Anyone who's ever tried to write a romantic comedy knows how difficult it is to keep it credible - to put your two protagonists through the requisite meet-lose-get obstacle course without restorting to blatant contrivance. Anyone plotting one in 2012 knows it's only gotten harder: in our current culture of social networking and advanced technology, the "missed connections" gambit that's been the rom-com's coin of the realm since Shakespeare's day is no longer cutting it.
Blogger Danny Manus addresses the problem in his post How Technology Has Ruined Romantic Comedy, noting how the GPS and other such gizmos have rendered suspenseful romantic pursuits kind of moot, and how the mystery has gone out of any two perfect strangers' meeting:
Even if you bumped into a total stranger on the street and had that “love at first sight” moment, you’d go home and Google her, check out her Facebook page, her MySpace, her Linked In profile, her blog, and her Twitter account (which comes with GPS location and receipt counter so you could know exactly where she’s been and what she bought), and you’d know everything you could ever want to know in 5 minutes. Kind of takes the fun out of a good old fashioned stalking, doesn’t it?
True that, and it creates new challenges for any screenwriter on the level of story execution. The rom-com genre is constantly up against how fast the culture is moving forward. Lately I've been musing on an even larger disturbance in the rom-com force, a not-so distant rumbling that threatens to upend one of the genre's basic tenets: the concept of happily ever after.
The most significant takeaway from the climax of a recent real life romantic dramedy (or psychological thriller) The End of TomKat was the rumor of a marriage contract - the idea, urban legend or not, that Cruise and Holmes had committed only to a five year plan, one with an out-clause factored in from the get.
In Mexico City a legislative movement is afoot to establish exactly that: marriage as a time-limited contract with an option for renewal, say every few years:
Leftists in the city's assembly -- who have already riled conservatives by legalizing gay marriage -- proposed a reform to the civil code this week that would allow couples to decide on the length of their commitment, opting out of a lifetime. The minimum marriage contract would be for two years and could be renewed if the couple stays happy. The contracts would include provisions on how children and property would be handled if the couple splits.
It's the mythical painless divorce made real. And if such an approach really catches on, what becomes of the standard romantic comedy ending?
Matt Richtel's NY Times article on the subject of time-limited marriage is well worth a read. It points out that in America today, pre-nups are more popular than ever, cohabitation without vows is on the rise, and people are getting married at older ages than ever before (to this I'll add from my own research that the percentage of the population that's living alone by choice is accelerating). Richtel notes:
The kinds of things that are changing: we’re living longer; we live apart from families and are less inclined to religion, both marriage support systems; technology makes it easier than ever flirt or cheat and fuels instant gratification (“I will absolutely invest in this marriage after I watch this cat video”).
Richtel's exploration of where the marital institution may be headed leads him into some truly intriguing encounters, perhaps the most radical of them being with Virginia Rutter, an associate professor of sociology at Framingham State University in Massachusetts. In discussing the "20 year marriage contract" broached by Kenneth P. Altshuler, the president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, she posits that:
... the 20-year marriage proposal is “incredibly conservative.” As in: still too dogmatic. She says it presupposes people want to build their marriages around having children. Her solution takes yet another step toward eliminating the ideal, religious and platonic. “Ban all performative weddings, ban all crazy expenditures,” she said. “Ban the marriage pages in The New York Times. Ban those things that turn otherwise sensible people to start buying into that fantasy.”
She may as well have added, "ban all romantic comedies." But as a glass half-full kind of guy, I see this shift in the cultural axis as a great opportunity for the imaginative, adventurous screenwriter. What would a rom-com happy ending be, in a world where happily-ever-after marriage is no longer the norm? How does your romantic comedy play out when "boy gets girl" means "not for keeps?"
If we're tired of the formulaic (I know I am), it's high time we look at where we really are in this regard. I'm not suggesting that the next time a guy runs to the airport to stop a woman from getting on that plane, he declare his love to her with a legal contract in hand. But I'd love to see the romantic comedy that takes into account the resonances of what's already a subtle seismic shift.
What lies beyond the "love conquers all, forever" story? Living the Rom-Com wants to know.
I don't know what will become of the future of marriage. In many ways, this turn of events was inevitable (but still lamentable) as more people moved to the cities and renounced traditional religious beliefs if for no other reason than convenience.
However, as bleak as that sounds, humanity runs on hopes and dreams. If the perfect marriage is a fantasy, we will still hold to that fantasy as our ultimate ideal. RomComs may become a smaller share of Hollywood budgets but they will never go away completely any more than humanity can continue to exist apart from notions of love, hope, purpose, and destiny. These are deep things at the core of our being and we won't, we cannot give those up or live without them.
Posted by: Daniel Smith | October 10, 2012 at 09:58 AM
I'm reminded of "Intolerable Cruelty" (2003). That Coen Brothers movie spent most of its time cynically shredding the idea of romantic love as irreconcilable with today's legal machinations. By the end of the movie, when George Clooney and Catherine Zeta-Jones tear up their pre-nup and declare their love for each other, the whole idea of romance has been torn to bits, making their declaration of love unsupported by anything that had gone before. It's like the movie had set out to demolish the rom-com and then tacked on a happy ending out of keeping with the rest of the film. There's a lesson to be learned there. I'm just not sure what.
Posted by: Rob in L.A. | October 10, 2012 at 12:02 PM
How about a a day-long pre-nup/marriage counseling seminar whose therapy exercises dredge up deep-rooted issues that affect the relationships of those attending. Naturally, two separately-betrothed folks meet during this soul-baring process and fall in love.
Posted by: Scott | October 10, 2012 at 01:50 PM
Wow! That's certainly food for thought.
As much as I like the idea of the next generation of rom coms reflecting society's evolving approach to marriage, I can't help but think that rom coms should still have that fairy tale, happy ever after element.
If we enter into a marriage as we do into a car leasing contract, then why even bother to get married?
The magic of entering into a marriage comes from believing that it will last forever, that we have found that special person/connection. As unealistic as that hope is, I think entering into a marriage with an end date in mind kills the magic of the wedding if not the relationship.
Yes, I realize that hoping in light of today's divorce statistics that your marriage will last forever is utterly unrealistic. But that doesn't mean we don't want to believe/yearn for longevity in ours.
Who wants to go to the movies to see two people fall in love and at the end agree to reassess their relationship/love in two, five or even ten years? I should don't.
Posted by: Ourdia Hodge | October 11, 2012 at 08:12 AM
Of, course my last sentence was meant to say " I sure don't.
Damn happy fingers:-)
Posted by: Ourdia Hodge | October 11, 2012 at 08:13 AM
I'm with you, Daniel, and I fully expect the basic ethos of the romantic comedy genre - i.e. the idea of love as a positive transformative power - to carry on. I'm merely advocating the idea of a modern-day rom-com that at least acknowledges (and perhaps directly speaks to) the changing mores in our present-day culture.
Rob: My takeaway was that Coens (whom I generally love and admire) had let their sour cynicism get the better of them; the characters played by Clooney and Zeta-Jones were never real enough for their creators to have taken them seriously, and thus... a movie with no emotional "there," there.
Scott: This sounds like a more comedic variant on the recent "Hope Springs," and actually... Go ahead and pitch and/or write it, dude! The concept has potential.
Ourdia: I agree. And/But... [repeat comment to Daniel, see above] Plus: "Marriage" per se doesn't necessarily have to be the go-to ending for a romantic comedy, I don't think. I guess what I'm looking for is a happy ending that reflects "where we are now," even if it ultimately does come down on the side of "it's you and me forever, kid."
There are, meanwhile, a number of rom-coms that end on a "Well, who knows where this will ultimately go?" note, and yet manage to be emotionally satisfying; it's the ones that blithely ASSUME the marriage-happily-ever-after package that are beginning to seem a bit suspect, and like pure fantasy. Personally, I like a rom-com ending that at least acknowledges the, um, CHALLENGES in a "last forever" union - call it "reality-based fantasy."
Posted by: mernitman | October 11, 2012 at 10:21 AM
Ban this, ban that? From a liberal? Who made her god? :)
There are some things good and needed for society to work.
There was a Hindu man who traveled to America in the early 1900s to see why we were so successful. His conclusion? Monogamous marriage. Because there women had rights and safety. (as a whole) In India, women were property.
He concluded women and America was successful because of the structure of the family.
The more we tear that apart the more we unravel society. The more children are not safe. There is no such thing as painless divorce.
If you enter something lightly, it will fail. If "you" don't think the marriage will last, don't get married.
Don't take away from those who want a long lasting relationship, the beauty and pageantry of a wedding and all it stands for.
Long live the romantic comedy! :)
By the way, it would be a GREAT comedy of a woman was trying to google the man she just bumped into but he was no where on the web or social media. It happens! What a great conflict. Dibs!
Rachel
Posted by: Rachel Hauck | October 11, 2012 at 10:30 AM
Agreed, Billy. The non prposal of Hugh Grant to Andie Macdowell at the end of Four Weddings and a Funeral was very satisfying in in character with his character.
Posted by: Ourdia Hodge | October 11, 2012 at 11:19 AM
Hey Billy,
This post got me thinking as usual(thank you) At first my little romantic heart was bleating,what... noooooooo. It makes love sound so matter of fact,as Ourdia mentioned like leasing a car,however after thinking about it I see your point.I also think that a lot of fun and highjinks could be had in a rom com looking at these ideas and then working out HOW to find the romance in working out a modern love contract. I agree with Ourdia that true and lasting love only exists in fairy tale or paranormal romances now,perhaps a reason for their success,at least with women.I did my honors degree in fairy tale, as I wanted to research original storytelling and am actally going to a fairy tale symposium tomorrow. After reading your post I was looking through the art of one of my favorite artists,a surrealist,Remedios Varo,her work called The Farewell,shows two lovers walking away from each other down different streets,but their shadows reach back along the street to kiss. A practical decision that leaves the souls of these two people crying.Perhaps a good place to start a modern romcom?
Posted by: Judith Duncan | October 11, 2012 at 11:07 PM
"Hope Springs" or "License to Wed"... but surely there's room to do better than the latter...
As for entering into a romance with an expiration date being problematic? Tell that to two people who've both been given weeks to live and *really* hate each other. But because in some ways they're like the last two people on earth - no one gets their plight like the other - they *have* to make it work because it's their last chance to find any joy in this life before they leave it.
Posted by: Scott | October 12, 2012 at 06:36 PM
Rachel: You've got dibs, and I agree that you've got an intriguing premise - somebody who's not Google-able?! What kind of mysterious, even dangerous oddball outlier is that?! Go for it.
Ourdia: GMTA (Great Minds...) I was thinking of 4 Weds when I wrote my response to you. And there are many others.
Judith: I love that "shadowy" start. And yes, the "how" of how a contemporary couple-to-be navigates today's conflicted coupling landscape is very much what I'm thinking about as rom-com material. Don't know if you're a Louis C.K. fan, but his (just-finished) third TV season reflected these shifts in values (i.e. What are the rules when the old rules are gone?), and was very funny - and very moving.
Scott: This, too, sounds like a viable and intriguing rom-com premise (also reminds me of the recent, not-so-great but interesting "Seeking a Friend for the End of the World").
Posted by: mernitman | October 13, 2012 at 09:25 AM
Re: "How Technology Has Ruined Romantic Comedy"
Danny Manus: "A good love story may still transcend time, but these days, if your characters don’t even have cell phones, how genuine to real life could they be?"
What if one of your leads is Amish?
Posted by: Rob in L.A. | October 14, 2012 at 03:24 PM
"Takes the fun out"? Hmm...maybe yes, maybe not. Being online for more than a decade. Digging deep into sites that promise alliances I ain't sure one can find someone so easily.
Facebook at times seems to pinpoint the loneliness by very virtue of the associations/relationships it portrays. You are friends with someone who is friends with another and everyone looks happy and wonderful and yet...where's that one?
Am sure there's a story or two or thousand within the technology real. And outside too. Trying to find someone you can connect and be happy. Hopefully.
With wishes, aspirations being more fed by hype, with life lived more and more by what's cool, it's harder.
I find most of my tech-savvy pals struggling. Great in finding people by Google and Facebook. But...where do you find what makes them what they are and well, where do you find yourself to have some perspective on things?
I guess when things are harder, in a way, more the opportunity to figure out stories that help connect. Well okay, that's really hard too.
Posted by: Meta Sant | October 21, 2012 at 12:16 AM
I've got an idea. Remember "The Awful Truth?" Post-divorce comedy. Falling in love again after your marital contract runs out. It could work.
Posted by: Jennifer | October 22, 2012 at 07:47 PM
It is never easy to write things out. There are instances when what you wrote are interpreted the other way by the readers. The writer should be as convincing as possible that those things are happening in reality so that the readers would feel for it.
Posted by: Gail Byers | November 12, 2012 at 03:07 PM
Meta Sant: "Figuring out stories that help connect" sounds good to me.
Jennifer: From the 1930s to 2012... Good ideas never get old.
Gail: Can't argue with that, because one can't really argue with a spam-bot.
Posted by: mernitman | November 12, 2012 at 03:15 PM