Rom-Com Truisms # 5

The most effective function of a subplot is to show how the protagonist is transformed by love.

After I had the stiff drink I needed when I discovered that a third of my romantic comedy screenwriting students had no idea that 2011's Arthur is a remake, I took another look at the original.  This nearly-a-classic, written by the sorely missed Steve Gordon, holds up pretty well if you can overlook how the whole gestalt of the thing (i.e. alcoholic billionaire elitist as lovable jokester hero) has badly dated (for what went wrong with the remake, go here).

The original's laugh-per-lines percentage, however, is pretty formidable, especially by today's paltry standards.  And one thing that the first Arthur (1981) did really, really well - earning Sir John Gielgud an Oscar, for his supporting role as Hobson the butler - was to provide a secondary story line that gave the whole movie a substantive spine.

Arthur is an overgrown child, and Hobson is his surrogate father, who both indulges and actively disapproves of his boy-man employer.  Hobson is given some of the movie's best lines at Arthur's expense, one of which has since become part of the cultural lexicon (Arthur: I'm going to take a bath.  Hobson: I'll alert the media). 

As the story unfolds, Arthur falls in love with Linda, a "nobody from Queens" played by Liza Minelli, despite his being engaged to marry wealthy Susan (a memorably scary Jill Eikenberry).  As is true of all good rom-coms, falling in love causes our hero to shift from his status quo and grow; the genre's ethos demands that love be a positive agent of transformative change.  But how does one show such a change?

Writer-director Gordon shrewdly manages this through the arc of Arthur's relationship with Hobson.  Early in Act 2, Arthur learns that Hobson is ill.  Visiting the bedridden butler, Arthur becomes furious when Hobson insults Linda.  He yells at him and storms out, slamming the door - only to promptly re-enter, apologetic.  Arthur: Hobson, I raised my voice to you.  I've never done that before.  Hobson: That's quite alright. You know... you may be growing up.  And I'm sorry for what I said about Linda.  Arthur: You want anything?  Hobson: I want to be younger.  Arthur: I'm sorry, it's your job to be older.

Arthur's arc is laid out for us quite succinctly.  He is indeed growing up (as his love for Linda forces him to make hard choices and suffer the consequences) and the subsequent development - Hobson is in fact terminally ill - shows us Arthur accepting his job to be older: child becomes father to the man as Arthur chucks his beloved bottle and takes care of Hobson in the hospital, until his eventual demise. 

Hobson's absence leaves Arthur standing on his own two feet, a sober adult.  Finally man enough to stand up to his family, he rejects their woman of choice, choosing the nobody from Queens and losing his millions (at least for a Dark Moment's worth: this is a comedy, after all).  Without the masterful Hobson subplot, the wake-up call from death that underscores Arthur's new love-inspired joie de vivre, we'd have no way of tracking his arc, of really seeing how Arthur is transformed by love.

So many romantic comedies get this wrong!  I read spec scripts all the time where a cursory subplot is dragged into play, simply to provide some exterior story line that'll pad out the picture, to "open things up" beyond the central romance, and raise the stakes in it by ginning up some work-related threat.  No, silly rom-com writers - your subplot exists to illustrate how your hero or heroine is transformed by love.  If it's not showing the audience proof of the protagonist's shift in character... it has no reason to live.

Yes, some rom-com subplots go about this job by comparing and contrasting what the protagonist is going through (see the Bruce-and-Marie coupling in When Harry Met Sally...), but the effect is the same.  And when the workplace is involved, whatever's going on there should be showing us that character-driven transformation; witness how Tom in (500) Days of Summer comes into his own as an architect by the movie's end (just as Summer learns that she's ready, ironically, to be with someone else for good).

What's the lesson-learned for your primary protagonist?  What's the specific effect of love walking into his or her life?  Your subplot ought to be an active acting-out of that transformative arc, and if you're looking for a worthy role model on this front, it's well worth looking into Arthur.  Not the Russell Brand one.  Did I mention that there's another?

Comments

[E.C. Henry]

Billy, that's pretty sad that a third of your students had no idea that "Arthur" (2011) is a remake. Why sad? Because as a student who's taking a screenwriting class one would think those students would be passionate about movies and have some baramoter of what's out there. NOT that I think "Arthur" (1981) is a classic. I think it was so-so, much like I think about "Groundhog Day". Oops I think I just said too much -- you may have just put out a contract out on my life!

Did see Arthur (2011) and did see the original. Your post really rings home the fact the original did a MUCH BETTER job with Hobson. Did like how "Arthur 2011 re-invisioned many of it's original characters -- outside of Hobson. Really like the mean romantic twarts: Nick Nolte and Jennifer Gardner. Also liked Arthur's new romantic interest; the character played by Greta Gerwig (who was EXCELLENT in Ben Stiller's "Greenberg").

1981 and 2011, side-by-side, I think 2011 is the funnier movie, but the 1981 version has more emotional resonance. 2011 has a much different feel than the 1981 version; I didn't feel it was a rip-off. Especially liked the line the little kid had near the end of the moive where Russel Brand is asked if he's a boy or a girl.

Love reading you break it down, Billy. Good luck bringing the fresh crop up to speed with what's out there in movieland. Hope it doesn't drive you to drink, BUT if it does there may be a movie in that ;)

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

[annaliterally]

You really know how to nail it, Billy. Now I need to go look at my subplot on my rom-com.

;-)

[E]

Russell Brand should have read the script for this Arthur... when I saw the introduction of the nail gun and motion sensor buzz saw as comedy bits, I knew we were in trouble.... I sat with an audience eager to laugh at anything as they had laughed hard as some ok trailers...but you could hear a pin drop for the first 30 minutes of this one.

That being said, I thought the original was rather mediocre too. I never bought into the hype of the "great dudley Moore" and Liza Minelli is not appealing as a lead. Good message, but did not find Arthur (either one) a particularly good movie.

The fatal flaw in the film is that it's hard to sympathesize with an alocholic billionaire especially when we can smell the ending before the movie starts... boo hoo...my mom's making me do something for money.

[Churnage]

Call me atypical and heretical... but I liked Russell Brand's "Arthur" a lot. In fact, better than the original.

Of course, it's been a long time since I've seen the original, but I found Dudley Moore more annoying than cuddly.

[mernitman]

Thanks for the support, EC - I should be out of detox in no time.

Anna Literally: I'm glad the post was literally helpful.

E: You've identified the acknowledged obstacles to many people's enjoyment of the original, including the casting - although being a longtime fan of Peter Cook and Dudley Moore's comedy, it was an easier buy for me.

Churnage: You're atypical and heretical! Though that's a badge of honor, in my book.

[binnie]

"After I had the stiff drink I needed when I discovered that a third of my romantic comedy screenwriting students had no idea that 2011's Arthur is a remake..."

Sorry, I just did a spit take and haven't read the rest of your blog post yet.

[E]

I'm not that surprised....it's not a fave among the new generation...whereas other older movies are watched over and over again. For instance, Bogart seems to be almost more beloved than he ever was.

Btw Billy, are yoou going to do your own comedy week? :)

[mernitman]

Binnie: Riiiiiight?!

E: It's so interesting to see which cultural icons truly stand the test of time, and thems who don't... If by "comedy week," you mean reviews of 5 comedies, 5 days in a row (as Scriptshadow just did), sorry to say, Nuh-uh, unless you can figure out a way to put an extra 2 hours in my 24-hour day! I will endeavor to keep posting About Comedy in general, however, whenever I can.

[E]

Here, I'll spot you a few hours out of my pocket....how many do you need? :)

It certainly would be interesting to see what sets blacklist comedies from those that don't get bought... or the dreaded second half of the movie. Part 2 of act and Act 3 that I see most amateur scripts and even professional ones just fall apart... lack of conflict? inablility to escalate...?

Yeah, noticed that Jimmy Stewart and Humphrey Bogart are completely revered by the new generations....they're pretty big on college campuses... and then you have some of the big box office giants of their day that no one talks about anymore.