Skip to main content

A Schmaltzy Holiday Rom-Com, But Gay


Happiest Season is an elevated Hallmark Christmas movie. In everything from the story set-up to elements of the comedy to even its’ set design, colour grading, cinematography, and lighting, the resemblance to those schmaltzy affairs featuring actors you might vaguely recognize from some commercial or forgotten family TV show is incredibly stark. They might even be the direct influence on writer-director Clea DuVall, whose general approach to the film seems to be to have it resemble a very ordinary kind of holiday movie… but gay. The movies’ whole existence is predicated on traditional heterosexual Christmas rom-coms, but subverted slightly to be a margin more relatable to the queer experience and more accessible to people with taste. It improves on formula, but is also to some degree constrained by it. And the result is a movie that is pretty okay overall with spots of greatness, but not a lot of substance beyond its basic aims and purpose.
That purpose is to basically just be a mainstream holiday movie about an LGBTQ couple dealing with a unique conflict for members of the LGBTQ community: the stress, anxiety, and fear of coming out to your family. It is perhaps the most basic storyline for queer fiction (this was the premise of Love, Simon a few years ago, the first mainstream Hollywood comedy about a gay teen), but it isn’t a bad or illegitimate one if it’s the only one Hollywood feels particularly comfortable with. DuVall probably knows this, hence why she portrays it without a lot of easy broad comedy and as a genuinely emotionally difficult issue, which also helps cultivate sympathy for Mackenzie Davis’ Harper, who might otherwise, and at times does, come off as selfish or hurtful.
It’s certainly unfair of her to impose a facade of straightness on her girlfriend Abby (Kristen Stewart) when she herself invited her to her familys’ Christmas in rural Pennsylvania. And while Abby goes along with it, it’s not a comfortable ruse -the film stresses this emphatically. So that while the characters’ gayness is a key facet of the plot, it’s never a vessel of humour, which the film prefers to mine from other sources, such as the repressed dysfunction of Harpers’ family and the attitude, advice, and light political satire of Abby’s friend John (Daniel Levy) -there’s one exceptionally fun running gag about him looking after Abby’s fish.
DuVall wrote the film with Mary Holland, who also appears as Jane, Harper’s underachieving little sister (Harper is ostensibly the family favourite, while oldest sister Sloane, played by Alison Brie, is the most successful). There are some cracks to their script, bouts of awkward dialogue or characterization a bit too indicative of the sort of films Happiest Season is evoking. It also relies too often on conventions of romantic comedy, classic misunderstandings and jealousies. But it does have a deep regard for the essence of the material. The frustration of Abby is innately felt, Kristen Stewart does a very good job of simmering in this identity crisis thrust upon her, especially as Harper grows ever more distant under the circumstances. Harper is a hard character to like for much of the film but the script never loses empathy with her, even as she makes some dire mistakes, and that’s largely down to its’ treatment of the family.
For as much as the Caldwells are played for light comedy: Sloane’s resentful competitiveness to Harper, their mothers’ obsessive perfectionism, the random deviousness of Sloane’s children, and Jane’s whole complex; there is an underlying severity to their faux wholesome image that’s about as bitter as this movie gets. They don’t have to do or say anything outwardly homophobic for their nature to come across -it’s all there in father Victor Garbers’ cordial concerns for his political career, in Sloane’s prideful presentation of an idyllic nuclear family, and in mother Mary Steenburgen’s constant emphasis of the strict reputation the family must maintain. The movie doesn’t ever confirm it out loud, possibly not to alienate that part of their demographic, but “reputation” is clearly a code for Christian. The familys’ whole aesthetic is very Christian, at least as its depicted in Hallmark Christmas specials and Evangelical propaganda films: a homestead that’s immaculately clean with decor fresh from the department store catalogue and an incredibly straight-laced yet classically elegant attitude to fashion that communicates the wealth and status one is rewarded with for worshiping God. I think DuVall chose to represent them this way not out of a particular anti-religious sentiment as much as its’ the easiest context for the sake of dramatic tension. The family and their situation ascribe to plenty of other iconography of old-fashioned Christian conservative values in their home and relations; and they’re even guilty of that all-too-familiar transparent meddling in encouraging a reconnection between Harper and her high school boyfriend, who stayed close to home while she moved to the city.
And so it’s perfectly understandable why it’s such a hard thing for Harper to do to admit she’s gay to her family, and why even comical scenes in the climax revolving around it are tinged with a lot of real intensity.  That part at least justifies the films’ existence, articulating well the significance of what Harper is going through, what Abby is going through too, and the emotional devastation it’s causing her to be a part of this. But Abby is also our avatar, and though this requires her to be a little naive so that DuVall can speak directly to us straights, its’ necessitated by the urgency of her message. As is pointed out, in families like Harpers’, coming out may mean being disowned or disgraced, and the film gets the gravity of that across more thoroughly than I think I’ve seen in a movie before.
This subject matter is somewhat haphazardly tied into the holidays, and I don’t think it entirely works, as much as the film is inundated with Christmas imagery to convince you otherwise. But then so many of the movies it emulates have only that loose relationship to the seasonal themes, and at least this one has Kristen Stewart aptly playing the outsider to their conventions. Happiest Season, like almost every movie this year, got moved from its theatrical release to streaming, but I think it belongs on Hulu. It’s a very average film that boasts greater talent and a sharper, more critical aim than the dozens of cheap holiday TV movies that pop out of the woodwork every year, and is a reasonable, if uninspired alternative. But I feel like, for the first gay Christmas rom-com, it could have played it less straight.

Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...