On a related to note in regards to idiotic side characters, I find it somewhat surprising that the romantic comedic trope has changed so little since the advent of modern film. And by "romantic comedy," I'm conflating it a little with "teen comedy." I just find the term "teen comedy" to be a bit of a misnomer because most of the characters in these films aren't teenagers. But at any rate, let's look at some common genres:
Romantic comedy Horror Action Mystery/thriller Adventure Science fiction Fantasy
Obviously, there are dramas and miscellaneous genres that don't fit neatly into predefined tropes, but that's ok. Those films don't really have a well defined trope so they don't really fall into the scope of the point I'm making.
All the genres I listed have tropes. I mean, in a way, that's part of what defines a genre. The problem I have is that the romantic comedy is the only genre where enough exposure to the trope actively ruins the film-watching experience because it affects the way you view the rest of the film. And I think the reason why the romantic-comedic trope ruins the film for me is because it operates differently from other tropes. Knowing that you are watching a particular genre will obviously reveal something about what you can expect to see, but here's the big difference:
In other genres, knowing the trope means that you also know how the events will turn out. That is all fine and good, but even knowing this, the trope does not necessarily reveal a specific event. With a Romantic Comedy, chances are extremely high (and I can usually guarantee it simply by looking at the goddamn SYNOPSIS) that the following event will happen: the protagonist (usually, but not always, male) will lose the girl because he does something stupid and completely out of character.
See, when I watch any comedy that begins with "boy meets girl," I KNOW this is going to happen with a certainty that I don't find in any other genre. On top of that, if you know this will happen, it colors the entire viewing experience - you basically spend the first half of the film cringing at all the wonderful things that happen because you're waiting for the inevitable "stupid" moment. I understand that people do stupid things, but the films do such a good job at building up their protagonists that screwing up in the manner that they do just never seems in line with their character. The more I watch Romantic Comedies, the less I'm convinced that filmmakers spend any effort in making their characters believable.
Even The Girl Next Door does this. Little known fact (SPOILERS): I always fast forward through the bit where Matt finds out that Danielle is a former porn star and brings her to a seedy motel. I don't do it because of an aversion to people's flaws, I do it because that scene just makes NO sense to me.
From everything that had happened in the film (and from what happens after), I could understand if the porn-star bit bothered Matt. I could understand it if he kept it a secret and it chewed at him and made him miserable. I could understand it if he confronted Danielle about it and they had a big argument. All those possibilities fall in line with Matt's character. But to actually take his friend's suggestion (again, we have a main character with an inexplicably STUPID friend) and to bring her to a seedy motel in hopes of having sex with her? How is ANY of that consistent with his character? How does he go from being so conflicted and unhappy at the idea that the girl he likes is a former porn star to wanting her to put out for him?
Not only that, but after the whole debacle, he goes right back to being conflicted and unhappy at the idea that the girl he likes has chosen to return to the porn industry! Where on earth did the "I expect Danielle to have sex with me because she used to be a former porn-star" mentality come from? This whole "unrealistic deviation from his character so we could create conflict" reeks of laziness.
(/SPOILERS)
The thing that surprises me most is that we, as an audience, have continued to allow this. Off the top of my head...
Good Luck Chuck She's Out of My League The Girl Next Door Forgetting Sarah Marshall John Tucker Must Die Shallow Hal (yes, I actually spent time watching this film) Just Friends Wedding Crashers Grease Bickford Shmeckler's Cool Ideas
Now, I'm not saying that all of these films are bad - in fact, I enjoyed a good number of them (Shallow Hal was not one of them) - I'm saying that they're all using a trope that has become trite due to its repeated usage. It's gone beyond boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-finds-girl... which was bad enough; it's morphed into boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl-for-inexplicably-stupid-and-inconsistent-reasons, boy-redeems-himself-by-reverting-back-to-the-kind-of-guy-he-was-before-his-random-deviation-from-his-naturally-good-self.
Of course, with all the being said, I am aware that it wouldn't be much of a film without some form of conflict. What I fail to see is why this conflict must ALWAYS be in the form of some sort of deal-breaking-fight where the nice guy turns into a giant douche for 10 minutes. Not only is it predictable and out of character, it sets up the rest of the film to center around a redemption scene where the guy realizes that he was an idiot and has to win the girl back. So the message here is... "the only way we can prove to you that love is good is to have the guy screw things up so badly that love is the only thing that allows him to redeem himself"?
Once again... come on, people. There are other ways to prove that love is good. In fact, one of the redeeming factors of The Girl Next Door is that it doesn't depend on the whole "boy screws up and has to redeem himself" rubbish to drive the film.
(MORE SPOILERS)
A notable point about Matthew's "I'm being an idiot" moment is that it takes place rather early in the film. While most Romantic Comedies start to break down a little past the halfway point, this moment happens probably just past the first third of the film. In the same way, where most Romantic Comedies have their redemption scene well into the last quarter of the film (and sometimes almost at the very end), Matthew has his redemption scene just past the two-thirds mark in the film.
Why? Because the final third of TGND revolves around Matthew and Danielle working through some serious life problems aside from their relationship. Matthew has the whole scholarship thing and Danielle has the whole trying to get away from the porn business thing. The final third of the film revolves, not around how they can't make their love work, but around how their love allows them to do things they wouldn't have been able to do on their own. When Kelly steals all the money from the fundraiser and Matt shows up at Danielle's front door, not because he somehow sabotaged their relationship, but because he's in trouble, that's what sets TGND apart from other romantic comedies.
(/SPOILERS)
Because when you think about it, isn't THAT what love is really about? Love isn't great because it gives you a free pass to screw up and still redeem yourself. It's great because it motivates you to become all the wonderful things you've always had the potential to be. It's great because it means you don't have to face your problems alone. It's great because it makes you laugh; makes you think; makes you see the good...
I'm thinking, maybe we should stop making our main love interests such perfect people at the beginning of the film; maybe they should start out with a few more flaws (bonus: more flaws = more comical shenanigans) and a few more problems that AREN'T "Life sucks because I'm single," so that when love does come around, we don't have to destroy it just to prove that life sucks without it.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
11:23 PM
Just noticing a trend here. You know, usually in comedies (teen, romantic, all sorts), the main guy or girl seems pretty cool and pretty normal. Why, then, do they have such idiotic friends? It's this odd trope that I've become more and more conscious of the more I watch comedies. I get that it's a plot device but man, some of these side characters are just so stupid...
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
11:10 PM
"What Chinese parents understand is that nothing is fun until you’re good at it. To get good at anything you have to work, and children on their own never want to work, which is why it is crucial to override their preferences." - Amy Chua
I actually agree with this to a certain extent. I think the "overriding" of preference is a little harsh but nonetheless, I think it merits some thought. I definitely agree with first part. Nothing is fun until you're good at it. Seriously, badminton is so much more fun now that I don't SUCK (as much).
