Rom-Com Lessons Learned

You may've heard about the disappointing performance of The Five Year Engagement, which was bested at the box office this past weekend by Think Like a Man.  Full disclosure: I work at the studio that released this Nicholas Stoller-directed, Judd Apatow-produced comedy, but I come here not to praise Engagement, nor to bury it.  I just think that anyone who's currently writing a romantic comedy can draw a few helpful lessons from the movie.  Call it a teachable moment.

1) Nobody likes too long.

With the inevitability that its self-fulfilling prophecy title suggested, reviews from all who saw the movie led with the obvious: "Dude, it felt like five years!"  This is what happens when you neglect the hoary adage, Get in late and get out early.  It's also a pitfall with titles this specific, i.e. The audience knows that it's in for this long a stretch, so a "we're ahead of you" impatience is bound to set in.  But generally, comedy should be fast in pace and short in length: leave 'em laughing, and leave 'em wanting more.

You could easily cut half an hour out of Engagement's two hour and four minute running time by making judicious edits from start to finish.  So why didn't the guys who made it do that?  Blame Judd Apatow.  Yes, he is a comedy genius, and the most influential (for better and worse) auteur of the comedy and rom-com genres today, but all of his movies are overlong.  2005's 4o Year Old Virgin is 116 minutes; 2007's Knocked Up is 129; 2009's Funny People is a whopping 146.  The latter tanked, but last year the Apatow-produced Bridesmaids clocked in at 125 and was a smash.  So in Apatow's world, long still rules.

Good for him - usually- but not for you.  Today's comedy spec script has a page count sweet spot of 105.  Steve Carrell and Tina Fey's Date Night was a brisk 88 minutes.  Hangover Part 2? 102.  Keep it quick and short, and your buyers and audience will love you.  Nobody likes too long.

2)  Date night audiences want to feel good.

You'd think this would be obvious.  At their core, romantic comedies are propaganda for procreation, serving as stimulation for the romantically-inclined.  Opening weekend, most folks who show up for a rom-com would like to get laid and/or to fall in love, and if both or neither aren't a likely outcome for them after the show, they'll settle for the vicarious thrill of romantic arousal (Those were the days..!).

This is one reason why most successful rom-coms are upbeat adventures with a steadily escalating story arc.  They energetically track the trajectory from like to love; they ascend, constructed to maximally exploit the fun of the chase.  We're on our way, we're almost there, we're going to get it and oh-no!  We might not make it... the infamous "dark moment" - and then, Score!  We're Mr. and Mrs. Happy.

Let us give screenwriters Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller their well-deserved props.  I heartily, genuinely applaud them for a kind-of brilliant story concept: Engagement begins at the point where most romantic comedies end, with a happy marriage proposal, and then has the temerity to ask, What might happen next, in our conflicted, contemporary 20-30-something's world?  It was a brave and risky idea to pursue.  And by the way, there are some great laughs in this movie, most of them in the more enjoyable first half (though a late set piece, which has Emily Blunt and Alison Brie channeling a couple of Muppets, may be destined for Classic status).

But Engagement's "dark moment" is nearly ninety minutes.  What we're witnessing is the slow, increasingly dark dissolution of a fine romance.  And whether you like or dislike the movie as a movie, this is date night romantic comedy poison.  Way to bum out our pot trip, man - despite the eventual happy ending, by going so graphically against the rom-com grain, you've effectively harshed the audience's romantic mellow.  And given that the movie's downward trajectory is telegraphed in its trailer, as this canny article from Jezebel points out, it's no wonder that the mainstream dating crowd opted for the upbeat swing of the into-the-chase, who'll win the gender-battle? movie Think Like a Man.  Even though it's all about, like, you know... black people.

3)  It's the characters, stupid.

I return, predictably, to Living the RomCom's favorite hobby-horse.  Jason Segel was great in Forgetting Sarah Marshall (by Engagement's same creative team), but while his character is named Tom this time around, he's essentially... Jason Segel.  Emily Blunt knocked my socks off in The Devil Wears Prada, but while she's incandescently sexy-lovely as this movie's Violet, she's also kind of a drag.

It's not just that the actors' chemistry is wanting, it's that on the page, there isn't a whole lot to them.  The story's deck is stacked against poor Violet, while Tom is often reduced to repetitious mopery.  So it's hard to root for either one.  Tellingly, their central conflict isn't specific to character - the problem is mostly her career versus his, as opposed to something more distinctive having to do with who she is, and he is.  Which in this character-driven genre isn't good.

Tellingly, the supports register with far more force - the over-used Chris Parnell, even a wasted Mindy Kalling.  Alison Brie's Suzie and unlikely mate Alex (Chris Pratt) nearly walk away with it. 

If the supports in your rom-com are stealing the show, consider Engagement as a cautionary tale.  If the down side of the romance is taking all the focus?  Reconsider.  And if it's time for your story to move on, get on with it and be gone.

Comments

[JustMe]

Trailers really help me decide to go to a film - and this trailer was confusing with brick-laden jokes. I was never sure what it was actually about.

I mean, who wants to go see a movie about time passing?

I'm sure it was about more than that, but that's what I essentially got from the trailers...

[Deb Montoya]

The only thing I know about this movie is that Jason Segel said something about how it's funny when he's naked. Ah, romance.

Not.

[Ellen G]

It was unbearably bad. That section with him as hairy survivalist? (Segel complained about having to lose 30 pounds, but then to deliberately make the male protagonist grossly repulsively unattractive?)
I don't understand how these guys with money and power (Apatow, Segel) create an industry bubble wherein the emperor has not a stitch. The few funny quips were in the trailer already, a ton of money spent on advertising, and it was a giant leaden unsexy stinkbomb. Can you tell I didn't like it Billy? And I'm not a hater because I really wanted to love it. xxoo

[E.C. Henry]

Great post as always, Billy. I went out and saw "The Five-Year Engagement" at the Bonney Lake Multiplex (which is the only place on Earth that one really should watch a film ;-P) last Sunday night, and I really liked it.

YES, it's not you're mainstream, atypical, happy-go-lucky romantic comedy -- BUT it's good none-the-less. Good on its own terms. Jason Segal's onscreen personna works. He is very likeable guy, easy to follow, and easy to root for.

What I thought lacked in "The Five Year Engagment" was balls-in-the-air; this story needed more than merely Tom (Jason Segal) struggle with Violet (Emily Blunt) academic career. It needed other storylines to blossom. I think that COULD have been mined from Chris Pratt and Allison Brie, which hail from NBC's "Parks and Recreation" and "Community". Also Violet's community at the Univercity of Michgan was under-tapped.

TOTALLY dissagre with you about "nobody likes too long", Mernitman. Case-and-point, "The Lord of the Rings" saga. The key with long is to couple it with good. ANY "bad" movie feels too long.

You are spot-on about date night audiences want to feel good. First time I can remember you acknowledging this truth. Totally agree with you there, Mernitman.

Sorry that "The Five-Year Engagement" didn't do better at the box office. Overall I liked it. Sure it had some flaws, but I laughed, and I thought this movie had a lot of romantic moments throughout. I especially liked the scene in bed with Tom and Violet, where Tom goes off. BUT then Violet calms him down and attempts to get to the bottom of what's ailing Tom. A lesser sreenwriter would take that scene and have Violet storm out of the room; your classic blow-up scene. But instead Violet acts in character, a smart woman, and attempts to help Tom through his anguish. Good stuff.

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

[MaryAn Batchellor]

Never thought about rom com length before but since by nature, people like to avoid uncomfortable relationship issues, it only makes sense that in a relationship-based film, an audience will not want to drag out the agony longer than necessary.

[mernitman]

Just Me: I love that - Why go to the movies to watch time passing?! It's like... Next week: Adventures in Breathing Air!

Deb: No. But there is a funny bit where Jason fakes an orgasm, a funny and inevitable Scenes We'd Like to See reversal.

Elle, but what did you really think? Meanwhile, you can't not be amused by the consciously PC "one from Column A, one from Column B" group of colleagues for Emily: Indian, Asian, African-American. No room for like, an Essai Morales?

EC, I enjoyed that scene, too, for its unpredictability - it really did hang in there and seesaw, the way such moments actually do in real life...

MaryAn: Same impulse, ironically, that makes us turn from those issues to say, Hey, let's forget the whole thing and go to a movie.

[Bernard Badion]

'Get in quick and get out early!' Thoughtful post! You're right about the Apatow movies. I guess it's one of those issues that he's made so much money in the past, why tell him he can't do something? I love his movies, but do agree with you.

[mernitman]

Bernard: Yes, Apatow gets away with it, 'cause he's that good; the problem is, all of his many friends and associates are following suit (e.g. Stoller and Segel) and they're not, necessarily.