Quote:
Originally Posted by Serrart
I agree the difference is blurry. I don't agree though in putting When Harry Met Sally in the same category of the Romantic comedies pre WW2. Obviously the genre is the same, but as a critic (can't remember who) wrote, the best romantic and screwball comedies of the thirties and forties were filled with signifiers, symbols, metaphors, way more provocative and modern than the '80'-2000's rom coms.
|
I agree, Romy. I wouldn't put WHEN HARRY MET SALLY in the same quality category as all the excellent romantic comedies of the '30s & early '40s -- although not because of signifiers, symbols & metaphors, but because they're generally sharper, better written, better directed & better acted & often more entertaining. I'm really glad we're talking about these movies because it's fun to talk about them. But these exceptions we're finding in our discussion indicate all the more to me just how suspect the concept of "genre" usually is. I would never toss it altogether because it's useful for conceptualizing, but characteristics cross genre borders all the time -- all art from all times & places. But it's useful for us to think of a film like THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER as a romantic comedy with perhaps some elements of screwball, rather than the other way around.
But let me ask you guys about something I've been trying to understand in my own views. As you know, I love the comedies of Preston Sturges -- really dearly love those buggers. But SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS has always been the one I loved the least, & I have had trouble understanding why. It's often considered the best of the Sturges oeuvre, & it's certainly as popular as any of the other Sturges comedies are. But I myself never quite took to it, & I think the reason is that I feel it's primarily a social commentary, a didactic work, & only secondarily a romantic comedy. In fact, I think it somewhat subverts its own claims, & maybe that confuses or even bothers me. The film's moral point of view is that it's better to make people laugh than to instruct them or make them think about serious issues. Sullivan, the director, learns at the end of his adventures that the men in the prison camp benefit most by just having a good laugh -- that lightens their weary load the best -- & Sullivan realizes that his earlier disdain for "cheap laughs" & his desire to make a more serious film were misguided. And yet . . . doesn't Sturges in SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS take the option that Sullivan rejects? Sturges makes a film that is intended primarily to convey instruction or a moral lesson, & is only secondarily funny or amusing. I think that may be what I don't like about the film: It says something to me that I believe is true (the importance of laughter & entertainment) & yet it doesn't adhere to its own precepts. It's preaching this "laughter" message, but doing so with high seriousness that I have trouble taking seriously. Many of the other Sturges comedies also made serious points -- THE LADY EVE, HAIL THE CONQUERING HERO, CHRISTMAS IN JULY, etc. -- but those films are all essentially high comedy & essentially hugely amusing in their effects & they don't leave me feeling as if I were being instructed in a high-toned lesson in a classroom.
Quote:
|
The More, The Merrier? Romantic comedy IMO.
|
I agree. Again, elements of screwball can be found here & there (for example, in the earlier part of the film when the escaped convict is trying to keep out of sight of the vacationing judge), but the overriding story is the budding romance & what's hidden & what's openly obvious in each of them as their relationship evolves.