The Past, Present, and Future of the Romcom

Welcome back to the Bulmer Coast to Hollywood. My name is a bunch from culture editor at the Bulwark. And I’m very pleased to be joined today by Scott Mezzlow, who authored a book on the history of the romantic comic. It’s called from Hollywood, with love, the rise and fall, and rise again of the romantic comedy. Scott is also the senior editor at The Week Magazine, a a writer in for publications that include GQ, New York Magazine, and The Atlantic.

Thank you for being on the show today, Scott. There’s a lot of a lot of interesting stuff going on in the world of romcoms right now. So we’ve got we’ve got a lot to discuss.

Yeah. It was the right time for this book to come out.

Alright. So let’s let’s talk about the book. Let’s run through the book. So it’s it’s structured, I think very smartly, you you pair essentially chapter on a movie with a chapter on a star. And we work all we started when Harry met Sally and run kind of all the way up to the the explosion of romantic comedies on Netflix, and we’ll we’ll get to all that.

But how What was it that made you wanna write this book in the first place? You

know, I I really wanted to explore genre in general. And when I thought about film genres that were interesting to me that kind of felt like there was, like, unexcavated ground. Like, you know, like, there was a there were a lot of unreported stories that I could dig into. Ramcom’s just felt like the right thing. There were a lot of movies individually that I found really interesting.

I found its role in the greater Hollywood landscape over this past thirty years really interesting. And then and I feel like the genre itself had a story to tell where the there was a very clear, it was about ten years ago that everyone was publishing their, like, death of the romcom op eds. And it was just like, there’s in addition to the movies individually being interesting, there’s a larger story that also kind of says a lot about Hollywood and startups. Like, It was one of those things where the more I thought about it, the more interesting I found the subject.

Yeah. Well, let’s Harry, let’s so let’s start at the beginning, which is with when Harry met South how did Harry met Sally kind of change the landscape? Why? And why was this the the the moment that you said? Okay.

This is where the modern rom com starts?

There were a few things that went into that. I mean, some of it is just the Nora Efren of it all. Like, if you’re gonna pick the godmother of the modern version of the genre, it’s Nora Efren. But I also thought that movie to me was a really interesting kind of turning point where it was, you know, the the romcoms that came before you look at people who find, it was like, what do you like? And and James Alprox and those kinds of directors.

And you looked at this, this was a movie that it’s essentially an unacknowledged remake of Annie Hall. But at the same time, it adds this big Hollywood ending, you know, the classic prom prom prom du Lachete of the running through the streets and the big speech on New Year’s Eve. And to me, it felt like that moment, which was not originally scripted. I mean, that was originally going to have a very melancholy, any hollish ending, where, you know, Harry and Sally don’t end up together and meet on the street years later with other partners and kind of have this wistful. Like, we used to we we meant something to each other, but now our lives are something different.

And the decision to change that, I think, really set the tone for where the genre was going.

Yeah. I mean, it’s it’s interesting to to read about each of these movies in your book as as we progress because you you get the kind of establishment of how a romcom works and then a series of movies essentially trying to break that — Mhmm. — take that apart and put it back together and do it in a different way. The the next big movie in this in this book is pretty woman. Now how did how did pretty woman change that?

And or or kind of set the parameters that would be broken later.

Yeah. That that’s another one that I mean, that’s that’s one of the craziest development stories that I’ve heard my entire career. It started as this super dark and gritty Sundance script. Like a like maybe too dark for any mainstream audience type script where it’s about this kind of abusive sadistic billionaire who picks up this sex worker and toys with her before literally dumping her back on the street and throwing money at her. And it’s the process by which that got turned into a romcom was this really strange and torture development process that resulted in this massive, massive hit.

Some so much of that is just kind of the Julia Roberts of it all, which is, you know, the other reason why it had to be the second movie in the book where it was, if you were going to look at a filmmaker who defined the Ramcom in this era as North Africa. If you’re gonna look at an actress who defined the Ramcom in this era, it’s Julia Roberts. But it was the same thing where I

I

think sort of paradoxically, if you look at that movie, it wouldn’t you couldn’t have written it as a straight romcom and had the same kind of hit. Like, you had to you had to start with this sort of darker beginning to get to this this middle ground where the stakes feel real, but you can really explicitly lean into the fairytale. You know, the movie’s name checks fairy tales over and over again. And I think I think if you didn’t start with a really dark realistic situation, the fairy tale part wouldn’t work. The movie would be unbalanced.

And I I think that philosophy ended up dictating a lot of the romcoms that were successful and then overextending that philosophy if he led to the romcoms that weren’t.

Do you mean in terms of setting a darker stage and then and then kind of pulling it back a little bit? Yeah. It’s

establishing some kind of realism basically for these characters to live in. Because, you know, romcom is a heightened elevated genre. You know, mini Kaling has a great line about it being essentially a subgenre of science fiction. And audiences are aware of that, but you need some level of connection to human reality or or completely goes off the rails. And I think situating her in such a dire situation makes the cartoony you know, this stuff that is so over the top about that romance you know, the ending where he pulls up in the limo and climbs the fire escape and all that stuff.

I think it needed to start in a dark place for that to be earned. Yeah.

And there’s still some pretty dark stuff in it. I mean, I I always I always forget that George from Seinfeld is basically, you know, a not quite a rapist.

Yeah. No. There’s a factor. And I asked I asked the people involved in making a movie about that. It it it was an attempt at rape scene.

They wanted that to be clear. He if Edward hadn’t come in at that moment, it would have been a really dark movie. Yeah.

And the the Again, the development story here is very interesting because one of the things that you you kind of you you kind of talk about a lot, but it’s it’s always hard to nail down is who gets credited for what and what is what what, you know, finally makes it onto the screen and who gets their name on there and who who gets very importantly, the royalties and and all that stuff. But I but this is a kind of classic, like, there’s about a hundred different people who took took a crack at it. How does that how does that actually work in terms of shaping the film and or just shaping the genre in general? I mean, I I feel like this is a more maybe not. But but it feels like this is a more collaborative genre than some others.

Like, it’s it’s a very you know, lot lot of lot of cooks with their hands in the pot. Totally. To get Oh,

and I think I I think that’s for the for the two movies we’re talking about, that’s definitely true. It’s when Harry Met Sally is what it is because it started as a bunch of conversations between Nora Efrain and Rob Reiner. And it is equally the, you know, the side of why do women do this and why do men do this? And and those conversations basically led to most of the most memorable beats in that movie. And I think pretty woman without being quite such a rigid, you know, matter like this, women are like this, matter from Mars, winter, from Venus thing, had the same sort of development process where in addition to a bunch of unacknowledged screenwriters who added stuff and did away with stuff.

They brought in Gary Marshall specifically because they thought he could add a light touch to dark material. He did it with beaches. And so you look at him and Jason Alexander has a great line about how basically he shot every scene three times. One is if it were a drama, one is if it were comedy, and one where the actors kind of do whatever they want. And JF Law and the original screenwriter on that who wrote that really dark original draft, talked about how that was a movie that was really found in the editing.

Like, until they were screening it, even the people who’d made it, didn’t quite know what the tone was. And it’s part of why it was so hard to cast an actor for Edward. You know, Alpacino was in there for And, like, maybe that would’ve worked. You know? Maybe Sean Connery was in contention.

It would’ve been much more explicitly like a Pichavalian story. Like, That also could I don’t think it would have been the hit that it was, but, like, that could have been an interesting movie. That movie could have been a lot

of different things. Mhmm. Mhmm. You you talk about the Richard Gear coming to the movie and kind of being like, I guess I guess I’ll do that. But it’s hard it’s it’s hard to watch that movie now and imagine somebody else in that role.

I mean, Julia Roberts, obviously, is Julia Roberts. This is, like, it’s impossible to imagine this movie with anybody else in that role. But but also I mean, gear himself too is is kind of an interesting choice given his own background.

Mhmm. And he he was pretty reluctant it to do it and was very aware that she was the star and he was the other one and that is what happened. But

I clearly

I mean, their chemistry, there’s a reason that they did another you know, there there was something about that combo that really worked. I think I think his sort of stoicism. It it actually really makes me think about say anything. That’s another movie where The fact that the actor didn’t totally buy into the movie he was making was actually right for the character. You know, I think that that famous blue scene, Cameron Crow has basically talked about how John Cusick, not really wanting to shoot that scene, which was the last scene they shot, is why it’s good because he’s sort defiant and unhappy in that situation, and that that’s what makes it iconic.

I think Richard Keere Richard Keere is bringing something really similar to Pretty Woman, where it’s he’s he should be a little callous and jaded and above what he’s doing. And and that comes through in the performance that he’s if he was playing the swoony romantic guy, it’s not the same are gonna stop the same movie?

Yeah. No. I it’s funny reading your chapter on John Cusack and hearing that story for the first time about saying anything that that QSAC wasn’t into it. I was like, oh, that actually that makes a lot of sense. That’s why that that image of him, you know, kind of holding the boombox and frowning works.

Perfectly because it it it feels it feels like he’s not totally into it. Alright. Let’s skip ahead a few movies to one of the running themes in your book, which is that The the romcom as a genre has has been has been large let’s largely white. Kind of middle class. And then and that studios and filmmakers are always surprised when a movie like waiting to exhale is a big hit.

So let’s talk a little bit about the development of that film and and what lessons Hollywood did or did not take away from it. Yeah.

I mean, waiting to excel is just it’s one of those where it’s so obviously a hit. It’s this massive hit book and then you get, you know, Whitney Houston at the the height of her start. I’m kind of anchoring this thing. And it’s it’s a it’s a super durable format for any kind of plot. You know, you could get sex in the city, you totally ripped it off.

You know, it’s it’s for women kind of navigating love and life and friendship. And it’s it’s exactly what happened. It was a movie that when you when you just look at the bare parameters, you take a massive hit book and then you make a faithful adaptation with a bunch of stars, it it’s going to be a hit. That’s exactly what happened. But

it’s almost

like when you when you look at the way that the studios were certainly were run then, and I don’t wanna say it’s that much better now, but I think at least there’s an acknowledgment that that some change has been needed and some people who are advocating higher up for for more movies like this, they always tended to be one offs. These movies that kind of broke out you know, it it even broke out as wrong because, again, I think, clearly, it was gonna be a hit. There there’s nothing about unless it was a terrible, terrible execution. There’s nothing about waiting to a sail that would not have been a box opposite. And that’s exactly what happened.

And it was it was a cultural moment. You know, there were all these stories, you know, contemporary stories of the time about, like, women having waiting to at sale parties where they go with all their friends, and, you know, the theaters were, like, huge, ruckus parties. And then everyone goes, oh, that was nice. And the, you know, the closest they came is they were, like, oh, people like Terry McMillan and they greenlit how a star got a roof back. But it wasn’t like it sparked this new, oh, there is an underserved audience of black women who would love to go to movies about, like, what black women are dealing with in the nineties that those movies exist, but they are it wasn’t like the the way that, like Nora Efren having success sparked a whole run out of

romcoms that made a bunch of people make similar types of romcoms. Mhmm. Mhmm. Do you get the sense that that has changed in the in in in the world in which we live now where you have kind of more niche or more the the the greater ability to target smaller and smaller niches of audiences. Right?

I mean, like, is is this a is this a a a problem that Netflix is solved or that Hulu has solved or or is it still basically the

same? I think solved is overstating it. I think it’s better because of those things. It’s like to think of Hollywood studios as sort of being like these giant ocean liners that can turn, but like they do it really slowly and only with a lot of efforts. And I think streaming is just better equipped to adjust faster, partially because you know, Netflix with their more data than anyone has ever had at any point in history than what people are watching.

They really know how to microa target in a way that just like traditional focus groups and that sort of testing Hollywood studios just can’t they don’t have enough information to really know what’s real and what’s not. Or at least they’re ignoring the data that might help them make those decisions or misinterpreting it. But Yeah. You you’re a film, you know, critic and reporter. You get it, like, working — Yeah.

— dealing with Netflix as Matt, because you never you would just have to judge and, you know, there are I’ve talked to people in Netflix who’ve had some helpful anecdotes for me, but mostly you have to judge based on what they’re doing. And if you look at their slate, it really, like, exposes the lie about how people don’t want diversity in romcoms or or in their films in general. Because they wouldn’t keep making the types of movies they’re making if they weren’t connecting with audiences on streaming. So I think the Hollywood studio is the more traditional studios can’t help but adjust to that because the the data’s there at this point.

Yeah. Yeah. Alright. Let’s let’s share gears again slightly and go to the to the British Combs, the British romantic comedies, and specifically one writer director in particular. Who who is it from the the across the pond that has really kind of changed how, you know, or at least has has change somewhat how we see and react to and respond to romantic comedies.

Ah, yes. Richard Curtis. The

great question mark, sometimes great Richard Curtis. Who I mean, he’s he’s all over the book because he has to be a beard. Four there are three chapters on his You know, we’ve got four weddings and a funeral in there, and there’s Bridgette Johnson’s diary, which is a writer on. And

Why am I

forgetting the third of all that? Actually, of course. Yeah. That’s that’s With all of the love stories in it. As as many forms of love as you could possibly find, and that’s as as much as, you know, the book is called from Hollywood Love, so I’m cheating a little, but you can’t really you can’t really look at what was happening with the romcoms without also looking at what, in particular, which Kurtis was doing with the genre at the same time.

Howard

Bauchner: So

how how what what did he introduce to the genre do you think from your from your perspective as the romcom? Expert, what was it that he injected into it that that kind of helped liven it up, freshen it up, or set into stone some of the things that we see all the time now. Well, the simplest and most accurate answer

is you grant, which, you know, if we’re gonna If we’re going to have a defining rom com leading man of the era, the same way that Julia Roberts was defining a leading rom com woman, it’s Ukraine. And and but not even just I mean, that Lodge tempted super super stardom after four weddings in the funeral. But but it’s also what he represented. He he is very much a Richard Curtis circuit archetype. Hugh Grant has talked many times about how he’s basically just playing Richard Curtis.

And Richard Curtis was really reluctant to have Hugh Grant star in those movies because thought he grand was too handsome and he wanted four weddings was supposed to be written about kind of a guy who doesn’t normally get the girl, a guy who Richard Curtis very much thought of as himself. He he said this, I’m not insulting him. But but that was that was what that movie was built around. And Hugh Grant was basically able to be that self effacing, self deprecating kind of insecure, scampering, Englishman that became this real romantic archetype while also having the floppy hair and the, you know, the perfect eyes and all the things that people loved about them so much. And I think that that really set a romantic ideal that that, again, it did find a lot of the romcoms that came after.

And

this this happens despite Hugh Grant almost sabotaging himself as like desperately as pop I like, I’m I’m trying to imagine a worse possible way for a a a, you know, kind of, romantic lead to sabotage themselves and by getting arrested for being in a car with a prostitute on the, you know, on the streets of Hollywood, and then having to pitch your movies at the same time. You you have it you have an interesting little riff in your in your book where you you you just write the you write the transcript with ums and ahs and everything from his From his appearance on Jayleno, his famous appearance on Jayleno in which he apologized,

I

I don’t want to put words into your mouth, but I get the sense that you did not find that to be a holy

contrite or personal apology. I think that’s safe to say. And and you wanna talk about how dire the situation could have been for him. The part that you left out in your summary is he was cheating on his extremely famous girlfriend, Elizabeth Hurley. Who had had a similar breakup just by wearing a dress to a premier.

And so they were sort of a golden tabloid couple in general. She she was getting as much attention as he was at that point. And so then she was also put in the public eye in this horrifying way. Like, it really is like the nightmare PR situation to end all nightmare PR situations. And he, as you say, gave this very famous apology on that is taught.

You know, literally, they they teach this in PR firms how to handle kind of crisis that he he came up and, you know, acknowledged fully that he did was wrong, but he was doing it very much in what you think of as that Hugh Grant persona where he, you know, he fully fully acknowledged the wrongness, but didn’t sort of this charming, dry, British, but, you know, self deprecating way. And my my extrapolation and take it or leave it from, you know, from what I what I

experienced, what I

found from interviewing, you know, all the all the stuff is that I I

think

every bit of that speech was calculated. That was — Mhmm. — especially going back and watching it now and especially knowing that Hugh Grant is so not that type that he is so closely associated with that he he was so thrilled to be done with Aramco. He’s so thrilled at this phase in his career too. Be playing types that are closer to himself.

If you wanna see much closer to the urant, and it’s watch Bridget Jones that — Mhmm. — his real persona is much more of kind of savvy ROGISH, you know, very self assured. Performance

in a

lifetime. Why wouldn’t you go on J. Leno and play up the parts of yourself that made audiences fall in love with you in the first place. And you cannot argue with the results. It was a when if people remember it now, blip in the radar, you know, and it career continue to pace?

Yeah. I I it’s it’s again, it’s really interesting to to look back and and think on that. And and also a, you know, a thing that’s kind of hovering around the edges in some of these assays that that I you don’t you don’t dive into a ton, but is is always there. Is the the kind of interaction, the interplay between the tabloids, and the stars, and how people see them, and how audiences react to their personas, you know, in real life versus on the screen, what what do you think of that relationship? And either the healthiness or the toxicity of it?

Or like can I guess, secondary question here is, can can you even really separate them? Because I do I do think there isn’t a there is a certain amount of people want to see on screen the people that they read about or at least see the pictures of on the supermarket checkout stand. Right. Like, how much of that relationship

is

commercially positive and socially negative.

I think

that’s a really good and complicated question. It’s something I think about a lot and don’t have a quick answer to other than their examples of it that are super interesting. I do think mean, god, you wanna talk about, like, parasocial relationships that people have with celebrities. There was if it was true then, it’s very true now. People are so, you know, tabloid culture, at least, you know, as much as it was the supermarket aisle, there is a distance from someone, you know, posting on Instagram five times a day.

And which is clearly a major part of modern stardom in a way that, like, you know, Julie Roberts didn’t have to be on social media. It was tabloid reporters covering when she was going out dancing and breaking and, you know, Chelsea once you’ve been visiting New York to Versuit or whatever. But I think you can look at dramatic examples of where this really did hurt people. It meant Ryan certainly the her her love life not matching up with the America sweetheart image was this asterisk for her career. You can track And and certainly when when she tried to take roles, they’re outside of the America sweetheart thing.

That really hurt her. But on

the other hand, I

think there are ways to be savvy about it. I runway ride was so winky winky in its promotional stuff about Julie Roberts’ actual love life, you know, the, you know, famously kind of jolting key for Southern ones that there that is a movie that is so predicated on her star persona, which was so enmeshed with her tabloid persona at that point that you can’t you can’t possibly separate the promotion of the movie and the stuff about Pretty Woman and being Reunion there. Like, there are so many things that were going on that made that movie a hit. And if it’s not Julie Roberts, none of that stuff factors in the way that movie is promoted or sold. It’s Mhmm.

And so she much of that was kind of happy accident and how much of that was calculated? That that is people who were having private meetings that I don’t you know, I was not able to get clear info should not. But I I there’s no way to conversations won’t happen.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it’s it it is fascinating just to just to kinda sit there and think about it, especially with now that we’re in an almost post tabloid society and into, as you say, kind of the more parashocial, like, I’m talking

to all my

friends on Instagram, you know, this is this is how I want people to see me. It’s it’s it really is something else. One person who was definitely, I think, hurt by this, though, not not really a tabloid. This is a more straightforward interview that just featured one line that has been taken out of context forever and ever as Catherine Heiligle. Who went from being, like, Julia Roberts two point o to almost out of the conversation in terms of big movie stars almost overnight.

Yeah. What what happened there? And from your perspective, again, as the as the romcom guy, how has she managed to recover? Yeah. I think I

feel and

have always felt that she really got a raw deal. Know, it was it was one line in a vanity fair interview, as you say, taken very out of context. And, you know, in in what was really a pretty glowing appraisal of know, the writer’s very positive on her, but she’s also pretty positive on knocked up if you read between the lines. What she basically says is, you know, she had a great time making the movie and there are parts of it. There are a little sexist.

I’m like, I don’t think that’s even arguable. Like, that is for better or worse, that’s that’s Judd Apotow’s thing. He he takes the rom com and he resenters it to be around a male main character and his like that, especially if you look at kind of the one two punch of forty year old virgin and knocked up, what she’s saying is that, you know, this is a movie that where the men are the ones making all the jokes and the women are sort of her character is basically there to be the obstacle and then the solution in Seth Robinser. And I think if anything, she’s underselling her own work a little bit, like, there’s a really there’s kind of a funny runner about her trying to cover up her pregnancy at work, and then they eventually realize it’s gonna they can exploit it. And, like, the he’s not involved in that at all, and that’s a really funny arc.

And her her comic style is not the same as his. You know, everyone knows kind of the classic Judd Apotau riffing thing, but she’s she’s a little more controlled. She’s playing this very type a character. I still think she’s really funny in the movie. And I think she gets good moments.

But But the movie is heavily tilted towards its male characters. And I I don’t think her pointing that out was, now this movie is terrible. I mean, she she herself said this many, many times because the other thing is, let’s say you disagree with me and you think that comment was out of bounds and it was probably not a smart thing to say to Vanity Fair when you’re promoting a move. People. People tend to be a little more controlled, although she’s never done that.

But she apologized for this over and over again for years. She could not do an interview where this didn’t come up at some point. And she always said, love those guys had the best time. You know, like, like, she there was no way out of this. You know, It was this and then to be fair, the Grey’s Anatomy stuff, which was another ill advised comment where she she basically said she didn’t deserve an Emmy nomination because the material hadn’t.

That was not a smart thing to say from a PR perspective, obviously. That’s that’s a quick way to to make sure you never get a good plotline on a TV show again.

But We’re

talking about two lines and two interviews over many, many years, and she still gets punished for it. And I think she’s actually rebounded quite nicely in terms of she’s doing she’s doing Firefly Lane on Netflix, which was a hit for them. She’s done some smaller under the radar Indy type stuff that I think she’s pretty good in. I I would like to see her have a real comeback role in a serious way. I’m not sure she’s ever gonna be afforded that opportunity.

But to me, like or dislike the comments, think they’re smart or not. It is the out of proportion reaction to them that is so insane. Yeah. I think that remains unresolved as far as I can tell.

Yeah. Alright. Well then, let’s switch let’s let’s shift gears again and talk about the launch coms a little bit, Judd Apptel. I mean, I like, it’s very interesting to to think about how rom comes work because you do have you have your kind of standard pretty woman. I I don’t think this is being sexist to say, female oriented and and targeted movies of that nature.

I think at one point, we’ll again, we’ll get although we’ll talk a little bit more about Netflix, but you describe the modern Netflix movies that people watch over and over again as the old, you know, Julia Roberts movies that they wore out VHS tapes on. Right? Yeah. Like, you get you get that sort of movie. And then then you have the the the Jut Aptown movies which are, I think, again, not being super sexier to say, more oriented towards men and trying to attract men to to the movie theater and and get them there.

How does how does that shift in perspective change the overall arc of the rom com. Because I do feel like it’s it’s a it’s a fairly enormous business shift if nothing else. Sure. You say, like, we’re gonna We’re gonna go after this half of the market that has essentially written off this genre forever. How does that change things in Hollywood?

Well, I

think there’s a reason too that, you know, one of the one of the movies that I’ve been challenged out occasionally and including that I felt really strongly about including was there’s something about Mary. Partially because, you know, that movie coming out when it did kind of established a new genre, a new tone for for romcoms, a new audience for it. That well-being a romcom showed that it, you know, there was there was a way forward that wasn’t so heavily skewed towards what they thought female audiences wanted. And John Appetel kinda took that run ran with it. I find I find what he did really interesting in part because it seems like a lot of the so much of what a raw you know, what constitutes a raw time is marketing.

In some ways, like, the nineties stuff that we’re talking about was an aberration. You know, it wasn’t like it wasn’t like you go back to stuff like his girl Friday or bring up baby or whatever. Those were movies for everyone. We we would now acknowledge them as romantic comedies, but it wasn’t like, here’s the movie that women go see. Like, that was almost more of a marketing decision than it was the movies themselves.

And I think what the Judd Apotow thing was doing was they basically just didn’t say they were making a romp come. If you asked him, he would tell you. Tell me, but those movies were not sold as romcoms. They were they were sold as, you know, big wacky summer copies and and so was wedding crutch. Same idea.

You know, there were there were this was kind of an era where there was basically a recognition that, like, you could for an audience that might traditionally be resistant to romantic comedies, you could kind of, like, like a sugar with the medicine type situation where, you know, it’s which is very unfair to Rob comes to the genre, which obviously I love, but, like, the idea was a certain segment of the audience would self select out. They they would just instantly opt out if something was too a raw copy. But if you marketed it to something else and that it was also a raw copy, they were already in the theater. And I think that from a business perspective more than anything, when you look at the results spoke for themselves, they were Robcom’s always and this was true even in the death of the Robcom era, but they profitable more often than not because they’re not that expensive to make and, you know, there there was an audience, but there were it turned out there was a blockbuster level audience kind of a sleeping giant. And that was that was what stuff like wedding crashes and forty year old version improved.

Yeah.

I mean, it’s interesting to hear it put this way because I you know, I those movies came out I’m trying I’m trying to remember exactly the timeline here. So I remember thinking of the forty year old version, oh, this is a movie like old school — Mhmm.

— when I was

gonna go see it in theaters. Not like, oh, this is a movie like pretty woman. Because, I mean, they’re like, I think it is much closer to a movie like old school than a movie like pretty woman. But I remember also being surprised like, oh, this is actually a nice there’s a nice relationship — Mhmm. —

in this

movie with the delightful Katherine Keener. Like, this is all this is this is very different from what I was expecting, which is, you know, smart — Yeah. — I think. I mean, and as you say, the results speak for themselves, but it it does it does then kind of lead to an era in which the romcom is being deconstructed from every angle, both, you know, as a modern phenomenon, which is what you get with the friends with benefits. And no strings attached duopoly.

And then, you know, and then everything else that has come after that. So what has happened to the romcom in in more recent years? I mean, how how have people tried to break it down and deconstruct it and say, alright. Well, this isn’t a standard rom com. It’s a

new modern Yeah. That’s clearly that’s like enough that everyone’s trying to crack for a long time. I think often with not particularly successful results, it’s you you mentioned stuff like friends of benefits and nose strings attached. I I really love those movies conceptually. I I don’t think I I think they both have they’re both successful enough, but by no means, like, I wouldn’t have included them in on the list of the great romcoms of all time.

But I love them as like a representation of Hollywood just like rolling up its sleeves and being like, what are the kids doing these days? Oh, it’s like casual hookups. Let’s make the casual hookup prom comps. But then they’re like super traditional romantic comedies and structure. They’re like, with the couples and big gestures.

Like, it’s it’s so funny that they were, like, trying to crack something and then ended up doing the exact same thing. I think there are more there are more complicated and interesting examples of that, but you have to you have to kinda look at what was happening in any film. And then at the same time, you have movies that really took it the other way. If you look at they came together, which, you know, by no means, was a huge hit, but I think a that is just so thoroughly savaging rom com tropes. You know, it’s where it’s a

it is

such a withering look where it just cranks everything up to eleven and just let that play out. Or or the more conventional Hollywood version of that was isn’t it romantic, you know, which is very very explicitly as Rebel Wilson gets stuck in a romcom universe. I

think that

those to me were if anything a that’s kind of a canary in the coal mine for, like, we’ve taken this as far as it can go, and now filmmakers feel like they need to deconstruct it on that level because audiences are so familiar with these tropes. So that it’s a very scream like moment. Yes. Exactly. Where that’s the perfect point of the care center.

Yeah. Where where we need to the audiences are too savvy at this point. They know how this works. And there were there were romcoms, even more traditional romcoms, they were still trying to deconstructs, you know, while they were doing while they were doing rom com stuff, it was just it just came

off as

a little desperate, often, because I think it kinda was. I think they didn’t quite know how to capture both a genre that people were increasingly familiar with the tropes of and a style of kind of dating and modern love that was increasingly

divorced from what had existed in those earlier runtimes. Yeah. I what do you what do you think audiences want from this? Because I I this is I’m wrestling with this now myself. After having watched pros and take it to Paradise kind of in in close proximity to each other.

And we could talk about we could talk about the success in failure of those movies in a second year. But, like, I I I get the sense just from looking at what works on Netflix and what works in theaters that audiences still are kind of into that like, you know what? We have a formula we like it. Yep. This is this is what we’re here to watch.

So there’s you really I understand that it’s kind of embarrassing to write this thing over and over again Hollywood screenwriters, but, like, that’s kind of what we want as viewers.

Mhmm. So

why not just give it to us? Yeah. No. I I think that’s exactly right. I think that’s what’s kind of like what’s

funny about what Hollywood is sort of flailing at is if anything and this might not even have been true to be fair in this kind of death of the romcom era that I cover, but I think now we have nothing but evidence that people wanna see traditional prom prom prom prom proms. It’s the the rise of the hallmark channel alone, which to be fair, is a slightly different kind of comfort food than, like, what you would go to a movie theater for. But — Mhmm. — but if you need proof that this stuff is durable, the fact that they added a second Christmas in July because because there was such a hunger watch these movies on a twenty four hour loop. Like, audiences and I don’t think it means the audiences are unsophisticated.

I think it means they’re very sophisticated because I think it means they know what they want. And — Right. — they are not they are not apologetic about leaning into the tropes. I I think if you’re gonna subvert them you better know what you’re doing. If anything, you’re it’s a safer bet to steer in because because if you do something subversive that is not interesting or entertaining to the then they’re gonna be annoyed.

And if you lean into the tropes, there is a solid audience that has always wanted to be happy with that. You know, goes back to Shakespeare for a reason. It’s a pretty durable format for a for a love story. Yeah. Yeah.

Alright. So let’s talk let’s talk Frozen to get to Paradise here because, again, they’re doing very different things would take it to Paradise as kind of a more traditional George Clooney, Julia Roberts. Look, beautiful rich people hanging out. In exotic locales, and they’re gonna get together, maybe we’ll see. Or and then you have pros, which is targeted

which is a

very interesting movie because it is targeted to a mass audience. It is a it is a, you know, twenty or thirty million dollar budget with probably another twenty or thirty million dollars in advertising behind it. Universal pictures makes it a key part of their fall slate. But it is about a subculture. It’s about gay men and the the romance there.

And the the big question was, will Maine’s dream audiences show up for it. The answer seems to be no or at least not in this case. And the question is, why? What happened there?

I think it’s a good

question that everyone is unpacking. I I think it’s two things. In my in my analysis of what happened, it’s First, it’s an incredibly miss marketed movie, and that it is you know, it’s

quite literally

out

of the Appetel camp. It’s a next dollar movie. So so it is I don’t know why I don’t know why the marketing was, you know,

dude’s dude’s butts was

the posters. It was it was to do you know, you didn’t know who was in it. You didn’t really know the premise if you were the kind of person who rose could mean anything. You had to the poster was a real thinker, and the the trailers didn’t really give you a plot. It was it it looks like a hangout, but not in a way that, you know,

for all

those Avatar movies, something like forty year old Virgin, pretty clear what’s going on there. It’s that that is a movie with a really simple elevator pitch. Or knocked up. Same idea. You cannot miss what the premise of that movie is.

And and I think if you look at something like Rose, I I’m not sure the marketing ever really sold what it was unless it was a major benchmark in Hollywood,

which is more complicated than

the

marketing would lead you to believe because there there are lots of great movies with gay representation, including recent ones off and on streaming. Sure. But it’s not like as much as I you know, and I don’t wanna downplay the accounts in that movie, which I really like. But but I’m not sure I’m not sure basically telling people this is a benchmark, isn’t itself enough reason to make someone go see any movie. Let alone, you know, we’re in an era where in this this really bumps me up, but I’ve accepted as reality.

Theatrical needs to be sold as an event now, which I think is what they were trying to do by treating as historical benchmark. But to make audiences go see kind of a low key romper and theaters. I’m not sure it’s what people do. You know, we if you look at Chicken and Paradise as a It’s a contrasting point. That is a movie that’s just said in the most beautiful place you’ve ever seen.

And every every trailer makes it look like the kind of thing you’d wanna see on a big screen. It’s not a the Netflix movies, the the romcoms that have been so successful for them, tend to look a lot more like Rose. They’re kinda hang out movies, and it’s a lot of people sitting in talking and bunkering. I think audiences have gotten used to watching those on stream. And so if the marketing couldn’t sell it as a, you need to go to a theater, either because this looks so entertaining or because this is so important, I’m not sure the audience was ever gonna show up.

And then there’s more traditional stuff like star power, which which I think still matters more than, you know, people people kind of talk every few years about the death of stars in Hollywood. I don’t think it’s true. And I think no no knock on Billy Echner in Luke McFarlane, but they’re not Julie Roberts in George Cluedey. It’s we put those two on a poster Audiences have a long and positive relationship with those stars, individually and together. And there’s there are certain amount of people that are gonna be presold, and it’s the audience that did show, particularly, to older people.

You know, skewed towards women. It’s if you look at the demographics, it’s a pretty clear market in case why that will be connected with the audience of Ted. No.

Yeah. I mean and that there again, the the the question with Rose for me is, you know, look, if you if you look at your average rom com that appeals to women audiences tend to be basically two to one women, if not more. Mhmm. And and, like, it’s it is a movie about it’s a movie without a woman in it more a lot. I mean, no, that’s not exactly true.

But, sir, that’s kind of what it felt like from the marketing and from, you know, it just I don’t know. I I don’t even really have a question here. I’m just working out myself. Yeah. As well.

Well, and I think it’s All of the trends we’re talking

about are more pronounced because it’s theatrical and because it was really important to them to have a wide theatrical release. It’s I think Rosa is a streaming hit. I think I think that exact same movie gets picked up by Netflix or Hulu or whatever. I think it’s a hit. And I I think it I think the press is better on it.

I think the word-of-mouth is better on it. It will show up on streaming eventually, and I think it’ll be a library again. Yeah. I don’t think it’s sold itself as a theatrical thing. And I, you

know, There are a lot of reasons. Yeah. Well, that and that brings me to kind of my final point here, which is that the rise of the rise of Netflix, the rise of Hallmark Channel, you know, the the romcom for all the talk about the the death of the romcom in circa two thousand twelve, two thousand thirteen when as you note in your in your book, bunch pieces and sights as varied as vox in the Atlantic and everywhere else were like, hey, this this genre’s dead. We we hate it now. These movies actually are still hugely successful and hugely popular on streaming services where people can watch them not only at home in the comfort, you know, of their couch, but also over and over and over again.

I mean, really, really doing that kind of massive repeat watching that that really pumps up the numbers. Where is the future of the romcom to be

found on streaming.

And if it is, does that devalue the genre in your in your eyes. Because I do feel like a lot of people still think, like, if it’s not on if it’s not in theaters, it’s not a real movie. Mhmm. And that is you know, it’s a it’s a bias. It exists.

I I think I I don’t think that’s an unfair thing to say. But it is it is definitely not where the the genre seems to be succeeding now. Yeah. No, I think that’s

it’s a few separate but

interrelated interrelated problems. And I I

think the

the clearest the counterargument I would have is the romcoms that have successfully solved themselves as theatrical experience. Something like Los City. I think Los City to me is a very logical example of what a future studio rom coms might look like, where it’s it’s across genre hybrid. It’s romancing the stuff. You know, it’s it’s an action adventure with Sandra Bullock and Janet King.

And I think that that to me to get a Paradise is a version of the same thing. It’s just selling a different kind of event. But if you there are combinations of stars, there are premises, and there are genres you can hybridize with that will make romcoms work theatrically. It’s my feeling. And it doesn’t even Take a Paradise is a good is a good example of, like, you don’t need to include, like, a chase scene where people are shooting guns.

Like, you can you can just put really attractive beloved people in a beautiful place. Crazy Rajasions did that very well. You know, that was that was a movie that sort of, you know, in addition to the marketing, like, Rose tried to do positioning that as a very important movie just for for the sake of representation in Hollywood. It was also just an event movie because it looked amazing. Like, it was every trailer sold these these are the richest people in the world and they’re in these giant mansions and here’s a hundred cars and here’s the most beautiful dress you’ve ever seen and that that looked like a theatrical experience and it was treated like one.

I don’t think it’s any knock on the streaming romcoms to say that they’re on streaming. I I think they count as movies. They’re I think the lesser ones are a little disposable. But it’s something like, you know Hulu had that year where their biggest movie was Palm Springs until it was Happy Season. Like, which was originally going to be at theatrical release.

Like, their two biggest movies were romcoms. Everybody watched them. They were really smartly positioned, you know, where Palm Springs was sort of their equivalent of, like, a summer release. Like, even though it’s clearly made out a pretty small budget. Like, it had it’s, you know, it’s a big sci fi rom com.

Yep. And then happy season, you know, big movie about kind of family tension out right at the holidays, you know, it’s a big Thanksgiving movie. I think that that to me is not meaningfully different than what a studio should be doing, just just smartly positioning the fees they’re making. And to and to close the loop on the other thought you have about basically re watching these movies, I think that’s why Netflix in particular has had some success with its teen romantic comedies. You know, that’s if you look at stuff, their their big summer of love in twenty eighteen, which kind of relaunched the genre for them.

There are two big things that came out of it. We’re kissing booth into all the boys I’ve loved before. Both of which spawned two sequels, now to all the voices getting like a TV show spin off. And part of what they found is that those were rewatched instantly. And I think that’s that’s how you build a library yet, where it’s not only did it really connect with that audience, they’re going to show their friends, they’re going to revisit it because romcoms are uniquely well suited to that, I think, because they make people, you know, there’s a feel good element just kind of baked into the genre.

And then eventually, you know, they watch it for years

and then maybe someday

they

show their kids like people did with pretty and or like they did with the John Hughes movies that really connected with the same kind of audience just forty years earlier. It’s Yeah. I think that’s that to me, that diversity is a side of a healthy chammer. Theatrical remains the biggest kind of question mark in

the puzzle. Yep. Well, that

was

that was pretty much everything I wanted to ask. I always like to close these interviews by asking if there’s anything I should have asked. Like, what do you what you think I mean, is there anything you think folks know about the romcom genre, about the state of the romantic comedy that I either forgot or did not know to ask. What what do you think folks should be aware of? Yeah.

I would say the only other thing that I’m finding really interesting is the franchiseation of

romantic comedies, which in theory sounds like the same depressing like everything that’s a hit, it’s a sequel. But I think in practice, it’s led to really interesting romantic comedies. One movie that I, you know, I think didn’t really get us to do that. I think it’s great. It’s Bridgette Jones’ baby, which just by virtue of being the third Bridgette Jones movie because of course, the Bridget Jones movie is gonna get a sequel because it’s a huge hit.

But just kind of because Renee Zellwicker was an older woman at that point, it had to be about, like, you know, having a falling out from your partner and, you know, not knowing if you’re gonna get separated, what it would be like to date in your forties and then, like, what it would be like to be pregnant? Like, it just It took on stuff that if it wasn’t a franchise movie, I don’t think that movie just in a bubble gets made. You can’t just make a movie about Renee hotel where you’re playing will have been going through all this or at least the Hollywood business case would be harder to make. But because it was a sequel, And because other romcoms are getting sequels, they’re kind of having to deal with stuff that the genre sort of glossed over for a long time. And I think that’s really interesting to see.

Yeah.

Scott, thank you for being on the show. Next time I get you back, I’m gonna ask you about the John Wick. Oh, Frank. A story to self. That’ll be a whole podcast.

We we got we we’ll talk about that. What Scott is just to so you’re not considering they’re confusing. John Wick, John Wick is the proud owner or I’m sorry, Scott is the proud owner of John Wick’s original trunk from the the first movie, but we’ll we’ll talk about that on future date. Thank you for being on the show. The the name of the book again is from Hollywood with Love, The Rise and Fall, and Rise Again of the romantic comedy by Scott Mezzo.

If you if you are a Ramcom fanatic, you will love this book. You know, I it is not my number one genre. I but I found myself, you know, laughing and nodding along with with a lot of it. So there’s there’s a lot of interesting stuff in there. Check it out.

It’s on Amazon where wherever wherever books are sold. My name is Sunny Bunch. I am a culture editor at The Bulwark. I will be back next week with another episode of The Bulwarkos Hollywood. See you guys then.

Get an inside look at Hollywood with Michael Rose’s Let’s get inside Debra and Whoa. Have you ever choose between true blood, dare double to do again? Partially because the Marvel series

feel unfinished to me, because we got canceled when we thought we were gonna have more. Whereas true blood, we did get to wrap it up. I knew that we were wrapping it up. I could say goodbye everyone. I stole something from the set.

I know I didn’t get to steal anything from our daredevil set. Inside of you

with

Michael Rosenbaum, wherever you listen.