"Romantic" "Comedies"

Like Jay Leno and the rest of the NBC late nighters, I too am trying to find my right time slot. I have, for the time-being, strategically settled on Wednesday as my publication day, as this theoretically will give you time to find a movie you discover in these posts, and acquire it in time for a weekend viewing. Let me be clear that I have not been forced into this decision by any high-ranking authority, and have chosen Wednesday of my own free will.

Now then...

In an effort to avoid alienating half of my readership, let me preface tonight's post by making a very important clarification: I do not hate romantic comedies. I do not steer clear of them strictly because I am a guy, afraid of being observed by some judgmental arse willingly going into a movie designated a "chick-flick." No. In fact, on more than one occasion, I have found myself thoroughly enjoying a so-called "chick-flick" and I'm not ashamed to say so. However, I. Hate. Romantic. Comedies.

Maybe I should clarify again: I hate what romantic comedies have become. In the golden age of Hollywood, Tracy and Hepburn knew how to make a good romantic comedy. Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell in "His Girl Friday;" great romantic comedy. Sexy and smart. Romantic and funny.

My problem with the gazillion romantic comedies that come out each year is this: they are not sexy. They are not smart. They do not strive for and therefore are not romantic. And aside from a couple of grin-inducing moments, they do not succeed at being funny. Romantic comedies today are completely satisfied with settling for "cute."

And yet, like clockwork, major studios with millions of dollars, apparently to spare, continue to release these lack-luster movies at an enormously rapid rate, at least one a week, and often are relatively successful at getting us to give them our hard-earned money to watch them again, and again, and again. Why?

Because they're easy and cheap to make. They earn all of their budget back in the first weekend of release (most of which goes to pay the salary of the two giant stars in the leads). They satisfy a relatively small contingent of the movie-going population for one night, are forgotten by the end of that same weekend, out of theaters by the following weekend, freeing up a movie screen to allow for the next in a long line of to-be-released romantic comedies.

The formula is simple. So take notes and you too could make a killing. Get two unreasonably good-looking people. Put them into a dozen or so scenes where they goofily stumble over and around, sometimes on top of, each other for an hour and a half, pretending that they don't like each other, or better yet, can't stand each other, all the while oblivious to the fact that despite their best efforts and slapstick antics, they will end up together. No matter what these two outrageously good-looking people do to each other and subject all others around them to over the course of an hour and a half to make you believe that never in a million years would these two ridiculously good-looking people ever get together in the end, you get them together in the end. Roll credits. Million dollars.

Now, I have seen the formula done well, usually thanks to some fresh ideas and a well-written script. And it usually helps if the two "Holy Cow! Could these people be any freakin' better looking" actors are playing likable characters. But too often than not, the formula allows for one of the two people to be a complete jerk, and yet we are still expected to believe he or she is still going to get the guy or girl in the end (and if the formula is being followed, you know that last part has to happen).

As much as I love the 1997 Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt Academy Award-winning "As Good As It Gets," it is this flaw that keeps it from being a truly great film. I love the characters; so well-written. I love the acting; completely deserving of the Oscars they were awarded. And yet, no chance in Hell does this guy get this girl. But the script is so intent on this conclusion, that, every time I watch the movie, it's almost as if I can see two giant hands pushing Nicholson and Hunt reluctantly into that final embrace at the end. I can believe they would end up friends, but lovers is too far a stretch.

One of the two movies that made 2009 the year of Sandra Bullock ($348,027,057 and still going strong), "The Proposal," suffered from two major romantic comedy flaws. The first being that Bullock plays a total bitch for the first 80 minutes of the movie. Within the last 10 minutes lies the 180 degree turn-around, where we the audience are asked to suspend our disbelief to the point where it is feasible to believe Ryan Reynolds has fallen in love with her. Unfortunately, too many of the in-between scenes show these two apart, which simply doesn't leave enough time for a reasonable human being to forget what a nightmare this woman has been to him for an hour and fifteen minutes.

And therein lies the second major flaw: too many superfluously dumb scenes included (Sandra Bullock haphazardly attempting to retrieve the family dog from the tallons of a swooping hawk comes to mind); too many relationship-building, character-developing scenes excluded. The script usually throws in a great deal of unnecessary complications to keep the two apart and postpone the inevitable happily ever after. Love is complicated enough without adding over-the-top subplots to keep our lovers apart. True romantic comedy can be found in the mere attempt of getting two so enormously different beings to meet and have anything at all to say to one another.

So understand, it is not my intention to bash the romantic comedy. I only wish to compel its creators to make it better.

My next blog will be about two 2009 romantic comedies that completely ignored the above formula, and were therefore far more successful and enjoyable films. And they were both romantic. And they were both funny.