MovieChat Forums > The Philadelphia Story (1941) Discussion > The quality of romantic comedies in the ...

The quality of romantic comedies in the TPS era and today


The Philadelphia story is maybe the best example of the quality a romantic comedy can have.It has laughs,great plot,romantic themes,top notch cast and best of all amazing and compelling dialogue.

I`m not a native English speaker so for this film I used english subtitles,in order to be able to follow it thoroughly(since it contains a lot of words and expressions rarely used today).The same goes for To catch a thief,The appartment and bunch of other films from this Hollywood era.

Today`s romantic comedies,the vast majority at least(studio films)have clichee filled lines,no compelling interactions,but just this formulaic pattern-an interesting job,chance encounter,bonding night,fight and running in the rain,after the realizition that the leading heroes are meant to be.And the lines and the dialogue are not used to develop and push forward the story,but to fill the time.

When did this happen?When did the decadent and vulgar era of cinema begin?I don`t know whether I should blame the studios or the audience.
Movies like This means war,What/s your number,Crazy stupid love that are filled with cringy worty moments do have their entertainment value(escapism,fun ride) when you catch them in the movies,but they are too forgettable.The day after you see it you barely even remember them.
The day after I saw the TPS for the first time,I saw it again.

So my question is when and why did this decline in quality happen?It reffers to all genres perhaps,but in the romantic comedy category it is the most obvious.
And I like romantic comedies.Some days they are the best therapy.

The only thing keeping you from being happy is the belief that you are alone

reply

Every classic film lover has their own opinion of when movies turned sour, and mine lies around the mid sixties. That's around the time that the Hans Code failed (or started to lose power).
What I love about old movies, is their cheesy unrealistic tone. No blood/sex/disturbing images/violence or anything that stains today's movies. Old movies pull those emotions from you without the sex scene that current films need.
Also, it seems that you have to get nude to be considered a romance movie nowadays.
In terms on terms of forgettability, Old movies we watch now are branded as classics, so of course they aren't forgettable. I find it that today's movies all run together, unless they have something to set themselves apart from the others. (especially Jennifer Aniston movies... bleck)

So my answer to your question, is circa 1966.

"I'm going crazy. I'm standing here solidly on my own two hands and going crazy."

reply

I completely agree with you that sex scenes are just gratuitous about 99% of the time and I prefer classic romances partially because they have to put actual work into the relationship and the chemistry instead of just throwing characters into bed together.

On the other hand, classic film could be just as disturbing and, in fact, more disturbing than anything modern cinema can throw at us. Not seeing gore and blood is more frightening than seeing it if the director knows what he's doing. There are very realistic old movies just as there are cheesy new movies.

It boils down to the same thing, though. Films then required better writing and more creativity because there were fewer crutches to prop up a thin story or flimsy characters. Not that there hasn't always been crap. ;)

"It's that kind of idiocy that I empathize with." ~David Bowie

reply

Nolegirl raises interesting points, with most all of which I concur.

I'm going to pin the decline of civilization as we know it, which is reflected in the quality of romantic comedies and nearly all other aspects of culture, on the "cultural revolution" of the 60s. We threw out everything "conservative," "establishment," "old-school," or classic and instead went for a let-it-all-hang-out aesthetic of rock-n-roll, free love, long hair, etc. that turned its back on anything prior.

That revolution set a number of needed things in motion and freed people in many ways, but I fear that we threw out a lot of baby with the bathwater and to such an extent that there's little hope of ever regaining any of it. Among the things lost, are a general popular interest in music which is not pop or rock-n-roll music; any formality of dress; any decorum and politesse in favor of everything being casual and informal and all of these things are widely reflected in contemporary films.

I'm a child of this revolution and have appreciated all of the good things that have come by way of the sweeping changes to society during that era but I've also become interested in all the various aesthetic aspects of culture such as we find in the "Golden Era" of Hollywood films and I find that I like what I see very much. So much so, that I wish we hadn't discarded everything to the extent we have.

So, yes, now, by the natural progression of things, we have cinema which reflects a society which is so casual as to be more of a slob culture and a relaxing of decorum to the point that it is beyond the common person's abilities to actually have a polite conversation which employs more or less correct usage of the English language. If the language isn't dumbed-down to the extent as used in current practice, then it sounds "funny" or "stilted" or even "phony and pretentious" to today's average movie-goer, which is most unfortunate. The collective taste, driven by this relaxing of morals and decorum as brought about by the progressive liberalization of culture has brought us to where our current state seems to dictate that comedy in films be a reflection of our current state: casual in all manner, poorly spoken, badly dressed and in need of over-stimulation to maintain our interest. We now crave a diet of shocking humor, shocking violence and shocking sexual content intertwined with flimsily constructed stories calculated to provide an ample return on investment for the balance sheet but which leave me cold and empty. If there aren't enough explosions, naked bodies or shamelessly offensive jokes hurled at us with quick cutting edits, apparently the modern day audience's attention will drift and they won't be sufficiently amused or satisfied. At least not enough of the audience that will make these films profitable and the producers of these products feel great competition from a number of different directions for the movie goer's time, attention and money. Some of these contemporary entertainment products I've enjoyed but the overwhelming majority of them have left me very unsatisfied and ruing our present state as a society and our state as practitioners and consumers of art and culture.

If The Philadelphia Story were released for the first time today, it would receive yawns from the general movie-going public. Sad to say, but I fear this is true. Personally, I can't get enough of film from this era and in many ways wish I could go back and experience life of this era, even if only for a short while.

Since most people will have grown up under these present day conditions, even suggesting that the broad spectrum of civilization might have been better in, say, 1940, is to suggest something incredibly unacceptable and unbelievable. The fact that we have these films, which give a more or less life-like aspect - - we see the characters move, we hear them speak - - we are lucky to have them as artifacts we can revisit again and again. They won't change even though the world continues to progressively change. The great majority of people will not only prefer but demand that consumable products, including films, reflect whom they are today. Those of us who have discovered the magic of "Golden Era" films, such as The Philadelphia Story, will probably find ourselves increasingly marginalized and part of a very small segment of cinephiles. Thankfully, we have easy access to so much of that great legacy of films and we can continue to enjoy them.

reply

[deleted]

Considering that the only comedies of this particular type that I´ve ever liked, are from the 1930´s/1940´s, I do agree.

Here´s btw an interesting passage about the women´s role in rom-coms then and now in particular, from Scott Tobias´s review of The Lady Eve: "It´s strange that women in romantic comedies made 70 years ago were so much smarter, funnier, sexier and more fully human than women in similar roles today, when actresses are usually given little more to do than force a smile during their suitors´ feature length stand-up routines. Perhaps the writing in Hollywood was sharper at the time, or stars such as Barbara Stanwyck, Katherine Hepburn or Rosalind Russell were one-of-a-kind, impossible acts to follow".



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Woman back in the day were all of those things, but also so much more sophisticated. I look at a 20 year old today and no matter how they dress or carry themselves, they are just children compared to the glamor and wit of pre-war stars. Look at someone like Loretta Young, who had made more than 50 films by the time she was 20, and compare her to someone like Selena Gomez. Real substance vs. petals in the breeze.

reply

1964.

The Beatles had shown that there was a great largely untapped market out there: teenagers. What followed was increasing rejection of all things "adult" or that reflected that older, "corrupt" culture of there parents. Scripts became more simplistic less sophisticated with more and more emphasis on sex and violence. Exceptions noted.

Turns out the decriers of rock and roll were right.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

2001 was the year the 2 last great romantic comedies: Amélie & My Sassy Girl.

IMO, the last great American romantic comedy was Trust (1990) so I believe American romantic comedies stopped being great in the 1990s.

----

My Top 100 Favorite Films: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls071561044/

reply

It's so very sad the junk we have to put up with today . . .

reply