David Denby on modern romantic comedies
December 31st 2007 10:16
In the July 23rd, 2007 issue of The New Yorker (pg. 59), David Denby's article called 'A Fine Romance' examines the evolution of a popular cinema genre, the romantic comedy.
The rom-com is a genre that's usually scoffed at by men, who'd prefer their sci-fi action movies or stupid slapstick comedies... myself, my skin crawls at the idea of sitting through a vacuous romantic comedy, such as Maid in Manhattan, which I forced myself to sit through on an airline flight.
Denby's article was motivated by the enormous popularity of "Knocked Up":
It's a brilliant article, drawing on Denby's thorough film knowledge, to break down the rom-com genre, starting with the early directors - Capra, Hawks, Sturges - while talking about how the big stars used their onscreen personality to drive their careers. Who wouldn't want to watch Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy trade quips?
The genre has changed, definitely, going introspective and needy in the 70s, with Woody Allen's twin masterpieces, "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan", both ending with Allen not getting the girl, through his own fault.
Denby's thesis is an apt one - it's intrinsically more romantic and exponentially funnier when the two romantic leads are equally matched. The early movies all used strong, female leads to capture the hearts of American audiences, and it worked to great effect.
The modern slacker rom-com, helmed by Apatow and his cronies, Denby argues, defies this state, and, as a result, comes off as a little vile. In "Knocked Up", though the dude is a slacker and the woman is a career-oriented juggernaut, there's no question that the mantle of prestige lays on Seth Rogen and friends.
Denby writes:
"The perilous new direction of the slacker-striver genre reduces the role of women to vehicles. Their only real function is to make men grow up. That's why they're so earnest and bland - so nice, so good...
...So how can [Apatow] not know that the key to making a great romantic comedy is to create heroines equal in wit to men? They don't have to dress for dinner, but they should challenge the men intellectually and spiritually, rather than simply offering their bodies as a way of dragging the clods out of their adolescent stupor."
Fine words, Mr. Denby. While I enjoy watching Apatow-crewed comedies, I have to agree with the article - there's no greater pleasure than watching a battle of the sexes, especially when done right. Marilyn Monroe didn't play a smart girl in "Some Like It Hot", but there's absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that she didn't belong alongside Tony Curtis.
In a way, if women in movies are reduced to 'vehicles', as Denby writes, then we've gone a step back. A long, long way back.
The rom-com is a genre that's usually scoffed at by men, who'd prefer their sci-fi action movies or stupid slapstick comedies... myself, my skin crawls at the idea of sitting through a vacuous romantic comedy, such as Maid in Manhattan, which I forced myself to sit through on an airline flight.
Denby's article was motivated by the enormous popularity of "Knocked Up":
"...a raucously funny and explicit movie, has some dark corners, some fear and anxiety festering under the jokes. Apatow takes the slacker-striver romance to a place no one thought it would go. He also makes it clear, if we hadn't noticed before, how drastically the entire genre breaks with the classic patterns of romantic comedy"
It's a brilliant article, drawing on Denby's thorough film knowledge, to break down the rom-com genre, starting with the early directors - Capra, Hawks, Sturges - while talking about how the big stars used their onscreen personality to drive their careers. Who wouldn't want to watch Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy trade quips?
The genre has changed, definitely, going introspective and needy in the 70s, with Woody Allen's twin masterpieces, "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan", both ending with Allen not getting the girl, through his own fault.
Denby's thesis is an apt one - it's intrinsically more romantic and exponentially funnier when the two romantic leads are equally matched. The early movies all used strong, female leads to capture the hearts of American audiences, and it worked to great effect.
The modern slacker rom-com, helmed by Apatow and his cronies, Denby argues, defies this state, and, as a result, comes off as a little vile. In "Knocked Up", though the dude is a slacker and the woman is a career-oriented juggernaut, there's no question that the mantle of prestige lays on Seth Rogen and friends.
Denby writes:
"The perilous new direction of the slacker-striver genre reduces the role of women to vehicles. Their only real function is to make men grow up. That's why they're so earnest and bland - so nice, so good...
...So how can [Apatow] not know that the key to making a great romantic comedy is to create heroines equal in wit to men? They don't have to dress for dinner, but they should challenge the men intellectually and spiritually, rather than simply offering their bodies as a way of dragging the clods out of their adolescent stupor."
Fine words, Mr. Denby. While I enjoy watching Apatow-crewed comedies, I have to agree with the article - there's no greater pleasure than watching a battle of the sexes, especially when done right. Marilyn Monroe didn't play a smart girl in "Some Like It Hot", but there's absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that she didn't belong alongside Tony Curtis.
In a way, if women in movies are reduced to 'vehicles', as Denby writes, then we've gone a step back. A long, long way back.
| 52 |
| Vote |
Comments (2)
Add Comments
Read More
