Charles J. Orlando points out the flaws in a popular movie genre.
_____
I’m a big movie buff. Romantic Comedies, Dramas, Action, Documentaries, SciFi, Mystery—from the junk food of Jay and Silent Bob to the over-the-top action of Kill Bill to the episodic writing of Harry Potter—you’ll find me in front of the silver screen allowing it to wash over me, taking me to —wherever. Movies are an escape from reality, and as such the writers and directors demand one thing from the audience: Suspension of Disbelief — the viewer’s willingness to sacrifice realism and logic for the sake of their enjoyment of the film. I have no truck with Suspension of Disbelief. But for movies set in the real world, where relationship dynamics play out on-screen, what I’m not capable of is Suspension of Realistic Possibility.
It shows men that they don’t really need to grow/change… men can be aloof, lazy, headstrong, laid-back, dedicated, cheat, steal, remain distant, not invest, lie, whatever… don’t worry… she’ll accept it all and adjust herself to make it work.
|
Romantic Comedies — RomComs — are the lowest common denominator for Offensive Visual Improbabilities. Sure, I can get on a familiar soapbox and pontificate on the unrealistic relationship between Edward and Vivian (Pretty Woman) or Thomas and Catherine (The Thomas Crowne Affair), the completely implausible (Just Like Heaven, Alex & Emma), or the endless string of love triangles (Twilight, Titanic, My Best Friend’s Wedding, etc, etc., etc., ad nauseum). We can even ignore the fact that most of the newest flicks star either Kate Hudson, Katherine Heigl or Reese Witherspoon. What continues to bother me are three things: The male characters, the female characters, and the dynamics between them. Let me put all that in a blender and mix it until it becomes a frothy, chocolaty shake…
In most RomComs, men assume one of three roles: The Loner/Drifter/Bad Boy, The Lovable Loser, or The Rich Tycoon…with the women assuming the a role of The Career Woman, The Caretaker/Savior, or The Innocent One. These can run mix-and-match and achieve some startling story lines…but what interests me are the “lessons” the viewer learns and the examples being set—and examples lead to unconscious expectations.
The Bad Boy is emotionally unavailable and distant. He shows our heroine his interest in the beginning (getting her hooked), and she spends the remainder of the film convincing him to love her/change his ways/not to leave. She find validation in his decision to love her (or not), to change (or not), and/or to leave (or not). The Lovable Loser is the man with tons of potential…but he isn’t really achieving anything. She can see his potential, but he is unwilling to change/learn/grow. Does she leave? NO WAY! She puts in more and more and more until he does change…and he changes (wait for it…) for her. The Rich Tycoon is great looking, wealthy, urbane, great in bed, loving, but broken in someway. And his brokenness is usually is glaring/severe (he’s a criminal/sadomasochist/not actually rich/formerly a woman/a combination of all these and more). She will start out by sacrificing her morals, then think better of it and sell him out. Inevitably, she will discover she was wrong (in true “women are so stupid” form) and he will win her over. *yawn*
♦◊♦
The female characters vacillate between various actions and emotions: loving, allowing, angry, bitchy, controlling, accepting, confused. But regardless of their character makeup they are some glaring consistencies. They are usually trying to: figure him out and understand his motivations, and then adjust their love/lives/location/careers/family life/expectations/home/friends/commute times/interests around him… so that she will be more acceptable to him…so he will love her. THEN…once he does…she will (usually) uproot herself from whatever she wanted/needed/invested in and move cross-country/quit her job/chew out her family/support him in his new venture. Whatever.
The dynamics here are really f*cked up…for a number of reasons. Firstly, it sets men up for failure. It provides three archetypes to which they must fall (when in actuality many/most men are a combination of these and more… not to mention that The Rich Tycoon isn’t hanging around random hardware stores, no matter what Fifty Shades of Grey portrays when it comes out next year). Secondly, it shows men that they don’t really need to grow/change…men can be aloof, lazy, headstrong, laid-back, dedicated, cheat, steal, remain distant, not invest, lie, whatever…don’t worry…she’ll accept it all and adjust herself to make it work. For women, it shows them that they can have the dream guy…all they need to do is do everything…for him, for the relationship, and for the expectations that come with it all. Meaning: To have a successful relationship with a man—whichever man you end up with—women need to accept that he will be broken…and it is her job to fix/save him…or adjust herself (read: lower her expectations to the point of no point). In short: Women are expected do the heavy-lifting in a relationship.
For women, it shows them that they can have the dream guy… all they need to do is do everything… for him, for the relationship, and for the expectations that come with it all.
|
As a man, I call bullsh*t. Nothing wrong with entertainment or the Suspension of Disbelief. I’m all about escaping into the world of… wherever. 🙂 But the writers of today seem to have found a magic formula that shows women over and over how they are the ones who need to fix men… and accept what you get because men “are the way they are” without hope of growth. In truth, I would hope more men would be disgusted with the archetypes portrayed… and I would implore women not to take these as subconscious lessons — no matter how often they are inculcated with these “You must fix men and accept them” messages. As I see it, there’s nothing wrong with expectations in a relationship. Expectations mean you value YOU and you want others to, also. But to constantly adjust and SACRIFICE who you are for the sake of a relationship is plain wrong. Once you start down the path of accepting second-best, it will dominate your judgement.
—
This article originally appeared on The Problem Is Men.
Photo credit: Christina Saint Marche/flickr
This notion of setting us up for certain failure translates to the small screen too. What I can’t stand about the candy-coated sitcoms that we grew up with and continue to tolerate – from the Brady Bunch to Happy Days to the Cosby Show to Friends to Big Bang Theory – is being shown how we are expected to behave on certain occasions. On the prescriptive Birthday/Valentine’s Day/Christmas episodes, they show us that if we don’t buy the best gift or do the most romantic thing for our loved one, they will doubt their return love for us. It’s unhealthy… Read more »
“It shows men that they don’t really need to grow/change… men can be aloof, lazy, headstrong, laid-back, dedicated, cheat, steal, remain distant, not invest, lie, whatever… don’t worry… she’ll accept it all and adjust herself to make it work” It shows that Yes, she’ll accept it and adjust herself to make it work, on the basis that he’s able to pay for her. The movie is a testament to whoever it was who said something about the definition of a successful man being one who can afford to pay for whatever his wife desires, and the definition of a successful… Read more »
Aside from Pretty Woman, in the other movies, the men were not paying for the woman or providing for her. (I never saw the Thomas Crown Affair though so I am not sure about that one.)
Infact in one of the post popuar romantic movies of all time, Titanic, Rose gave up the riches to be with Jack.
No what it shows is that screen writers think/like to portray men as aloof, lazy, headstrong, laid-back, dedicated, cheat, steal, remain distant, not invest, lie and that women are needed to save men from themselves. Its an effort to make women feel good about themselves. Ultimately that is their target market for Rom Coms. Just like in Action flicks the ‘One Maned Army, Apocolipse Wrecking Ball’ saves the day againsts the ‘Evil Mastermind Genuis from Hell’ Gets the cute damsel in distress for his heroic battle. It makes men feel good about themselves which gets bums on seats. It ties… Read more »
“What continues to bother me are three things: The male characters, the female characters, and the dynamics between them.”
That’s what often bothers me about most porn movies too. Maybe you could right a similiar piece on that subject? I think you made some interesting observations.
“The female characters vacillate between various actions and emotions: loving, allowing, angry, bitchy, controlling, accepting, confused.”
I think that there is a way to describe negative female emotions without having to include the word “bitchy” into the mix. Please stop using this word to describe women.
You are aloud to libel men. porn. You can make assumptions about them that have no basis in reality. porn. You can make strawman arguments to prove you are right. porn. You can ignore half of reality to create female victim fantasies. porn. You can lay all of women’s problems at the feet of men because potato. porn.
porn
But please for heavens sake (but mostly Erin’s.porn.) don’t call women bitchy. porn. Really hurts her feelings and that is what is most important. porn.
Yours in porn. porn
Porno. porn