The novel is dead - at least according to the latest lit-crit screed that's been getting a lot of press this week (here's one review). The theater is dead. Weirdly enough, both forms have died many times before, and yet...
Now, what does this remind me of?
I've often likened the romantic comedy to that little black dress that never goes out of style. Time to update my metaphor. The present-day romantic comedy is like the Thing That Wouldn't Die in an old horror movie: pitch-forked, drawn-and-quartered, blown to smithereens, it nevertheless pops up grinning, ready to sing an old '80s tune, get tickled in a montage and go running to the airport in the end.
Everything That's Wrong With Romantic Comedy is such a familiar trope by now, that trashing what's laughably hackneyed in the form is old news. Doesn't mean it can't be fun, as evidenced by this blog post, How to Write a Hollywood Rom-Com in 10 Easy Steps, that's been making the rounds of late (thanks for the link, Kurt Liska).
Vince, writer of said satire, hasn't done all his homework; his "ten" can be boiled down to half that many steps, and the lack of the defining adjective "Bad" in his title tacitly points up the cheap-shot nature of his diatribe. But it's funny. And you won't catch me defending the Typically Awful Hollywood Rom-Com (e.g. "Hey, that [insert Matthew McConaughey title] was actually pretty great!").
There is such a thing, however, as a good romantic comedy - witness (500) Days of Summer, winner of this year's Spirit Award for Best Screenplay. Yet the scarcity of good ones suggests how hard it is to get this seemingly-simple form right. Meanwhile, the vile ones are ubiquitous, and they keep on coming. So for the sake of fair play and clarity, here's a name for the specific sort of movie that Vince is cheerily deriding: Let's call it the zom-com.
The Zom-Com (Zombie Rom-Com) is a movie that should be, for all intents and purposes, dead - yet lives on, eating the brains of millions (figuratively speaking) as it continues to make millions at the box office. Not to be confused with an actual zombie romantic comedy (i.e. a genre hybrid presently represented by Shaun of the Dead), the Zom-Com defies all logic in its gruesome hardiness.
Critics have been trying to kill it for decades (witness the critical nukes aimed at zom-com Valentine's Day). Its form has already descended into self-parody (e.g. Date Movie and the reflexive we're-in-a-rom-com-aren't-we? moments in recent hits like The Proposal), which is usually a surefire sign of any genre's imminent demise. And yet, the march of the living Zom-Coms continues. No big studio Zombie Rom-Com has received the fatal shot-to-the-head that would discourage Hollywood from churning out more of them.
The more intriguing and difficult question to answer, when we're not busy making fun of them, is why? One obvious reason is the business model: Romantic comedies continue to be cheap to make, and thus, so long as people are paying money to see them... who needs quality?
Lurking behind this is an uncomfortable truth that cineastes and Film-elitists hate to acknowledge: Many moviegoers still go to the movies to see movie stars. Rom-coms provide two for the price of one, and many moviegoers want little more than to vicariously enjoy the high jinks that ensue between them, in a wish-fulfillment fantasy about sex, love and gender roles that doesn't challenge their traditional, long-held belief systems. I know: The horror.
What I personally find most troubling about the prevalence of zom-coms is that they spawn copy-cat zombies, and here I must confess: I Walked With (i.e. Worked On) a Zombie Rom-Com!
This past January, Living RomCom regulars may have noticed the conspicuous lack of a Leap Year review. Truth is, I had to be recused: I was the studio story analyst who did draft notes on this project, throughout its development. And Leap Year... is a zom-com.
For better (commercial potential) or worse (its template was as formulaic and predictable as a Fox News talking point), the project added nothing new to the genre gene pool, and - despite subsequent revisions from an Oscar-winner - it was always going to be a "programmer": studio parlance for a straight-up genre, generally low-budget movie that'll hopefully slake its target demographic's ever-present hunger for One of Those (This weekend's She's Out of My League is a teen comedy programmer).
Studio notes couldn't turn Leap Year into anything other than It Happened One Night Redux. And the writers, you felt, were doing what they thought they were supposed to do. This is how the zombie virus is transmitted: when a zom-com does well, why fault any studio for attempting to hunt with the pack?
Fact is, Those Kind of Movies are still finding their audience. Yes, the discerning rom-com fan would prefer to see fresh, imaginative, more realistic and left-of-center romantic comedies. Yet despite dismal reviews and a middling initial box office performance, Leap Year is well on its way to turning a decent profit.
The take-away I offer from this is a familiar one: We have met the enemy, and it is us. Decry it, lampoon it, bomb the sucker - but so long as heartlanders and guilty-pleasure urbanites, like walk-ons in some national re-enactment of Dawn of the Dead, keep coming to the mall to greet it, the Zombie Romantic Comedy will keep lurching onward, moldy arms outstretched to wrap you in its ghoulish embrace.
Be afraid. Look oooout!!! That zom-com you were laughing at? It's alive.
You're just awesome.
I HATE the Zom Com...because it feels so contrived and SO. WRONG. Like giving a small baby Hershey's candy. Some people might not see anything wrong with it, but just imagining that poor baby gumming that horrible fake sugar makes me want to cry and barf at the same time.
The Script I've just finished...it's supposed to be a romantic comedy. That's what the studio asked me to do - and I almost did that cry / barf thing - because of how much the genre bothers me.
But all I could do was hike up my pants and write something that didn't make me want wring my own neck. I knew what I was "supposed to do," ... and I did it, but in my way.
Fingers crossed.
Posted by: J | March 14, 2010 at 08:11 PM
It was hilarious how in the Leap Year trailer they literally gave away every plot point in the movie, including the the part in the end where the guy she wants to propose to shows up and proposes to her, but she's in love with the guy she met along the way. The genre has become so predictable that not only is the studio not trying to surprise you, they're using the predictability as a selling point. "Giving away" the ending in the trailer is a moot point because everybody knows what's going to happen when they come into the theater, and if they don't, the studio is going to make sure that they do.
Posted by: Frank Conniff | March 14, 2010 at 09:07 PM
Billy,
Love the new moninker, "zom-com." It's yet another feather in your cap for an updated "Writing the Romantic Comedy" book, right...?
Did read the Uproxx "How to Write a Hollywood Rom-Com in 10 Easy Steps" by "Vince." That article makes me twinge with anger. Shows TOTAL DISSRESPECT for a genre that I feel quite passionatly about.
Scott Myers posted on this article on his blogsite, "Go Into the Story", a couple days ago as well, and I flipped-out there too.
Why? Because I feel the exact opposite; it's VERY HARD to write a GOOD romantic comedy. You hafta be romantic, AND be funny, AND balance that mix over the course of a story. NOT EASY!
I'm assuming Simon Beaufoy did a polish on "Leap Year," because IMBD sites Harry Elfont and Deborah Kaplan with writing credits -- not Beaufoy.
Elfont and Kaplan are a writing team who meet in NYU's Tish school of the Arts, and their past credits include: "Made of Honor" (2008: Patrick Dempsey, Michelle Monaghan), "Surviving Christmass" (2004), "Josie and the Pussycats" (2001), "The Flintsones in Viva Las Vegas" (2000) "Can't Hardly Wait" (1998), and "A Very Brady Sequel" (1996).
Deborah Kapan is a looker too! Geesh, if she looked at me I'd have a hard time not nodding along with whatever she opinion she held to. In real life Deborah's married to Breckin Myer -- another looker!!
I'd be curious to know when Amy Adams signed on to "Leap Year?" She's SUCH a good actress, I'd have a hard time saying no to ANYTHING she's willing to do. Maybe this was made JUST because she was available, and committed to it...?
To me, from the TV trailers, "Leap Year" looked like a rip-off of "P.S. I Love You." Sooo for me the marketing campaign failed this film. The same but only different?! Didn't seem different enough to warrant going to the theatres to see it. STILL, I'm glad this rom-com made some money for Universal. 2009 was rough year for Universal, as compared to other studios. And I'm HOPING 2010 goes much better for Universal Studios. They've made hits in the past. No reason they can't crank it back up and have hits in the future. The talent's there, right Billy...?
Sounds like those giving the coveted "green lights" are the real culprits failing the public, and putting us at the unnessary risk of being bitten by a roaming zom-com. Where is their sense of pride? Ownership in putting something out that they can be proud of? It's a matter of professionalism. If you can make money with a zom-com that you're NOT proud of, vs. making a romantic comedy that makes money and is something that you ARE PROUD OF and will be talking about FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, why not choose the latter?! You'll feel better in the short and long term.
- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA
Posted by: E.C. Henry | March 14, 2010 at 09:09 PM
The novel is dead-agreed, that's why my 5 and 10 year old keep pushing us to take them to the library and yes the 10 year old is already burning her way through at least one a week.
ready to sing an old '80s tune - loved the music in Grosse Point Blank!
Many moviegoers still go to the movies to see movie stars - the sports fans of Hollywood and Hollywood still looks to which star can "open" a movie, I'm guessing the elitists aren't let anywhere near the purse strings of the studios.
My definition of romance, working hard for several years to buy that block of land to build the dream house for your wife out in the country, moving the family out there. Then have her tell you 4 days before school starts that she can't live out there. Sigh, hug her and turn a full 180 and move back to the suburb you just moved from 2 months prior.....hence my delay :)
cheers
Dave
Posted by: Dave | March 15, 2010 at 05:35 AM
Awesome post. Especially since the vibe I get from it is not simply, "this is evil and we're responsible" but the importance of acknowledging:
a) the realities of marketplace
b) that those "realities" work in our favor if we're rom-com writers.
c) that a good Zom-Com isn't easy to write and showing your proficiency in delivering those goods means you get to have a career.
d) that while we can all strive for challenge and excellence, there's unlimited potential for joy in writing anything ( or perhaps we should be considering other, more linear occupations ).
P.S. Dave, I'm assuming you're into your current re-write of the City/Country rom-com. I'll be first in line to see it.
Posted by: Jonathan Tipton Meyers | March 15, 2010 at 04:00 PM
alternate perspective: the zom-com is a ritual, not a dissertation. rituals are supposed to follow the same structure over and over again--they are predictable for a reason. zom-coms are rituals that are made for the emotions, for a very deep and unsophisticated part of the brain. they're not intellectual. that doesn't mean they don't serve their purpose.
Posted by: beth | March 15, 2010 at 05:26 PM
J: Write something that won't make you want to wring your own neck! A great code to live by.
Frank: Soon to be playing on an airplane, near you.
EC: It's the fear factor. Many execs aren't afraid of doing what's been done (if their movie tanks, they can say, "But we just did what we're supposed to do"); it's scarier to take a flier on something that's unproven.
Dave: A sigh and a hug, eh? Your candidacy for sainthood has just officially gone through, and meanwhile, as Jonathan said -
Jonathan: I'll be right behind you in the line to see Dave's rom-com, and I like your A through D (especially D's parenthetical).
Beth: Good point. It's just that living, breathing, intriguing rom-coms (as opposed to zom-coms) manage to get through that basic structure - and hit the requisite emotions - with far more panache, credibility and depth.
Posted by: mernitman | March 16, 2010 at 06:21 PM
My first thought was that there is nothing wrong with either zom-coms or genuine rom-coms that 3-D can't fix.
But as I thought further, I realized the death of newspapers, books, romantic comedies -- you name it! -- was predictable and even foreseen. By me! About a year ago I wrote a post, "Forget newspapers - everything is dead!" where I quoted numerous unnamed sources describing this eventuality. The upside of all this is the elimination of any need for sustainable business models. Who needs budgets or profits when everything is dead, including budgets and profits?
http://writelife.net/2009/04/03/everything-is-dead/
Posted by: Bill | March 17, 2010 at 04:30 AM
More seriously, I agree with Beth's point about rituals. I think the problem with "breaking through the structure" is that sometimes when it is attempted, people try to hard, sometimes neglecting the structure, and there is a disconnect with the audience. I think it's probably quite difficult to finesse something like this. (I'm also amazed at how many people like, and like a lot, some of those zom-coms you speak of.)
Posted by: Bill | March 17, 2010 at 04:36 AM
Must admit,'Shaun of the Dead' is one of my fav's.
It's interesting to see there's a lot of zombie mrchandise around.I found a book of zombie haiku on Amazon that made me laugh out loud,so I'll share one.I think it also addresses the fact that just because it's a zombie film doesn't mean it's easy to write a good one.
Biting into heads
is much harder than it looks
the skull is fiesty
Cheers,
Judith
Posted by: Judith Duncan | March 21, 2010 at 03:12 PM
Bill: There is no accounting for taste. And the humans, in general.
Judith: "The skull is feisty!" I want this on a t-shirt.
Posted by: mernitman | March 23, 2010 at 09:52 PM