Romantic comedies from the seventies are fine, but I do prefer romantic comedies from the thirties and forties. You had Preston Sturges, Frank Capra, Ernst Lubitsch, George Cukor, Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy, Jimmy Stewart, Gary Cooper, Jean Arthur, Carole Lombard, Claudette Colbert, poor Ralph Bellamy and so on.

I agree with duke…I’ll take the thirties and forties, too. All those folks he mentioned and Robert Young, too, as the perennial “other man” (although he did get the girl occasionally). The exception, for me, is the pairing of Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan (if you mostly ignore “Joe vs. the Volcano”).

Duke, I much prefer the romantic comedies of the thirties and forties. They may have hit their Oscar heights in the seventies but they never got as good as they did in the beginning. For starters, you just can’t beat the talent you list in your comment. For another thing, IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT. End of argument.

Soooo who wants to have a long boring talk about feminist issues and how they relate to the way romance and the romantic comedy have been constructed in Hollywood? Anyone? Anyone?

“Joe vs. the Volcano” is one of those ’80s movies I saw when I was young, and I really liked. I tend to like most Tom Hanks movies so there you go. Every one has their own taste. I like “romcoms” especially the classic one that are on TCM. My mom and I stay up all night watching them, at least sometimes. We really love the Jimmy Stewart movies and most Cary Grant movies too. Claudette Colbert is one of my favorites to watch, I also love the pairing of William Powell & Myrna Loy. Priceless!
Thanks

Ooh, ooh! I do! I do!

Oh, wait… no I don’t.

Oh, okay, hit it, Tom.

Basically I think romantic comedies as a group (though obviously there are exceptions, and the best ones tend to be among the exceptions) tend to reinforce the ideas that women’s lives all revolve around men and how they can get men and how men can fix them and endlessly talking about men all the time and so on.

Fundamentally, there’s an implication that neither gender can be fully a person without a romantic relationship, that good relationships can be built on about forty five minutes of actually knowing one another, that outrageous gestures and manipulation are ‘romantic’ rather than ‘creepy’, etc. The worst of them also have a habit of setting up a woman who has built a whole life for herself- friends, a meaningful career, actual interests in life, etc- and that those things are all hollow without some blundering jackass to come along and tell her what to do. They also have a tendency to reinforce problematic gendering- ideas about what men are like and what women are like and how those traits are universal and immovable.

Now, a lot of that stuff is basic ‘it’s a movie’ fantasies, and those aren’t necessarily a problem- they’re not more unrealistic than action movies, really. But I think the ways in which they’re unreal sail under the radar and are read as realistic, and also apply to situations that come up more often- getting wrong ideas about how to handle attacking bands of ninjas isn’t likely to screw up your life, but bad ideas about what comprises a good relationship really really will.

It’s also true that all those problems are microcosms of patriarchal society as whole, and that similar attitudes towards relationships show up in all sorts of movies. But romantic comedies tend to really rub them in your goddamn face.

Again, though, there are exceptions, and those exceptions are really refreshing. I don’t know that I want to hold the Woodster up as the epitome of feminism, but Annie Hall develops a relationship based on actual relationships, shows how that develops and how it falls apart, and doesn’t seem to imply that Keaton’s life is meaningless without Woody. It Happened One Night, though I’m far from a big Clark Gable fan, has the decency to be farcically unreal and thus unlikely to be read as simple fact (though it did set off a whole line of working class guy humbles rich, independent woman movies, most of which I resent bitterly.) There are lots of others that dodge one or another of the major pitfalls, and I’m always happy to see a What’s Up, Doc pointing out some of the absurdities of a Love Story. But broadly speaking, romantic comedies make me feel kind of sick, and it’s not because guys aren’t supposed to like them.

Jumping in here, but if one doesn’t know how to handle a marauding band of ninjas, than one’s life may be cut short, and that is a problem, too! Never have heard about Touch of Class before, but did see What’s Up Doc, as a kid when one of the networks aired it and even though the adult humor in it sailed over my head, I remember laughing at the frantic activities of the adults, the mixed up suitcases, Barbra’s Dad being a judge, the snooty music professors; Madeline Khan was a delight in that film! I would also ad While You Were Sleeping as a successful romcom, but not from the 1970s, from 1995, that starred Sandra Bullock, Bill Pullman, Peter Gallagher, Peter Boyle,Jack Warden, and Glynnis John. It was a smallish movie, filmed in Chicago, I believe, not a big-budget, but it had a screwball comedy script, and the actors brought clever and heartfelt performances to it, and the movie touched audiences to where it made a pretty decent profit. I don’t know if I’d put the Jill Clayburgh movie An Unmarried Woman in the romcom category. It’s a drama, woman having to deal with divorce from an uncaring husband, she meets up with crazy artist Alan Bates, and I think she falls into a relationshiop with Bates’s character because he is so different from what her husband had become due to his career career and Bates’s character also probably views life with a much more liberal attitude than her husband does. I saw this movie 2 years ago for the first time, and comedy didn’t once come into my mind when I viewed it.

I forgot to add, that in a romcom, without the woman to fall in love with and settle down with(which always seems to be the ending in the romcoms from the 30s and 40s), the man in the flick would probably keep wandering the earth, alone, never finding his true love who would know how to settle him down, civilize him, and stop him from being a jerk!

Man, why are women stuck civilizing jerkass men all the time. He can civilize himself, and then maybe he’ll be fit for human interaction.

The worst of them also have a habit of setting up a woman who has built a whole life for herself- friends, a meaningful career, actual interests in life, etc- and that those things are all hollow without some blundering jackass to come along and tell her what to do.

That’s definitely the vibe I get from Touch of Class. First of all, she’s divorced so she’s free and can be with whomever she pleases. Meanwhile, he’s married to a loving wife and keeps lying to the wife to be with her. And, again, he’s kind of a prick. As a result, I have no idea why Glenda is with him. None. They even set up a secret apartment on the side where she’s always cooking dinners for him that he can’t eat because he has to run and meet his wife. The whole thing kind of pissed me off. I can’t really explain its popularity.

Jenni = I’m probably stretching it a bit to call An Unmarried Woman a romcom but that is how it’s classified on IMDB so I figured I’d go with it. I agree with you, the comedic elements are mainly incidental to the rest of it.

I do think that if man was left to his own devices,not caring to find a wife and settle down,not having children and raising them,not working to earn enough money to care for himself and his family, then civilization, as we know it, would never have occurred. I joke with my husband about this, for if I had not come into his life, he has said he’d be stuck in his own “mancave” with only his computer, games, money to only spend on himself, a life alone and utterly centered on himself.

A great, engaging post Greg.
As tempting as it is to throw my two cents worth into the debate between Jenni and Tom S might be, middle-age and years of ‘mental scar tissue’from similar discussions I’ve had counsel me otherwise.
While I’m not a rom-com man when it comes to my tastes in cinema there are exceptions. Greg, your thoughts on A NEW LEAF, HAROLD AND MAUDE, THE FABULOUS BAKER BOYS ?

Obviously different relationships work different ways, and I don’t want to condemn anyone’s real life partnerships- I just think it’s a shame that there’s a general societal expectation that men do things for themselves and women do things for men, I think that expectation is part of patriarchal oppression, and I think romantic comedies reinforce that expectation.

Harold and Maude is a hands down great movie, though.

Tom S, please don’t take my reluctance as a reflection on yourself or your point-of-view. Its just my sense of 50-something fatigue showing.

Seems to me the better romcoms emphasize the relationship while the ones that fall flat emphasize the people. I am not sure how many people really would want to date either character in Annie Hall but I think most could day dream about being in that relationship.

It also seems to me that the bigger the star the male lead is, the weaker the part for the female.

Would love to add examples but am using my phone and my thumbs are cramping up.

Hey, I’m single and childless and everything I do is for myself. I used to want to get married and have kids. Nowadays, when I visit my friends who are either married or are in long-term relationships and who also have kids, I find myself feeling lucky that I am not saddled with a bunch of loud, rambunctious brats and a bossy woman who won’t let me relax. I adore these women of course, but I can understand why my friends might get annoyed by spending a lot more hours with them than I do. Actually, the reverse is also true. I can see why the wives might get annoyed by spending so many hours with my buddies, but I digress. :)

I also detest most romantic comedies made these days. They’re mostly cookie-cutter, unimaginative and utterly predictable as to what will happen. They also lack charm. The old movies (at least most of the ones I’ve seen), though also predictable in the end, were not guilty of the other sins.

Now, despite what Tom says, I actually know many single people who seem to be fine in their independence, who portray themselves as happy-go-lucky, free wheelin’ and happy to be single in public, but who confide in me that they do feel they are missing out on something by not being with someone and raising a family. Okay, most of these people are women, but that reinforces the idea (to me anyway) that the premise of romantic comedies is not exactly that far off. I think it is innate in most people, but maybe more so in women, to want companionship, particularly romantic companionship, and to feel incomplete without it. Hell, I used to. I don’t think those feelings come from watching movies. I think the movies reflect the feelings.

I don’t think our “patriarchal society” has anything to do with it. I also don’t see much of this patriarchal society. My last three jobs have had a vast majority of female managers and supervisors. Half of my male friends get paid less than their female counterparts. Women are earning many more bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate degrees than men these days. I know quite a few single mothers who are capable of raising children full-time while also working full-time to support those children. I don’t know any single fathers doing that. So with all of that I don’t really recognize this patriarchal society that I have heard about. With everything women do these days I’m not going to begrudge them their crappy, romantic-fantasy movies that take them away from their everyday, hectic or humdrum lives.

And hey, how about The Heartbreak Kid? Was Charles Grodin a pig or what? What did Cybill see in him? Wow, she was something back then.

With the big exception of the Hugh Grant british films,Notting Hill,About A Boy,Love Actually,which compare pretty favorably with the Woody Allen romances of yore(humility is the name of the game..humility is funny!)..I have never so much as ever so slighly turned up a corner of my mouth in a smile at any of the painful films they pass off as romantic comedy today!.I’ve had to sit thru quite a few.. I think the writers are letting their children do their homework these days.

Okay, first of all, I can’t believe I didn’t include A New Leaf, one of my favorite romcoms ever. Oh well, I couldn’t include everything but, damn, I wish I hadn’t overlooked that. Secondly, I’m not as big a fan of Harold and Maude as some (it still has a very large fan following) but it is a very well made movie with terrific leads. The Fabulous Baker Boys I saw back when it was released and, honestly, all I remember is Michelle Pfeiffer’s audition scene. I’m pretty sure I liked the movie but really can’t say now.

The Heartbreak Kid is another really well done one from the early seventies. I think before Touch of Class made everyone want to get all “sophisticated” the romcoms of the early seventies were more like the thirties and forties. All of the ones we mentioned (Harold and Maude, What’s Up Doc, A New Leaf) have a zaniness to them that the later ones didn’t.

So with all of that I don’t really recognize this patriarchal society that I have heard about.

You should probably look just a tad bit harder. Every president of the United States, ever – male. Number of Female CEOs on the latest Fortune 500 – 18. Currently serving women in the United States Senate – 17 (out of 100). Number in the House – 72 (out of 435). Number of female Governors – 6 (out of 50). Number of businesses where women own 51 percent or more – 7.7 million (out of 27 million). Percentage of U.S. population, female – 50.8.

So, if the slight majority of people in the country are female and the vast, overwhelming, massive majority of persons in leadership positions and executive business positions are male, that would be rightfully known as a “Patriarchal Society.”

I’m glad you’ve had female managers at all three of your last jobs. Especially in retail, their numbers are high. In positions of power, clout and executive membership, their numbers are appallingly low.

Would love to add examples but am using my phone and my thumbs are cramping up.

I thank you for sacrificing your thumb comfort to respond to this post. I felt you deserved special recognition for this. I have often been dissuaded from answering comments to my own posts because I’m not at my computer and the thought of typing in a response on a phone seems unbearable to me.

Also, Annie Hall, yes. Woody Allen makes the relationship much more appealing and also, much more in sync with the real world. They just kind of go their separate ways after a while. There’s no “hilarious” misunderstanding or big, screaming knockdown fight or anything like that. It feels better because it feels like something actually attainable in the real world.

Patriarchal society – I think this was even more pronounced in the ’30s and ’40s (the era of the classic rom-coms) than now. Many things changed during the war (you know, “The Big One” – WWII)years when women were pressed into work to replace the guys who went off to fight. Before that, society wasn’t very accepting of woman who worked outside the home. Widows tended to run boarding houses and/or take in laundry, work as cleaning women, etc to keep a roof over their heads and feed their children. Single girls had to be secretaries, teachers, companions, or nannies, etc to keep body and soul together. Many times, “catching a husband” was more a practicality than anything else.

To me, one of the worst rom-coms I ever saw is “Every Girl Should Be Married”. Maybe I just don’t care much for Betsy Drake although I like the character (an actuary – also acceptable for a single girl) she plays in “The Second Woman”.

Duke- in addition to what Greg said (thanks, Greg), the fact that real life people believe that their lives cannot be complete while single does not undermine the idea that this is something people are told they should believe and have reinforced by movies. The point is not that there aren’t any single people out there who want to get together with someone- of course there are. The point is that there’s lots of other kinds of people, too.

There are certainly people out there who are happy and comfortable living by themselves and for whom a circle of friends and family and/or a series of non-monogamous relationships, or whatever other setup it is that they’ve got is totally sufficient. Movies almost never show such people, and often they do show people who believe themselves happy in such situations but secretly deep down want the traditional nuclear family. To some, that’s as insulting as telling a gay person that secretly deep down he wants to marry a woman.

I’m not sure of what point you’re making about single mothers- I do actually know several single fathers who work full time, but anecdotal evidence doesn’t prove much- unless your point is just that it’s a hard way to live and people who live that way should get whatever kind of movies they want. I agree, but I imagine that single mothers would be just as happy or happier with romantic comedies that weren’t nasty reinforcements of terrible ideas.

I think the Production Code and its pro-marriage agenda for all virtuous women had a lot to do with the quality of romcoms during the Golden Age. The romcom formula followed the rules of the Code, which mandated the union of male and female characters after reconciling their opposing behaviors/personalities. Each film more or less had to follow this formula; it was just a given. So, the couple’s verbal sparring, fights, and antics were a metaphor for the struggle that any couple has in compromising for the sake of the marriage. Another common romcom theme was the need to mature into marriage; another served as a warning against marrying for the wrong reasons (money; beauty; sex). These are the major issues of marriage–willingness to compromise personal, selfish goals/behavior and to grow up enough to handle marriage. The underlying function of the genre in this era was to present marriage as sacred and therefore worth the struggle to compromise or mature. Having that built-in structure and agenda gave purpose and direction to the social politics, storylines, and characters of romcoms back in the day.

Even those writers and directors who slyly toyed with the genre and the Code, ultimately subverting traditional views (Sturges), were working against a specific ideology and narrative structure that was identifiable and recognizable.

Despite the outdated views of the Code, I would say those traditional ideas about marriage (compromise, maturity, etc.) are still valid. Those who are happy in marriage understand the necessity of maturity and compromise, especially if a couple has children. The message of compromise and maturity in the Golden Age films is still relevant for those who want to be married, and indeed thrive in marriage.

The difference is that today, we realize that marriage isn’t for everyone–at least there should be that realization. Some people are too self-oriented to compromise enough for marriage–that’s not a criticism, it’s a truism. If you are one of these people, you will likely dismiss the message and gender politics of the Golden Age romcoms.

Today’s romcoms are a mess because there is no coherent ideology to uphold. The themes and subtexts are caught between feminism and romanticism as the storylines make a token effort at addressing modern women’s issues while still preserving the fantasy of romance. Plus, Hollywood has never been more male-dominated, especially studio execs, producers, and directors who sometimes rework scripts by young women writers. The results are abysmal storylines with demeaning characters that women can’t relate to. In addition, dumbing down the average Hollywood film to the lowest common denominator (teenage males) has taken a toll on clever, meaningful dialogue–a staple of good romantic comedies.

The genre has disintegrated so much that it has a bad reputation. Even good romcoms that manage to be relevant for women and not demeaning are underappreciated or maligned (THE PROPOSAL). They get lost in the shuffle of junk (SOMETHING BORROWED; THE UGLY TRUTH; THE BOUNTY HUNTER).

I do not see the point of making a movie about a person who just sleeps around and is happy doing it. In a romantic comedy, the purpose is to find a mate. Every other thing going on is filler. What would be the goal in a romantic comedy about someone who sleeps around and is happy doing so? That sounds like the filler material to a story about something else. There’s no drama, no suspense, no tension if there is not someone to fall in love with.

And I haven’t worked in retail for a long time. For the last ten years I’ve worked in finance and banking and the vast majority of management positions are held by women. The CEOs may not be women, but in most of the steps leading up to CEO, the positions are filled by women.

Even more women would be upper management and CEOs if they weren’t married with children. Married men are rarely the primary caregivers of children. Women more often put careers on hold to take care of their children. That automatically puts them behind men with equal qualifications. These days, women limit themselves more by having kids and getting married more than it is a perpetual, systemic, discriminatory, patriarchal society.

Men are also more likely to run for political office than women. Check your ballots. Compare the number of men running to the number of women. And how many women that have run for President have ever really had a serious chance? Hillary Clinton is the only one I can think of. Other women have run (Pat Schroeder, Carol Moseley Braun, Shirley Chisholm, Elizabeth Dole, Michelle Bachmann, etc.), but how many really had a shot? The right women aren’t running.

Greg, the point of AN UNMARRIED WOMAN–a film with some good things in it–is that once a woman Gets Her S*** together and Finds Herself, she will automatically find a man who is Free and has a fun job like being an artist, and she will automatically have Great Sex and a Wonderful New Life. That isn’t always how it’s worked out for some of my friends, but no wonder that helped AN UNMARRIED WOMAN become such a successful movie.

Duke, has it not occurred to you that the lack of ‘serious’ women running is due to something about society rather than something inherent to women? That the expectation that women put their careers on hold for childcare is itself borne of patriarchy?

Likewise, it would be easy enough to have a romantic comedy wherein someone goes through a series of relationships and then realizes, hey, being alone was waay better. Or at least have people fix their own damn problems instead of magicking their way into some co-dependent relationship that will somehow fix everything for them.

Also, you’re going to have to come up with some kind of evidence to support your claim that “in most of the steps leading up to CEO, the positions are filled by women” because statistically that’s uh not true

Wasn’t the Sexual Revolution about shaking loose those bonds and living for one’s self? Why would a woman who really wants to run for office care what society thinks? If a woman really thought she was “the right man for the job” she would run and win, and show everybody how wrong they were.

Well, I suppose you and Greg are right and I’m just being naive and overly optimistic. I don’t look at the whole of society in a negative light. After all, I seem to live in a near Utopia here in my area where women in professional fields outnumber the men.

Suzi- So basically anything starring Kate Hudson or Katherine Heigl is to be avoided. I’m way ahead of ya!

Today’s romcoms are a mess because there is no coherent ideology to uphold. The themes and subtexts are caught between feminism and romanticism as the storylines make a token effort at addressing modern women’s issues while still preserving the fantasy of romance.

Amen to that. And to your point about the clever dialogue going on a downturn. That was the best part of any good romcom, the snappy repartee. Great analysis, Suzi.

Well, I suppose you and Greg are right and I’m just being naive and overly optimistic. I don’t look at the whole of society in a negative light. After all, I seem to live in a near Utopia here in my area where women in professional fields outnumber the men.

So, basically, whatever actual facts and statistics we present will simply be met with avoidance. Here’s what happened:

“I don’t know what this talk is of black and white movies dominating the thirties. Seems like every time I watch one – Gone with the Wind, Becky Sharp – they’re in color.”

“Actually, only a handful were made [points to chart showing 0.01 percentage of films in color from thirtes]. The overwhelming majority were black and white.”

“I didn’t watch those other films, the ones I saw were in color. Besides, those other films would have been in color if it hadn’t cost so much.”

“But, regardless, they weren’t. And so, your initial statement is verifiably false.”

“I’m guess I’m just not as negative as you are. I seem to live in a Utopia where my tv stations only show color movies from the thirties.”

Essentially, we have: 1) Anecdotal evidence trumps real evidence 2) Tom and I are bitter pessimists and that’s the real problem and the facts still somehow support that this is not a patriarchal society. [and yes, I acknowledge the very real possibility that, outside of this argument, Tom and I are, indeed, bitter pessimists :)]

What I don’t understand is the need to resist this. Confronting it, acknowledging it and discussing it – That’s how all problem-solving works, through illumination. The way it stagnates or regresses is when it’s ignored or people say “well I don’t see a problem,” despite there clearly being a problem.

If it’s not a problem in your immediate vicinity, that’s great but don’t take that to mean it isn’t a problem on a national scale. My hometown of Mt. Pleasant, SC doesn’t have any real crime to speak of but if my Dad said to me, “Greg, I know political candidates are always talking about crime problems in this nation but, sorry, I just don’t see it,” I’d say, “Dad, you have to look beyond your front door.”

Duke, I really am glad you live in such a terrific area and that so many important high-level positions are held by women. I hope that continues and the men and women in your area continue to share the top responsibilities. In a perfect world, it would be an even split everywhere, with men and women holding important positions in similar numbers. But it’s not and there’s still lots to be done, and acknowledged, before we can begin to truly even things up.

Also, I would agree with you (you didn’t say this explicitly but implied it, I think) that things are improving. 20 years ago, there might not have been even one woman CEO. But the point, originally, was that you said there was no patriarchal society and I think it can be, and has been, clearly demonstrated that that is not true.

I updated the above comment after publishing it with a couple more things so if anyone is responding to this via e-mail notification, please read the published comment above in full. Thanks.

I’m actually a very cheerful and happy-go-lucky pessimist, thank you

Good for you [he says, bitterly].

Also, Suzi- I agree that the earlier romcoms were almost universally superior, but might that not be as much the influence of the absurd concentration of talent in Hollywood at the time as it was of the Production Code? I mean, the 30s were the era when the exodus of talent from Germany was beginning to hit Hollywood- Lubitsch and Wilder seem relevant here, but obviously there were key people in almost every position- and when most of the script people Hollywood was hiring were from the theater, people who had written shows that lived or died on an insane string of snappy patter. I imagine that if Ben Hecht and Herman Mankiewicz were writing the screenplay for The Ugly Truth, it might have come off a bit better.

I mean, if nothing else, some of the best of the era- Trouble in Paradise, Design for Living, the early parts of the von Sternberg/Dietrich cycle- were pre-Code, and often stomped all over Code-enforced notions of propriety.

Oh, cheer up, boys! Go look at your favorite romcom and put smiles back on your faces.

Oh, we’re fine. I’ve come to expect good debates, sometimes heated, between Tom, Duke and myself. Their comments, and everyone else I get here, sure beat little two word posts like “good job” or “interesting” followed by a link to sell something.

And Duke and Tom provide a good counterpoint to each other that livens up comment threads.

I didn’t see the connection between classic romcoms and the Code until I saw THEODORA GOES WILD. It is playing with the Code, perhaps thumbing its nose at it in a light-hearted way. But, doing that is not possible unless everyone–filmmakers and audiences–know the Code’s strict guidelines for female behavior. After that, I began looking at romcoms with the Code in mind. It’s not that I am in favor of the Code or its restrictions on women characters; it’s just that it gave the genre its conventions and structure. I would not discount the talent of Hollywood’s classic era, but I truly believe there is a connection between the Code’s ideology and the quality of past romcoms.

Hey, if the Code caused such creativity let’s put it back in place! I kid.

And Greg- I wasn’t avoiding what you and Tom were saying. I was admitting I was wrong, which is hard enough to do, but then you smacked me down, you big meanie. I’m taking my ball and going home.

Since we’re getting all feminist in this discussion, I have to say that my wife, Ms. Spenser, hated rom-coms, especially from the 30s/40s, because the smart, attractive nice girl always wound up marrying the insensitive, self-centered jerk. She couldn’t love The More the Merrier for the longest time because of this. She wanted it to have a happy ending, where Jean Arthur kicks Joel MacRae in the nuts and goes off to lead a happy life.

I just accept the formal requirements of the genre and let it roll over me. She had a harder time with that.

There are definitely some where the ending just grosses you out- Blonde Venus, in particular- but most of the 30s ones that come to mind either avoid or explicitly problematize those endings.

Goddamn angle brackets, grr

And Greg- I wasn’t avoiding what you and Tom were saying. I was admitting I was wrong, which is hard enough to do, but then you smacked me down, you big meanie. I’m taking my ball and going home.

You know something, Duke, even though I know you’re joking, you’re right, I am a big meanie. I get my back up sometimes and I shouldn’t. Seriously, I love your counterpoint here, though. Really do.

Tom – Fixed.

Suzi – Just wanted to say how much I love Theodora Goes Wild. One of my favorites of the thirties.

But, doing that is not possible unless everyone–filmmakers and audiences–know the Code’s strict guidelines for female behavior.

That’s so true. Once everyone knows the code, it can be played with, turned upside down and subverted. That happened, a little bit at a time with each passing year until finally, the whole thing collapsed.

She wanted it to have a happy ending, where Jean Arthur kicks Joel MacRae in the nuts and goes off to lead a happy life.

I so wish that could have happened, at least once, in any movie from the forties. Barbara Stanwyck would have been my choice to do the kicking.

I left a key word out of my last post- I meant to say that most of the good ones in the 30s either problematize or avoid that ending. Sad to say, there are a whole lot that don’t.

Every time this issue is debated, I throw up my hands. Chicken or the egg? – nature vs. nurture – etc. I think it’s pretty clear that our society is patriarchal, but do romcoms reflect how society wants women to be or how many women are? And are those women that way because of biology or because society (including its movies) made them that way? Or is it some combination? The latter seems likely, but these debates rarely concern themselves with the middle ground.

In other words, I’m staying out of this one. :)

By the way, the actual title is A TOUCH OF CLASS (a remake would undoubtedly be titled TOUCH OF CLASS, however; there has been an odd fear of titles beginning with articles in recent years).

This is the most fun I’ve had reading a comment thread in a long time. I don’t have much to add, except that the subtext of any good romcom is pure sex. If we can believe that the people on screen will have or are having great sex, then we’re happy — even if the male half of the couple is a jerk wearing Joel McCrea’s face (and walking around on Joel McCrea’s long legs). None of this can be stated outright — that where Suzi’s right about the code helping. If the sexual subtext becomes obvious or we’re watching too much of it, we’re moved out of our fantasy space. I think that’s one reason most contemporary romcoms are so bad: they’re full of dirty jokes that have nothing to do with fantasy sex. They’re badly written — which is a whole other story about how Golden Age Movies Were Better. I’m a full-on Feminist who can and has griped about The Patriarchy until I’m hoarse, but I love a good romcom, just like I love a good adventure movie where the hero performs ridiculous feats of derring-do. Or any movie with space or time travel. Or a Western where the good guy triumphs because his goodness just wears the bad guys down. Never underestimate the power of fantasy in a movie theater!