Batch #5: Hollywood is Bad at Romance
A real shocker, I know.
The more classic movies I watch, the more amazed I am at how poorly Hollywood portrays heterosexual human romantic connection. It’s like, other relationships — friendships, parents and children, etc — are often beautifully depicted with startling humanity, but ENTER HUMAN WOMAN & HUMAN MAN and it’s like “HOLY SHIRTBALLS, how do humans even behave??? I have no freaking idea, pls send help”
The aliens watching our broadcasts must be baffled.
THE MOVIES
Movie #22: Sweet Home Alabama (2002) | PG-13
I just came here to have a fluffy sweet good time and my entire sense of decency is honestly feeling so attacked right now
From practically the beginning, I did not like the divorce-refusal-played-for-laughs and it didn’t really get much better from there. I was rooting for Patrick Dempsey, but I knew Reese Witherspoon was going to end up with the worse guy, but I watched it anyway because...well, I blame the slo-mo trainwreck phenomenon, and just for the record:
HOLDING SOMEONE HOSTAGE BY NOT SIGNING DIVORCE PAPERS IS NOT ROMANTIC, FORGETTING TO SIGN YOUR OWN DIVORCE PAPERS BEFORE YOUR WEDDING IS NOT ROMANTIC, LEAVING YOUR FIANCE ON YOUR WEDDING DAY IS NOT ROMANTIC, NONE OF THIS IS ROMANTIC
Patrick Dempsey was obviously the best human being in this movie, with conviction, emotional maturity, loyalty, and compassion, and my headcanon is that after all this total nonsense ends, he goes off and finds some amazing partner who recognizes how amazing he is and becomes President and institutes universal healthcare and awesome social programs and mental health resources for all. THE END. FIXED IT.
Movie #23: The Godfather (1972) | R
I feel fairly confident in assuming that Michael Corleone's character arc is considered one of the classics in cinema history, and it is compelling to watch, of course. But I do think it's weakened by the fact that while we get to see points A, B, C, D, etc along the arc, we don't really get to see how he moves from point to point. There's a strong reliance on time jumps in place of character development, and there's also the problem of poor character establishment from the beginning.
All we know about Michael at the start is that he's "not like the family" — but we don't know his core reasons; we don't know what pushed him away or where his values diverge and where they stay the same, so we don't have a basis for why he is so susceptible to being pulled back in when circumstances align. Presumably, Early Michael dislikes violence, has a strong moral compass, etc, but those get abandoned so quickly and thoroughly that it feels unlikely that they were his real values to begin with. It may be an old-movie sort of thing, where there's heavy reliance on the viewers to project motivation onto the character or just accept the character's choices as he makes them, but for my modern viewing sensibilities, it makes the character feel flat.
So I consider this movie to be a good story and great drama, but a subpar character study. And as usual, the less said about the uncomfortable romances in this movie, the better. I’m pretty sure one of Michael’s wives barely even says a word onscreen.
Movie #24: Now You See Me 2 (2016) | PG-13
I loved the first one aside from the final twist, and lol this movie is nonsense and has way too many twists for its own good, but the actual magic trick sequences and showmanship are electrifying and Evil Daniel Radcliffe is Best Daniel Radcliffe.
And the romance in this movie is so minor and lighthearted that it wins the prize for “least bad romance in this email.”
(Mark Ruffalo does not belong in this movie though — he does not have anything close to the slick showmanship that the rest of the cast has that make things work so well. This would have been a much better movie if his part had been smaller or eliminated completely so we could focus on the rest. Instead, the movie keeps trying to prop him up and make him into a much bigger element than he ought to be. Just GIMME MORE STAGE MAGIC, I DON’T CARE ABOUT RUFFALO’S DADDY ISSUES)
Movie #25: Top Gun (1986) | PG
Oh my god I CANNOT with the romance in this movie
Everything else is pretty good, but Mav is obviously in love with Goose much more than with his girlfriend. Just let me reassign the love interests and POOF -- even better movie.
I did appreciate that they really challenge Tom Cruise’s character. He doesn’t just have minor setbacks or more skilled competitors to overcome, no -- on top of those, he is then pushed to his absolute limit; this movie crushes him and leaves him hanging right on the edge, forcing him to rebuild.
It’s part of the formula of the hero’s journey, but too many movies don’t have the guts to actually go there and make the worst really happen. The ones that do, though, tend to be the ones that endure.
Movie #26: Almost Famous (2000) | R
I love watching star-making movies, the breakout roles for particular actors or directors, and I thought that this was supposed to be that kind of breakout role for Kate Hudson, based on the way the movie has always been marketed.
And that’s downright weird, because the movie isn’t even about her, and to be frank, her role is so minor and tangential to the main story that it doesn’t even need to be there. It’s another awkward, shoe-horned romance.
But other than that, it’s a good story with a great cast (although Billy Crudup, you are beautiful but dear lord please shave that caterpillar mustache monstrosity off your face) but it’s definitely more of a breakout movie for director Cameron Crowe than for Kate Hudson.
That’s all for this week; as always, let me know what you think and if you’re not subscribed already, sign up here: