Like any intelligent film viewer, the modern romantic comedy is perhaps the bane of our entertained existence. We can sit through silent films, foreign film and documentaries and tolerate the latest batch of heavy, depressing, Oscar-nominated movies that hopelessly address some much needed social issue. We can be moved by these dramas, many of them poignant and subtle (so long as the ending isn't Hollywoodized or too morose and cynical). I think most of us want to watch something that is true to life, that it could happen.
The trouble is, there are far too many interesting, profound, albeit dark dramas being churned out and too little discerning, thoughtful and playful comedies being made.
In fact, Hollywood, for the most part doesn't take comedy seriously. The Golden Globes has at least an aware for a best comedy/musical. The Oscars don't.
The Oscars being the Nobel Prize of movies, this means that directors and screenwriters hoping to craft careers of notoriety and much-applauded fame typically push their chips in the direction of serious dramas and stay clear of comedy, let alone the romantic kind.
There have been some successes such as Juno, 500 Days of Summer and the recent 50/50. But these are far and few between. And it shouldn't be.
The romantic comedy has been with us since the days of the Greeks and Romans when the comedies of Menander (342-291 BC), Plautus (254-184 BC) and Terence (2nd century) took precedent in the theatres of the ancient world. These men, their plays along with the romantic adventure novels of Longus (Daphnis and Chloe) and Apuleuis (The Golden Ass) set the stage for Shakespeare in Renaissance England, the works of the Spanish playwrights in the Golden Age and the Commedia delle'arte of Italy of the 16th century. These works inspired the operas of Mozart, Rossini, Donizetti, Bellini, Verdi and Puccini, not to mention Richard Strauss in the 20th century and WWF wrestling (much of which is improvised like the Italian comedies of old).
The stories back then are the stories of now. We have the hero and heroine, two lovers destined to be together. At their sides, his slave and her maid. Of course, you need a wily enemy, a dark master, typically a doctor, a soldier or a father who happens to stand in the lover's way. Sometimes you have a trickster, the Harlequin character found in Italy and a buffoon, usually the dark master's assistant (think Igor in the Hollywood version of Frankenstein).
Also, we mustn't forget the wise sage, usually a mother figure or a kindly hermit.
The romantic comedy of today has all these ingredients but without the same magic or charisma. The films of Hollywood, films made by legends have all been ruined by modern versions. Take for instance It Happened One Night which is basically Pride and Prejudice on the road in rural America done by comedy great, Frank Capra (mos famous for It's A Wonderful Life). You have a dashing, if not roguish reporter and an uppity socialite stuck together. The film initially didn't do well but ended up becoming a hit and the go-to comedy if you want to make a romantic road movies (think of such recent movies as Leap Year, The Proposal, and Two Weeks Notice).
When Jane Austen (1775-1817) was writing her novels, she based much of the structure of her work on the philosophy of David Hume (1711-76). Austen's first title for Pride and Prejudice, her most famous book, was First Impressions which had been inspired by Hume's views on morality, perception and human nature.
Jane Austen continues to fascinate readers because she was able to take something abstract and humanize it. The screenwriters of Hollywood that followed her have only caught a glimpse of what she was actually doing. This explains the banality of The Ugly Truth, Sweet Home, Alabama, Hitch and half of Kate Hudson's movies.
Perhaps it is laziness or the expectations of Hollywood producers. Maybe it has to do America and the lack of audiences who want something substantial and settle for anything formulaic. This would make sense as they have become the land of mediocrity, the country that spawned big box stories, disposable everythings and the high calorie, low nutrition diet.
Nonetheless, I myself have gotten to the point where I can predict the story turns (not twists, they aren't that intelligent to be called such) in most romantic comedies. A romantic comedy is 90 minutes long. At certain points in the movie, screenwriters and directors must establish key points, transitions and developments.
MINUTES 1-10: bring the two romantic leads into focus. For SHE, make sure she is successful, has a nice car, nice house, nice family and friends, great, enviable female job but somehow she is missing her special someone due to be hopelessly single, divorced or tragically widowed. For HE, make sure he too has a support network, that he lives in a masculine environment and does something most film watching men want to do - a record producer, artists, musician, lawyer, doctor, etc.... In the case of establishing both HE and SHE, have them talk about their problems and let their family/friends be quirky, insightful but not too attractive.
MINUTES 11-20: show how the leads are coping without each other. HE is dating flighty women, SHE is meeting men who are either pathetically vulnerable or one-dimensionally crass, crude and irritatingly and unrealistically vain. For SHE make sure there is one potential love interest that the audience seemingly and superficially wants her to land up with (the OTHER).
AROUND THE END OF ACT I: the two leads meet and either hit it off or drive each other crazy (either way, we, the audience are introduced to sexual tension).
MINUTES 30-50: Any number of possible scenarios are presented. HE likes SHE and can't stop thinking about her, all of this expressed in city scenes featuring cafes or trendy bars as backdrops, all the while the FRIEND encourages but also suggests he keep his options open. If neither lead cares for the other, have THEM criticize all their flaws while being in trendy restaurants or do something active in public - like jogging or sailing.
In the case of SHE, make sure the OTHER is never far and have them meet somewhere, say at the gym or when she is with family so the OTHER can see how supported SHE is and won't feel bad when he screws her over later.
In the case of the two romantic leads getting together, either show THEM having lots of together time or have THEM together but not once consummating the relationship, pissing off the audience.
NEARING THE END OF ACT 2: Now we have some minor crisis, a sub-story featuring a background character. HE comes to the background characters rescue or SHE, instead of being the supportive one, does the supporting.
Following this minor, forgettable episode, the audience would like to get a glimpse of the OTHER and what he is doing to mess with the female lead's head. The OTHER has been established as charismatic, overly-attractive and confident in Act 1. Now he's going to make his move.
Either A) He fails because of a MISUNDERSTANDING or B) he succeeds because the MALE LEAD hasn't quite gotten his game together.
Of course we can't forget the MAJOR MISUNDERSTANDING. This usually occurs when the OTHER and MALE LEAD meet each other for the first time, usually in the presence of the FEMALE LEAD. SHE is supposed to be with HE but HE thinks the OTHER is with SHE. Typically trite, HE storms off and the audience shakes their heads (HE has never been one to trust SHE and sorting things out by discussing the MAJOR MISUNDERSTANDING rarely occurs amongst the leads).
MINUTES 70-85: We now see the leads apart. HE and SHE are miserable though they have their quirky companions, their supportive family to get them through the days - but the something that is missing keeps bugging them. They try to date and get back out there but they know and we know they are meant to be together.
SHE might try to get together with the OTHER only to discover he is only charismatic and charming. There's nothing beyond the surface.
MINUTES 85-89: Now we have a dilemma. HE or SHE is afraid of losing SHE or HE. Depending on who the main lead is, should the focus fall mainly on SHE, it'll be her task to chase after him. If HE was the one who screwed up or supposedly messed things up with a FEMALE OTHER, he'll have to chase after her.
This is the point in the film where someone is going on a trip. THE CHASER most likely rushes frantically to the airport/train station to make sure THE CHASED is still willing to give it a second chance. It is always about do or die. THE CHASER on the way to THE CHASED crashes into garbage cans on the road, nearly hits people on the sidewalk while running or does something terribly embarrassing all the while blatantly demonstrating to the mediocre audience that THE CHASER is emphatically and desperately in love.
The public embarrassment leads to the SPEECH. THE CHASER has managed to track down THE CHASED and with the presence of sympathetic by-standers, THE CHASER entreats and convinces THE CHASED to work it out. The by-standers (typically being air port passengers/staff or street side folk) look on with smiles wishing they too were involved in such a high-stakes relationship.
FILM WRAP-UP or END OF ACT 3: HE and SHE are finally together and his quirky friends/family meet her quirky friends/family. It is all one German gemutlichkeit (a happy-being-with-each-other) and the film ends with happy music.
