Lovesick

Marshall Brickman attempts something comedic, fanciful and yet high-brow with "Lovesick"...and the different genres prove to be an uneasy mix. Dudley Moore, who at this point was churning out more bombs than WWII, plays the most unconvincing psychiatrist I have ever seen; his rapport with Alec Guinness (a fantasy Freud) has a tidy bounce, and John Huston works minor magic as the head of the medical board, but Moore is continually unsure of himself. Elizabeth McGovern tries hard as the object of Moore's lovesickness, but she isn't really suited to this kind of material--nor is she suitable for Dudley Moore, just as Mary Tyler Moore was wrong for him in "Six Weeks" and Mary Steenburgen looked out of place in the later "Romantic Comedy". The picture has a poor, cheap look, with blurry beiges and whites typical of the staid early-'80s, and I couldn't wait until it was over. *1/2 from ****

I've watched this film at least once a year since it first came out on VHS (or was it Betamax?) It is hilarious. I can't think of a better cast for a comedy than we have here, all playing around the central Dudley Moore character. The jokes, both visual and verbal, are rich with irony and wit. ("What is this, egg salad?" is my personal favorite.) The love story is only a driver for a comedy mix of this wide array of bizarre characters: Dudley Moore, Alec Guinness, John Huston, David Stathairn, Wallace Shawn, Ron Silver and many more whose names you may not know but who's faces you'll recognize.

I was quoting a line from the film the other day and got to talking about it with a friend. That led me to do a search on IMDb. The 4.3 rating makes no sense to me at all. It has my "personal 10", as it is a movie I can watch again any time. After all these years it is just as funny as it was 30 years ago.

It's rather like Arthur meets Woody Allen but manages to do neither well, which is surprising since the director wrote the script for Annie Hall. You'd think you'd at least have a decent rip-off of an Allen rom-com. But you would be wrong.

Dr. Saul Benjamin (Dudley Moore) is a well ordered and conscientious married psychiatrist in New York City. A colleague confesses that he has fallen in love with a patient (Elizabeth McGovern as Chloe) and then dies of a heart attack. As a result, Benjamin ends up taking on the object of his dead colleague's affection as a patient. Subsequently, he also falls in love with her, but wonders what she feels for him. So he does what any conscientious psychiatrist would do - He steals her keys, breaks into her apartment, reads her diary, and then hides in the bathroom - in the bathtub actually - which is where she discovers him.

Rather than finding this behavior over-the-top creepy and calling the police, she finds it endearing and they start a love affair. At least Benjamin is honest with his wife about all of this, and she doesn't mind in the least because she is having an affair too. Complications ensue.

The part that ages the worst - the stalking, the breaking and entering, and the diary reading - was actually the main part of the trailer for the film, which 41 years later is unbelievable. I know this, because I remember the ads for it in the theater so I remember the scene.

Peter Sellers was supposed to have the role of Dr. Benjamin, but died of a heart attack before filming began. I can't see it playing any better had he had the role, since the age difference between Moore and McGovern is part of what makes this thing not work, and Peter Sellers was even older than Moore.

Lovesick 1983. Dudley Moore, Eliz. McGovern. Movie makes mincemeat of Freud & his limited & negative theory of human motivation & potential. "Go Saul", I hear myself thinking throughout the film, feeling here is a therapist who dares stand up to the stiff board of censors who don't deserve to have access to mentally unstable people, for they appear more rigid & dogmatic than the deacons at a Southern Baptist convention. And they have the nerve to be talking about & threatening sanctions pertaining to professional ethics. Would you want to be governed by such repressed stiffs who purport to be a board of censors who can pull someone's license to practice a profession, yet see their distant grandfather Freud as still relevant, while most progressive thinkers in psychotherapy have all but laughed Freud off the shelf as ludicrous? The genius of the writer who says it through Cloe's words put Freud's ideas into perspective when she laughs him & Saul off the stage with her witty explanation of Freud's penis envy theory.

A gem of a movie that should be part of every psychotherapist training program & anyone dealing with profession ethics. Indeed, the whole idea of licensure boards being composed solely of those within a given profession just reveals the fear of innovation & insecurity of those within those professions. It is abhorrent to the whole concept of the evolution of human thinking & knowledge to censure someone who challenges the wisdom of old, unproven, & in many cases disproven, methods of therapy, education, medicine, "justice", & many other so-called professions. Just look at the travesty of the medical profession that, hand-in-hand with the drug pushing pharmaceutical industry, prescribes aspirin for headaches rather than treating the ailment (tumor?) hiding within, or the repressive incarceration of youth, which some still dare call education, that is flooding the earth with non-thinking violent robots seeking revenge & targets for the decade plus of physical, & even more disturbingly, emotional abuse perpetrated by their unfeeling bullying teachers & peers.

See the movie & think about the rights of innovative creative thinkers & why so few are free to think for themselves.

If you want the kind of mood that this movie fails to achieve, go and watch Play It Again, Sam (1972), a movie brilliantly written but luckily, not directed by Woody Allen and more straight than Annie Hall. Annie Hall's success may be the biggest hint on why this loose borefest was made.

Dudley Moore and Elizabeth Mcgovern pairing have no chemistry and energy. Their straight performances clash with the comedic nature of the playful supporting cast. It's like characters of a different movie interacting with a funnier (but not much) one. Both performances are subpar especially Dudley's doozed minimal reactions to everything.

On a more technical note, the movie looks bad. VHS-level bad. Dull colors, insufficient lighting and blooming light sources everywhere, especially on the restaurant scene a distracting sunlight glare that even bleeds through Mcgovern head.

The soundtrack is the most carefully handled aspect of this movie, but still felt misplaced at some points.