Image Credit: Pam Roth

This is the second article in our examination of the AFI’s Ten Top Tens. You can read the introduction here, and the first article in the series on animation here.

A while back, I had been under the impression that only half of the country enjoyed romantic comedies.  That half of course being the female portion.  I was wrong.  Nearly fifty-three percent of this fair nation enjoys a good romantic comedy.  The first fifty percent is still the female portion.  The remainder are male writers, wannabe writers, or film enthusiasts.  I happen to fall into that category.

The AFI defines a romantic comedy as a the development of a romance that leads to comedic situations.  Romantic comedy, like all comedies, are incredibly difficult to perform well.  Part of the problem for romantic comedies is that there’s a whole lotta talking.  In movies, talking is boring.  We want something to happen.  LWe need to see some action.  It’s very difficult for audiences to sit through line after line of dialogue.  That is, unless it’s very, very good dialogue.

This is why some of the very best writers are attracted to romantic comedies.  It’s where they can showcase their greatest talent.  The list that AFI provides is wrought with great writers.

1	City Lights	1931
2	Annie Hall	1977
3	It Happened One Night	1934
4	Roman Holiday	1953
5	The Philadelphia Story	1940
6	When Harry Met Sally…	1989
7	Adam’s Rib	1949
8	Moonstruck	1987
9	Harold and Maude	1971
10	Sleepless in Seattle	1993

(list courtesy Wikipedia)

But, enough of all of that.  I’m gonna get right into the heart of the issue here.  Which of these on the list is the most forgettable?  If you’re any kind of movie buff at all, each certainly has memorable moments.  Yet, when I say “forgettable,” I mean, “one and done.”  Those that I watch once and only once.  And which ones will I be watching in a year?  5 years?  20 years?

You’ll see this as a recurring theme for all of the AFI series.  I’ll refer to it as the “marriage quality.”  Which one of these movies will be part of my life years into the future?  Well, that’s really hard to know.  I understand that there are a lot of factors at play here.  Do I own the movie?  If I do, it’s certainly more likely that I’ll watch it than if I didn’t own the film.  What kind of playback does it get on television.  City Lights doesn’t now, and presumably, won’t, in the future, get the playback that When Harry Met Sally does or will.  A lot of that has to do with economic viability.  But AFI made that a part of their criteria, didn’t they?  So, it’s a fair way to assess the selections.

Big giant caveat here though.  There is a certain brand of movie that can at once be remarkable in just about every way *except* for the need to see it more than once.  One such movie that I recently reviewed is The Last King of Scotland.  It is the “reality” quality of such a movie, and usually due to it historical nature, that makes seeing it again and again unnecessary and/or undesirable.  Schindler’s List is another example I use to illustrate the point.  Nobody can deny the significance of such a great movie, but really, how many times do you need to see the horrors of the Holocaust played out on film?  How many viewing hours are required to give this movie its due?  Mmmmm… the bare minimum I would say.

On the contrary, comedies, and romantic comedies especially, are a great reminder of everything that is good in people and why humanity is worth all the trouble after all.  To quote another favorite romantic comedy that did not make the list, “Love Actually is all around.”  Its presence is the heart of the really great romantic comedies.  Their feel-good nature results in the desire to watch it over and over again.  Like a really good book.  Or at least it should elicit that desire.  And that’s what I’m getting at here.

If the movie does not elicit that desire, then it doesn’t belong on the list.  At the very least, when the movie pops up on television, it shouldn’t be passed up.  For me, Moonstruck does not meet this requirement.  I pass it up on television routinely.  Partly because of its main draw, Cher.  Yeah.  She won an Oscar for this folks.  This movie is a shoulder-shrugger for me.  Who cares?  Yes, I’ve seen it, but there is no imperative to ever see it again.

The Princess Bride, however, is on TV at least twice as much or more, and I stop at it ever-e-time.  A hugely successful movie in every aspect, it is by far more significant in every way, and especially culturally, than Moonstruck.  The latter may have made more money in the short-run, but the former has definitely outlasted it.  I and just about everyone I know can rattle on and on the great quotes and scenes of The Princess Bride (”You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.”) and not a single one from Cher’s stinker.  Well, not stinker, but compared to Wesley’s adventure, it just doesn’t compare.

Harold and Maude is another that I just have no desire to see again.  And in the big scheme of things, of all of the movies I would pass down to my children, this is not one of them.  Clever film, well written.  Old woman, young man.  I get it.  Hardly a romantic comedy really as I would never consider there to be any romance.  And I never, never see it on TV.  Not even on the Independent Film Channel (IFC) or other specialty channels.  And I have them all.  On the other hand.  The Wedding Singer is much more charming, funny, and culturally significant.  It is clearly Adam Sandler’s best and the chemistry there with Drew Barrymore is so palpable.  Much more so than can exist between a teenager and a senior citizen.  I don’t care how well they perform or how well written and clever it is.  It’s just doesn’t represent a widespread experience like The Wedding Singer does.  We can watch The Wedding Singer and say, “Life is like that.”  Not so much with Harold and Maude.

This last observation is a little dangerous for me to make.  But hear me out.  Sleepless in Seattle doesn’t belong.  There.  I said it.  Sorry, it just doesn’t.  Don’t get me wrong.  I love this movie.  I really do.  But it sort of runs into a couple problems here.  The first is the common theme of the others from the list.  It doesn’t have the marriage quality.  Okay.  It certainly has “long-term girlfriend” quality.  But your career’s still more important.  The second is really a quibble I have with the primary story element: mystical love and irrational behavior at all costs to pursue it.  I found it difficult to willingly suspend my disbelief on that.  Gosh.  It may have been better if there was some pixie dust involved, or a Zoltar machine, something.  No, it says that this happens, “…like magic.”  Phooey.  My third major problem with this whole thing too is that there is zero, absolutely zero, character growth.  The characters are the exact same going in as they are coming out.  Great movies don’t do that.  Another Rob Reiner/Nora Ephron film, When Harry Met Sally, epitomizes it.  So I know that they know it’s important.  They just chose to ignore any kind of substantial character arc in this film.

What ought to be in its place is another Nora Ephron film, You’ve Got Mail.  The modern remake of the epistolary The Shop Around the Corner.  The original is great enough for consideration on the list and I could argue for its place, I just don’t have enough room here.  You’ve Got Mail has everything.  It’s smart, it’s funny, and you can watch it over and over again and it has lots and lots of heart.  It doesn’t have the elemental pitfalls of Sleepless as the interaction of the characters is plausible.  It says that the knowledge of a person DOES affect how you receive them.  As that knowledge changes and changes YOU, love can wax or wane.  That’s real.  That’s “like life.”  And even more importantly, the characters are better for interacting and having known each other.  They make each other better.  That’s not magic, it’s love.  And that is waaay better.  Whenever Mail is on TBS, you better bet I watch it enthusiastically.