I hardly write here at all any more, but I just don't seem to have a whole lot to say...

[darkfirehair]

But this is one of the most well-written (and sadly true) things I've read in a long time:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1651506-1,00.html

Comments

[frostflake]

Were it true that studios have stopped making love stories, I wouldn't mind at all. But the author is just incorrect. Or at least, only partially correct. The recent movie calendar is pockmarked, she says, with the craters of little romantic bombs (Catch and Release, In the Land of Women and The Ex). So in the sense that there are no new Gone with the Winds in terms of revenue, she's right. In the sense that Gone With the Wind has a story worth emulating, or in which anyone in the movie is interested for any reason other than revenue, she's wrong.

She also contradicts herself. Fairly early on, she says that romance fans have to rely on older movies (specifically starring Audrey Hepburn) for their romance because modern movies don't have what they're looking for. Later, she says that the modern world is not one romance movies can capture for two main reasons: a) men and women have equal work opportunities now and b) people aren't willing to work through their relationship problems.

Now that's just silly. As a lifetime Katharine Hepburn fan, I have to say that your love interest being just another rat makes for some fine entertainment. Also, overcoming vast obstacles to be with the love of your life? What's a bigger obstacle than the love of your life's fear of commitment? It's not quite a dragon-slaying or an I've-stalked-you-my-whole-life-and-I'll-die-saving-your-son, but it's way more honest, and actually way more appealing.

I have the feeling that Luscombe was spoon-fed those excuses by screenwriters:
L: So, why haven't there been any good romance movies lately?
SW: Um, that genre isn't applicable to the wodern world anymore? I mean, women have jobs now. Men and women are practically equal. There's no way you could make a movie out of that.

I'm just saying, that article's got way too many holes. And the entire premise, that romantic movies aren't around, is a big, fat lie. A sampler of romance that came out in the past 10 years:
Phantom of the Opera (I am obligated to note that the book is better.)
Memoirs of a Geisha
The Lake House
The Notebook
Scoop
Music and Lyrics
Pride and Prejudice
Emma
Mansfield Park
Secretary
Pirates of the Caribbean (sure, it's also action, but a good bit of it is romance)
Keeping the Faith
Bridget Jones both
Shakespeare in Love
and probably more I can't remember

I almost feel like, instead of "There are no good new romances!" she should be writing "We're so inundated with romance films that no one's taking any time to write, direct, or produce anything that stands out!"

[darkfirehair]

Good to know that a philosophy degree at 40,000 dollars a year has well equipped you to tear apart pop journalism. ; )
I supposed when I called it well-written, I was referring more to her style than her argument. Specifically I was thinking of this:
"Juliet's a Capulet? Bummer. Back to Facebook."

[frostflake]

It's true. I'm never allowed back into the E! studios on the grounds that my ideas are too vicious.

And it was well-written, though I'm pretty disturbed by the fact that she thinks Facebook is a dating site (I don't doubt there are people for whom it serves that function). In fact, I think her ideas about what's going on with the romance industry right now could be part of a good piece of journalism if she approached things differently (like "what's the whole story with the flowers?" instead of "where have all the flowers gone?").