Screwball vs. Romantic Comedy

[David]

A friend of mine was just telling me that folks have a strange opinion of what a screwball comedy is (or was, I guess he meant). He opined that what it isn't is a bunch of cartoon people frantically crashing into furniture, &c. It's not Bobby Clark or Benny Hill. He added that, while a budding romance is at the center, Groucho and Margaret don't fit the screwball parameters.

My friend said that one problem is the blurred line between screwball and romantic comedy. Obviously the boy--girl thing figures in both, but there's a flippant approach to the former that's generally absent in romantic comedy.

He added that WHEN HARRY MET SALLY is a romantic comedy because they're quite serious underneath the charming goofiness. Contrast that with HIS GIRL FRIDAY: Walter is still "wonderful in a loathsome sort of way."



What do you guys think? Although I think the line between romantic & screwball is blurry, too, I buy my friend's overall distinction. By extension, I consider MY MAN GODFREY primarily romantic (Godfrey is wounded in love in a serious way). But what of PALM BEACH STORY, where romantic relationships in Palm Beach are screwy but the marriage-in-trouble story is serious? This is why genre is only an assist; these categories never hold up as laws.

My friend also said that most screwballs are female-driven (there's probably a master's thesis in that just waiting to be submitted to a dissertation committee). I would add that many dozens of them from the 1930s involve heiresses & the consequent social commentary on the divide between rich & poor/working class, as you would expect from Depression-era comedies (e.g., EASY LIVING).

More blurriness between genre once you consider that some heiress comedies involve social/class commentary & serious romance but are not specifically screwball (e.g., IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT, ALICE ADAMS). And what's this?! Some social/class commentary commedies are neither primarily screwball nor romantic comedy (e.g., YOU'RE TELLING ME).



Where would you place a film like George Stevens's THE MORE THE MERRIER?

[darklinensuit]

I did a couple of papers on these subjects last year. Both genres are considered female-driven (lots written on this already - if you can find a fresh thesis in there at this point, submit it!). Screwball comedies typically focus on class differences (the woman is usually from the upper-class) as a source of comedy - especially laughing at the rich. As you noted, Godfrey is the famous example. Carole Lombard did it best. We see it again in Overboard.
I think of romantic comedies as finding laughs in the tension between the two leads, who (the audience knows from the start) will end up together. Again, When Harry Met Sally is a great example. One of my papers was on Crossing Delancey and Keeping the Faith, and I chose them (even when my prof wanted me to add a particular drama, I said no) because of the familiar romantic comedy formula (that makes it easier to analyze other parts of the films).

- Jake

[darklinensuit]

Oh, also at least one source* names It Happened One Night as the first real example of a Romantic Comedy. You're right, it's no Screwball Comedy.

*(Lyden, John C. Film as Religion: Myths, Morals, and Rituals. New York: New York University Press, 2003 --- p. 180)

- Jake

[David]

I always appreciate your replies, Jake.
I agree with you

Thanks for the book recommendation. I have a book called CANNED GOODS AS CAVIAR by Gerald Weales. It's pretty good.

[darklinensuit]

Not necessarily recommending that book, just naming it as a reference.

And I always appreciate your threads, David.

I don't know the one you named, but if film comedy interests you, you might also look at Frank Krutnik's Hollywood Comedians: The Film Reader. I'm currently working on two papers on film comedy (not to mention another on a film drama) - one on Ruth Gordon and one on (believe it or not) Love at First Bite. Plus on Tuesday I present on Goodbye, Columbus. Comedies are my thing now, I guess.

- Jake

[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. When Harry met Sally could be considered a masterpiece, but a conservative one.

The More, The Merrier? Romantic comedy IMO.

Romy

[David]

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.

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.