Love – how does one even begin to describe it as a concept? It’s difficult enough already to fully encapsulate the feeling, so to even attempt to understand its resonance as an artistic theme is nearly impossible. It is one of the great mysteries of life and something that has been the subject of so much discussion, whether biological or philosophical. There has not been a shortage of conversations around the existential purpose of love, and how it is essentially the perfect convergence of sexual desire and emotional connection between two (or more) people, depending on how one approaches it, and from which direction we aim to explore the subject. On the subject of Luv, understanding Murray Schisgal’s intentions for writing the play on which this film was based takes quite a bit of time, and we don’t fully understand its entire purpose until very late, after which time a lot of interest may have dwindled, especially with a less-experienced director like Clive Donner at the helm, who had dedicated his career to off-the-wall comedies, rather than those that tackle more complex subject matter. Luv is a peculiar film, an outlier in the career of everyone involved – but yet, it feels so intriguing, with the promise of a hilarious comedy about falling both in and out of love feeling like it has a lot of potential. Unfortunately, there are far too many moving parts in this film that allow it to fully capture our attention, which is both a result of the botched attempt at translating it from stage to screen (in which it may feel like it is expanding on the world of the play, but is unfortunately restricted by its story that is not properly developed to the format) and the fact that Donner struggles to temper the tone beyond the outrageous humour, which ultimately hinders a perfectly decent concept.

The cynicism is the quality that has served to be the most divisive when it comes to looking at Luv and trying to understand how it can have earned such a polarizing reaction, despite coming at a time when such films had to be total disasters to be considered even slight failures. The subversion of the romantic comedy had been gradually growing in popularity around this era – films like Barefoot in the Park and The Apartment were elegant and charming romantic comedies but had a more provocative undercurrent that made them profoundly modern and incredibly interesting since they felt like they were offering new insights into the process of not only falling in love but maintaining that passion, which was quite revolutionary for a time in which even the mention of pregnancy was still considered somewhat problematic if not introduced with layers of morality. Donner simply could not create something that felt like it had genuine insights into the romantic experience – his comedies were bold and hilarious, but didn’t touch on romance in the way such a story required, which led to him directing this film in the same way he would the slapstick comedies that had seemingly gotten him the job here, rather than seeking out the likes of Gene Saks or Blake Edwards, directors who were capable of finding the balance between heart and humour, which is the single most important tool in a film such as this, and which would have not only emphasized the romantic aspects of the story but also captured the revolutionary nature of such a story. There’s a sinister quality to Luv that feels impossible to overcome, and while there are many interesting elements, it ultimately just feels like it is playing in a minor key for the duration of the time we spend with these characters.

The humour is essentially what causes the film to fall apart, which is quite a strange shortcoming, especially since one would expect such a film would consider its focus on comedy to be a merit, and that the descent into heavy-handed sentimentality would be the root of its failure. However, Luv is a film where absolutely every scene is outrageous, with very little space for any real human emotion to seep in, which can become quite exhausting. A good comedy (especially one built on the concept of romance) needs to find the balance, and a romantic film without tender human comedy – even one that is about a couple’s marriage falling apart – is not going to be convincing. It often feels as if they are trying to blend screwball comedy with slapstick and filter it through the sardonic lens of the late 1960s, in which more experimental comedies were emerging. It sounds like a promising approach, and it does sometimes feel like it is reaching greatness, but it quickly and without any hesitation squanders its potential by not being able to establish a consistent tone. Comedy is about finding the right balance, and it feels like Donner is constantly trying to find ways to make every scene as hilarious as possible, without bothering to develop the characters in a way that feels like we get to know them. By the time we reach the end of Luv, we feel like we have yet to be introduced to these characters in the first place, and while the writing is fine (albeit very much taken verbatim from the play), the film falls apart precisely through a rare case of chasing every potential laugh, without possessing the good sense to make it feel earned in the first place, instead choosing to just throw every potential joke into the film in the hopes of something provoking a reaction in the viewer – and it achieves this, just not the reaction they may have expected from this material.

One aspect of Luv that is quite admirable is how it managed to effectively cast a great set of actors, attracting them with the supposed promise of giving them interesting roles. This is halfway true, since in theory these characters are very entertaining, and the actors do their best to bring them to life despite the shortcomings that exist with Donner’s direction. The writing is where the biggest problem with this film, with the refusal to develop these characters beyond stock archetypes being one of the film’s most profound disappointments. There is ultimately very little that can be done with this material, and the actors do what they can to salvage the fragments of these characters, but they seem to fall short on every occasion. Jack Lemmon (who had started to playfully subvert his everyman image by playing more complex characters that often bordered on villainous) is a capable lead, and Peter Falk and Elaine May join him in trying their best to infuse the hilarity with something deeper – but it is ultimately not all that successful, since the roles simply do not have enough substance to justify their existence. As hard as an actor can try, not even the strongest performer would have been able to give these thinly written characters enough complexity to overcome the narrative problems, and it is ultimately quite disappointing that three of the best actors of their generation (and those who were equally adept at comedy and drama) were misused to the degree that such a film could be entirely buried, where it should have been a much more fondly remembered work had it been more capable of balancing its ambitious ideas. 

Luv is not a great film, but it has moments in which it seems to be reaching something at least partially entertaining. Not every attempt at subverting the concept of romance can be entirely successful, but with a film like this, the potential is squandered through a series of awful decisions, whether they have to do with the narrative details or the execution, which are poorly constructed and leave us desiring something that had some idea of what it wanted to be, rather than just a jumble of scenes, each one trying to be funnier than the last, but not bothering to spare a moment to developing its ideas beyond the most pale archetypes. The performers try their best, but there is only so much they can do with a mediocre script – one has to wonder whether this worked better on stage, or if perhaps the original cast of the Broadway production may have been better suited to highlight the intricacies that underpin such a story. It’s not a particularly strong effort from anyone involved, and it is remarkably forgettable, bearing very little nuance. It’s an unfortunately arid and meaningless film that never knows quite how to handle some of its bolder ideas and seems that this outrageous comedy is a solution for everything. It is not, and the film suffers considerably as a result of this lack of precision and belief that a constant stream of slapstick humour is enough to distract from the vapid narrative, when in reality it only serves to emphasize its weaknesses, which makes for a film that is good for a chuckle, and not much else.