Love Liza (2002)

Nicholas Schager

Love Liza wallows in grief and asks its audience to do likewise.

Love Liza

Director: Todd Louiso
Cast: Philip Seymour Hoffman, Kathy Bates, Jack Kehler, Sarah Koskoff, Stephen Tobolowsky
Distributor: limited
MPAA rating: R
Studio: Sony Pictures Classics
First date: 2002
US Release Date: 2002-12-30 (Limited release)

Love Liza wallows in grief and asks its audience to do likewise. It's the story of a man whose wife has killed herself, leaving him with a suicide note he refuses to read and a lonely, dismal life. Focusing intently on the sad, empty face of Wilson (portrayed by the usually boisterous Phillip Seymour Hoffman), the film is so preoccupied with his attempts to come to grips with this tragedy that it loses sight of the lost object. We never know much about Liza.

But writer Gordy Hoffman (the star's brother) and director Todd Louisa aren't interested in whether or not we think that she's worth missing; they're fixated on grief as an object unto itself. Thus, with the exception of a couple of blurred photographs and one drug-induced, hallucinatory memory, we know only Liza as she is refracted through fragmented conversations between Wilson and her desolate mother, Mary Ann (Kathy Bates).

The wreckage left in the aftermath of a suicide is certainly timely and fertile ground for imaginative exploration, but Love Liza, cloaked in incandescent blues and greens by cinematographer Lisa Rinzler and set to a sparse score by Jim O'Rourke, incessantly strikes the same melancholy chord. Louisa (a first-time director whose most notable previous work was as an actor in High Fidelity) takes great pains to illustrate, often through self-conscious panning shots, that Wilson is paralyzed both by the known (his wife's death) and the unknown (her reason for killing herself).

Similar to Lynne Ramsey's far superior Morvern Callar, Love Liza reveals its protagonist less through dialogue or action than through repeated facial close-ups. The difference is one of tone. Ramsey's film works its magic in a dreamy, trance-like fashion, but Louisa's -- filled with scene after pointless, underlit scene of Hoffman doing nothing but sitting, miserable and alone, around his barren home -- is simply sluggish and clunky. More often than not, Love Liza's narrative meandering recalls the unimaginative bluntness of an actors' workshop production.

Still, Hoffman dives headfirst into the role of Wilson, emotionally retarded and searching for "closure," and his committed performance is suitably tortured. The problem is that the character is blandly, and soon tediously, morose. Wilson is embarrassed by the attention of a former co-worker, Maura (Sarah Koskoff), loses his job, and develops a predilection for inhaling gas fumes. As Liza did herself in by clogging her car's exhaust pipe and then sitting in the running car while parked in the garage, Wilson's increasingly destructive gas inhalation rather obviously symbolizes his desire to join his wife. It's a cheap device that hardly enlivens his self-indulgent mourning.

Through a random twist of fate, Wilson begins hanging out with Maura's simple-minded brother, Denny (Jack Kehler), who introduces the slovenly gas huffer to the world of radio control. Wilson quickly takes to the new hobby -- the film wants us to believe that he must regress into infantilism in order to heal himself -- but his eventual trip to Louisiana for a radio control festival initially gives him an excuse to sniff copious amounts of gasoline.

Louisa takes a minimalist approach to this decidedly dreary material, and at times his compositions -- such as a much-needed ebullient moment that finds Wilson swimming in sunshine-dappled lake amidst a host of radio-controlled boats -- achieve a simplistic grace. For the most part, though, Love Liza fetishizes grief to the point of abstraction, leaving viewers in an emotional lurch.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.