Something's Gotta Give is a pulpy romantic comedy. Jack Nicholson's character is a 63-year old lad renowned for dating ladies 30 years younger. It is difficult to believe that nobody involved in the filming knew that one does not do CPR on someone who is breathing, but easy to believe that nobody cared. Without excellent stars this would not have managed even its 6.7/10 score. Nevertheless I bumped into a bunch of relevant and interesting things I did not expect in a formulaic American romantic comedy.

"I am not good at monogamy", Nicholson warns Diane Keaton's famous playwright character, and later "What is it with you broads and your all-or-nothing attitude?" Strangely the issue does not come up again... although the title translates into saying that "there is a conflict that must be resolved". That conflict is Keaton dating both a young doctor (Keanu Reeves) and our ancient hero Nicholson. It is really never made clear just why this scenario is unacceptable, except that Keaton's supposedly-enlightened character cannot get her head around it. Nicholson is not short of other (young) things, while Keaton and her sister (played by Francis McDormand) are amusingly intrigued with Nicholson's lifestyle, even while they believe it includes Keaton's daughter. Perhaps one has to assume some sort of American morality I do not understand.

"Contraception?" says Nicholson with raised eyebrows at some point.
"Menopause!" says Keaton with a gleeful smile.
It would spoil the charm, but no mention of STDs.

A question that gets posed to me every now and then goes "what is your ideal woman like?" I was first asked by Yvonne Allen & Associates (dating agency) in the 1980s. The only answer I could give them was that grooming was important to me. I suppose that means 'look coiffured and smell appealing'? The truth is that I still do not know. Kay was the closest approximation I had known, but I cannot say what it might be about her that appealed so much. I don't think height is important. Neither length nor hair colour matter, provided the cut is stylish. Ditto eye colour. Long, shapely legs are admirable, but they do not do it for me. I would like to say that the higher the education the more the appeal, but... this is irrelevant if you can hold an erudite conversation (OK, that is a prerequisite). So we have groomed and eloquent, but that is not much.

Burt Reynolds' character in The Man Who Loved Women (1983) was enormously lovable if incapable of monogamy owing to his attraction to fabulous legs. Strangely, nobody seemed to expect it of him, even Julie Andrews' character.
Clint Eastwood's character in The Bridges of Madison County (1995) has lovers all over the world. Meryl Streep's character asks him "how does it work" in one timeline while her grown children loosen up and move towards admiration, in the timeline after her death, via inherited diaries... "I want my children to know their mother". (And wow, Streep could do chemistry!)
Don't even ask about The Witches of Eastwick (1987).
I think I am developing a secret admiration for pulpy American romantic films.

Nicholson is surprised by the fact that he does not need Viagra with Keaton. A short while ago I would have called bullshit on that plot feature... he needs it with supermodels but not a woman of his own age? Now I have some personal experience on which to draw. Viagra and friends need the engine running hard before much effect kicks in. What I have learnt is that the functionality of my aging hardware is defined by the firmware, not the conscious software, not the wetware. Age is unimportant. When some subconscious trigger occurs my genital function is as good as it was 30 years ago. Without that trigger, not so much. This should provide a powerful tool for analysing my own subconscious sexual mechanism.

The image above right intrigues me. It says a lot about the making of bedroom scenes. It must be quite hard to get into character. The director is sitting on the bed. I wonder if she sits there for the duration of a pillow conversation. I have watched a lot of love scenes on film. I am guessing that it is hard to appear seriously hot if you are not attracted to some degree in real life. Anne Hathaway has had something to say about the search for chemistry, as part of the casting process, and how it can be rather gross. NPR recently had a discussion of good sex scenes in Pop Culture Happy Hour. Watch out for your next love scene clearly lacking chemistry. I recall watching an Australian TV program with Gerard Kennedy in the early 1970s. The chemistry was very obvious. Later news reports pointed out that the love scene continued after filming stopped, the crew being unable not to notice this. Kennedy is an actor who prefers to keep his personal life secret, but one presumes that his daughter is a product of this first marriage. The actors had met on the set, and wound up getting married. Was it Rush? My 50-year old memory is that it was set in modern times, so maybe not. Why do these stories stick with me so intensely? This too is buried in my firmware.

The attitudes in Something's Gotta Give and The Man who Loved Women tell me that there are many who appreciate the distinction between monogamy and fidelity, but many who do not. Keaton's character had monogamy and commitment conflated. SGG wants to ridicule that, in a way. Professor Marston provided a detailed example.

Once upon a time any naked female body in my room was more than enough to elicit an erection. This is no longer the case. Intellectually Really Wanting Someone seems not to be enough. On the other hand, it happens magically with Ms Q, like reverse kryptonite, and dammit I do not know why. Perhaps coyness is involved, as explored in Burlesque. If I had enough time to experiment with a variety of examples, I suppose I could gather enough information to work out exactly what it might be that turns me on. Nicholson has a drawer full of "little black books". Some calculation shows that this is an impractically large number. No wonder most of the young things wound up angry with him, they would be getting maybe one day each. So many women, so little time.