Lord Love a Duck

George Axelrod's film of Al Hine's book isn't so much a satire of teen culture as it is a skewering of teenage-isms, such as bikinis, cashmere sweaters (in assorted 'flavors'), beach party/monster movies, high school cliques, morally corrupt parents, and the need for mass love. Tuesday Weld, starting her senior year at a new school, is befriended by psychotic pixie Roddy McDowall, who thinks of himself as a magical bird and uses hypnotism on Weld to help her achieve the things she craves. Axelrod, who also co-wrote the script, creates chaos on the screen, and then pushes his camera through it. He isn't spoofing American fads (and our eventual boredom with material pleasures), he's highlighting what he thinks we SHOULD be hostile about--but the trouble is, he's much more angry and corrupt than his central character (she's more like a wide-eyed Alice in Wonderland). Axelrod isn't indifferent--and he's not a innocence lost--but since we don't know what makes the director tick, much of the movie is just a big question mark. It gets off on the wrong foot (framing the story in flashback), featuring far too much of McDowall (acting like Norman Bates' little brother). If this movie didn't sink Roddy McDowall's movie career, it should have: he's smug and insufferable in place of self-confident. Some of the other performances are worthwhile, and Weld has many sharp, knowing moments, yet the film is a crazy-quilt put-down. It leaves you winded. ** from ****

Sex suffused satire on something or other that may have been cutting edge in '66, but is no longer. Sure, I get the shaking beach butts of Gidget, the drive-in religiosity of SoCal car culture, or Mom's Playboy bunny *' prostitute. Some movie parts of course are funnier than others. Trouble is, whether funny or not, they're poorly blended, unlike the better satires of the day—The Loved One (1965), Dr. Strangelove (1964). Unfortunately, the vignettes here sprawl without adding up. What the film does have in spades is Tuesday Weld. If there was ever a better sex kitten with bite, I haven't seen her. She injects real spunk into the often lame proceedings. Plus, who would have thought that Peter Gunn's dignified torch singer, Lola Albright, could be so funny. Then too, what an inspiration getting Ruth Gordon to do her waspish bit, as a mother, no less. On the other hand, Mc Dowell tries hard, but he's caught up in a role that borders on the incoherent. Could be that his 35-year old teenager is supposed to make a profound statement, but if so, It's beyond me As I recall, writer Axelrod's film got a lot of buzz at the time. After all, the mid-60's were a time of growing social ferment. Thus, the long-time lid on movies was at last coming off, and what these satirical films show is that black humor was definitely in the air. Trouble is, unlike Strangelove or Loved One, this film doesn't get beyond that time period. There's no unifying theme that could compensate for the meandering lamer parts. As a result, it's more like a regional (SoCal) artifact than anything lasting-- except, of course, for us fans of Tuesday, in which case it's a permanent fan fest.

Watched a wonderful "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" last night on Hulu.com which featured Lola Albright and was reminded of her awesome "Babe-iliciousness"!! Checked the IMDb to see if she was still breathing (and fortunately she still is!). In passing, I glanced at her filmography and noticed LLAD. Thought I'd check out the reviews for this mess just to get a couple of chuckles. I suffered through this movie TWICE while in the Army - once in a post PX theater (had no choice - it was the only thing playing) and, in Vietnam; again, had no choice as it was the only flick in the rice paddy. I was expecting ratings in the 2 to 3 range with exasperated commentors waxing that this film would be perfect MST3K fodder. Instead, most were in Frank Rich mode proclaiming this masterlesspiece as cerebral satire of the highest order. Oh, please! My take is totally contrary. LLAD is a second-rate "Tweener". By Tweener, I mean that Hollywood experienced a painful period beTWEEN the end of Hollywood's entertainment dominance (around 1958-60) and it's Second Golden Age commencing roughly around 1972 ("The Godfather" got the ball rolling again). The motion picture biz hadn't yet found out how to combat TV and the America was in the midst of a cultural/social/political revolution (feminism, Vietnam, Beatles, Summer of Love, Drugs, etal). The studios were clueless on how to recapture the magic in this new era - they were desperate and ventured forth in many directions with few hits and many, many misses. Some other classic Tweeners were "Panic in Needle Park", "Casino Royale", "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad World", "Doctor Doolittle", "Hello Dolly" to name a couple or five. Actually, LLAD doesn't really qualify as a legitimate Tweener - it was too minor. But it contained the essential characteristics: trying way too hard to be hip, relevant, trendy, madcap, satirical - and failing on all counts; and I don't not think the booms were intentional. My only pleasant memory of this film (other than "The End") was Ruth Gordon. Even though she was merely doing a warm up for the same wacky, eccentric role in "Rosemary's Baby", she was still endearing and funny. Oh, BTW, I don't really remember the bunny mom being the luscious Lola Albright. I suspect she had better memories of her fine performance on "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" than the pretentious drivel that was (as is) "Lord Love A Duck"........

Makes an effort to be different, and has that weird/cool aura that many interesting films achieve. Unfortunately, Lord Love a Duck isn't all that interesting. There are some very good moments, but it's mostly clumsy satire with many scenes that are pointless or painful and leave you wishing the end would come quickly. The observations just aren't acute and it's not funny enough to make up for its deficiencies as satire. Despite being uneven and plodding, it's worth seeing, but Lord Love a Duck only succeeds in being odd, not in being intelligent or consistently funny.

For me, good things about this film: 1) I thought about it for days after I saw it (for the first time in 2003.) 2) A few foxy actresses gyrate. 3) It held my attention throughout. 4) McDowell's character made me want to choke him to death at every appearance; a sign of good acting, I hope! For me, neutral things about this 1966 American film: 1) I acknowledge that it probably ages very poorly: A) The level of humor is "Rowan&Martin Laugh-In" quality: a) Harvey Korman acts his heart out, but desperately trying to make the script funny, he resorts to worthless gags like sticking stuff in his mouth. b) The movie producer does a countdown from ten, forgets which number comes before six. Hilarity ensues! His girlfriend delivers the same dull punchline FOUR times in a row. A Barrel O'Laughs! B) The music is dreadful twangy rock'n'roll, much like the ersatz rock'n'roll that was sometimes used in sitcoms like "The Andy Griffith Show," and "The Beverly Hillbillies." C) There's a pervasive general sense of chaotic rebellion against ... what? a) The dumbing-down of education (botany becomes "plant skills for life;" several schools consolidate into one.) b) The modernization of religious ritual (drive-in church.) c) The vapidity of 1960s American SoCal consumer culture. Note especially Alan's ridiculous and annoying closing monologue. d) The fall of quality cinema (while at the same time, capitalizing on the beach-party genre draw.) For me, bad things about this film: 1) Continuity. A) Watch how shabbily the film bridges Barbara Ann's wedding. B) What possibly justifies the reach for pathos with Marie's suicide? (And they keep playing that _lame_ music well into the scene.) It feels like biting into a clot of mustard in the middle of a jelly doughnut. C) The whole movie-producer/celebrity subtheme is tacked-on. It feels like they tried to achieve continuity by editing together Alan's taped recollections, Barbara Ann's dreams, and scenes with the producer. 2) Characters lack logical motivation for their actions. Even a farce has to be somewhat logical, doesn't it? A) Why doesn't anyone realize Alan's trying to murder Barbara Ann's husband after the first try, let alone after four attempts? Hey, hey, HEY! B) What's up with the delirious hilarity of Barbara Ann's lunch date with her father? What justifies their loopy behavior? Was there a dope-smoking scene that was edited out? C) Why do all the primary characters allow Alan to worm his way into their lives when he is such an insufferable know-it-all/dreamer/manipulator/pain-in-the-butt? 3) Technical problems. A) Boom microphones show up in at least a half dozen scenes. In at least one scene, the entire boom and pole are visible.

I have read the comments given about this movie and disagree with most of them. The whole movie seems to be Hollywood's way of trying to lower the morals of people and make light of people trying to murder someone. I keep wondering what was the purpose of the film, what message was the studio trying to give? The laughing got on my nerves, seemed forced, phony and unnatural. The sweater scene was ludicrous, who in there right mind acts that way. I guess if you watch this picture with the mindset of these people are all wierd, then I ask myself, "why would I want to watch a bunch of wierdos being stupid?" I wasn't entertained, But that's just my take.

... but I'll be damned if I can think of one off the top of my head. Mere words cannot hope to plum the depths of this low point in cinematic history. Many crimes have been committed in the name of satire over the years, but most of those films didn't star Tuesday "sigh" Weld, and so I have been able to ignore them. There words: Avoid. Avoid. Avoid.

First time I saw this I could hardly believe the many, many visible boom mikes throughout the film. Loved the picture regardless, and now I've come to accept those boom mikes as characters as central to LORD LOVE A DUCK's frazzled beauty as Roddy McDowall & Tuesday Weld, its stars. Most knowledgeable film fans hold 70s films in reverence for their embracing of a deeper, richer reality more inspired by novels than by prior Hollywood films. 60s cinema tends to suffer by comparison: it often seems like a clumsy standoff between the death-throes of the old studios and their formulas, and the insisting beating on the door of a new, artistic, more experimental aesthetic: DUCK is one of those, subverting the soundstage-bound Mickey & Judy cliches by emulating that shot-on-indoor-sets look, with the vital modification of peopling this familiar artifical environment with the hyperAmerican grotesques who routinely populate Geo Axelrod's universe. Thus, like a lot of the best 60s movies, DUCK is part-fish, part-fowl and suffused with an atmosphere of strangeness beyond its subject matter - yet, given how Real Life in that decade similarly swayed on unsteady footing in two seperate realities, it works beautifully. And it definitely doesn't hurt that Tuesday Weld is a goddess of apple-cheeked carnality and conspicuous consumption. She may not be Everywoman exactly, but she IS Everywoman who ever dreamed of marrying Elvis, and that's good enough - like the King, you can't help falling in love with her. As has been noted, the 'cashmere sweater' scene is among the most erotic scenes ever caught on film - unnervingly so, given she's playing the scene with, and for, her father. The movie is chockfull of scenes that similarly push black humor and social satire past the threshold of good taste or story logic; you're either going to go with it, or reject it altogether. I recommend the former: like a lot of underrated and outright ignored 60s movies that don't comfortably fit into any standard category, LORD LOVE A DUCK rewards the viewer who's willing to suspend disbelief for an hour-and-a-half with a totally absorbing and unique unreality all its own. It's a buzz you can only get from an American film made between JFK and Tricky Dick, and it's a hoot besides.

This is one of those films that you hear so much about, and then wonder,upon viewing it, what is it everyone sees in this film? there's no denying that it is one of Tuesday Weld's greatest performances. She combines the adorable, spunky quality of Sandra Dee with the vulnerability of Marilyn Monroe. She's a gorgeous, sexy doll with a rare type of acting ability. But everyone who knows cinema, knows that Tuesday is an under-appreciated treasure. Other than that, though, it's just an annoying, loud, overlong, dull comedy. And speaking of annoying, Ruth Gordon reaches new heights of it here. But watch it and judge for yourself.

I put this movie in a category with other slightly anarchic anti-establishment movies such as "The Graduate," "If..." and "The Magic Christian." The only difference is that it pre-dates all of them. Being the first of its kind, its a slightly awkward film that doesn't always know what to do with itself. There are plenty of holes in the plot, and, if its a comedy the dramatic scenes are too strident, if its a drama then it is all done with too much flippancy. On the whole, though, I really enjoyed it. I don't claim to be an expert on the culture of the mid-sixties, but it tackles a lot of topics that seemed to be taboo at the time, like Marie's death, and their rather self-conscious use of the word prostitute. The acting is all excellent, I was particularly impressed with Tuesday Weld's performance. I had never really thought of her as anything more than the vapid lead to a bunch of teen movies, but I was really surprised at what a good actress she was. Roddy McDowall is excellent as Mollymauk, but the uneveness of the film doesn't do the character justice, and you get the feeling with a little more work on the plot and the pacing, he could have made the film hysterical. Anyway, it was a good film, particularly impressive when you think of it as the prototype of a genre of film which is still being produced today.