Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps? (Do New York Times Film Critics Watch Movies? Edition)

Does A.O. Scott even go to the movies?

You read something that begins like:

Fine Romance, My Friend, This Is: IT might be Kate Hudson, or maybe Mandy Moore, or possibly Rachel Weisz, Lindsay Lohan or a Jennifer. (Lopez? Aniston? Garner?) But if it’s February, you can be pretty sure that some pretty, plucky actress will be traipsing around some glamorous and photogenic American city (or its Canadian double) in search of the dimple-chinned fellow who embodies her one true love. Katherine Heigl, the star of “27 Dresses,” has already rushed to the altar — or rather the beach, which is where so many movie weddings take place these days — ahead of a crew that will include Ms. Hudson, Uma Thurman and Paul Rudd. (Not all of them are getting married; some are avoiding divorce.) A few specimens of the genre, usually the better ones, can be counted on to sneak in during the summer or fall, as “In Her Shoes” or “The Devil Wears Prada” did...

You finish reading the lead knowing three things:

• A.O. Scott does not like "27 Dresses."
• A.O. Scott does not remember a single frame of "The Devil Wears Prada."
• No editor or typesetter (does it still have typesetters?) or proofreader at the New York Times remembers a single frame of "The Devil Wears Prada."

Yes, "The Devil Wears Prada" is a comedy. Yes, Anne Hathaway is lovely. But the first editor who read A.O. Scott's characterization of it as a movie of "some pretty, plucky actress... in search of the dimple-chinned fellow who embodies her one true love" should have told A.O. Scott to raise his hands immediately and step back from the keyboard: if Scott thinks that "The Devil Wears Prada" is a romance, he has no business writing about romances: "Devil" is not a romance, it is a bildungsroman that happens to have a female lead.

The rest of the article after the lead? It doesn't get better. A.O. Scott unfavorably contrasts the moderns in romance films--“How to Lose a Guy in 10,” “Fool’s Gold,” “27 Dresses,” “Because I Said So,” "Dan in Real Life," "Good Luck Chuck," and "any of the dozens like them disgorged by the studios in the past decade or so"--with the ancients--“Bringing Up Baby,” “His Girl Friday,” “State of the Union,” “The Lady Eve,” “It Happened One Night,” and “The Philadelphia Story”; he concludes that it is "something of a scandal" that in contrast with the past today's romantic comedies are "movies whose notion of love is insipid, shallow and frequently ludicrous" and that today's actors and actresses are "programmatically less interesting... lacking in the vinegar that made [the ancients]... so definitively sexy... the romantic comedy leading men of today are the kind of nice guy... whom these earlier heroines would have triumphed by rejecting."

A.O. Scott does not seem to acknowledge--indeed, does not seem to have ever learned--what every five year old about to be promoted from kindergarten does: orange-to-apple comparisons that pit the best of one class against the average of a second are worthless.

Let's try to give him a clue. Let's see what happens if we try to do a real apples-to-apples comparison. Looking at the American Film Institute's list of best comedies up through 2000, my eye spots "There's Something About Mary," "Groundhog Day," "When Harry Met Sally," "A Fish Called Wanda," and "Moonstruck" among the moderns; "Adam's Rib," "Woman of the Year," "Sullivan's Travels," "The Lady Eve," "His Girl Friday," and "The Philadelphia Story" are the ancients from the 1940s.

For the years since 2000 we can look at Amazon's best-selling romances, which yields us "Love Actually," "The Dreamers," "The Notebook," "Love Comes Softly," "Amelie," and "Garden State"--and which tells us that for the 1990s the films that Amazon customers want to own are "Pride and Prejudice" (1996), "The Princess Bride" (1987), "Sense and Sensibility" (1995), "Persuasion" (1995), "You've Got Mail" (1998), "Groundhog Day" (1993), "Emma" (1996), and "Sleepless in Seattle" (1993) (plus "When Harry Met Sally" (1989), "Somewhere in Time" (1980), "Harold and Maude" (1971), "Romeo and Juliet" (1968), "Doctor Zhivago" (1965), and "Casablanca" (1943)). All of these are fine movies (with the exception of that real stinker "Love Comes Softly").

The three best romances, IMHO, are all moderns: "Moonstruck," "Four Weddings and a Funeral,"* and the Jennifer Ehle-Colin Firth "Pride and Prejudice" from 1995. I think the moderns clearly have it over the ancients when one does the apples-to-apples comparison.

But A.O. Scott doesn't seem to understand that he should do an apples-to-apples comparison. Indeed, he appears to be so uninterested in the genre he is writing about to have slept through all of "The Devil Wears Prada."

I can't help but thinking that there has to be somebody out there--some bathrobe-wearing basement-dwelling weblogger--who could do a much better job of filling the space in the New York Times: someone who loves films, knows films, cares about films, stayed awake through "The Devil Wears Prada," and knows enough about things like "apple-to-apple comparisons are good to write intelligently about films...

Comments

[anne]

Oh dear; I know how little I know about such things, simply thoroughly enjoying film, but I think A. O. Scott is a sensational critic and never miss a review. Similarly for Manohla Dargis and Stephen Holden. I could not be happier with the Times film reviewers these last several years, since I learn from their perspectives and knowing their tastes I have a sense when I will disagree about a film. I enjoyed Scott's article, and found Prada about as memorable as tea even though I was there for the clothes (highly indifferent, and I adore clothes).

[Gene O'Grady]

Like Anne (I think), I enjoyed Scott's article and tend to agree with it

[why? because you like apple-to-orange comparisons?]

, but what I found very peculiar in it was the statement that the very problematic ending of The Graduate, the disrupted wedding, was a contrast to the typical ending of 30's romantic comedies. In fact the classic disrupted wedding comes from It Happened One Night (which Scott actually mentions) and occurs in old movies from Safety Last to The World in His Arms, not to mention the variation at the end of the Errol Flynn Robin Hood.

I should probably calm down, after all, It Happened One Night is the subject of the only letter I ever sent the Times, which of course didn't get published.

[venky]

I agree with Brad that A. O. Scott has slipped considerably in recent years; if Times wants reviews filled with references, Elvis Mitchell is the man. At least he was carefree in his writings. Manohla Dargis still writes very taut reviews.

[supersaurus]

vote with your feet: I stopped reading the times when they hired bill kristol.

[david]

Dargis is the worst, Holden sub-mediocre. Mitchell great. Lane great, Denby worst of the worst.

That's one of the weirdest top three lists I've ever seen, Moonstruck etc. Haven't seen Four Weddings and a Funeral, but Moonstruck was alright, P+P not very memorable as I remember it, but what do I know. I am sure that anybody who holds up Bringing up Baby as anything but an example of how horrible Hepburn is just hasn't watched it in a while.

[Ken Houghton]

I adore Bringing Up Baby, but have trouble with four of the six films listed being Cousin Kate's, simply because the similarity between the two actresses ended pretty much with their first names--which are not, of course, even the same (Katherine Heigl, Katharine Hepburn).

The list looks as if Scott went looking for Hepburn/Tracy, Capra, and Sturges and ran a couple of imdb matching searches (State of the Union? Really??).

Of course, Scott lost me at "In Her Shoes" being the exception, not the rule. Just as Brad loses me when he tries to argue that 1990s buyers preferring to buy 1990s films over 1940s classics is somehow "apples-to-apples" in any way other than that the rest of us already own the 1940s films on VHS, and didn't bother using Amazon to buy them.

Worst "a2a" comparison since the Literary Digest did that telephone poll in 1936 that predicted Landon beating FDR.

[Delicious Pundit]

Wait a minute.

Four Weddings and a Funeral > His Girl Friday? I'll have to watch it again, but I'm not sure. I notice "The Awful Truth" isn't anywhere in this post, either.

Is Brad also saying The Notebook > The Lady Eve? Really? Because I would hate for your career to be defined by the fact that you think "The Notebook" is one of the great films of all times.

I also think "Love Actually" stinks, or more fairly that it's second-rate Richard Curtis, the way Four Weddings is first-rate.

And "Pride and Prejudice" should only count half, given its source material (although it would not have been done better during the studio system).

[rev]

I find Brad's picks very curious. I'd never have picked Moonstruck. The P+P adaption is certainly enjoyable enough, but 4W+1F is way overrated; the best part of that movie was the funeral, and only because of the beautiful poem by Auden.

[Harold]

Restoration -- a great (historical) romance.

Re: ...I can't help but thinking that there has to be somebody out there--some bathrobe-wearing basement-dwelling weblogger--who could do a much better job...

I have never seen Mary Ann Johansen wearing a bathrobe. (http://flickfilosopher.com/)

[Glenn]

Sorry Brad, but anyone who thinks "Four Weddings.." is among the best romantic comedies has absolutely no business opining that Tony Scott is a poor reviewer. (Don't even get me started on your "eye" spotting "There's Something About Mary." Ugh.) But on the bright side, the fact that he's working as a film reviewer for the Times, and you're not, is a sterling example of the market working splendidly.

[crack]

I never saw 'The Devil Wears Prada'. I had no interest. 'In Her Shoes' however I saw in the theater and watch every time I see it showing on cable. While romance is involved in it, romance is not the focus. And while there are funny parts it is most definitely not a comedy. How this movie fits in with the others listed by Scott I have no idea.

[jhupp]

Scattered thoughts in response:

1. Whatever else is happening here, can we please not treat The Dreamers like the other romances? It is one, but to be politic, it is decidedly more strange and unsettling. It does not appeal to the romance crowd as much as to the art house crowd.

2. Odd take: isn't The Skeleton Key a romance of sorts? (You don't know it until you've seen the ending, of course, but isn't it?)

3. As to your central contention, the moderns compare favorably enough, but your statement about the three best is perplexing. Are you really saying that Moonstruck and Four Weddings and a Funeral are better than Casablanca, It Happened One Night, The Philadelphia Story, The Shop Around the Corner (hey, look, apples-to-apples with You've Got Mail, and superior!), etc? When you were comparing averages, you were right. But when you started comparing the crème de la crème, I must object.

Or perhaps you were not talking about the quality of the film but about the quality of the romance contained within the film? Even then, I must say that The Shop Around the Corner, Casablanca, and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner have it over any of the moderns you mentioned in spades. (Is On Golden Pond a modern or not, because that there's a romance.)

4. My own favorite romances: The Shop Around the Corner, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (Tracy & Hepburn, not Poitier & Houghton). My favorite modern romances: the TV miniseries versions of Pride & Prejudice and Doctor Zhivago (much better than the films in both cases). My favorite modern romances not based on much older source material: A Fish Called Wanda and Fire (the first from Deepa Mehta's Elements trilogy).

[iocaste]

For the record, I'm reasonably certain AO Scott is a woman.

[iocaste]

whoops. i'm on crack. never mind - i'll just go away now...

[bildungsroman]

Strange that when I read the Times I always curse their double-click definition feature. But when I read Delong talking about the Times it's essential.

[eric]

For the record, crack and others, I think Four Weddings and a Funeral and, say, When Harry Met Sally are both on an echelon with The Philly Story and Bringing Up Baby and The Shop Around the Corner. They're all exceptional and among the best ever made in the genre.

[Marlowe]

Yes, Scott made a factual error on Prada (I noticed it as well). But his basic premise was correct and your attack on it is laugable (as is your taste). First, while apples to apples comparisons may be an important distinction in economics, it is less so in movies. And if you are going to obsess over it, and limit the definition of comparison worthy film romantic comedies, it is more than a little odd (and hypocritical) to use a multi-hour TV adaptation, which I wouldn't even call a romantic comedy in the Hollywood sense (though it is an incredibly great piece). Do they make as many good romantic comedies today as they did in the Golden Age of Hollywood (a pleasanter--and more accurate--term than "ancients")? Hah, not unless everyone has your bad taste. You find a few nuggets among the modern dross--a couple of classics (Groundhog Day, A Fish Called Wanda), a couple of good movies (When Harry Met Sally, There's Something About Mary) and one overated stinker (Moonstruck) to stand up against a raft of the greatest comedies ever made (and where is Tootsie, one of the very few modern classics, assumng 1982 is not ancient). And the older films you cite are just the tip of the iceberg; have you seen (just off the top of my head) Nothing Sacred, Twenthieth Century, It Happened One Night, The Awful Truth, Midnight, The Shop Around the Corner, The Palm Beach Story, Hail the Conquering Hero, My Favorite Wife, The Thin Man (as much a romantic comedy as a mystery), Sabrina, Ball of Fire? For every good comedy of the last thirty years, there are multiple great ones from the Golden Age.

[crack]

We all can't have the high taste of your average DeLong commenter apparently. The pretension throughout this post, and these comments, is laughable.

[michael]

I think Brad Delong is unqualified to review economic books because he favorably reviewed Alan Greenspan!

[tps12]

I'm skeptical of any argument that the quality of any aspect of pop culture has declined over the years. Seeing the past through rose-tinted glasses is a scientifically verified psychological tendency; combine this with the quite reasonable proposition that memorable works of old are remembered while forgettable ones are forgotten, and it always seems that "they don't make them like they used to."

My personal favorite under-appreciated modern romance is Down With Love.

[janet]

Another great romantic comedy of recent years: Shrek. An obvious riff on It Happened One Night.

[Joel]

The NYT *does* employ a better critic, Dave Kehr, who unaccountably toils in the backroom applying encyclopedic knowledge and crisp prose to DVD reviews. Mr. Kehr is to Elvis Mitchell as Manny Farber is to Leonard Maltin.

[green apron monkey]

Gotta disagree on "Love, Actually"

Love, Actually actually sucks.

Still the point is intact. People remember the good ones and forget the bad, unless we're talking Battlefield Earth bad.

Manohla Dargis I dislike very much. I feel like he usually misses the point, if it is at all possible to miss. I think I was first put-off by his review of OldBoy, and haven't felt right about him since.

[Jake]

Manohla Dargis is a she.

[Stuart Buck]

For the years since 2000 we can look at Amazon's best-selling romances, which yields us "Love Actually," "The Dreamers," "The Notebook," "Love Comes Softly," "Amelie," and "Garden State"--and which tells us that for the 1990s the films that Amazon customers want to own are "Pride and Prejudice" (1996), "The Princess Bride" (1987), "Sense and Sensibility" (1995), "Persuasion" (1995), "You've Got Mail" (1998), "Groundhog Day" (1993), "Emma" (1996), and "Sleepless in Seattle" (1993) (plus "When Harry Met Sally" (1989), "Somewhere in Time" (1980), "Harold and Maude" (1971), "Romeo and Juliet" (1968), "Doctor Zhivago" (1965), and "Casablanca" (1943)). All of these are fine movies (with the exception of that real stinker "Love Comes Softly").

How many of those are specifically in the genre "romantic comedy"? Two?

[Nancy]

Love, Actually was very silly.
Persuasion was so romantic in its restrained way.
Is anything more romantic than Roxanne?
What about Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind? To me one of the more romantic (and funny) romantic comedies ever.
Really romantic and sexy older movies? Sullivan's Travels, Palm Beach Story