Post by canadia on Jun 12, 2010 14:10:27 GMT -5
The good, the bad, and never the ugly
12 Jun 2010
Spectrum
The romantic comedy is one of Hollywood’s most enduring genres but it can so easily go wrong, writes GARRY MADDOX.
‘ To Hollywood, a plain-looking woman is a beautiful-looking woman with glasses.’
Remember when Tom Cruise said ‘‘you complete me’’ to Renee Zellweger in Jerry Maguire? Or Jack Nicholson said ‘‘you make me want to be a better man’’ to Helen Hunt in As Good As It Gets? Or Melanie Griffith teased Harrison Ford with ‘‘I have a head for business and a bod for sin’’ in Working Girl?
As smarter versions of our own fumbled attempts to express affection, great lines from romantic comedies stay with us. So do favourite scenes.
Take the ‘‘I’ll have what she’s having’’ orgasm simulation in When Harry Met Sally. Or Hugh Grant’s dismay as Andie MacDowell lists her past lovers – one by one – in Four Weddings and a Funeral. Or the infamous hair gel moment in There’s Something About Mary.
The gap between reality and fantasy is part of the appeal of the rom-com. In the news pages, a relationship between a billionaire and an escort involves a secret financial arrangement that spills into the courts. In Pretty Woman, it’s a life-affirming love story.
The Hollywood rom-com has its roots in Shakespeare’s comic romances via the screwball comedies of the 1930s to ’50s. Films such as Annie Hall, Romancing the Stone, Moonstruck and The Princess Bride showed the genre’s popular appeal in the ’70s and ’80s.
Now, the rom-com is one of Tinseltown’s most enduring genres. Hardly a month goes by without some new twist on boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy and girl realise they are destined to be together forever – especially if contractually obliged to make a sequel. (And even after Brokeback Mountain it always seems to be a boy-girl thing.)
In recent months, cinemas have been screening Australia’s I Love You Too – a far better movie than most of the reviews suggested – The Back-up Plan, The Bounty Hunter, Valentine’s Day, She’s Out of My League and The Rebound.
It’s easy to see why Hollywood keeps rolling them out. In the past two years, Australian audiences have spent close to $250 million on tickets to more than 20 rom-coms, headed by The Proposal, He’s Just Not That Into You, Sex and the City, the musical variation, Mamma Mia! and 27 Dresses.
The formula has been reworked into just about every conceivable permutation, mostly with the woman as the central character, which reflects the largely female audience for the genre.
Once it was Meg Ryan, Julia Roberts and Andie MacDowell; now it’s Renee Zellweger, Sandra Bullock, Kate Hudson, Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Lopez, Katherine Heigl or a new fresh face – most likely blonde – such as Amanda Seyfried.
After extended runs for Hugh Grant and Tom Hanks, the rom-com males of the moment seem to be Bradley Cooper, Gerard Butler and Ryan Reynolds.
Hollywood is always looking to broaden the audience for any type of film. In the case of rom-coms, Judd Apatow has done that by bringing young males to titles such as Knocked Up (first the sex, then the romance) and The 40-Year-Old Virgin (first the chastity, then the romance). As well as gags about romance and weddings, there are jokes about porn and drugs.
Even the cynically made rom-com – and whoever keeps casting Matthew McConaughey is under suspicion – reaffirms our hope that true love exists. But it’s still surprising how often we keep buying tickets given we’ve seen it all before and have a pretty fair idea of how it’s going to end.
Optimists might say we enjoy seeing likeable people finding happiness; realists that we’re just desperate for emotional sustenance given how hard love is in the modern world. Whatever the reason, we remain committed to a love affair with rom-coms.
‘‘ They combine two things people love to do – laugh and fall in love – vicariously,’’ says an American author and lecturer on screenwriting, Michael Hauge. ‘‘A good romantic comedy is formulaic without being predictable.
‘‘Pretty much whenever you go to a romantic comedy, you know it’s going to have a happy ending so it’s almost always a feel-good situation. That draws people in. And good romantic comedies present deeper layers to character and underlying themes quite well.’’
The trouble is that the formula is so familiar it’s hard to be fresh. The one truly original take on the genre recently was 500 Days of Summer, which turned the form on its head by being about the relationship before Joseph Gordon-Levitt finds true love.
Hollywood also sees rom-coms as vehicles – closer to production-line sedans than custom-built sports cars – for young stars with ‘‘heat’’.
Steve Kaplan, a Hollywood script doctor and writing teacher who lectures with Hauge on rom-coms, does not regard casting as the main problem. Rather, it’s screenplays that lack truthful situations and well-drawn characters. ‘‘In the last couple of years it has been a very, very difficult form to do right,’’ he says. ‘‘You can point to more romantic comedies that have failed than have succeeded, partly because they create artificial obstacles for the couple and artificial and unbelievable comic episodes for the characters to go through.’’
The two experts, who are presenting a seminar called The Art of the Romantic Comedy in Sydney next weekend (see epiphany.com.au), have studied the genre closely. The best examples, Hauge says, include such unexpected rom-coms as Shrek, My Best Friend’s Wedding and The American President.
On the other hand, his idea of hell is a Matthew McConaughey-Kate Hudson film festival, he dislikes half the rom-coms in which Jennifer Aniston stars and he hates Sex and the City.
Kaplan won’t divulge his pet hates but says the best examples of this type of movie are about something more than just falling in love. His all time favourite is Groundhog Day.
As regular movie goers, we bring expectations to each new rom-com. Having watched so many over the years, we instinctively understand the rules. We know the two budding lovers have to be opposites of some kind. We know they spark, they can’t get together straight away and, finally, they realise they are in love.
But there is a lot more to it than that. Hauge and Kaplan highlight three important elements to successful rom-coms . . .
There must be a chasm between the characters
When they meet, the two future lovers must be separated from each other somehow.
In Sleepless in Seattle, Meg Ryan hears a man’s voice on the radio and has to find him. In Pretty Woman it’s the social distance between a wealthy businessman and a hooker. In Notting Hill, Hugh Grant is a lowly bookshop owner and Julia Roberts is a Hollywood star.
‘‘On the surface, there’s this big separation,’’ Hauge says. ‘‘But what’s really going on is there’s some fear the two people have that’s keeping them apart. Each one is holding back from really opening up or committing to that other person.
‘‘Their journey is not only to cross that divide but to overcome those fears. It’s the fear of connection or standing up for yourself or doing what’s right or being accepted. It’s those universal issues that we all deal with.’’
Deception plays an important role
Almost all Hollywood rom-coms, Hauge says, are built on deception. Usually, the hero is lying to someone.
‘‘ They’re lying about some secret – not so much to win the person or to get the person into bed but because they have some other goal,’’ he says.
‘‘For example, in The Proposal, you’ve got the hero lying about the fact that she’s in love with this guy and pretending to be his fiancee so she can get her green card. In trying to prove that lie, they actually do fall in love.’’
(Fans will remember that Peter Weir used the same formula in Green Card, with Gerard Depardieu and Andie MacDowell, again.)
At other times, there’s a different form of deception – that of being an imposter, for example. In Working Girl, Melanie Griffith pretends to be a broker. In Tootsie, Dustin Hoffman passes himself off as a woman. In Knocked Up, the immature Seth Rogen pretends to be responsible.
A big break-up is essential
Before the couple eventually get together, they first have to split.
Hauge says this traditionally happens three-quarters of the way through the movie – the end of act two in a three-act story.
‘‘One of the characters – if not both – has to make some big final push, a do-or-die effort, to get that person back before they lose their destiny,’’ he says.
‘‘ That very often leads to that final climactic scene at the wedding, when the love interest is about to marry the wrong guy and the hero sweeps in and says, ‘No, you can’t do that, I’m in love with you.’ ’’
If that all sounds spectacularly formulaic, there is no shortage of writers willing to take on the challenge. When the Australian Writers’ Guild ran a competition for rom-com scripts this year, it had 160 entries. The winner, Graeme Simsion’s The Rosie Project, was about a genetics professor with Asperger’s syndrome who goes about finding a wife with meticulous planning and scientific methods.
Whoever gets cast had better be good looking. In all these recent movies, there is hardly a plain actor, let alone a downright ugly one. When Ricky Gervais starred opposite Tea Leoni in Ghost Town, it didn’t exactly set the box office alight. So could you make a hit rom-com with ordinary looking actors?
‘‘ That’s a good question,’’ Hauge says with a laugh. ‘‘Logically you could. But apparently if it’s being cast in Hollywood, that’s not really allowed. To Hollywood, a plain-looking woman is a beautiful-looking woman wearing glasses.’’
12 Jun 2010
Spectrum
The romantic comedy is one of Hollywood’s most enduring genres but it can so easily go wrong, writes GARRY MADDOX.
‘ To Hollywood, a plain-looking woman is a beautiful-looking woman with glasses.’
Remember when Tom Cruise said ‘‘you complete me’’ to Renee Zellweger in Jerry Maguire? Or Jack Nicholson said ‘‘you make me want to be a better man’’ to Helen Hunt in As Good As It Gets? Or Melanie Griffith teased Harrison Ford with ‘‘I have a head for business and a bod for sin’’ in Working Girl?
As smarter versions of our own fumbled attempts to express affection, great lines from romantic comedies stay with us. So do favourite scenes.
Take the ‘‘I’ll have what she’s having’’ orgasm simulation in When Harry Met Sally. Or Hugh Grant’s dismay as Andie MacDowell lists her past lovers – one by one – in Four Weddings and a Funeral. Or the infamous hair gel moment in There’s Something About Mary.
The gap between reality and fantasy is part of the appeal of the rom-com. In the news pages, a relationship between a billionaire and an escort involves a secret financial arrangement that spills into the courts. In Pretty Woman, it’s a life-affirming love story.
The Hollywood rom-com has its roots in Shakespeare’s comic romances via the screwball comedies of the 1930s to ’50s. Films such as Annie Hall, Romancing the Stone, Moonstruck and The Princess Bride showed the genre’s popular appeal in the ’70s and ’80s.
Now, the rom-com is one of Tinseltown’s most enduring genres. Hardly a month goes by without some new twist on boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy and girl realise they are destined to be together forever – especially if contractually obliged to make a sequel. (And even after Brokeback Mountain it always seems to be a boy-girl thing.)
In recent months, cinemas have been screening Australia’s I Love You Too – a far better movie than most of the reviews suggested – The Back-up Plan, The Bounty Hunter, Valentine’s Day, She’s Out of My League and The Rebound.
It’s easy to see why Hollywood keeps rolling them out. In the past two years, Australian audiences have spent close to $250 million on tickets to more than 20 rom-coms, headed by The Proposal, He’s Just Not That Into You, Sex and the City, the musical variation, Mamma Mia! and 27 Dresses.
The formula has been reworked into just about every conceivable permutation, mostly with the woman as the central character, which reflects the largely female audience for the genre.
Once it was Meg Ryan, Julia Roberts and Andie MacDowell; now it’s Renee Zellweger, Sandra Bullock, Kate Hudson, Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Lopez, Katherine Heigl or a new fresh face – most likely blonde – such as Amanda Seyfried.
After extended runs for Hugh Grant and Tom Hanks, the rom-com males of the moment seem to be Bradley Cooper, Gerard Butler and Ryan Reynolds.
Hollywood is always looking to broaden the audience for any type of film. In the case of rom-coms, Judd Apatow has done that by bringing young males to titles such as Knocked Up (first the sex, then the romance) and The 40-Year-Old Virgin (first the chastity, then the romance). As well as gags about romance and weddings, there are jokes about porn and drugs.
Even the cynically made rom-com – and whoever keeps casting Matthew McConaughey is under suspicion – reaffirms our hope that true love exists. But it’s still surprising how often we keep buying tickets given we’ve seen it all before and have a pretty fair idea of how it’s going to end.
Optimists might say we enjoy seeing likeable people finding happiness; realists that we’re just desperate for emotional sustenance given how hard love is in the modern world. Whatever the reason, we remain committed to a love affair with rom-coms.
‘‘ They combine two things people love to do – laugh and fall in love – vicariously,’’ says an American author and lecturer on screenwriting, Michael Hauge. ‘‘A good romantic comedy is formulaic without being predictable.
‘‘Pretty much whenever you go to a romantic comedy, you know it’s going to have a happy ending so it’s almost always a feel-good situation. That draws people in. And good romantic comedies present deeper layers to character and underlying themes quite well.’’
The trouble is that the formula is so familiar it’s hard to be fresh. The one truly original take on the genre recently was 500 Days of Summer, which turned the form on its head by being about the relationship before Joseph Gordon-Levitt finds true love.
Hollywood also sees rom-coms as vehicles – closer to production-line sedans than custom-built sports cars – for young stars with ‘‘heat’’.
Steve Kaplan, a Hollywood script doctor and writing teacher who lectures with Hauge on rom-coms, does not regard casting as the main problem. Rather, it’s screenplays that lack truthful situations and well-drawn characters. ‘‘In the last couple of years it has been a very, very difficult form to do right,’’ he says. ‘‘You can point to more romantic comedies that have failed than have succeeded, partly because they create artificial obstacles for the couple and artificial and unbelievable comic episodes for the characters to go through.’’
The two experts, who are presenting a seminar called The Art of the Romantic Comedy in Sydney next weekend (see epiphany.com.au), have studied the genre closely. The best examples, Hauge says, include such unexpected rom-coms as Shrek, My Best Friend’s Wedding and The American President.
On the other hand, his idea of hell is a Matthew McConaughey-Kate Hudson film festival, he dislikes half the rom-coms in which Jennifer Aniston stars and he hates Sex and the City.
Kaplan won’t divulge his pet hates but says the best examples of this type of movie are about something more than just falling in love. His all time favourite is Groundhog Day.
As regular movie goers, we bring expectations to each new rom-com. Having watched so many over the years, we instinctively understand the rules. We know the two budding lovers have to be opposites of some kind. We know they spark, they can’t get together straight away and, finally, they realise they are in love.
But there is a lot more to it than that. Hauge and Kaplan highlight three important elements to successful rom-coms . . .
There must be a chasm between the characters
When they meet, the two future lovers must be separated from each other somehow.
In Sleepless in Seattle, Meg Ryan hears a man’s voice on the radio and has to find him. In Pretty Woman it’s the social distance between a wealthy businessman and a hooker. In Notting Hill, Hugh Grant is a lowly bookshop owner and Julia Roberts is a Hollywood star.
‘‘On the surface, there’s this big separation,’’ Hauge says. ‘‘But what’s really going on is there’s some fear the two people have that’s keeping them apart. Each one is holding back from really opening up or committing to that other person.
‘‘Their journey is not only to cross that divide but to overcome those fears. It’s the fear of connection or standing up for yourself or doing what’s right or being accepted. It’s those universal issues that we all deal with.’’
Deception plays an important role
Almost all Hollywood rom-coms, Hauge says, are built on deception. Usually, the hero is lying to someone.
‘‘ They’re lying about some secret – not so much to win the person or to get the person into bed but because they have some other goal,’’ he says.
‘‘For example, in The Proposal, you’ve got the hero lying about the fact that she’s in love with this guy and pretending to be his fiancee so she can get her green card. In trying to prove that lie, they actually do fall in love.’’
(Fans will remember that Peter Weir used the same formula in Green Card, with Gerard Depardieu and Andie MacDowell, again.)
At other times, there’s a different form of deception – that of being an imposter, for example. In Working Girl, Melanie Griffith pretends to be a broker. In Tootsie, Dustin Hoffman passes himself off as a woman. In Knocked Up, the immature Seth Rogen pretends to be responsible.
A big break-up is essential
Before the couple eventually get together, they first have to split.
Hauge says this traditionally happens three-quarters of the way through the movie – the end of act two in a three-act story.
‘‘One of the characters – if not both – has to make some big final push, a do-or-die effort, to get that person back before they lose their destiny,’’ he says.
‘‘ That very often leads to that final climactic scene at the wedding, when the love interest is about to marry the wrong guy and the hero sweeps in and says, ‘No, you can’t do that, I’m in love with you.’ ’’
If that all sounds spectacularly formulaic, there is no shortage of writers willing to take on the challenge. When the Australian Writers’ Guild ran a competition for rom-com scripts this year, it had 160 entries. The winner, Graeme Simsion’s The Rosie Project, was about a genetics professor with Asperger’s syndrome who goes about finding a wife with meticulous planning and scientific methods.
Whoever gets cast had better be good looking. In all these recent movies, there is hardly a plain actor, let alone a downright ugly one. When Ricky Gervais starred opposite Tea Leoni in Ghost Town, it didn’t exactly set the box office alight. So could you make a hit rom-com with ordinary looking actors?
‘‘ That’s a good question,’’ Hauge says with a laugh. ‘‘Logically you could. But apparently if it’s being cast in Hollywood, that’s not really allowed. To Hollywood, a plain-looking woman is a beautiful-looking woman wearing glasses.’’
