I've linked you to an interesting article from the
New York Times on the current, generally deplorable state of the romantic comedy. It starts off a bit poorly, especially when the author classifies
In Her Shoes and
The Devil Wears Prada as romantic comedies. They are not. Are there love interests for the central female characters? Yes. Is that the focus of the plot in either film? No. The same goes for the overrated
Juno (brief rant: the film is riding the wave of praise from people who don't watch enough films).
I think A.O. Scott* shoots around the issue, but fails to hit the target with the general thrust of why romantic comedies aren't working lately. Really, did you see
27 Dresses? I did. Thank god I didn't pay for it. It was really bad. It had its moments and there was plenty of chemistry between the leads, but it was pretty pathetic and full of insipid jokes.
Anyway, back to my point of what Scott is missing. He yearns for the acerbic wit of yesteryear, when the romance included some form of "risk" (like falling for your rival or someone you think you hate). He also implicates women's liberation in the shifting plot forms that are perhaps debilitating these movies. But, if anything, you'd think women's parity with men gives them full permission to "fight" men (usually through wit, ideology...ala
Pride & Prejudice). Instead, in the case of
27 Dresses she's a pathetic sack who can't stand up for herself. She's never uttered the word "No."
Maybe the problem is realism, which Scott doesn't really touch. As women become stronger in the real world (individually, collectively, etc.), their onscreen personas often betray this in order to conform to antiquated, traditional roles for women as desperate to marry (planning their weddings from infancy) and raise gobs of children, confining themselves to a private homelife. But who is that for? Do women really want to see that? (Of course not all women are feminists.) Is this for men who feel emasculated as women surpass them in education and income or just in general act on their entitlements? But do they see these movies in any great numbers? Men write a lot of romantic comedies, and perhaps, that is indeed part of the problem. But
27 Dresses was written by a woman, and there are other women who write this kind of crap.
I like the idea that Julie Delpy describes her
2 Days in Paris as a post-romantic comedy. It deals with a man's insecurities about his girlfriend's past (she's had sex with a lot of men! oh no!), but at the same time, Delpy's Marion has her own issues about commitment. She's 35 with no immediate (or perhaps eventual) interest to permanently tie herself to one man (let alone utter the word "marriage"). That is the great leap here. This is a plot line that perhaps shows the actual complications of the dramatic upheavel of gender roles in the late 20th century. Not the only permutation, of course, but it's a start. We need more post-romantic comedies. But we don't need to belittle the men (Adam Goldberg's Jack is a bit whiny), that's not my point. Why can't I have a male partner that is more like me rather than not?
*Who incidentally said he could watch
The Simpsons Movie 20-30 more times according to the movie's box (that quote was there in lieu of a synopsis). I rented it from the library. I laughed a bit, but as someone who has really never watched the show I found it really easy to follow. How could this be satisfying for the hardcore Simpsons fans? Though, of course, I loved that Albert Brooks was the villain. He manages to get himself in high profile stuff you wouldn't ordinarily think of when you think of the wit and brilliance of Albert Brooks (for example, his first film acting credit is in
Taxi Driver).
Labels: film
