the issue Jaglom is most familiar with is himself.
He has creatively used his independence once again in SOMEONE TO LOVE. In it, he raises the question of why people are lonely, especially on that most romantic of holidays, Valentine's Day. Of course, Jaglom is a filmmaker and not a sociologist or philosopher, and so he doesn't have any real answers to this profoundly human question. Given that reality, Jaglom said that he knew from the start that "I would paint myself into a corner." Therefore, Jaglom asked Orson Welles to put things in "historical perspective" and to impart his considerable wisdom and experience not only in filmic matters but in the tricky ground of love and interpersonal relationships.
The film begins, appropriately enough, with a few choice words from Welles. Then it quickly shifts to Danny (Jaglom) and Helen (Andrea Marcovicci, with whom Jaglom has spent most of the past five years with in real life) getting ready to go to sleep. Helen, who has just gotten used to sleeping alone after the painful breakup of her previous relationship, tells Danny that she won't be able to go to sleep if he remains inside her house. This arouses Danny's curiosity, and he sends out telegrams to his show business friends to gather on Valentine's Day at a beautiful theater in Santa Monica (the Mayfair Theater) that is about to be replaced by a shopping mall. Danny, a filmmaker, figures that he might get some interesting footage, and at the very least he will be able to introduce his brother Mickey (Michael Emil, Jaglom's brother in real life) to some romantic companions.
When Valentine's Day arrives, Danny's friends arrive expecting a party but find themselves talking about themselves and their loneliness into the handheld Arriflex cameras run by the film crew Danny has brought along. One soon realizes that all the actors in Danny's film are in fact thinly disguised versions of the actors in Jaglom's film. And Danny the filmmaker is really Jaglom the filmmaker, while Welles (listed as "Danny's Friend" in the credits) is, of course, himself. These dichotomies becomes more and more unified as the film goes on, until it is nearly impossible to distinguish between actor and character.
This sort of "interview" filmmaking can be traced to the Brechtian and Godardian technique of having actors interrupt the narrative flow to comment on their perceptions of what their character is doing and why. And indeed, Jaglom cites as his primary influences the great filmmakers of the 1960s -- Bergman, Fellini, Godard, Truffaut. Although the film has a somewhat documentary feel to it, Jaglom says he has not been influenced by the cinema verite movement, as epitomized by Frederick Wiseman. Instead, he likes the label that some critics have given his works, "emotional verite."
Given the close relationship between Danny's film and Jaglom's film, one can't help but wonder how SOMEONE TO LOVE was constructed. Did Jaglom notify his actors about his plans? Or did he pull a trick similar to the one Danny pulls for his film? In reply, Jaglom simply says that SOMEONE TO LOVE reflects his general filmmaking technique. He mentions that he scripts thorough guidelines for his actors but lets the actors fill in the actual phrasing of dialogue. Jaglom says that he likes to "go with the emotion that's going on" during the shoot. When shooting is complete, Jaglom retreats to the editing room for several months where he "reinvents" the film, melding the disparate elements into an evolving whole.
The result of this process doesn't always seem to work, and indeed, SOMEONE TO LOVE is more interesting for Jaglom's (and Welles') ideas on filmmaking than as illumination on romance. Jaglom's favorite quotation is one from Orson Welles: "The enemy of art is the absence of limitations." In principle, this is entirely accurate; the great film artists are the ones who have transcended barriers -- both human and technical -- to arrive at new forms of expression of their ideas. Many of these great filmmakers, especially those hampered by official condemnation or censorship, have had to struggle mightily for the opportunity to create their art. In Jaglom's case, however, the barriers he overcomes are not intrinsic ones to the medium of film. By definition, film is a technological art form, and Jaglom will be the first to admit he has done nothing to advance the technical state of filmic art. Asked why he then employs the medium of film instead of, say, books or stage plays, Jaglom replies that he prefers the basic tools of the cinema because they give him access to closeups, sound manipulations, and editing. Jaglom says he decided not to use television or video, which offer similar advantages, because cinema has a "different feel," at least for now. He stresses that for him (as opposed to Spielberg or Lucas), technology must always be used to stimulate minds about humans and humanity.
Even on the human side, though, it's not that easy to identify or relate to Danny, who seems to have swallowed completely the veneer of dazzling romance put forth by countless Hollywood movies. (When Helen reminds Danny that "Not everyone wants a picket fence, you know," Danny replies "Well, everyone should," without bothering to give a reason why everyone should feel that way.) Given that most real life relationships don't even come close to enjoying the grandeur on display in most movie romances, it's no wonder that Danny feels something is wrong. Danny, though, doesn't seem able to trace his problem back to his premise, and he just sticks microphones in people's faces and continues asking questions, looking more and more foolish as he goes along.
But this usual sort of criticism is misplaced here because Jaglom is quite consciously portraying Danny as a lovable buffoon. It has almost become a Jaglom trademark for his character to simultaneously be a protagonist and an anti-egotist. As mentioned above, Jaglom knew from the beginning that his project would not work without Welles. It takes Danny a bit longer to come to the same conclusion while shooting his film. Finally, around the end of the fourth reel, Danny throws his hands up in the air and mutters, "It's not going to work. It doesn't work." And that's when Danny/Jaglom bring Welles in again to offer his wisdom. Viewers may condemn Jaglom for self-indulgence, but no one can possibly accuse him of being arrogant or self-serving.
By playing a filmmaker making a film which is essentially the same film that viewers are seeing, Jaglom succeeds on two fronts. First, he manages to raise some basic questions about people as simple, living, human, beings. Second, he then steps back and encourages the characters in the film, as well as the members of the audience itself, to ponder and think for themselves what appropriate responses there may be to Jaglom's questions. Because there is no bearded saint dispensing wisdom from a mountaintop in this film -- Welles doesn't, count, despite the fact that he is indeed bearded and wearing a long flowing wine-colored robe; he can only gently guide viewers with his advice, because he too doesn't have any magic answers -- there is no hope of being spoon-fed with ready made solutions. The actors and actresses in Danny's film rise to the challenge: they think *for themselves* about loneliness and pour forth a rush of diverse answers, as diverse as the actors themselves. What emerges of value is not only the specific answers; in addition, it is the emotional and intellectual processes by which Danny's friends derive their answers that is also important. Danny/Jaglom has recognized, perhaps subconsciously, that methods often get lost in the perpetual craving for predigested results, and it is exactly that realization which SOMEONE TO LOVE is trying to convey to its viewers, at least to the viewers who remain until the end.
This sort of reflexive filmmaking is rare, of course, and it certainly is removed from the common assumptions of conventional cinema. (Only two films in recent memory have similarly linked filmmakers, actors, and viewers together, one being GIRLTALK and the other a 14-1/2 hour marathon on nuclear war called THE JOURNEY.) This separation from the mainstream is hardly a weakness. Rather, it emphasizes and affirms that Jaglom is one of the endangered species of American cinema. He is a serious and dedicated film artist who refuses to pander to the box office, and he has consistently declined offers to direct big budget films in order to persevere and preserve his integrity. His themes are by no means revolutionary, and his simple cinematic style couldn't be more different from the highly technical art of Orson Welles or Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968). But Jaglom has adopted these and other filmmakers' visionary outlook on the potentials of filmic art and turned it inward to make highly personal and intimately human films. Like the actors and actresses in Danny's film, viewers and up-and-coming filmmakers would do well to experience the subtle methodology underlying and enriching Jaglom's SOMEONE TO LOVE.
Directorial filmography of Henry Jaglom:
A SAFE PLACE 1971 94 mins. TRACKS 1976 104 mins. SITTING DUCKS 1980 90 mins. CAN SHE BAKE A CHERRY PIE? 1983 90 mins. ALWAYS 1985 105 mins. SOMEONE TO LOVE 1987 108 mins.
Orson Welles once said that Henry Jaglom's films have "no cute little space creatures, no chases, no rapes, no murders." And it's true. His latest film, NEW YEAR'S DAY, will be released this coming winter. Currently he is shooting a film in Los Angeles called EATING, which will focus on "women and their obsessions with food." He has also recently established the Women's Film Company as a subsidiary of his International Rainbow Pictures to produce "low-budget, hopefully high-quality, human stories" by women directors.
Manavendra K. Thakur
{rutgers,decvax!genrad,uunet}!mit-eddie!thakur
thakur@eddie.mit.edu
thakur@athena.mit.edu
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews