This is a peak "Isn't Rachel McAdams delightful?" movie. When I think about Morning Glory, I'm reminded of that period when McAdams as a star of light RomComs was being shoved down our collective throats. I worried that her career would be wasted on these generic, empty calorie movies that weren't even that successful anymore. The funny thing is...that's a misconception. From day 1, McAdams has been in a variety of movies and never really had a RomCom phase. Look at her breakout set of 5 movies in 2004-05.
- Mean Girls (as a mean girl)
- The Notebook (romantic lead)
- Red Eye (thriller lead)
- Wedding Crashers (love interest)
- The Family Stone (a delightfully bitchy role)
With the understanding that female roles in Hollywood aren't that varied, she really doesn't set a single mold early on. Her career works in a sort of repeating pattern of those opening 5 movies. Every 5 roles, she includes a lighter RomCom, a dramatic Romance, a thriller, a franchise, and a pricklier woman. Like, 2009-2011:
- State of Play (thriller)
- The Time Traveler’s Wife (dramatic romance)
- Sherlock Holmes (franchise)
- Morning Glory (lighter RomCom)
- Midnight in Paris (wet blanket).
That said, she has gone a little heavy on the romances, which are some of her best roles (cough - About Time - cough), so it's easy to see how it feels like McAdams had more of an "adorkable" phase than she really did.
Honestly, Morning Glory is more representative of the flailing identity of the light, charming comedy genre in 2010. By then, the RomCom as a successful draw was falling apart. Reese Witherspoon was getting stuck with the astoundingly forgettable How Do You Know - the emptiest title you'll ever find - and the RomCom last gasp, This Means War*, a couple years later. Morning Glory is a pivot, similar to the Katherine Heigl movie strategy, that moves the Romance part of the genre to the background. It keeps the RomCom tone but is more of a workplace comedy. This is an odd era I'd love to break down more sometime.
*To be clear, I like This Means War, but it absolutely represents a lack of direction for the genre.
So yeah, Morning Glory feels like one of a dozen similar Rachel McAdams movies even though it's actually the only one of them. I liked it a lot more than I think I would've in 2010. This movie is incredibly easy to digest. It has RomCom royalty in Diane Keaton in a game-for-anything supporting role. This is another chapter in the book of baffling Harrison Ford roles. For an actor who is such a curmudgeon, I'd love to know what about this script made him say "yes" when he surely turned down dozens of similar roles. Anyway, he brings that prickliness to the role as a bit of meta-casting. Jeff Goldblum is similarly surprising casting for a different reason. He has a small role that doesn't asking him to be very odd. So why cast him? Patrick Wilson gets a nice-reverse Bechdel Test role. Sure, it's nice when Wilson is leading movies. He's a great actor. But he's also good if you need a boy-toy in a B-plot in a movie.
Really, the movie is all about Rachel McAdams though. It's a role that exists for the Rachel McAdams-s of the world. She's a delight throughout the movie. I like how much of her story arc is about not being ashamed of how much she likes what she does. She's a workaholic who is devoted to make morning show TV. Sure, she has to be reminded to get a little work-life balance, but she's not ashamed that this is what she's good at and that she likes doing it. The movie addresses that in a nice way.
I don't think the movie does a great job determining if her changes to the show are a good thing. Like, is the ethos of the movie really "the war between news and entertainment ended a long time ago: entertainment won resoundingly"? There's unexamined cynicism in that. I'm choosing not to read too much into it though. This is a lightweight Rachel McAdams delivery system that stays under 2 hours. That's a plus in my book.
Verdict: Weakly Recommend
No comments:
Post a Comment