By J.D. Lafrance
It took a Canadian filmmaker to make Moonstruck (1987), the quintessential Italian-American romantic comedy from a screenplay written by an Irish-American playwright, but then isn’t that what the American experience is all about? For what is the United States, but the great melting pot? Norman Jewison’s film is a celebration of love, life and food. John Patrick Shanley’s script is full of romantic yearnings for, among many things, the opera and, of course, the moon. Above all else, the film places an emphasis on the importance of family. Moonstruck was the My Big Fat Geek Wedding (2002) of its day only infinitely better and about an Italian family as opposed to a Greek one. Watching Jewison’s film again, you realize just how much Nia Vardalos’ romantic comedy is heavily indebted to it. If Moonstruck is La Boheme than Greek Wedding isTony and Tina’s Wedding.
Loretta Castorini (Cher) is engaged to Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello). They act like an old married couple and they haven’t even tied the knot yet! And therein lies the problem – their relationship lacks passion. He is called away suddenly to Italy to see his mother on her deathbed and asks Loretta to invite his estranged brother Ronny (Nicolas Cage) to their wedding. Ronny works in a bakery and is bitter over having lost his hand in a freak accident, blaming Johnny for what happened. In a classic case of opposites attracting, Loretta and Ronny find themselves irresistibly drawn to each other.
At the time, Nicolas Cage was considered an odd casting choice because of his reputation as an eccentric character actor. The way he gestures and enunciates certain words is off-kilter in such a way that it gives his scenes a wonderfully unpredictable vibe. He makes unusual choices and surprisingly they all work. Cage delivers a very physical, Brando-esque performance only filtered through his very distinctive style of acting as evident in the scene where Ronny and Loretta meet for the first time. Cage is fascinating to watch for the unusual choices he makes. Ronny paces around the room, starting his rant quietly before gradually building in intensity, punctuating his impassioned speech with words like, “huh” and “sweetie.” Jewison orchestrates the actor beautifully through editing so that the scene has an absolutely captivating rhythm as we gain insight into Ronny’s character. Cage conveys an impressive range of emotions as Ronny goes from pride to rage to sadness.
He plays well off of Cher and they have the kind of chemistry that is so important for this kind of film. His fiery, Method approach works well in contrast to Cher’s more controlled style and their scenes together crackle with the intensity of two actors with very different approaches bouncing off each other. Ronny is a wounded animal, “a wolf without a foot,” as Loretta puts it, and she is “a bride without a head,” as he tells her, but over the course of the film she transforms him into a civilized human being. She brings out the romantic who likes to dress up and go to the opera. Cher does a wonderful job of immersing herself in the character of Loretta, a strong-willed, smart woman who thinks she has it all figured out until she meets Ronny. On the surface, Loretta may seem like a cynic, but she has taken what she feels is a more realistic approach towards love because of the death of her previous husband. She has chosen to marry Johnny not because she loves him, but because he’s a safe bet. Her heart has fallen asleep only to be awakened by Ronny. Cher won a well-deserved Academy Award for her performance as a widow who, against her better judgement, falls in love again. Watching her in this film reminds one how natural an actress she is and what a crime it is that she doesn’t act more often.
Cage and Cher are well supported by a fantastic cast of colorful character actors. Vincent Gardenia plays Loretta’s cheap father Cosmo who has a lover on the side and Olympia Dukakis is Rose, her wise mother full of world-weary pearls of wisdom, like when she tells her daughter about men: “When you love them they drive you crazy because they know they can.” There’s an air of sadness to her character as Rose seems to have resigned herself to a life where every day is the same. Then there’s Feodor Chaliapin, Jr. as Loretta’s grandfather who can be seen in several scenes walking his small fleet of mangy dogs and seems to be used as merely window-dressing until Jewison gives him a pivotal moment towards the end of the film.
The film’s secret weapon is Danny Aiello as mama’s boy Johnny. From hysterical crying to the way he interacts with Cher’s Loretta, his portrayal of Johnny is a master class in comedic acting. Johnny thinks he knows something about men and women (“A man who can’t control his woman is funny.”), but is quickly put in his place by Loretta. Aiello does wonders with throwaway bits of dialogue like, “My scalp is not getting enough blood sometimes,” as Johnny tells Loretta over dinner while vigorously rubbing his hair. He doesn’t mug per se, but rather plays it straight in a way that makes his character look ridiculous via tiny gestures or through a specific facial expression. Compared to someone like Cage, you know Aiello has no chance with Cher, but the actor plays it like Johnny believes they are going to get married all the way through the film.
There are superb recurring gags, like John Mahoney’s sad university professor who keeps striking out with younger women that throw wine in his face midway through dinner before storming out of the restaurant. While his character is a bit of a Lech, Mahoney’s expressive eyes convey a sadness that makes you feel somewhat sympathetic for him. There’s a nice scene between his character and Rose where they end up having dinner together at the restaurant after he’s publicly embarrassed yet again by his latest young lady friend (Canadian actress Cynthia Dale in a small role). It’s a lovely scene between two lonely people as they talk honestly about their lives and she asks him, “Why do men chase women?” He has no good answer and she tells him, “I think it’s because they fear death.” It kickstarts a fascinating conversation that allows us to understand these two people. Every time I watch Moonstruck I imagine an offshoot film that follows Rose and the professor as they run off together or perhaps have a brief affair.
The use of location is excellent. For example, the opening shot is of Lincoln Center (which features prominently later on) in New York City so we know exactly where we are. Most of the film is set in Brooklyn and Jewison conveys an almost tactile feel for the borough. You want to be there and know these people. You also get a real sense of community. The warm, inviting lighting of the Italian restaurant where Johnny proposes to Loretta and where her mother has dinner with Mahoney’s professor has a wonderful, intimate atmosphere made up of warm reds and contrasting greens that puts you right there. There is another scene where Loretta looks out the window at the full moon in the night sky and the lighting is perfect with just the right music that results in such a touching, poignant moment. No words are spoken because none are needed with such visuals.
As much as the 1980s was typified by Wall Street’s (1987) Gordon Gekko and his “Greed is good” mantra,Moonstruck is about blue-collar people. It pays tribute to folks that represent the glue of society, showing us bookkeepers, bread makers, liquor store owners, plumbers and so on plying their trade. The characters in this film may lead workaday jobs, but their personal lives are anything but average. Like My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Moonstruck does heighten ethnic stereotypes for comedic effect, but the latter film does so sincerely and with class. Moonstruck perpetuates a lot of Italian stereotypes, but not in a grating way, playfully making fun of some of them while celebrating others with affection. Far from being a bundle of ethnic clichés, it is a celebration of the Italian-American experience. The crucial difference between the two films is tone. Where Greek Wedding is all cuddly, feel good sitcom, Moonstruck has some bite to it, an edge as represented by Cage’s passionate performance. This film is full of fantastic acting and much pleasure comes from watching a very talented cast speak brilliantly written dialogue. Best of all it has a wonderful sense of romantic naivete, a cinematic love letter to New York City.
1 Attached Images
This one of those movies that I’ve seen a few times (it’s a favourite of my wife’s) and enjoyed, but never really thought about. Your excellent piece has made me think about it — many thanks!
You are more than welcome!
Yes I agree it is a wonderful cinematic love letter to New York City. Cher is radiant and Cage, though hard-edged and over the top at times helps to forge some odd chemistry. Dukakis and Aiello deliver. A beautifully written review.
Thank you. Agreed about Cher and Cage. They work so well together and have a really solid, if not offbeat chemistry that works.
Cage is a ham. But for this film that kind of shtick works.
Reblogged this on It Rains… You Get Wet and commented:
I have a real soft one for this romantic-comedy. One that my colleague J.D. says has a real bite to it. Whatever you think about it, the RADIATOR HEAVEN blogger on Sam Juliano’s Wonders in the Dark site really nailed it.
Thanks, my friend. It’s definitely one of my fave rom-coms.
Great review, J.D.! I have a real soft spot for this one.
Great tribute to a great romantic film. This placed very high on my ballot, well within my top 10. Ronny’s speech to Loretta about the nature of love (“Love don’t make things nice…. We are here to ruin ourselves and to break our hearts and love the wrong people and die…”) is one my favorite pieces of film dialogue ever, from anything. I
Yes, I love Shanley’s dialogue – so rich and colorful and Ronny’s speech is a prime example fo that.
Great review J.D. I’m a big fan of this film and really like Cage and Cher here. This is one of those really charming love stories that if it comes on TV and I switch to the channel I’m immediately hooked in again. It’s one of my favorite of the more modern romance films.
Thanks! I feel the same way when it comes on. Recently, I’ve gotten into the habit of making a big spaghetti dinner before watching it.
Extraordinary comprehensive piece on a film you clearly high is high esteem J.D. I certainly do like it as well, and have always appreciated the operatic aspects including the Lincoln Center location. I know Cage is in the dog house with a good many, but in MOONSTRUCK he does contribute one of his finest performances. Cher is at her very best here and in MASK, and the supporting plays are marvelous. I agree J.D. that it is rather odd that the Canadian Norman Jewison brought this seeming American melting pot narrative to remarkable authenticity. Excellent and passionate work here!!!
Thank you for the kind words, Sam. And yeah, Cage has certainly eradicated any kind of good will he earned from his ’80s and ’90s output and MOONSTRUCK is a potent reminder of just how good he was.
You’re right about Cher here and in MASK. I’d also add SILKWOOD, which she also did some solid work.
[Nicholas Cage] makes unusual choices and surprisingly they all work.
Congrats, J.D., on your richly descriptive piece of writing, which is quite apt given the subject pushes so many emotional buttons. Cage’s performance really stands out for me despite this being a signature role for Cher. In fact, the unique acting choices he makes in this film outweigh what I consider to be the rather maudlin stuff (my opinion) he did in his Oscar-winning role in Leaving Las Vegas.
I honestly don’t consider Moonstruck to be great filmmaking but it’s certainly entertaining and comes together in a “perfect storm” that’s eminently watchable. By this time in Cher’s career, I think Hollywood finally had to acknowledge her natural talent as an actress. All the other trappings surrounding her, including the convincing performances of Aiello and Dukakis, have made this film a popular favorite.
Thank you, sir! I agree, that MOONSTRUCK is definitely one of Cage’s better performances and it’s no coincidence that it was done when he was still an up-and-coming actor eager to make a name for himself and still trying to challenge himself with a wide variety of roles.
I’m not the biggest Cher fan, but she is so good in this film and it reminded me that she can also deliver the goods when she steps it up and has the right material to work with.
Wow, I need to see this one again – as I’m finding with so many films in the countdown. Nicolas Cage might phone it in a lot of the time nowadays, but he’s great in the right film, and this is the right film.
I love your description “The way he gestures and enunciates certain words is off-kilter in such a way that it gives his scenes a wonderfully unpredictable vibe.”
This is just what makes him compelling to watch when he does actually take a role worthy of his talents.
Exactly. I’d love to see Cage hook up with some A-list talent again and get the right material that would challenge him once again. I think he’s capable of it, he either doesn’t make the right choices anymore or is only given stuff that doesn’t require him to do all that much.
Maybe he’ll start to make more interesting choices again once he gets past the leading man age? It would be nice to think so.
Did you see Joe? I thought it was a very solid film with a very solid performance from Cage. Wonder what you think of it.
It’s not out in the UK yet, Jon – it will be released here at the end of this month. I’ll try to see it!
I still have to see JOE but I’ve heard very good things about it.