It’s a bummer that any given episode in a network show like “Lost,” even at its most muddled, was tighter and conveyed greater respect for the audience’s intelligence (even as, yes, it tested your everlasting patience) than the entirety of “Morning Glory.” Ms. McKenna, who adapted “The Devil Wears Prada” for the screen, arms this script with laugh-out-loud lines, only to undercut them with soggy filler involving Becky’s romance with another producer, Adam (Patrick Wilson), and her equally suspense-free relationship with her reluctant new anchor, the gruff and boozy Mike Pomeroy (Harrison Ford). The bland wall-to-wall pop songs — see Becky dress, cue “New Shoes” — drum the obvious home.
A few of Mr. Michell’s previous films, notably “The Mother”and “Enduring Love,” have had bite, unlike “Morning Glory,” which is so insistently, at times desperately, upbeat that it feels strung out on a cocktail of antidepressants and bad test-audience results.
Morning Glory isn’t terrible. It has a lot of craft, a lot of star power, and a fair number of laughs. What irks me is that the filmmakers settle for so little. They poke fun at Daybreak, at the whole artificial, shallow, self-satisfied genre of TV morning shows, yet they approach their own genre — the comic chick flick — with no more inspiration than the people who make those shows. They follow the formula, no matter how insipid and predictable, because they know their core audience won’t have anything else to do and it’s better if they’re only half awake.
Critics have obviously been jettisoned from newspapers over the last few years in much the same way that crusty older news guys like Harrison Ford's Mike Pomery, an old-school Dan Rather type, have been put out to pasture by TV networks. And so they're hardly snickering at Pomery's predicament. They're saying, "Hey, that's us!" They resent that Morning Glory presents Ford mainly as a grumpy, semi-alcoholic bear who doesn't get it, and not as a semi-good guy who represents an in-depth news tradition that's being slowly weakened or diminished... They feel that Morning Glory is basically embracing the modern media's general tendency to embrace fluff over substance, tweets over news articles and Ben Lyons-type movie enthusiasts over critics with experience and taste with a background of serious study and decades of film-watching.
A review by the Christian Science Monitor's Peter Rainier confirms the thesis.
Morning Glory is about how Rachel pulls Daybreak out of the basement by, you guessed it, dumbing it down ever further into imbecility," he writes. "This might be an acceptable premise for a comedy except for one thing: The filmmakers endorse the imbecility. Morning Glory is a tribute to low standards and high ratings - just the sort of thing Hollywood can get firmly behind.
This reminds me of Dana Stevens' "Extraordinary Measures" review, where she notes that much of lowbrow art has become exalted, and that middlebrow is the new lowbrow.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for the tip-off. She was quoting a book by Carl Wilson called Let's Talk About Love.
ReplyDeletehttp://nymag.com/arts/books/reviews/42082/
I have immediately gone out and bought a copy, since I have long believed that the middle-brow needs to be reclaimed by those brave enough to do it.
My pleasure! :)
ReplyDeleteGreat review Tom. It's one of those movies whose trailer might turn off some but ends up being a really good surprise when you end up seeing it. It's fluffy and the script is messy but the cast make Morning Glory so charming and likable. Glad to see McAdams getting nearly universal acclaim for this, it's too bad it will all be forgotten because this is just a lightweight rom-com...
ReplyDeleteI must admit I'm shocked at the critical treatment it's gotten and I'm not easily shocked by critics. I have begun to wonder whether my Englishness doesn't give me immunity to all this outrage over the demise of the news anchor. We don't really have any Tom Brokaws in the UK, so Morning Glory doesn't feel like it's treading on sacred ground to me.
ReplyDeleteJust another sign that some critics are full of themselves really. I don't understand why they are looking so hard into the thematic content of this movie when it's obviously just a crowd-pleasing lightweight comedy. Not every movie is aspiring to win an Oscar!
ReplyDeleteWe all liked it a lot here--sure, it's ham-handed in its plotting and humor, but it's also entertaining, charming, well-paced, well-played--with Boat and Cocoa laughing the longest and loudest. The comparison to Lost reminds why I don't even bother reading Dargis anymore. Certainly not before I've seen the movie, because she ALWAYS gives stuff away, often in the first paragraph, but not after, either.
ReplyDeleteSwords and other metal objects are forged in smithies not smiths.
ReplyDeleteAfter Wolcott's endorsement, and the link to your essay, I went to see it. My companion and I were astounded by your accolades. He mentioned that y'all must have a connection to the filmmakers, or someone in the movie. It was that bad. It began with a lousy script. Terrible movie. Just awful, groan-worthy awful.
ReplyDeleteA very entertaining film combined with romance, comedy and a unique blend of a commentary on society. Interesting indeed!
ReplyDeleteWhy Teenagers Should Refrain from Social Media
ReplyDeleteComplete Guide to Earning Money Through Web Designing
How Local Citation Can Impart a Significant Role in Business
Best MAC Video Player Apps to Download in 2021