An Affair to Remember (The Movie and The Loss of Depth in Modern Romance Film)

So This Scene:
Its a tear jerker every time, sure... As a pseudo literary writer (I say pseudo bc its not my full time work but I do love to pretend that I will have the courage one day to do what I love), I am always in search of depth and soulful interaction between characters in films and novels, and when it comes to films, I just can't seem to find any that come close to classic films...

Like when Cary Grant discovers the "real reason" why she wasn't there that day,,,, I mean.... Where's the razor blade?? It is SOOOO Emotional...

So is it a lack of social empathy for depth in characters? Is it simply lack of talent or funding? Or is it that we are losing that aspect of human interaction altogether?

philosophygirl78 said:

So This Scene:

Its a tear jerker every time, sure... As a pseudo literary writer (I say pseudo bc its not my full time work but I do love to pretend that I will have the courage one day to do what I love), I am always in search of depth and soulful interaction between characters in films and novels, and when it comes to films, I just can't seem to find any that come close to classic films...

Like when Cary Grant discovers the "real reason" why she wasn't there that day,,,, I mean.... Where's the razor blade?? It is SOOOO Emotional...

So is it a lack of social empathy for depth in characters? Is it simply lack of talent or funding? Or is it that we are losing that aspect of human interaction altogether?

Click to expand...

I think that aspect of human interaction still exists as love, romance, a deep, abiding and passionate connection to another person is not something that went away in real life, but it is something that our cynical, popular culture scoffs at today as it prefers the "everybody cheats" meme that denigrates marriage, commitment and emotional attachment.

Those later values were ones that popular culture once embraced and tried to advance through its movies, etc. - even if people in real life failed to always live up to them - but now it's not "cool," "edgy" or "smart" to believe in or promote traditional values. But we will make movies that delve deeply into any and every human disfunction, addiction, failing and abnormality. So it is what popular culture considers worthy of exploring and promoting that has changed and not, IMHO, the human condition itself.

Fading Fast said:

I think that aspect of human interaction still exists as love, romance, a deep, abiding and passionate connection to another person is not something that went away in real life, but it is something that our cynical, popular culture scoffs at today as it prefers the "everybody cheats" meme that denigrates marriage, commitment and emotional attachment.

Those later values were ones that popular culture once embraced and tried to advance through its movies, etc. - even if people in real life failed to always live up to them - but now it's not "cool," "edgy" or "smart" to believe in or promote traditional values. But we will make movies that delve deeply into any and every human disfunction, addiction, failing and abnormality. So it is what popular culture considers worthy of exploring and promoting that has changed and not, IMHO, the human condition itself.

Click to expand...

You do know that these two got together through cheating and being disloyal to their significant others?

Its the lack of depth and quality from then to now for me... Cheating has always existed.... Affairs have always existed... But this does benchmark on Love, or Soul Mates if you will...

philosophygirl78 said:

You do know that these two got together through cheating and being disloyal to their significant others?

Its the lack of depth and quality from then to now for me... Cheating has always existed.... Affairs have always existed... But this does benchmark on Love, or Soul Mates if you will...

Click to expand...

I was just referencing - I thought in response to your query - that I don't think "...we are losing that aspect of human interaction altogether," but that what our popular culture chooses to focus on and promote as a "norm" has changed. Yes, cheating and committed love have and will always be with us simultaneously, but what our popular culture advances as the dominate narrative has changed.

Edit add: And, yes, even in the "Golden Era," some of these great movie love stories elided over the "awkward" situations of their characters. My favorite one for that - and one I'm surprised got made at all considering the time and the code - is "In Name Only, " where Cary Grant is in a loveless marriage and has an affair with Carol Lombard. You are rooting all the way for Lombard.

Fading Fast said:

I was just referencing - I thought in response to your query - that I don't think "...we are losing that aspect of human interaction altogether," but that what our popular culture chooses to focus on and promote as a "norm" has changed. Yes, cheating and committed love have and will always be with us simultaneously, but what our popular culture advances as the dominate narrative has changed.

Edit add: And, yes, even in the "Golden Era," some of these great movie love stories elided over the "awkward" situations of their characters. My favorite one for that - and one I'm surprised got made at all considering the time and the code - is "In Name Only, " where Cary Grant is in a loveless marriage and has an affair with Carol Lombard. You are rooting all the way for Lombard.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen that one. I will check it out!

philosophygirl78 said:

I haven't seen that one. I will check it out!

Click to expand...

One of my favorite "undiscovered" classic - I am amazed at how few people seem to know this movie.

Hollywood's obsession with a shoe-horned in "happy" ending is half the problem.

Edward said:

Hollywood's obsession with a shoe-horned in "happy" ending is half the problem.

Click to expand...

I would argue that the happy ending is more a demand of the audience than of the film makers. People just tend to feel an unhappy ending is an unfinished one, and therefore, an unsatisfying one. I think *that* says just as much about the human condition as any particular scripted theme.

HudsonHawk said:

I would argue that the happy ending is more a demand of the audience than of the film makers. People just tend to feel an unhappy ending is an unfinished one, and therefore, an unsatisfying one. I think *that* says just as much about the human condition as any particular scripted theme.

Click to expand...

Sometimes I get frustrated with this, but as you note, it is what the audiences like and what would it say if we, as a people, only wanted endings where couples break up, strivers fail, etc. It says something good about humans that they want to see things end well.

HudsonHawk said:

I would argue that the happy ending is more a demand of the audience than of the film makers. People just tend to feel an unhappy ending is an unfinished one, and therefore, an unsatisfying one. I think *that* says just as much about the human condition as any particular scripted theme.

Click to expand...

Sure. Hollywood is all aboutg the bottom line, not art - so they sell what the focus groups tell them people want. I do have to wonder whether people want that because they aren't being offered anything else. In any case it wasn't always this way in mainstream, English-language cinema. I despiar of what would have happened if they remade Casablanca or Brief Encounter today. Whatever changed, it had happened by the time of Breakfast at Tiffany's - such a shame, as it was such a nice film right up until they messed up the ending.

These are what I call "movies for grownups." They aren't made anymore (at least in America) because the grownup demographic is the kiss of death for Hollywood. In regard to the subject of infidelity, when the movies wanted to make the adulterous wife sympathetic, they always made her husband much older. An example is "From Here to Eternity," in which Debora Kerr as Karen Holmes was married to the far older Captain Dana Holmes. This was never suggested in the book. And what woman wouldn't be drawn to Burt Lancaster in his prime? Likewise in every movie made about King Arthur, Guinevere is always portrayed as a young woman married to an old man, something absent from the legends. But, for Hollywood, this makes her affair with the young Lancelot understandable.

Edward said:

Sure. Hollywood is all aboutg the bottom line, not art - so they sell what the focus groups tell them people want. I do have to wonder whether people want that because they aren't being offered anything else. In any case it wasn't always this way in mainstream, English-language cinema. I despiar of what would have happened if they remade Casablanca or Brief Encounter today. Whatever changed, it had happened by the time of Breakfast at Tiffany's - such a shame, as it was such a nice film right up until they messed up the ending.

Click to expand...

Could not agree more: those are three movies that all need not-happy endings. "Brief Encounter" is such a little gem of a movie - its poignancy and the plangent sound of the departing train all come together to close out that chapter in their lives and the movie itself. There could be no other outcome. "Breakfast at Tiffany's was basically ruined by its ending (and Mickey Rooney). The entire point of Casablanca is that fighting the Axis is more important than any individual life or love - no other ending could make sense with the rest of the movie.

Fading Fast said:

Could not agree more: those are three movies that all need not-happy endings. "Brief Encounter" is such a little gem of a movie - its poignancy and the plangent sound of the departing train all come together to close out that chapter in their lives and the movie itself. There could be no other outcome. "Breakfast at Tiffany's was basically ruined by its ending (and Mickey Rooney). The entire point of Casablanca is that fighting the Axis is more important than any individual life or love - no other ending could make sense with the rest of the movie.

Click to expand...

Sometimes I wind myself up by reimaging Casablanca being remade today, where it turns out her husband was gay all along, and becomes the best man at their wedding. It's be like Bridesmaids, except with an added dash of casual homophobia, a la The Hangover.

Edward said:

Sometimes I wind myself up by reimaging Casablanca being remade today, where it turns out her husband was gay all along, and becomes the best man at their wedding. It's be like Bridesmaids, except with an added dash of casual homophobia, a la The Hangover.

Click to expand...

I'm opening myself up to a terrible flame attack even if I'm really not being totally serious BUT I've always looked at the movie as two men who each trying to get rid of the useless and whiny Ilsa. You know, all that "you have to think for both of us," sort of garbage. Rick won, she goes off with Laszlo and she'll probably be the death of him and, homoerotic or not, Rick gets to brave the desert with a guy called Frenchy. I'm straight but in that situation, I'd take Frenchy too. Now for a real woman you have to go to To Have or Have Not. after barely surviving a drive by shooting of their hotel Marie (Lauren Bacall) starts adjusting her position under cover, Harry unnecessarily tries to quiet her or keep her from exposing herself or something. She adjusts herself about an inch, gives him a look and says, "I think I'm sitting on someone's cigarette." Sorry but, on the run from the Nazis, that's who I want. Second choice, Frenchy. Ilsa's not even third. Does that make me unromantic.

Most of the time the expensive modern features aren't even aimed at adolescent audiences, they are aimed at "world audiences," a cross section of often non English speaking people who are by far the greatest mass of ticket buyers ... enlightened, progressive Hollywood executives have an even lower opinion of these people than they did the the teen audience for Porkey's 30 years ago!

That's an interesting take on Casablanca - I must think about that the next time I review. It's by far the most iconic (and probably the funniest - that's the big thing so many people miss, imo) Bogie flick. For chemistry with his leading lady, though, none of them have anything on Lauren Bacall in The Big Sleep. I don't think there's been chemistry like that anywhere else in cinema history.

It's certainly true that the international market affects a lot of Hollywood output, fairly or unfairly. The one that amused me most in recent years was how they changed the antagonist in the Red Dawn remake from China to North Korea when they realised just how huge the Chinese market is.

Edward said:

That's an interesting take on Casablanca - I must think about that the next time I review. It's by far the most iconic (and probably the funniest - that's the big thing so many people miss, imo) Bogie flick. For chemistry with his leading lady, though, none of them have anything on Lauren Bacall in The Big Sleep. I don't think there's been chemistry like that anywhere else in cinema history.

It's certainly true that the international market affects a lot of Hollywood output, fairly or unfairly. The one that amused me most in recent years was how they changed the antagonist in the Red Dawn remake from China to North Korea when they realised just how huge the Chinese market is.

Click to expand...

The original Red Dawn had the U.S. being invaded by the Soviet Union. I haven't seen the re-make, but the change to North Korea as the invader is not surprising on the psycho-political front, as you go with whichever "cold war" antagonist is coldest at the moment. It's only surprising on the reality front, as most Americans don't believe North Korea could think its way out of an empty room.

As for bleaker endings, my friends and I on another site once had a thread where we made up alternate endings, with extra style points for the ones that were the funniest. All I could think of was The Bad News Bears, where instead of the party at the end, Buttermaker is arrested for nine counts of exposing himself to underage boys and Amanda Whurlitzer ends up a pole dancer at a Houston strip joint.

Edward said:

That's an interesting take on Casablanca - I must think about that the next time I review. It's by far the most iconic (and probably the funniest - that's the big thing so many people miss, imo) Bogie flick. For chemistry with his leading lady, though, none of them have anything on Lauren Bacall in The Big Sleep. I don't think there's been chemistry like that anywhere else in cinema history.

It's certainly true that the international market affects a lot of Hollywood output, fairly or unfairly. The one that amused me most in recent years was how they changed the antagonist in the Red Dawn remake from China to North Korea when they realized just how huge the Chinese market is.

Click to expand...

I know, North Korea takes over the US! Anyone ever see The Mouse That Roared?

I really like Bergman is a lot of films, not her fault I have problems with Casablanca, it's the part ... so passive it even disturbed me as a child. I find a LOT of Casablanca funny, whether it was intentional or not. I still can't help snickering when Peter Lorre says something like: "You despise me, don't you Rick?" It's almost like he's somehow getting off on it. And: "I came for the waters." It's a great movie but a lot weirder than I think a lot of people realize. It's such a cultural monument it's hard to watch with fresh eyes ... but when you do it's an alternate world of peculiarity.

Back to the main topic. I suspect that a LOT of the reason for The Loss of Depth in the Modern Romance Film is because contemporary female culture is pretty picky about men being head over heels in "love" with women. Unless it's under exactly the right conditions (like she decided that morning that she wants to hear her man say it ... and the moon is in eclipse) female culture today is a bit freaked out by mushy declarations of undying love like you see in a lot of these old movies. I'm constantly amused at listening to women go on about how much they appreciate that sort of thing and then watch how they behave when confronted with it out in the real culture at large. I think men, who still write most of these things, just don't feel they know how and when to go there and not get laughed at.

It doesn't help that Creative Executives in Hollywood are very cynical and very worried about seeming sappy or soft in front of anyone. They tend to also be highly derisive when writers take a chance and experiment in romantic directions. If you do it you have to be willing to at least take some embarrassing abuse or at worst get fired because you turned in a draft (that must be paid for) that has something the Executive doesn't like in it ... and "experiment" costs the studio a minimum of something like $10,000 (if it's in a revision) but could cost, depending on the writer's quote, ten times that. In a first draft (which are much more expensive), it could cost even more. So executives are both easily embarrassed because they fear others will think they asked for it or highly fearful because they fear their boss will ask them what all that money was spent on. Undoing a small mistake could trigger a revision payment (depending on the relationship between writer and studio) and so it's all very sensitive.

Star Wars: Luke Skywalker is a fantasist who was allowed to escape by the Empire, with false information about a weak point in the DeathStar. Bummer: no Empire. Upside: hopefully no crappy prequels.

MikeKardec said:

Back to the main topic. I suspect that a LOT of the reason for The Loss of Depth in the Modern Romance Film is because contemporary female culture is pretty picky about men being head over heels in "love" with women. Unless it's under exactly the right conditions (like she decided that morning that she wants to hear her man say it ... and the moon is in eclipse) female culture today is a bit freaked out by mushy declarations of undying love like you see in a lot of these old movies. I'm constantly amused at listening to women go on about how much they appreciate that sort of thing and then watch how they behave when confronted with it out in the real culture at large. I think men, who still write most of these things, just don't feel they know how and when to go there and not get laughed at.

Click to expand...

I thought that kind of stuff was the bunk forty years ago, and I grew up watching "old movies" shown on television with no historical contextualization. No woman I ever knew in real life, of any generation, ever carried on like Norma Shearer or Kay Fwancis. I hated "weepies" as a kid, and I still do as an adult -- that kind of cheap emotional manipulation is a poor substitute for good storytelling.

That doesn't mean a movie can't or shouldn't have a happy ending, and it has nothing to do with sexual politics. It's simply a question of good writing versus hack writing. And the sad truth of the matter is, a very large percentage of the classic Hollywood studio product was ground out by hacks who had to meet a quota, and cared more about hitting all the points in the formula than in producing anything with any real emotional resonance. Too many so-called "women's pictures" were hashed out by cynical middle-aged men who expected their audience to be on the same stunted level as the shopgirls who mooned over "True Story" magazine. But enough "What's Wrong With The Movies?" articles showed up in the more intelligent women's magazines of the time to put the lie to the notion that the dithering little featherheads that Hollywood imagined its female audience to be were passively lapping it all up.

When you look over the annual release schedule of any major studio of the Era you'll see that this was an essential aspect of the studio system -- the pulp and the schlock kept the money coming in to finance the "better" pictures. I think it's notable that all the films mentioned as examples here have been "better" pictures -- but sit down and watch a couple of dozen random run-of-the-mill features with Robert Cummings or Ann Sheridan or Dennis Morgan or Linda Darnell or people of that level -- blandly-attractive generic middle-class white people with no particular personalities -- and you'll see my point.

You can still find a picture today which deals with romantic relationships in an honest way, without corrosive cynicism -- "Brooklyn" is one. "Carol" is another. You just have to go to your local indie theatre to find them.