Interesting article on the state of the modern Romantic Comedy

[imoldfashioned]

The New York Times had an interesting article entitled A Fine Romance, My Friend, This Is on the (sad) state of the modern Romantic Comedy compared to the Golden Age films in this genre. I believe you need a free password to access the article but it's worth a look.

One of my favorite bits: "Our parents and grandparents had Rock Hudson and Doris Day — such delicious subtext! such amazing office furniture! — or Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn. Or Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant. Or Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell. Or even, in “That Touch of Mink,” Cary Grant and Doris Day. But you get the point.

We have Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey."

 

[Doctor Strange]

As it happens, I read this earlier this morning - and I thought it was excellently said, and dead on-target!

 

[Fletch]

They're wrong, tho - the Ralph Bellamy guy doesn't get the girl. The Ralph Bellamy option doesn't even friggn exist anymore.

The romantic lead of today has to be BLAND, with superficial alpha-yuppie, outlaw-biker, sullen-misanthrope or slobby-puppy-dog trimmings. He can't be very smart, he can't be very funny, and he damn well can't be sophisticated, because that would make him teh ghey.

 

[Feraud]

I agree with a lot the article says.
In particular this -

This is not because the plots are predictable, though goodness knows they are. A single woman, courted by two eligible men, will be drawn toward the man who is superficially right but ontologically wrong for her before choosing, in the final 20 minutes, the man with the opposite qualities. Or, more rarely, a single man will face the analogous predicament. Or an incurable skirt chaser will be cured, usually by a lady who at first had seemed to be repelled by his irresistible manly charms. Or a couple on the verge of splitting — or already split — will discover that they were meant to be together after all.

and this -

There are several possible answers. The most obvious one (and to me the least persuasive) is just that they don’t make them like they used to, that the history of American cinema since its classical era has been a sorry chronicle of decline. It may be true that you rarely hear the kind of sharp, sparkling dialogue that used to animate the films of Ernst Lubitsch, George Cukor and Preston Sturges, but it would be hard to look at movies and television today and conclude that there is a shortage of funny writing or sharp storytelling.

The problem with the films are the filmmakers. They rarely show any heart for the subject matter. They do their job by rote. Just because there is a built in audience for a genre is no reason to insult the viewer with lazy work.


The article does not give us much alternative in the recent past nor suggestions for the future.
Aside from a mention to When Harry Met Sally or Jerry Maguire you would think no decent romance films have been made in the last decade or two.

Let me recommend the film Mr. Jealousy as a fine piece of writing, directing, and acting in the romance genre.

 

[Naphtali]

Mis hit everything in sight. Please delete, or readers ignore.

 

[Naphtali]

They're wrong, tho - the Ralph Bellamy guy doesn't get the girl. The Ralph Bellamy option doesn't even friggn exist anymore.

The romantic lead of today has to be BLAND, with superficial alpha-yuppie, outlaw-biker, sullen-misanthrope or slobby-puppy-dog trimmings. He can't be very smart, he can't be very funny, and he damn well can't be sophisticated, because that would make him teh ghey.

Like in "Sweet Home, Alabama?"

 

[ShortClara]

The romantic lead of today has to be BLAND, with superficial alpha-yuppie, outlaw-biker, sullen-misanthrope or slobby-puppy-dog trimmings. He can't be very smart, he can't be very funny, and he damn well can't be sophisticated, because that would make him teh ghey.

And the romantic leading lady has to be white, anorexic and bland, possessing no other skills than being a walking clothes hanger and staring blankly into camera with a mild air of unfounded superiority.

 

[Paisley]

The only exceptions I can think of from recent years are Return to Me and My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Otherwise, yeah, blech.

 

[Feraud]

And the romantic leading lady has to be white, anorexic and bland, possessing no other skills than being a walking clothes hanger and staring blankly into camera with a mild air of unfounded superiority.

Not to mention being able to fall over invisible objects to receive hearty guffaws from the audience. It seems like every chick flick commercial I see has a gal falling down.
What is with that? Are ladies clumsy?