Accepted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Fine Arts at The Savannah College of Art and Design
______/___/___ Michael Nolin Date Committee Chair
______/___/___ David Engelbach Date Topic Consultant
______/___/___ Paul Brown Date Editor
The Affects of Romantic Comedies on Relationships in Reality
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Film and Television in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Fine Arts Savannah College of Art and Design
By
Geoffrey Kennedy Peel
Savannah, Georgia
May, 2011
Table of Contents
Abstract 1
Introduction 2
Evolution of the Romcom 3
Mass Media's Influence on the Individual 7
The Romcom's Influence on Real Relationships 8
Today's Mature Romcoms and Real Relationships 16
Characteristics of Real Relationship Dysfunction 20
Conclusion 21
Works Cited 23
Visual Aids 26
1
The Affects of Romantic Comedies on Relationships in Reality
Geoffrey K. Peel
May, 2011
This thesis focuses on how the idealized depiction of romance in recently made romantic comedy cinema negatively impacts romantic relationships in reality. The thesis tracks how the evolution of the genre, as well as a changing cultural landscape, created the current structure that romantic comedies readily adopt. The thesis first explores the genre’s manifestation at a macro level, then focuses on problematic “relationship oriented” themes that exist within many of these films. To observe if any thematic changes occur in more adult oriented films, the author studied R-rated films released within the past decade. Finally by citing common issues relationship therapists encounter on a daily basis and by presenting two theories associated with mass media psychology, the thesis shows to what end these films negatively affect the viewer's perception of romance.
2
Introduction
Through analysis of neo-traditionalist romantic comedies, one can examine how their themes negatively affect real-life romantic relationships. To reference films that were made from
1989 and beyond, Tamar Jeffers McDonald coined the term neo-traditionalist romantic comedy in her book Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre. These films have never garnered much praise from the critics; they are attacked for being unbelievable, routine, and simplistic.
Yet audiences continually fill theaters to watch these films knowing full well the "hoax" they are participating in: Romance. David Shumway states that, “romance has become virtually a synonym for illusion” (133). Companies bombard us with images and scenarios of romantic gestures to encourage us to buy their products. But does this illusion carry over from romantic comedies? Dr. Bjarne M. Holmes and Dr. Kimberly R. Johnson deduced that romantic comedies create an “illusion” by showing a courtship process that is unattainable in actual society. After a study of 40 popular romantic comedies, the two concluded that these films exhibit concurrently the romantic tendencies of both "new" and "long term" relationships: in effect a hybrid relationship. These hybrid relationships have the novelty and excitement of a new relationship, mixed with the “emotionally significant” and “meaningful” nature of a long-standing relationship (Johnson and Homes, “Content Analysis” 352). Furthermore, the study observed that romantic comedies portray relationships as having both “highly idealistic and undesirable qualities.” However, these undesirable transgressions seem to create no long-term effects on the characters' relationships. These separations from reality are the impetus to the four goals of this paper.
The first goal of this paper is to look at how changes in society and film created the neo- traditionalist romantic comedy genre. The second goal is to understand how mass media affects 3 the viewer's thought process. The third goal is to see how a pattern of recurring themes through the genre perpetuates a sense of reality that damages a person’s notion of a healthy relationship.
And, the fourth goal is to examine the correlation between the typical problems that couples counselors face and the problematic themes discussed. It is expected that by disassembling the
“illusion” of the romantic comedy one can both understand where these films deviate from reality and how they influence a change in reality. But, in order to understand how the romantic comedy became what it is today, one must first examine how the genre has evolved over time.
Evolution of the Romcom
The romantic comedy, or romcom, has been around since the beginning of cinema. The genre started out in silent films and gained popularity in the thirties. During the thirties the genre manifested itself into a subgenre that historians call “screwball comedies.” The screwball comedies differed with the wider romcom genre by pitting the two lovers against each other initially before they realized their affections for one another. Due to the Production Code, these films employed a high degree of innuendo and physical humor, and they dealt with romantic situations between a couple that had once been married but were now separated.
In the 1940s the genre made a slight shift, films like The Shop Around the Corner (1940) adhered to a story structure traditional to the romcom genre. In this film the couple fall in love by correspondence without knowing each other’s identity. What adds to the humor is that they despise each other in real life. This film differs from the “screwball comedy” in that the protagonists are young, assumedly virgins, and their romance is untriangulated (Grant 3). The
Shop Around the Corner is the basis of Norah Ephron’s You’ve Got Mail (1998). Much like the romantic comedies of the present, the films of the forties succeeded in building a famous reputation for the actors and actresses who frequently starred in them. 4
Similar to the western and other genres, the romantic comedy went through a decline before being reinvented. The romcom genre began its decline in popularity during World War II, and with the exception of The Graduate (1967) and the “sex comedies”; the romantic comedy genre had virtually disappeared during the 50s and 60s (Grant 5).
Annie Hall (1977), directed by Woody Allen, brought about the revival of the romantic comedy genre (Grant 6). This film falls under the sub-genre McDonald calls “radical romantic comedies” (4-5). This new breed of romantic comedy reinvigorated the genre by highlighting the changes in courtship and marriage that were occurring in the sixties and seventies (Grant 6).
By not creating surreal expectations about romance and love, perhaps the seventies era of romantic comedies was the most socially accurate embodiments of relationships. While typically, the "romcoms" of the 1930s ended in a marriage between the protagonists, it was not uncommon for the radical romcoms of the 1970s to conclude with the female and male protagonists not getting back together or only getting back together for only a short while. Many credit this new "realistic" conclusion, and the emergence of the radical romantic comedy, with the changing culture. Film was reflecting the cultural upheaval that was taking place: no longer was marriage the only socially sanctioned form of sexual relations (Grant 6). McDonald believes that changes in birth control helped create these change in social mores (60). On top of all these cultural changes, the end of the Production Code allowed films to discuss and depict more violent and sexual activities. David Shumway feels that with the changes in courtship, coupled with society’s questioning nature of love, characters no longer needed to view romantic love as a mystery but as something that they could understand and control (Grant 6). In addition to reflecting the period’s sexual revolution, these “radical romcoms” reflected the women's lib movement that was underway. All of these films depicted their female characters as having 5 careers, and thus options beyond marriage and a need for a male “breadwinner” (Grant 6). These radical romantic comedies completely upturned the structure, layout, climax and conclusion of the romcom. However, most of these films did not create a lasting impact within the genre.
After the radical romantic comedies of the 1970s came the “neo-traditionalist romantic comedies.” Unfortunately, while the 1970s saw a fresh vein within the genre, the current wave of romcoms have regressed to focus on the popular conventions of the 1930s. According to
McDonald, “the neo-traditionalist films act as if The Graduate and Annie Hall, with their radical endings, never existed” (86). The neo-traditionalist romcoms ignored their immediate predecessors’ preferences for realistic endings, and went back to the fairy tale endings employed by their counterparts of the 1930s. The structure, themes, and motifs of the classic romcom crept back into place. Shumway states that films like Pretty Woman (1990), Sleepless in Seattle
(1993), and You’ve Got Mail are examples of progressive films using traditional forms. In all of these films the two protagonists are apart until the very end of the film, and “therefore out of bed, thus allowing a nostalgic return to romance as it existed before premarital sex became a routine part of courtship” (Grant 6). Nostalgia is a key devices used in these new romcoms. These films either explicitly reference or borrow scenes from romantic films of the black and white era. Their fondness for old movies is an attempt to believe that romance back then was more straightforward than it is now (McDonald 86). You’ve Got Mail blatantly tries to use this nostalgia to its advantage by being an updated version of The Shop Around the Corner. In Kate and Leopold (2001), our hero, Hugh Jackman, comes from the past and is thus perceived to be more chivalrous. However, the idea of a bygone era of romance is meant to affect the viewer’s nostalgia more than it is meant to characterize the leads affinity to classical romance (McDonald
92). This nostalgia, back to a time when chivalry was commonplace and romance was devoid of 6 sex, is meant to twist thoughts and emotions in an attempt to coax the viewer into believing the story in front of them.
However, while filmmakers returned to traditional thematic devices to create an air of nostalgia, modern aspects of the radical romantic comedy remained intact. The romantic comedy’s setting became thoroughly entrenched in a sprawling urban landscape. As a result of having their own careers, female characters continued to have other options. While these films did revert back to a "happily ever after" fairy tale ending, it did not necessarily mean that the two protagonists would marry each other by its conclusion. More often than not the film would end with the couple merely reunited in some ambiguous form.
In the past few years, the romantic comedy has begun to change again. McDonald feels that the romcom is now being forced either to side with the more conservative version of the neo-traditionalist romantic comedy, like Kate and Leopold does, or to side with the more explicit
"gross-out" films, like The 40 Year Old Virgin (2005) does(16). More often than not McDonald sees romantic comedies beginning to side with "gross-out" films, where the main character is usually a male (106). Lisa Schwarzbaum believes that these male-centric films that have caused the recent revival of the romantic comedy genre. In addition to the crude humor, there seems to be a reemphasis of sex in the romcoms of recent years (McDonald 106). Whether employed as a comedic device like in The 40 Year Old Virgin, or as a character flaw to overcome like in
Wedding Crashers, or as a plot device like in 40 Days and 40 Nights, sex takes a center stage in the male centered romcom. Perhaps not so surprisingly, romantic comedies that have placed the male character at the center of the film have done extraordinarily well at the box office.
Schwarzbaum calls these casting decisions as “diplomats in unisex appeal,” and helping to make the “chick flick” more user friendly to the average male moviegoer. (2) This attempt to find a 7
“heterosexual romantic-comedy hero” has upped the attendance of both men and women in recent years. (Schwarzbaum 2) While this increase in popularity increases ticket sales, it may have widened the net of damage these films cause on actual relationships.
Mass Media's Influence on the Individual
Before examining the romantic comedy genre specifically, one must look at the ability mass media has at affecting an individual. It has become increasingly apparent to researchers that with its rise in popularity, film and television have become teaching tools for how to behave in society. This ability for the media to shape social interactions, has led many to theorize on how mass media alters the individual. Two of these theories are: cultivation theory (Gerbener, et al.) and social cognitive theory (Bandura). “Social cognitive theory suggests that individuals may actively observe media portrayals of behaviors in romantic relationships for insight into how they themselves could behave in their own relationships” (Holmes and Johnson, “Content
Analysis” 353). According to Bandura, individuals will memorize and model behaviors they have observed. This is especially true if the individuals performing the actions perceived as attractive and if the outcome of those actions prove beneficial (Holmes and Johnson, “Content
Analysis” 353). Meanwhile, cultivation theory suggests that the individual’s perception of reality changes when continually immersed in mass media that share common themes. According to
Gerbner, when viewers are exposed over a prolonged period of time to unrealistic portrayals presented in media they will develop unfounded perceptions that reality is consistent with those portrayals. What impacts this theory more is that, according to Holmes, genre specific viewing has a more potent impact on its viewers (Holmes and Johnson, “Content Analysis” 353). For example, if the viewer consistently watches romantic comedies, they will perceive these on- 8 screen relationships as accurate depictions of realistic romantic relationships because the viewer repeatedly receives the same message.
The Romcom's Influence on Real Relationships
By subscribing to the beliefs of these two media psychology theories, one will see how romantic comedies in a broad sense harm relationships in two manners. First, according to the findings of social cognitive theory, the unrealistic actions in neo-traditionalist romantic comedies create a template for how one should act to obtain and maintain a relationship. Bandura states that individuals will model their own behaviors to those behaviors of individuals who are perceived as attractive. This additional information about the theory further bolsters its validity when talking about romantic comedies; as the male and female leads are typically desirable celebrities. McDonald notes that these unrealistic expectations might not always create negative outcomes. She states that, "the romcom male has a nice apartment, designer clothes, an expensive music system and an enviable physique, the romantic comedy possibly encourages the men in the audience to remake themselves as fitter, more glamorous…” (17). However, the desire to look, spend, and act like those on the screen can create a whole new world of problems stemming from the viewer's expectations. Second, by adhering to the beliefs associated with cultivation theory, the individual irrationally sets standards for a real relationship based on fictional relationships written in to comedy screenplays. Both theories suggest that repetition is necessary to change behavior and perception, this is achieved because contemporary romantic comedies are formulaic: bombarding viewers with the same actions again and again, and
“repeatedly go over old ground,” (McDonald, 16).
Shumway notes that the basic premise of every romantic comedy is “boy meets, loses, retains girl” (McDonald 12). The protagonists need to be seen in their ordinary world. The 9 audience then needs to see the two protagonists meet each other and witness the establishment of their relationship. Next the audience sees their relationship tested or possibly broken. Finally, the relationship's conflict needs to be resolved, and it's usually a happy resolution. Alone, this romantic comedy formula sends the message that a relationship will consistently be full of romance and that when hurtful actions, up to and including infidelity, occur they should and will be forgiven. Finally the film’s conclusion fosters the notion of a problem free “happily ever after.”
Beneath this continually rehashed story structure, recurring tropes influence the viewer's behavior. According to Bachen and Illouz, 90% of young people look to movies for information about love (Holmes and Johnson, “Fantasy Meets Reality” 117). In an attempt to identify the commonalities in contemporary romantic comedies and how they affect audiences, psychologists
Dr. Bjarne M. Holmes and Dr. Kimberly R. Johnson carried out an experiment that examined incidences within some of the genre’s most popular films.
To establish their film sample, the psychologists looked at a list of the top 200 highest grossing romantic comedies. Next, Holmes and Johnson narrowed the selection down to only films that were released in the United Kingdom. The researchers further narrowed down the set of films by excluding R-rated films and focusing only on pictures released by the six major
Hollywood studios: Warner Brothers, 20th Century Fox, Paramount, Columbia, Disney,
Universal. They then picked the top 40 highest grossing romantic comedies that remained on the list. (Table 1) Once these films were selected the experiment began.
Researchers watched the films and documented specific examples of all “relationship- oriented” actions. Once the initial phase of watching the films and cataloging “relationship- oriented” incidences was complete, Holmes and Johnson were left with a total of 3,470 incidents. 10
They then began to group these actions into terms that covered a number of the specific instances
(i.e. chivalry, gazing/smiling, jealousy, etc.). These actions were then grouped into broader themes (i.e. affection, gestures, expression of emotions).
Upon finishing the study, Holmes and Johnson noticed a number of similarities within all of the films. Not surprisingly, the largest category of actions was kissing. There were 326 occurrences of kissing within the 40 films, making up nearly ten percent of the entire study.
Holmes and Johnson deduced from their coding of these films, that the most common categories were of those that demonstrated physical affection between the two characters. The study also noticed that affection occurred regardless of the location. The emphasis on public displays of affection could lead viewers to believe that only truly happy couples engage in such a manner.
After kissing, the second largest category of occurrences was compliments. While this again is not surprising for the romantic comedy genre, it is interesting to see that of the 154 times that a compliment was given within the film sample, 80% of them were said by the male character.
This lopsided and gender biased percentage occurred in many other areas as well. Within the entire category of gestures there were 102 cited examples. Of those 102 examples, men carried out nearly 90% of them. These gestures included gift giving, where the men gave the gift in 35 out 37 instances, or 95% of the time. The male characters performed 14 out of the 17 favors, and initiated the romantic encounter in 75% or 63 out of 84 relationships observed. One can argue that these films are not altering gender roles but merely highlighting gender roles as already defined by society. However, research suggests that films do more than highlight these roles; romantic comedies are reinforcing them. These depicted actions can affect the viewer differently based on their gender. If one subscribes to the thought behind social cognitive theory, a male viewer -that initially has neither a bias for or against specific gestures- would be more inclined to 11 carry out “gestures” for his significant other, after watching romantic comedies. Now this might not seem like a negative affect to a relationship, but consider the effect on a female viewer: according to cultivation theory a female watching romantic comedies, which depicts these actions would begin to view these gestures as a normal course of action for the male gender.
Furthermore, women viewers are led to believe that return acts of kindness are not required nearly as often because in these films the gifts are not reciprocated. Additionally, films frequently have the male protagonist perform exorbitant romantic gestures, yet again leading female viewers to believe that these behaviors are the norm. Not only can these films cause viewers to expect such treatment but these gestures, or the lack of them, might become the litmus test for the quality of the relationship: supplanting more important relationship qualities like communication and trust which were represented far less in these films. (Johnson and Homes,
“Content Analysis” 360) Along with highlighting the positive actions associated with romance, these neo-traditionalist romcoms focus almost exclusively on newly beginning relationships.
However what is atypical of a real relationships is that in the developing on-screen relationships, there were 75 incidents of what Holmes and Johnson named “declarations of love.” Holmes uses
Runaway Bride as an example; after only a week of knowing each other the two characters declare their love for one another. (“Content Analysis” 361) However, in reality it takes much longer to fall in love than just a few days. The discrepancy between emotions in reality to their film counterparts illustrates Holmes’s statement that film relationships have qualities of both new and long-term relationships. This unrealistic depiction of love can adversely affect individuals beginning a relationship. The person might become discouraged with the progression of a courtship if feelings akin to love don’t present themselves immediately. Conversely, a person could misinterpret their heightened emotions in a relationship as love. No matter which way the 12 viewer processes this information, the outcome is harmful to the development of a healthy relationship.
While placing a great deal of emphasis on "love at first sight," romantic comedies place an inordinate amount of attention on negative and harmful actions that occur in relationships.
There were four examples where the characters discussed the trust they had for their partner. Out of these four examples, three of them expressed the characters’ lack of trust in the significant other and the one who truly did trust his partner had a partner that was unfaithful (Holmes and
Johnson 360). In addition to the lack of trust characters had for one another, there was an inordinate amount of deception exhibited by the characters throughout the films. In the 82 occurrences of deception there was a wide range of severity. However there was one consistency: the number of deceptive activities far outweighed the instances where a character would admit their deceptive actions to their partner. There were 33 incidents identified where a character would cheat on their significant other. In keeping with cultivation theory, continual bombardment to such deceptive actions can lead viewers to question the fidelity and trust in their own relationships, as these films transform a person’s perception of reality. Furthermore, these films place little emphasis on the consequences incurred by these deceptive actions. For example in the film How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days (2003), the two leads deceive one another about their true intentions for dating the other. After finding out the truth, the couple get into an argument, and the relationship ends. However, it only takes a grand gesture for the two to reconcile and recommit to their relationship, as if the deception never occurred. This falsely represents the consequences deceptive actions have on the transgressor. A viewer might have a greater inclination to deceive their partner, because the perceived aftermath will not adversely affect the relationship, at least not to a great extent. Additionally, the romantic comedy glosses over the 13 resentment that the person deceived may continue to feel even after forgiving the transgressions.
Furthermore, the romcom may influence the harmed party to forgive their significant other in hopes that a “happily ever after” will follow.
Perhaps the most destructive theme that exists in romantic comedies, whether it is blatantly stated or subtly inferred, is the notion of the “one and only.” Neo-traditionalist romantic comedies suggest that destiny plays a role in romance and that certain partners are meant for each other, seemingly from the beginning of time. Films like Serendipity (2001) and Kate and
Leopold are two examples of the unrealistic obstacles the two main characters must overcome in order to be with one another. In Kate and Leopold, because the two are meant for each other, the characters overcome living centuries apart through time travel! In Serendipity, the two leads have to overcome years of separation, engagements with other people, being located on opposite ends of the country, and the inability to contact each other. It is fate, and the fact that they are meant to be together that causes them to find each other. What is more unbelievable than the premise beginning this relationship, is the expectation that the two will fit perfectly together without working to develop and maintain a healthy relationship. The idea of destiny is first hinted at in all romantic comedies, in an overplayed trope called the “meet cute” (12). This is the cute improbable fashion in which, the protagonists are introduced to each other. In Serendipity, John
Cusack and Kate Beckinsale’s “meet cute” occurs when they are trying to buy the same pair of gloves. This cues the audience to know that because the two share the same taste in gloves that they are destined to belong together. In reality there is no evidence to support the notion that destiny exists. Considering that there are over six billion people on the planet, it is more probable that there are thousands of “the one” out there. Knee and others showed that the idea of a “soul mate” in romantic comedies encourages a person’s notion that if a relationship is not perfect then 14 their current partner is not “the one” for them (Holmes 11). This idea of “the one” also implies that no work or development is necessary when they meet that special partner, as a strong and happy relationship will instantly be achieved and maintained once the two have located each other (Holmes 3).
This idea of “destiny” and true love led Holmes and Johnson to study the influence romantic media has on the belief in romantic destiny. In order to test this theory, researchers split a group of college students into two groups. The first group was shown the film Serendipity. The second group was shown the film The Straight Story. Serendipity, as previously mentioned, is a romantic comedy that heavily revolves around the theme of soul mates and fate. It is hence why
Holmes and Johnson picked it to be the manipulation piece for the study. The Straight Story
(1999), on the other hand, is a dramatic film that deals with adult relationships -none of them romantic- and was meant to be the control. After the two groups watched the films they were given questionnaires to fill out. The research confirmed that the group that watched Serendipity
“endorsed a belief in romantic destiny to a greater degree compared to those exposed to the control film” (Holmes and Johnson, “Fantasy Meets Reality” 128).
The romantic comedy genre is not the audiences first introduction to true love and chivalrous romance; viewers have been spoon-fed this notion since they were children. In 2003, a study performed by Tanner analyzed the themes of families and couples in 26 Disney films.
There they found that a major notion was “love at first sight” and that over half of the movies depicted couples that fell in love within minutes, married each other, and lived “happily ever after” (Holmes and Jonhson, “Fantasy Meets Reality” 120). C.J. Pardun observed that in the 15 films most viewed by teens in 1995, the major theme involving relationships was that love “just happens” and “then ‘somehow,’ you just end up married” (Holmes 4). These mediums all 15 highlight the visible actions associated with romance: the gifts, the gestures, and the romantic evenings. However, they fail to convey the two characters’ compatibility for each other care, how they interact with each other, and the common interests the two share.
These romantic comedies do not merely stop at adversely affecting the views and ideals of relationships; the films also negatively portray single and married life. “Being single” was one of the smaller categories that Holmes and Johnson identified in their study. The category totaled
15 instances, and all of them were portrayed in a negative light. The study states that the single character was depicted as either being lonely and miserable, or frustrated and insecure. This consistently negative depiction of single life can alter one’s own feeling about being single. Yet even while romantic media can cause a viewer to become distraught with their solitude it also hinders them from attaining a significant other. According to another study carried out by Dr.
Bjarne Holmes and Dr. Kimberly Johnson, the more romantic media a single person watches the higher their idealized standards are for romantic relationships (“Fantasy Meets Reality” 125).
One can argue that this acts as barrier of entry for single people. Single individuals who frequently watch more romantic comedy media will view an impending relationship with greater scrutiny, because of the unrealistic relationships they’ve been conditioned to believe as reality.
Married couples were depicted no better than single people. Married couples were portrayed as either unhappy with their spouse or happy with them but without showing any reason for their happiness. Shumway argues that the reasoning behind this is that marriage and romance have opposing goals (McDonald 13). The Heartbreak Kid (2007) bolsters this notion.
The film begins as a generic romantic comedy between Ben Stiller and Malin Akerman’s characters. The two are seen displaying copious amounts of public affection and spending time together on dates around the city. These rendezvous span the duration of a few weeks all set over 16 a wistful score. In a hasty decision to stay together, the two get married. Yet once married the romance disappears, with a growing amount of neglect, deception and infidelity filling the void.
This film and similar films might cause viewers to feel that the relationship, not marriage itself is the pinnacle of happiness and that affectionate marriages are uncommon (Holmes and Johnson,
“Content Analysis” 362)
Today's Mature Romcoms and Real Relationships
By examining the themes and messages of the top forty films, through the psychological lenses of cultivation theory and social cognitive theory, one can assert that continuous immersion within this genre creates a set of expectations and behaviors to follow within a romantic relationship. Holmes and Johnson’s study of romantic comedies sheds light on commonalities that are detrimental to a person’s perceptions on how a relationship should progress. However, their study is both dated (they picked films made between 1995 and 2005) and limited, (they did not use R-rated romantic comedies). The questions then arise: has there been a change in the thematic content of romantic comedies over the past few years, and do more “mature” films offer a more realistic portrayal of a developing relationship? In order answer these questions, a new film sample and analysis needed to be taken by this author.
The film sample began from the same list of the U.S. top 200 grossing romantic comedies, using the same source list that Holmes and Johnson used, but updated
(www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/?id=romanticcomedy.htm). The film sample was then reduced according to three other criteria: First, in order to see if any cultural changes had occurred, the films had to have been made within the past decade (2001 to 2011). Second, to mirror the original study only films made by the “Big Six” major Hollywood studios were included. Third, the new film set used only films given an R-rating. These parameters created a sample set of 17 fifteen films. (Table 2) The study was then carried out in a manner similar to the Holmes and
Johnson’s study. The films were watched and examples of “relationship oriented” themes were documented. The incidents were then categorized into the same groups that Holmes and Johnson had delineated. In all a total of 1,258 “relationship-oriented” incidents were observed. On average, the Holmes and Johnson study documented 87 examples of “relationship oriented” per film, while this study observed an average of 84 examples of “relationship oriented” material per film -a difference of only 3.4%. There were a number of other similarities that occurred between this study and that performed by Holmes and Johnson. Kissing remained the highest documented incident. Gestures such as gift giving, favors, and compliments were for the most part performed by men. This again bolsters gender roles like Holmes suggests. Also like in the original study, it was observed that married couples and single people were painted in a bad light. Single people were depicted as lonely and longing for a partner, while married couples were portrayed as argumentative with their significant other. Arguments was the second highest recorded category of incidents. However unlike Holmes indicated, this study found that arguments though very apparent between many different couples did not cause the destruction of a relationship. This would then suggest that relationships are not as fragile as their PG-13 rated counterparts suggest.
Deception and jealousy were also highly observed actions in these films and supported the conclusion of the original study.
Unlike the original supposition that the romcom propagates the "love at first sight: no work required" theme, it should be noted that there were instances of the more mature themes of growth and compromise. In many of the films the themes of growth and positive change for the betterment of the relationship are evident. There are several examples of these more mature themes: Going the Distance (2010) suggests that geography and the inability to continually be 18 apart will causes the end of a relationship. In Knocked Up (2007) Seth Rogan’s character reforms his bachelor lifestyle by moving into his own place and obtaining a sensible job. In Forgetting
Sarah Marshall (2008), Jason Segel’s character, after returning from his trip to Hawaii, begins to get his life back on track: he is seen taking better care of his body, his house, his relationship with his family, and by finally working on his musical. In She’s Out of My League (2010), Jay
Baruchel’s character, in an effort to impress his significant other, finally takes flying lessons. In
The Sweetest Thing (2002), both Christina Applegate and Cameron Diaz’s characters stop playing, what Holmes would refer to as, mind games in order to find a happy relationship. These more realistic approaches to relationships are a departure from the films reviewed by Holmes and
Johnson. It is unclear whether this is a result of writing for an over seventeen audience or if this is the budding evolution of the genre.
While there are these few examples that romantic comedies might be evolving to reflect real relationships, there remains inordinate amount of attention given to both the highly attractive and the highly negative aspects of relationships. In other words, romantic comedies continue to portray relationships as insanely bipolar. As expected, there were differences that occurred when looking at the themes of the R-rated romantic comedy compared to PG-13 films. Unsurprisingly, incidents involving sex, the topic of sex and sexual content was prevalent in this study. What is interesting to note is that there was a definite disconnect between the relationship and sexual intercourse. In the R-rated romcoms, if sexual intercourse did occur between the main characters it did not mean the two were in a committed relationship. In Knocked Up, the two have intercourse within hours of meeting each other, but an actual meaningful relationship does not come about until nine months later when Seth Rogan's character has proved his competency as partner by assisting in their baby’s delivery. In It’s Complicated (2009), sexual intercourse 19 between two individuals that were previously married, never fully rekindles their previous relationship. In No Strings Attached (2011), a continued sexual relationship occurs out of mutual physically attraction. It is only after this physical desire is met that an emotional connection begins to manifest itself. These and other examples of sex occurring outside of a committed relationship convey the idea that an emotional relationship is more important than a physical relationship. That even though the carnal needs have been met early on, it is the emotional relationship that is more compelling. Certainly some will believe that the casual nature of sexual relations in these films is creating a society that is more sexually promiscuous, while others will contend that the on-screen behaviors are mirroring society as it is today. Cultivation theory would suggest, at the very least, that in the minds of some viewers these films are reinforcing casual sex as an expected reality of relationships.
Another, trend that arose out of these fifteen films was the status of the relationships once the film ended. Out of the 15 films in the author's study, only four ended with the main characters being married or engaged (Sex and the City (2008), The Sweetest Thing, Bridget Jones
2 (2004), and Love Actually). An unrealistic example of this occurs in Love Actually (2003),
Colin Firth’s character proposes to his "true love" on Christmas, in a crowded restaurant, in a non-native language, to his cleaning lady that he has not seen in weeks, with whom he has never held a meaningful conversation. This incident thoroughly works against the notion that the R- rating shows romance in a more responsible manner. However, the majority of the films studied ended with the protagonists reentering a relationship or finally starting a relationship. That is not to say that these films are without fault in their structure. Out of all fifteen films viewed, every film had the two main characters reconnecting, regardless of past indiscretions. However, many of these past indiscretions did not end as the result of deception. Overall, one must look at the 20 films on a case-by-case basis, in both this study and the study by Holmes and Johnson; the films vary widely on believability and accuracy.
Characteristics of Real Relationship Dysfunction
Now while all of these examples of how romantic comedies can possibly harm a relationship are enlightening, a more impacting result can be reached when examining the typical issues confronting couples. According to counselors who apply Rational-Emotive Therapy
(RET) in their practice, relationship problems are the result of irrational thinking (Patterson 374).
Ellis defines this irrational thinking as “thinking that is highly exaggerated, inappropriately rigid, illogical, and especially, absolutist” (Ellis et al., 17). This irrational thinking fosters unrealistic expectations and demands that their significant other meet these standards. Furthermore, couples undergoing therapy exhibit a number of dysfunctional and unrealistic behaviors according to
Eidelson and Epstein’s Relationship Beliefs Inventory (RBI). There are five major misconceptions that lead to dysfunctional relationships: disagreement is destructive, mindreading is expected, partners cannot change, sexual perfectionism, and the sexes are different. It is easy to see how the idealized themes within romantic comedies breed these expectations. To one degree or another all the films studied negatively reinforced these dysfunctions.
Though one cannot say romantic comedy films are the root cause of a couple’s dysfunction, there is evidence to suggest that they act to bolster pre-existing beliefs. Referring back to Holmes and Johnson’s study one can cite specific trends that promote these dysfunctional beliefs. For example, there were 43 documented instances of a relationship ending, and more often than not ending immediately after an argument. In essence film helps promote the belief that disagreement is destructive, and runs counter to what couples counselors advocate: disagreement fosters communication. However if couples are conditioned to believe that if they 21 are happy together there will be no dissention between each other, disagreement is left to fester within. Another destructive facet in romcoms is the high number of instances associated with gestures and gift giving, the belief that these actions are the norm. Films tend to propagate the misconception that if a couple is truly in-sync with one another they will be able to read one another’s mind and know what they want (Holmes 4). Haferkamp, Holmes, and Shapiro and
Kroeger examined individuals that regularly "consumed" a large amount of romantic media. The study had these individuals watch romantic media and then had the participants fill out questionnaires afterwards. Haferkamp found that those viewers more readily believed that men and women are different and have different relationship needs and that neither can change themselves (Holmes and Johnson, “Content Analysis” 355). Shapiro and Kroeger learned that these people believed that sex must be perfect between couples (Holmes and Johnson, “Content
Analysis” 355). Finally Holmes learned that these individuals believe to a greater extent that their partner should intuitively understand their needs (355). As stated above, perceived differences between the sexes, perfect sex, and the expectation of reading minds are leading causes of a dysfunctional relationship. As perverse as it may seem, it would appear that the formula to making a successful romantic comedy is to portray the traits, which create a dysfunctional relationship as the traits that create a successful relationship.
Conclusion
McDonald asks a hard-hitting rhetorical question regarding the impact romantic comedies have on its viewers:
In giving the audience a high degree of closure with the happy ending in films of this genre, are romantic comedies benign, supplying as on-screen fantasy of perpetual bliss usually lacking in real life? Or do they negatively promote daydreams, making audiences long for a perfection which can, realistically, never be accomplished, leaving people dissatisfied with themselves and the relationships they do have? (14)
22
Romantic comedies certainly hurt rather than help the individuals looking for blissful romantic relationships. The current neo-traditionalist romantic comedy mixes an old-fashioned notion of love and propriety with the contemporary nature of society, thus creating a hybrid setting that cannot exist in real life. The films focus on the highly romantic and highly destructive portions of the courtship process, thereby highlighting the absolutes of a relationship without honing in on the root core of intimacy. While these films are made for entertainment purposes, it is hard to overlook the theories of mass media psychology that argue that films reinforce certain behavioral tendencies. By watching films that portray unrealistic visions of reality, our minds begin to foster the notion that what we witnessed on-screen is actual and attainable rather than improbable and unattainable. Our society’s infatuation with celebrities has transformed them into far more influential characters than other members of society. It is with that influence that the celebrity is able to more easily peddle a distorted view of love and relationships. Yet hopefully now, after knowing how this genre affects us, the viewer, we might be able to appreciate the films for the over zealous idealistic romance they depict and the escapism that they provide. Pieces of pure fiction and nothing more. Perhaps now that the negative aspects are known, we filmmakers will accept the challenge to meld the humor of real life situations and how couples truly deal with those situations -evolving the romantic comedy genre yet again. We have a responsibility to ourselves and our audience to focus on the truth that comes with intimacy. With over 50% of first marriages ending in divorce, we need to do better than going for a cheap laugh based in bipolar dysfunction that misconstrues healthy relationships. 23
Works Cited
40 Year Old Virgin, The. Dir. Judd Apatow. Prod. Judd Apatow. By Judd Apatow. Perf. Steve Carell and Catherine Keener. Universal Pictures, 2005.
Annie Hall. Dir. Woody Allen. Perf. Woody Allen, Diane Keaton. MGM, 1977. DVD.
Bachen, C.M., & Illouz, E. (1996). Imagining romance: Young people’s cultural models of romance and love. Critical Studies in Mass Communicatio, 13, 279 – 308.
Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason. Dir. Beeban Kidron. Perf. Renee Zellweger, Colin Firth, Hugh Grant. Universal Pictures, 2004.
Deleyto, Celestino. The Secret Life of Romantic Comedy. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2009. Print.
Ellis, A., Sichel, J.L., Yeager, R.J., Dimattia, D.J., & DiGiuseppe, R. (1989). Rational Emotive Couples Therapy. New York: Pergamon Press.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Dir. Nicholas Stoller. Prod. Judd Apatow. Perf. Jason Segel, Mila Kunis, Kristen Ball, Russell Brand. Universal Pictures, 2008. DVD.
Gehring, Wes D. Romantic vs. Screwball Comedy: Charting the Difference. Lanham, Md. [u.a.: Scarecrow, 2008. Print.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1994). Growing up with television: The cultivation perspective. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.) Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 17 – 41). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Going the Distance. Dir. Nanette Burstein. Perf. Justin Long, Drew Barrymore. Warner Bros., 2010.
Graduate, The. Dir. Mike Nichols. Perf. Anne Bancroft, Dustin Hoffman, Katherine Ross. An Embassy Pictures Release, 1967. DVD.
Grant, Barry K., and David R. Shumway. "Romantic Comedy." Schirmer Encyclopedia of Film. Vol. 4. Detroit: Schirmer Reference, 2007. 1-6. Print.
Heartbreak Kid, The. Dir. Peter Farrelly and Bobby Farrelly. Perf. Ben Stiller, Michelle Monaghan, Jerry Stiller, and Malin Akerman. Paramount Pictures, 2007. DVD.
Holmes, B.M. (2007). In search of my "one and only": Romance-oriented media and beliefs in romantic relationships destiny. Electronic Journal of Communication, 17 (3).
24
Holmes, B.M., & Johnson, K.R. (2009). Contradictory messages: A content analysis of Hollywood-produced romantic comedy feature films. Communication Quarterly, 57, 352-373.
Holmes, B.M., & Johnson, K.R. (2009). Where fantasy meets reality: Media exposure, relationships beleifs and standards, and the moderating effect of a current relationship. In E.P. Lamont (Ed.), Social Psychology: New Research, Chapter 6 (pp. 117-134)
How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days. Dir. Donald Petrie. Perf. Matthew McConoughey and Kate Hudson. Paramount Pictures, 2003. DVD.
It's Complicated. Dir. Nancy Meyers. Prod. Scott Rudin. Perf. Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin, Steve Martin, John Krasinski. Universal Pictures, 2009. DVD.
Kate & Leopold. Dir. James Mangold. By James Mangold. Perf. Meg Ryan, Hugh Jackman. Miramax, 2001. DVD.
Knocked up. Dir. Judd Apatow. By Judd Apatow. Prod. Shauna Robertson and Clayton Townsend. Perf. Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl. Universal Pictures, 2007.
Lyden, John C. Film as Religion: Myths, Morals, and Rituals. New York [u.a.: New York Univ., 2003. Print.
Love Actually. Dir. Richard Curtis. Perf. Colin Firth, Hugh Grant, Liam Neeson, Kiera Knightley. Universal Pictures, 2003. DVD.
McDonald, Tamar Jeffers. Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre. London: Wallflower, 2007. Print.
No Strings Attached. Dir. Ivan Reitman. Prod. Jeffrey Clifford. Perf. Ashton Kutcher, Natalie Portman, Kevin Kline. Paramount Pictures, 2011. Film.
Patterson, Terence. Comprehensive Handbook of Psychotherapy. New York: Wiley, 2002. Print.
Potter, Cherry. I Love You But--: Romance, Comedy, and the Movies. London: Methuen, 2002. Print.
Pretty Woman. Dir. Garry Marshall. Perf. Richard Gere, Julia Roberts, and Ralph Bellamy. Buena Vista Pictures., 1990.
Runaway Bride. Dir. Gary Marshall. Perf. Julia Roberts, Richard Gere. Paramount, 1999. DVD.
Schwarzbaum, Lisa. "Movie Guys: The New Girls?" Ew.com. 12 May 2008. Web. 10 Apr. 2011.
Serendipity. Dir. Peter Chelsom. Perf. John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale. Miramax Films, 2001. DVD.
She's Out of My League. Dir. Jim F. Smith. Perf. Jay Baruchel, Alice Eve. Paramount Pictures, 2010. DVD.
Shumway, David R. Modern Love: Romance, Intimacy, and the Marriage Crisis. New York: New York UP, 2003. Print.
Shop around the Corner, The. Dir. Ernst Lubitsch. Perf. James Stewart, Margaret Sullavan. Loew's Inc., 1940. DVD.
Sleepless in Seattle. Dir. Nora Ephron. By Nora Ephron. Perf. Tom Hanks, Meg Ryan, Ross Malinger, and Rosie O'Donnell. Tri-Star Pictures, 1993.
Sweetest Thing, The. Dir. Roger Kumble. Perf. Cameron Diaz, Thomas Jane, Christina Applegate, Jason Bateman. Colombia Pictures, 2002. DVD.
You've Got Mail. Dir. Nora Ephron. Perf. Tom Hanks, Meg Ryan. Warner Bros., 1998. DVD. 26
Visual Aids
Table 1: K. R. Johnson and B. M. Holmes’ Films Selected for Analysis ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ Movie Title ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ What Women Want Bewitched Hitch The Wedding Planner Runaway Bride Clueless Bringing Down the House Just Married Sweet Home Alabama Never Been Kissed My Best Friend’s Wedding Sabrina Mr. Deeds Forces of Nature Something’s Gotta Give Serendipity 50 First Dates Kate and Leopold You’ve Got Mail One Fine Day How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days Must Love Dogs Maid in Manhattan About a Boy America’s Sweethearts 10 Things I Hate About You Two Weeks Notice Keeping the Faith Along Came Polly Return to Me While You Were Sleeping Just Friends Six Days Seven Nights The Wedding Picture Nine Months Picture Perfect Down to Earth Fools Rush In She’s All That The Prince and Me
Table 2: R-Rated Films for Analysis ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ Movie Title ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ Sex and the City Knocked Up It’s Complicated Sex and the City 2 Ugly Truth Bridget Jones’s Diary No Strings Attached Forgetting Sarah Marshall The Sweetest Thing Love Actually Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason 40 Days and 40 Nights The Heartbreak Kid She’s Out of My League Going the Distance