tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1497405696268042035.post2444863536477693792..comments2023-10-07T07:30:55.264-04:00Comments on Movies et al.: Romantic Comedies Are for Boys TooGrahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14215810599956933532noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1497405696268042035.post-57872794653288946272008-06-20T15:11:00.000-04:002008-06-20T15:11:00.000-04:00I skimmed through their list recently; wasn't too ...I skimmed through their list recently; wasn't too impressed. Seems like the typical AFI films, etc. I should look at in more detail some time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1497405696268042035.post-41795379945156140352008-06-20T12:02:00.000-04:002008-06-20T12:02:00.000-04:00i guess a better narrative would be one that didn'...i guess a better narrative would be one that didn't define all the periods so sharply - the day-hudson era is its own era, but it's also the pathetic degeneration of the screwball era. and the ephron era started off respectable with her collaboration with reiner and sleepless in seattle - ie started off as similiar to, just slightly worse than, the allen-dominated era, and then it too succumbed to an inevitable decline.<BR/><BR/>or maybe i'm just infected with the language of naturalism<BR/><BR/> as for Bridget Jones, I'm inclined to think the stuff you point out is mostly superficial, but I will agree that it feels more real than something like Notting Hill. And of course, there were plenty of other crapfests I could have used insteadGrahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14215810599956933532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1497405696268042035.post-34585156311112266182008-06-20T11:45:00.000-04:002008-06-20T11:45:00.000-04:00I don't have much to add about the Hudson-Day era ...I don't have much to add about the Hudson-Day era of rom-coms - I'm no expert. I will say that as terrible and formulaic as they are, they can also be highly enjoyable. They also perpetuated the repartee and sexual innuendo of the earlier generation, which kind of dissolved a bit in later rom-com years (except, of course, for Woody Allen). You kind of just have to enjoy them as a guilty pleasure. Although my favorite Hudson-Day style movie is actually Peyton Reed's "Down With Love," which is less than 10 (5?) years old... <BR/><BR/>I think you oversimplified in your analysis, too. "Nora Ephron" style might be a good way to simply categorize the latest iteration of rom-coms (before Apatow), but it really doesn't give credit to the neuroses involved in the most successful Ephron flicks. Ephron was a key collaborator in WHMS, which is of course more in the Woody Allen style, New Yorkers with Neuroses category. And while Sleepless in Seattle is the godfather of all new-style, predictable, happy-ending rom-coms, it's about a woman who falls in love with a man she hears on a late-night radio call-in show; gives up her current relationship and life; and stalks him across the country until she ultimately meets him and wins him over at the end of the movie. That is nothing if not neurotic.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, and in the same vein, I feel you did Bridget Jones a disservice. Women the world over fell in love with her as the antihero of rom-coms - she was not beautiful, she was not smooth, she had terrible taste in men, she was sabatoging her own career. You do not want to be Bridget Jones. But, you are Bridget Jones. Every woman can relate to the insecurities, the failures big and small, the poor choices in relationships, the friends who like to swear. Sure, she ends up with the guy - but along the way, she ends up with the wrong guy, twice, and screws up almost every aspect of her life. You really don't know if she'll win out with the formula.<BR/><BR/>BJ2 is another story entirely...Hilaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02793173320369824819noreply@blogger.com