They All Laughed (1981)

I usually avoid criticizing other movie viewers' comments. After all, we are all different people with many different tastes, interests and appeals. But, when I see a film with a wide split of opinions – most strongly of one view or the other, I wonder if there isn't something to account for such a clear difference. This film is a good example. As of the time of my writing here, very few place "They All Laughed" in the middle range. Most find it devoid of plot and screenplay, or they love it for reasons that aren't clear – in spite of the film's lack of a plot. I think I've discovered how this could be. It's due to one of two situations. First is a viewer who thinks this is one of the best movies of the 1980s. By a stretch of the imagination, one might be able to see how someone who has been isolated in a Siberian gulag for 30 years gets released and the first thing he or she sees is this 1981 movie. Some of us might think we were still being tortured. But, with nothing else to compare it to and not having seen a movie in 30 years, some might conceivably think this is a good movie. Still, to consider it great would suggest to me likely frostbite of the brain. Second is a viewer who thinks this film is highly underrated (at 6.2 to 6.4). I can see that after dozing off, waking up, dozing off again, and repeating this several times while watching this film, one might feel that he or she hasn't seen the best of the film, and therefore one must have missed some of the best parts. Still, after backing it up to replay it, and having the same thing happen again, and then again, and even another time, one should get the message that the film is a "napper." That is, it was made to be shown during siesta time. If that's what one means by underrated, then I must agree. I highly recommend this movie for insomniacs, and for all others who must have a little noise in the background in order to go to sleep. Now, for a less serious note. My three stars are for the scenes and street shots in New York. They were the only thing about this film that is any good. But, because there is no paucity of Big Apple scenes in the realm of filmdom, I can give it only the three stars. The cast is a good collection of actors, but actors with empty roles and poor or no scripts are like bobbers floating on a lake that aren't attached to the fishing line. They may look colorful from the shore but they won't dangle the bait to lure the fish and hook a catch. I don't know which there was more of for Audrey Hepburn and Ben Gazzara – no lines, or poor lines. The sad note about this film is that it is one of several mediocre to poor films in the last 10 years of Audrey Hepburn's career. The petite-figured Hepburn was beloved by fans and movie buffs everywhere during the first 15 years of her relatively short career. She became a great humanitarian and ambassador for the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). She was just 63 when she died of a rare cancer that spread from her appendix. It was discovered just three months before her death, and doctors determined that it had been spreading for years. Hepburn seemed to age markedly in her last 10 years – as seen in this and her other films, which may have been due to the cancer in her body. Thankfully, generations to come will have a portfolio of some outstanding Audrey Hepburn films from the 1950s and 1960s. And, the few bombs such as this one will slide into oblivion.

Considered the favorite of director Bogdonovich's own pictures, this is a very personal movie featuring his friends and characters based on his friends and himself. It's also astonishingly indulgent, which may put off many viewers (as it did upon first release.) Gazzara, Ritter and Novak play private investigators, hired to spy on a pair of married women who may be indulging in extramarital affairs. Ritter and Novak are tailing pretty, young Stratton while Gazzara has his eye on wealthy wife and mother Hepburn. During the peeking, peeping and following, other characters are woven into the mix such as the men's employer Morfogen and his efficient secretary MacEwan, sensuous cab driver Hanson, enigmatic Latin Ferrer and bombastic, frenetic country singer Camp. They bop around New York as if it's a tiny hamlet such as Mayberry, constantly running across each other and interacting, associating and cross-pollinating. Ritter, enacting the director's alter ego, goes for slapsticky laughs throughout with middling success. He tries hard, but his character isn't particularly interesting, engaging or even appealing, really. Gazzara coasts through the movie on understated charisma, allowing only an occasionally glimmer of spunk to show through. Hepburn isn't heard until halfway through. She lends an air of grace to the movie that would otherwise be absent, but also seems out of place against most of her other cast-mates save Gazzara. Rail thin, she's like a hairy Q-Tip with oversize designers sunglasses on much of the time. Stratton is truly pretty and occasionally displays a propensity for screen acting, but she has no character to play whatsoever. She's a prop. Novak is even skinnier than Hepburn and hairier, to boot! His "cool" character is frequently annoying. Camp is practically unbearable. Bogdonovich has said that she's basically playing herself throughout which is certainly no compliment! The less said about the rest of the cast the better because they are almost all really bad and, fortunately, most of them only did another project or two before disappearing from the movie camera's eye forever. Hyser and Pena being exceptions. Though the film is a Valentine to Manhattan, and parts of the city have rarely been presented so prettily lit and so affectionately displayed, the good news mostly stops there. The story, such as it is, is vague, non-involving and tiresome while the characters are alternately dull or grating. There is very little to take an interest in or root for, though there is a palpable sense of regret and suffocation where Hepburn is concerned. Music in the film ranges from classy and appropriate to intrusive and obnoxious. There's genuine sadness in the fact that Stratton is seen here playing a lovely woman, married to a lout, being followed by a detective when in real life she was a lovely woman, married to a lout, being followed by a detective and when the detective discovered she was being unfaithful, her husband killed her and then himself. This fact has been blamed for the film's dismal box office performance, but that's not the reason it failed. It failed because it is too personally specific to appeal to most people and too off-putting and self-indulgent to even bother delivering characters and plot that anyone could care about. Were "Giant" and "Rebel Without a Cause" hampered by the death of James Dean prior to their release? Did "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" tank when Spencer Tracy died soon after filming wrapped? Did people stay away from "The Dark Knight" following Heath Ledger's death? No. People actually are curious to see a movie after the star has died suddenly unless the movie is simply no good.

I can't believe that those praising this movie herein aren't thinking of some other film. I was prepared for the possibility that this would be awful, but the script (or lack thereof) makes for a film that's also pointless. On the plus side, the general level of craft on the part of the actors and technical crew is quite competent, but when you've got a sow's ear to work with you can't make a silk purse. Ben G fans should stick with just about any other movie he's been in. Dorothy S fans should stick to Galaxina. Peter B fans should stick to Last Picture Show and Target. Fans of cheap laughs at the expense of those who seem to be asking for it should stick to Peter B's amazingly awful book, Killing of the Unicorn.

Most of the major actors here do their best with not much to work with. The plot is nonsensical and way over the top. The dialogue seemed to be written by an amateur even though Peter Bogdanovich actually wrote it. This is supposed to be a romantic comedy. If so it's a comedy without any comedy and not much romance. The saving grace here is the nostalgic factor. Watching Audrey Hepburn and Ben Gazarra is a pleasure and in a different movie they may have further contributed to their impressive careers. In this mess, their scenes are impressive to watch precisely for their skill but what their characters do defies logic and you simply just don't buy it. John Ritter is very good and Dorothy Stratton holds her own because all she really has to do is look gorgeous. Collen Camp is, at best, mediocre and the weakest link in this cast. This film is only for film buffs who want to relive an era and marvel at the grace and charm of Ms. Hepburn. They may have all laughed but they weren't watching this movie when they did!!!