The emotional story pattern of a Romantic Comedy goes something like this–

Two people are thrown together or “meet cute” unexpectedly.  They don’t get along. They are completely different.  They don’t particularly like or accept the other.

Over the course of the film, being forced to interact, they develop a grudging respect for each other.  Perhaps. they gain skills from each other, the insights each bring are helpful to the other, and they begin to form a bond.  They become a team or form a real relationship.

Each changes to accommodate the other.  They grow as individuals through their interaction but they face the question: how much must I compromise or adapt to be together?  AND How much can I demand the other change or compromise to be with me.  Ultimately, each asks: How much can I alter myself before losing the essence of who I am?

That’s the story of immigration and assimilation. The immigrant does not particularly want to come to a new place– but war, lack of opportunity, impossible political or social conditions at home drive them to a new place.  The current residents don’t particularly welcome these newcomers.

Both are forced by circumstances to accommodate each other. Each learns from the other. Each change. The immigrants bring new skills, new food, and new cultures. The residents require a certain amount of assimilation to adapt. They both wrestle with issues of identity. They find a compromise and both are richer for it.

Imagine America without General Tso’s Chicken, Pizza, Sushi, or Taco Tuesday.  American dining would be so much poorer without these immigrant foods.

Imagine England without Chicken Tikka Masala, Chinese Stir Fry, Kebabs, or Peri Peri Sauce.  Impossible!

Romance Writers know this instinctively.  This is from a website called The Conversation

Welcoming newcomers

Faced with rejection and ridicule from other writing groups in the 1970s, romance writers formed their own professional association, Romance Writers of America. It now has some 10,000 members.

From its start in 1980, the group embraced newcomers. Unlike other major author groups – and most professional associations – this one welcomes anyone seriously pursuing a career in the field. Newcomers may join once they’ve completed an unpublished romance manuscript….

…Unlike Romance Writers of America, most traditional guilds, unions and trade associations only admit established professionals.

These barriers to entry can stultify and stagnate industries, especially with today’s transitions. Network theorists Walter Powell and Jason Owen-Smith, for instance, found that the most successful biotech companies in the 1990s formed strategic alliances with newcomers.

This phenomenon isn’t new.

Political science professor John Padgett of the University of Chicago found that upper-crust families in Renaissance Florence who allied themselves with new, upstart families prospered, while members of the elite who shunned newcomers lost influence over time.

Time to put out the welcome mat!

SaveSave

I like the video below, another excellent video essay from Lessons From The Screenplay, but my opinion differs somewhat. I am not a fan of genre.  Genre is useful for consumers and Netflix lists but not useful for writers.  Genre most often describes style, tone, and setting.  Instead, I find it more useful to look at a film’s emotional playing field.

Each of the Nine Character Types books contains a precise set of tools to create one specific kind of character’s emotional playing field and establish his or her driving force in a story. A character’s emotional playing field defines the internal framework (structure) of the story. It is the range of action and behavior (from predatory to spiritually enlightened) that instantaneously establishes a particular type of character to an audience. A character’s driving force is the combination of actions and reactions that propel the character through the story.

For example, Chinatown and Apocalypse Now would never be put on the same genre list.  But emotionally they are the same film.  In the beginning, the protagonist searches for the truth about one simple thing (Who killed Hollis Mulray. Where is Colonel Kurtz?)  Over the course of the story the protagonist finds out the truth about a much larger thing. (The corruption in the water system in Los Angeles. The moral quagmire and craziness of the war in Viet Nam.)  In the end, the protagonist finds out the truth about himself. (Not asking for help– not trusting his colleagues– results in disaster.  I could easily become the monster who was Kurtz.)

The Buddy Movie has all the same elements of a typical Romantic Comedy (without the sex).  The buddies are thrown together.  They don’t like each other. By being forced together they learn from each other.  In the end, in the highest act of love between buddies, they are willing to take a bullet for each other.

The best thing about this post is how what we think of a romantic comedy is turned on its head in in When Harry Met Sally. Also, it’s a wonderful excuse to revisit this enchanting film. Go and watch it tonight, especially if you’ve never seen it!

If you’re on Pinterest, why not follow my Pinterest board full of useful writing advice? It will be updated weekly, so you can keep track if you ever need an excellent video essay, or some relevant advice to whatever problems you are facing. You can always drop me a line at [email protected] with the subject “Ask Laurie” and I will do my best to answer it. I might even include it in an upcoming edition of Writing Advice Wednesday!

SaveSave

This movie demonstrates conclusively that an actor’s persona is no replacement for actual character development in a script.  Hugh Grant substitutes ticks, shrugs and halting bemused cordiality for interesting dialogue.  Sarah Jessica Parker uses hair tossing and wounded narcissism in place of witty banter. Neither role or character is fully developed and it’s unclear why the couple should stay together emotionally.  This movie is a perfect example of what not to do when writing a romantic comedy.

The story, thanks in large part to Wikipedia, is this–

A wealthy successful Manhattan couple, lawyer Paul Morgan (Hugh Grant) and real estate agent Meryl Morgan (Sarah Jessica Parker) separate because of Paul’s infidelity. (He cheated once while out-of-town during a rough patch in their marriage– she was a hormonal lunatic undergoing in vitro fertilization). They are separated but are thrust back together when they witness a murder together and become the targets of a contract killer, Vincent (Michael Kelly).

The couple is whisked away to Big Sky and Tiny Town Country through the witness protection program.  After advice from the US Marshall couple they stay with, Paul asks Meryl go on a “date” in town.  Her vegetarian regime is at odds with the local carnivore culture.  They are booted out of the restaurant.

They begin to reconcile over bingo and jogging and more jogging.  Paul is injured when Meryl accidentally douses him with bear spray. Then Paul is shocked to discover that Meryl also had an affair after they were separated.  (She needed reassurance of a kind that only a one-night stand can deliver, apparently.)

The warring couple is scheduled to leave, separately, for individual permanent hiding places the following day. The killer tracks them down when Meryl, despite strict warnings not to call ANYONE, cancels her adoption plans (made without Paul’s knowledge).  The US Marshall couple invite them to a farewell rodeo, but the Morgans are quarreling so they decline.

Leaving their charges without any form of security, the US Marshall couple leaves for the rodeo. The killer attacks the house, but the Morgans are able to flee on horseback. Heading to the rodeo, they hide in a bull suit and frighten a live bull into head-butting them. Meryl, unable to walk, stays hidden from the killer while Paul confronts the killer with a canister of bear repellant.  He accidentally sprays himself in the face. The killer is felled by a horseshoe pitched to the head by the US Marshall.

Six months later, Paul and Meryl are still married and back in Manhattan, having just adopted a baby girl from China.  They name the baby Rae (after the town where they reconciled). Meryl is also pregnant with their biological child.

There is no exchange of gifts (we don’t see why these two imperfect halves should come together to make a more perfect whole.)  They don’t grow through their relationship with each other.  He regains her “trust” by a misguided attempt to attack the killer with bear repellant.  (Oh!  You tried to rescue me!)  It’s unclear how she regains his trust (after registering for an adoption he wasn’t ready for).  They are rich. She is a narcissist.  He is inept.  Clearly a match made in… Manhattan?

The Awful Truth is a 1937 screwball comedy film starring Irene Dunne and Cary Grant. Jerry Warriner (Cary Grant) returns home from a trip to find his wife, Lucy (Irene Dunne), is not home. When she returns in the company of her handsome music teacher, Armand Duvalle (Alexander D’Arcy), he learns that she spent the night in the country with him, after his car supposedly broke down. Then, Lucy discovers that Jerry hadn’t gone to Florida as he had claimed. Mutual suspicions result in divorce proceedings. The film follows the great lengths the couple goes to to ruin each other’s post-separation romantic escapades.

Lucy: It’s enough to destroy one’s faith, isn’t it?

Jerry: Oh, I haven’t any faith left in anyone.

Lucy: I know just how you feel.

Jerry: What do you mean?

Lucy: (She tosses the “California” marked orange at him and he notices his incriminating mistake.) You didn’t happen to mention in any of your letters what a terrible rainy spell they were having in Florida. The papers were full of it.

Jerry: Well, I can explain that, Lucy.

Lucy: You can?

Jerry: And don’t try to change the subject. You think a great offense is a great defense. Don’t try to justify your behavior by insinuating things about me.

Lucy: But I haven’t any behavior to justify. I’ve just been unlucky, that’s all. You’ve come home and caught me in a truth and it seems there’s nothing less logical than the truth.

Jerry: Hmm, a philosopher, huh?

Lucy: You don’t believe me.

Jerry: Oh, how can I believe you? The car broke down. People stopped believing that one before cars started breaking down.

Lucy: Well, his car’s very old.

Jerry: Well, so’s his story.

http://www.filmsite.org/awfu.html

Lucy: It’s enough to destroy one’s faith, isn’t it?

Jerry: Oh, I haven’t any faith left in anyone.

Lucy: I know just how you feel.

Jerry: What do you mean?

Lucy: (She tosses the orange at him and he notices his incriminating mistake.) You didn’t happen to mention in any of your letters what a terrible rainy spell they were having in Florida. The papers were full of it.

Jerry: Well, I can explain that, Lucy.

Lucy: You can?

Jerry: And don’t try to change the subject. You think a great offense is a great defense. Don’t try to justify your behavior by insinuating things about me.

Lucy: But I haven’t any behavior to justify. I’ve just been unlucky, that’s all. You’ve come home and caught me in a truth and it seems there’s nothing less logical than the truth.

Jerry: Hmm, a philosopher, huh?

Lucy: You don’t believe me.

Jerry: Oh, how can I believe you? The car broke down. People stopped believing that one before cars stopped breaking down.

Lucy: Well, his car’s very old.

Jerry: Well, so’s his story.The film was directed by Leo McCarey, who won the 1938 Academy Award for Best Director.  The film received nominations for Best Picture, Irene Dunne was nominated for Best Actress, Ralph Bellamy for Best Supporting Actor and Viña Delmar for Best Adapted Screenplay.The Awful Truth marked the introduction of the light, witty, suave comedic role Cary Grant played in almost all of his subsequent films. Arguably, it’s the film that ignited his unique star power.

Writer/director Peter Bogdanovich has noted that after this movie, when it came to light comedy, “there was Cary Grant and everyone else was an also-ran.” McCarey is largely credited with concocting this persona, and the two men even shared an eerie physical resemblance.

Grant fought hard to get out of the film during its shooting, since McCarey seemed to be improvising as he went along.  Grant even wanted to switch roles with co-star Ralph Bellamy.

Although this initially led to hard feelings, it didn’t prevent other McCarey-Grant collaborations, My Favorite Wife (1940), Once Upon a Honeymoon (1942), and An Affair to Remember (1957), from being made later.

The continuing relationship was probably based on Leo McCarey winning the 1938 Academy Award for Best Director for The Awful Truth. It also received a nomination for Best Picture, Irene Dunne was nominated for Best Actress, Ralph Bellamy for Best Supporting Actor and Viña Delmar for Best Adapted Screenplay.  The film was a box office smash.

The Awful Truth is one of a series of films that the philosopher Stanley Cavell calls “comedies of remarriage”, where couples who have once been married, or are on the verge of divorce, etc., rediscover that they are in love with each other, and recommit to the idea of marriage.

Other examples include The Philadelphia Story and His Girl Friday, both released in 1940 and both starring Grant, and the Noel Coward play and film Private Lives. The original template for this kind of comedy is Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing.  Although the Character Types in each of these films are different they are all in the same situation. You rarely see this type of “rediscovering love” comedy any more.

Many of the classic screwball comedies of this era are based on the predicaments of people who are too clever and witty for their own good.  In the beginning of the story, they outsmart themselves and then have to untangle the wounded feelings, misunderstandings and ego problems that ensue. Foolish pride gets in way and the situation escalates.

The thing that struck me was the sparkle of wit and intelligence that characterized this film and the “golden era” of romantic comedies.  Everyone in the film is an adult.  Today comedies so often feature a man-child, who is a bit of slob and adolescent in behavior or lacking responsibility or commitment, but who somehow gets the gorgeous girl anyway.  Where have all the adult men gone in comedies today?

For me The Awful Truth is a comedic lesson on how quickly a situation spins out of control when we are blinded by jealousy, pride and our own vanity.  It’s a lesson I have to learn over and over.

Here is the slide show and list of films and cliches.  http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20464382,00.html?cid=hp:beastoriginalsC5#20578800

When the Moviefone staff started trying to name the worst romantic comedies of all time, the discussion quickly got heated. Is ‘The Sweetest Thing’ a crass, tasteless mess or an underrated gem? What’s worse, ‘Swept Away’ or ‘Who’s That Girl?’ Which is the worst Freddie Prinze, Jr. rom-com of all time? And are we remiss not to have a single Lindsay Lohan vehicle make the final cut?

We’re sure you’ll have your own strong reaction to our list, especially if you worship Kate Hudson and Dane Cook. (Note to Hollywood: That is not a suggestion to pair these two up. Thank you.)

Don’t get us wrong, when rom-coms are great, they’re great, but more often than not these days, they’re very, very bad. We have to take it on faith that Female Star and Male Star are destined to be together because the script says so, not because they have anything resembling chemistry. We have to endure ridiculous set-ups, annoying characters and, ever since ‘There’s Something About Mary,’ new heights (or rather, lows) in gross-out humor. Can we get a little actual romance here? And maybe a few laughs that aren’t because we’re cringing in horror?

Get the full list of 25 on the Moviefone website:  http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2010/02/09/worst-romantic-comedies/

Some of the most beloved box office hits of all time are of the Boy Meets Girl variety. But great Romantic Comedies seem increasingly hard to come by. They are among the most difficult stories to write. It’s hard to live up to the standards of The Philadelphia Story (Katherine Hepburn & Cary Grant) or more recently, As Good As It Gets (Helen Hunt & Jack Nicholson) or Moonstruck (Cher & Nicolas Cage). NOTE: Download the full Moonstruck script at the end of this post.

The three highest grossing Romantic Comedies in 2009 were The Proposal (Sandra Bullock & Ryan Reynolds) written by Pete Chiarelli, It’s Complicated (Meryl Streep & Alec Baldwin) written by Nancy Meyers, and The Ugly Truth (Katherin Heigl & Gerard Butler) screenplay by Nicole Eastman, Karen McCullah Lutz and Kirsten Smith. Each is a gallant effort. But despite some terrific performances each movie manages to stumble into more than one of the RomCom Pitfalls.

Fundamental RomCom Elements

There are a number of fundamental elements that make successful romantic comedies emotionally appealing. These elements are just as important in a romantic subplot or any other emotional partnership. Here is a look at three of these elements (with more to be discussed at the February 18th workshop):

Conflict

1. There must be a real “battle” for a “battle of the sexes.”

In classic romantic comedies, the love interests take an instant dislike, have a deep distrust or are separated by major philosophical or personal differences. Love interests should have opposite worldviews and views on what life and love is or should be. They should not agree on anything. Their values should be diametrically opposed. Two of the three 2009 films fumbled this element and one was right on target.

In The Proposal Andrew Paxton (Ryan Reynolds) actively dislikes but conscientiously serves his boss Margaret Tate (Sandra Bullock). Sandra Bullock barely notices Reynolds except to give him orders. She doesn’t dislike him at all.

In It’s Complicated Jane (Meryl Streep) and Adam (Alec Baldwin) survive a bitter divorce from each other. They are civil in public ten years after their marriage has ended. Most of their hatred is now dissipated.

In The Ugly Truth Abby Richter (Katherine Heigl) is a hard-working “cross every ‘t’ and dot every ‘i'” TV news producer. Mike Chadway (Gerard Butler) is an impulsive, spontaneous and vulgar TV personality. This film’s characters start out with the most active dislike on both sides.

Gifts

2. Both love interests must grow or change through their relationship with one another.

Something profound should be missing in each love interest’s life, character and or personality. This missing piece is an important personal deficiency leading to overall unhappiness. The problem isn’t just that the character is missing someone to love. It should be key to his or her difficulties in life.

In contrast to this major deficiency, each character has an abundance of some other over-developed trait. This should be something the other love interest has “to a fault.” One person has too much of one thing and gives a gift of a bit of that quality to the other.

For example: In Moonstruck Cher (Power of Love) is no-nonsense, practical, caring and responsible about all her obligations. This is demonstrated in the opening scenes where she visits her bookkeeping clients. She is so practical she is about to settle for a man she doesn’t love but who is a solid member of the community. During a very unromantic proposal he tells her: “You take care of me.” What she needs is passion, inspiration and the fiery spark of life.

Nickolas Cage (Power of Idealism) has passion and fire to the extreme. He needs someone to provide more of a stable base and an even keel. He needs to let go of his nearly operatic anger and bitterness and move on in his life. The two lovers challenge and learn from each other. Their exchange of gifts makes each a better, more well-rounded and complete person.

In a classic love story two imperfect halves come together to form a more perfect whole. Each character brings something that is vitally necessary to the other’s overall well-being and completeness. That critical exchange of gifts is obtained through clash and conflict with the love interest.

This is where all three of the 2009 romantic comedies fall down. None of the characters experience a full and equal exchange of gifts.

In The Proposal Sandra Bullock’s characte is a frosty Power of Reason character. She is all efficiency, smarts and expertise at what she does. In the first few minutes, we see her working and running on her treadmill like a robot. She is cold, superior, demanding and is without warmth, a personal life or deeper connections with others.

Margaret Tate: What am I allergic to?
Andrew Paxton: Pine nuts, and the full spectrum of human emotion.

Time with Reynolds and his family cracks Bullock’s reserve. She tells him: “I forgot what it’s like to be part of a family.”

Power of Reason characters project an arrogant, hard and distant exterior (or Mask) not because they have no feelings, but because they have too many feelings. They fear that if they don’t keep those feelings buried, they they will be overwhelmed or annihilated by them. (We learn Bullock’s parents were killed in a car crash when she was very young and she never got over the tragedy.)

Power of Reason characters believe they can master and contain their feelings enough to never be overwhelmed or hurt again. Jack Nicolson in As Good As It Gets is another example of this Character Type.

Ryan Reynolds, a Power of Love character, is Bullock’s kind, responsible and very practical assistant, Andrew Paxton. He anticipates her every need and is always at hand to do her bidding. He may have his resentments but he never turns her down or disappoints her. His faithfulness, genuine talent and kindness (along with his love for his wacky family) melts her frozen heart.

What does Bullock give Reynolds in return? Normally, what a Power of Love character needs is the passion and strength to stand up and fight for what he or she wants. Reynolds’ character is already able to stand up to his father. He is strong enough to leave his family behind in Alaska and pursue his dreams in New York on his own. He has no trouble fighting for what he wants. He learns nothing of substance from Bullock. There is no equal exchange of gifts.

In It’s Complicated Meryl Streep is Jane, another Power of Love character. She is warm, kind and caring— a wonderful bountiful cook and a great mom. Alec Baldwin, Adam— the husband she divorced, is a Power of Ambition character. He is driven, vain and self-centered. He dumped her for a gorgeous and much younger trophy wife.

Despite the fun of their romp together neither one learns much from the other. Streep already is a savvy and successful businesswoman. She is fully capable of getting what she wants (exemplified by her very close supervision of her new kitchen addition). Baldwin gets his comeuppance and experiences sharp twinges of regret, but learns nothing from the affair. Steve Martin, Streep’s new love interest, is too bland to either teach or learn much from their affair either.

It’s interesting to note that It’s Complicated had very few lines in the “Memorable Quotes” section for the film on IMDB. It had the least memorable lines of all three films discussed here. I love seeing Meryl Streep on screen, and I thought the film was pleasant and diverting to watch, but it’s simply not a classic of the kind.

In The Ugly Truth Katherine Heigl is Abby Richter, a prim “tick-the-box” and “by-the-numbers” TV producer and person. She does background checks on her dates and has a specific checklist for her ideal mate. She is a tightly-wound, rather judgmental control freak Power of Conscience character. Katherine Hepburn in The Philadelphia Story is another uptight example of this Character Type. On television’s Cheers, Shelley Long played this Character Type as Diane Chambers.

Although Heigl’s character is as professional, efficient and hard-working as Bullock’s character, Hiegl (Conscience) is intense, neurotic and desperate-to-be-right whereas Bullock (Reason) is calm, cool and unflappable. Although both are bossy and controlling, passion and intensity is a key difference between a Power of Conscience character and a Power of Reason character.

Mike Chadway: (Love) It’s terrifying. Especially when I’m in love with a psycho like you.
Abby Richter: I am not a psycho!
Mike Chadway: I just told you that I love you and all you heard was “psycho.” You’re the definition of neurotic.
Abby Richter: No! The definition of neurotic is a person who suffers from anxiety, obessive thoughts, compulsive acts, and physical ailments without any objective reason…
Mike Chadway: Shut up! Yet again I told you that I’m in love with you and you’re standing there giving me a vocabulary lesson.
Abby Richter: You’re in love with me. Why?
Mike Chadway: Beats the shit out of me, but I am.

Heigl’s love interest, is Gerard Butler, Power of Will character Mike Chadway. He is a big, bold and a lusty larger-than-life man’s man. He makes no apologies for his appetites. But he is afraid of the vulnerability that comes with true love.

They make a deal: Heigl will producer his show if Butler will help her snag the man of her dreams (the doctor next door). Butler teaches Heigl to relax, be more spontaneous and give in to her sensuous side. He gets her to stop thinking or worrying and start appealing to men’s carnal instincts (and enjoy her own).

Again, the exchange of gifts is very one-sided. Heigl learns something but there is no crucial missing piece she fills in for him. Butler admits he loves Heigl, but why does she and she alone give him the thing (other than love) missing in his life?

In all three 2009 films, nothing profound is missing in BOTH love interests’ lives and personalities. The corny line: “You complete me” in Jerry Maguire is key to making a classic Romantic Comedy work emotionally.

We must see two imperfect halves come together to make a more perfect whole. Each character must exchange a gift vital to the love interest’s overall well-being and happiness (and not just be someone to love).

Choice

3. The lovers must choose the soul mate by rejecting the appropriate mate.

In order for a romantic comedy to work the lovers have to overcome obstacles on three levels.

a) The external forces, that keep the lovers apart (i.e. differences in culture, class, status, ethnicity, race, gender, age, religion or social convention).

b) The conflict with others, that keeps the lovers apart.

c) The internal forces, that prevent the lovers from getting together (internal values that make each lover question and reject the initial advances that each receives from the other).

Romantic comedies work best when there is a strong personal impediment posed by a relationship with an appropriate mate. An appropriate mate is a person who, for a variety of external reasons, SHOULD be a perfect match but isn’t.

The appropriate mate is someone who is a good solid match on the outside. He or she is the person the family or the social circle believes is the safe choice. These other relationships are horrified that the lover isn’t being “sensible.”

The soul mate is someone who is wildly inappropriate but who completes the love interest in some vital or fundamental way. He or she challenges the love interest to risk all for love, ignoring or rejecting family, culture, tradition or social convention.

A lover must be prepared to reject and hurt well-meaning friends and family and the socially “appropriate” mate. The more compelling, the appropriate mate is, the more difficult and dangerous it is to choose the soul mate instead.

In Moonstruck, Cher’s appropriate mate is her soul mate’s brother! Her relationship with Cage has the potential to rip the two brothers and the larger family apart. If it wasn’t a comedy, the situation could result in tragedy.

No friend, family member or other significant other objects, fights against or presents any serious obstacle to the lovers in any of the three 2009 Romantic Comedies. None of the films demand enough of the lovers. There is not enough conflict and very little risk involved in any of these pairings.

In The Proposal, Reynolds’ father is against the match but his mother and grandmother seem to accept Bullock with open arms (giving her an heirloom necklace and the grandmother’s wedding dress). Reynold’s appropriate mate, a local school teacher, isn’t a serious option because she won’t leave Alaska. The external threat (the INS) serves more to throw the couple together than to drive them apart.

In It’s Complicated, Streep actually ends up with the appropriate mate. Steve Martin is a nice guy who won’t challenge, change or disappoint her. She ditches the wildly inappropriate and infuriating Baldwin.

In The Ugly Truth, there is very little opposing the match. The appropriate mate (the doctor next door) is a weakly drawn side character who poses no real threat and isn’t compelled to really fight for her.

Falling in love isn’t dangerous for any of the characters in these three 2009 films. We have little emotional investment in these stories because so little hangs in the balance.

Nothing in these pleasant but ultimately unsatisfying pictures delivers the emotional satisfaction of Moonstruck.

To quote Ronny Cammareri, played by Nicolas Cage, and written by John Patrick Shanley: “Loretta, I love you. Not like they told you love is, and I didn’t know this either, but love don’t make things nice—it ruins everything. It breaks your heart. It makes things a mess. We aren’t here to make things perfect. The snowflakes are perfect. The stars are perfect. Not us. Not us! We are here to ruin ourselves and to break our hearts and love the wrong people and DIE. The storybooks are BULLSHIT. Now I want you to come upstairs with me and GET in my bed!”

In the final moments of the scene, Cher holds the most wounded part of Cage, his hand, and he saves her from “freezing to death.” Like in Pretty Woman, “he saves her and she saves him right back.”

Read the whole scene above of Moonstruck by downloading the full script here. (NOTE:  This is a earlier draft some which was cut in the film.  But the key scenes are there.)

Photo at the top of this blog post attributed here

PART AND PARCEL of (her) uniqueness is Meyers’s focus on making films that both feature and speak to middle-aged women, a demographic that studios traditionally ignore for fear of not bringing in the all-important opening-weekend numbers by which a movie’s position is assessed and its future success seemingly foretold. The simple truth is that any movie that is not aimed at 15-year-old boys, who come out in droves on Friday night for movies like “Transformers,” is seen as something of a risk. Movies like “It’s Complicated” unfold at the box office in a different pattern than movies that are skewed younger; their success is based more on long-range playability and word of mouth than on instant impact. Still, in a movie culture consumed by youth and its trappings — vampires, werewolves, stoners and superheroes — Meyers’s decision to pay attention to a part of the population that is often construed (and often construes itself) to be invisible stands out in bold relief. The fact that this decision has proved to be commercially shrewd says something about her instincts as a moviemaker but also says something about a previously unsatisfied hunger, composed of two parts daydream and one part hope, that is finally being addressed. “She’s a pioneer with regard to representing older women,” Diane Keaton said over lunch at the Beverly Hills Hotel. “She’s the only one delivering the fantasy for women over 55. You’re beautiful, charming and you get two guys instead of one.”

Full New York Time article about Nancy Meyers and It’s Complicated here.

Humiliation Scenes

THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY: The scene starts with Ted Stroehmann (Ben Stiller) gazing out a bathroom window, it appears he is window peeping, he panics and then his zipper gets embarrassingly (and painfully) stuck.

MY BEST FRIEND’S WEDDING: The scene starts with Julianne Potter (Julia Roberts) stirring up trouble by taking Michael O’Neal (Dermot Mulroney) and fiancee Kimberly Wallace (Cameron Diaz) for a drink at a Karaoke Bar. Kimmy is pressed into singing possibly the worst Karaoke debut in history. She completely “owns” it and turns everyone’s groans into cheers. This is also a great example of a comedic turnaround.

BRIDGET JONES: The scene starts with Bridget (Renee Zellwegger) showing up at a party in an embarrassingly tight Bunny costume scene. No one else is wearing a costume. She was never told the party plan was changed.

Rejection Scenes

TOOTSIE: The scene starts with a montage of Michael Dorsey’s (Dustin Hoffman) audition scenes. He is told he is too short, too tall, too young, too old etc.

JERRY MACGUIRE: The scene starts as Jerry (Tom Cruise) is frantically watching the lights blinking out on his phone as all his old clients hang up and avoid him.

WITNESS: The scene starts as Det. Capt. John Brook (Harrison Ford) stumbles on Rachel Lapp (Kelly McGillis) bathing in her room. She drops her towel and he turns away. The next scene finds him in agony in his room.

Unfairness Scenes

ET: The scene starts with Elliot (Henry Thomas) spotting the strange creature E.T. No one believes him and his brother makes fun of him.

TITANIC: Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) is framed for stealing a jewel. He protests his innocence. No one believes him except Rose DeWitt Bukater (Kate Winslet) He is taken away in handcuffs.

HOME ALONE: The scene starts with Kevin McCallister (Macaulay Culkin) fighting with his brother. He is blamed for creating a mess, despite his protests, he is sent to his room.

WIZARD OF OZ: The scene starts with Mrs. Gulch (Margaret Hamilton) reporting Toto attacked her cat. Despite Dorothy’s (Judy Garland) protests Toto is taken away.

Abandonment Scenes

CASABLANCA: The scene starts as Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart) is waiting for Ilsa. He gets a goodbye note from her and is left at the station to board the train without her.

ET: The scene starts as the Mother Ship leaves and ET is left behind.

I was looking for a cheerful Romantic Comedy for Valentines Day. It was like getting a heart-shaped box of chocolates filled with empty candy papers. The movie was disappointing, condescending and completely lacking in any emotional credibility.

Big city Miami corporate executive Lucy Hill (Renee Zellweger) comes to small town New Ulm, Minnesota, to cut the workforce and retool a food processing plant. She is set up as high-powered and ambitious but she does no background research on her assignment.

She doesn’t seem to know it is snowy and cold in Minnesota in the winter. She arrives without a coat or boots or even sensible shoes to wear on the plant floor. She is clueless about all the employees and completely ignorant about the union rep, with whom she will have negotiate to terminate the jobs.

All the townsfolk are stereotypically thick, simple and buffoonish. There isn’t an ounce of affection anywhere in the film for small towns or the people in them. Despite an impassioned speech near the end of the movie, it’s impossible to believe the filmmakers aren’t laughing at the local characters instead of allowing us to laugh with them.

The lesson here is make the world real. Keep your character credible or they won’t connect emotionally. Treat everyone in the film as a real live three-dimensional human being. If you want to see how it’s done, rent Local Heroes. In that film, the comedy comes from characters who seem real.