I saw a poster in Target the other day that listed the top 100 movie quotes of all-time (not sure how the list was compiled).
Number one was “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.” You had your “I coulda been a contender” and “I’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse.” “May the force be with you,” “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” All the usual suspects (including “Round up the usual suspects”).
Nestled in there in the middle of the pack was “I’ll have what she’s having” from When Harry Met Sally. Reading that, I got angry about something that’s always made me angry when it comes to that classic Rob Reiner film.
Chances are, if you ask a hundred people to name their favorite scene (or hell, any scene) from When Harry Met Sally, most will mention Meg Ryan’s fake orgasm in the diner (which is followed by Rob Reiner’s mom delivering the “I’ll have what she’s having” line).
Here it is:
It’s the comic bit heard round the world, the thing everybody is going to share a chuckle about after seeing the movie.
It’s also complete bullshit. It is totally out of character for Sally. It is totally divorced from reality. It’s a pure “movie moment” in a film that doesn’t need movie moments.
When Harry Met Sally succeeds so brilliantly because it is about the romantic lives of people who happen to be very funny. Here’s an example of a much more effective (and funny) scene that feels perfectly real… a group of friends playing Pictionary.
I know Alex and I say “Draw something resembling anything” far more than “I’ll have what she’s having.” And I’ll trade a million Meg Ryan fake orgasms for one clip of Bruno Kirby shouting “baby fishmouth, baby fishmouth!”
Meet Me In Montauk 
I don’t really get your anger, here. I agree that there are other more subtle, funnier lines and moments in this great movie, but I think this scene deserves its status among great Hollywood moments.
And I don’t think it is a false note in the film. it comes at a point where Sally is clearly coming out of her more quiet conservative shell. That shell made her a less likely companion to Harry in the past, but here she is migrating toward the kind of silly free spirit that could co-exist in his world. The museum scene where she is following his mimickry with “paprikash” is another building block in that same evolution. So, the orgasm scene works because it is (a) funny (b) shows the evolution of Sally and (c) shows the evolution of a friendship turning to romance.
Amy and I have often noted that Harry Met Sally is, in many ways, our story. When we first met in high school, we kinda disliked each other. She didn’t see the more sensitive side of me (withhold all smirks here) and I didn’t see the less serious side of her. As we became friends, we began to see the full picture and, while I’m not sure we ever had the equivalent of the deli scene in Harry Met Sally, it wouldn’t have been a great stretch for us to have done something like that during one of our 1 AM visits to Perkins or Skeeters. And if it had happened, those looking in from the outside (or those who knew only one side of Amy) might have said that the moment was false or out of character. But I knew better, and you would have as well.
The memorable moments of life are so often the times when we step outside of our shells, our comfort zones, to just have a free and uninhibited moment. This scene was that for Sally and I think it was appreciated by the audience not only because it was funny, but because it is something with which we can identify as something we either have done at one point in our lives or wish we could do more often.
So, stop being that guy sitting on the outside getting angry, and go have a pastrami sandwich at a local deli and burst out into song (or fake orgasm) half way through. Live a little, and have some of what she was having!:)
Wow. Who would have thunk this entry would inspire such a serious and heartfelt comment? I have to agree with Dana. While I was reading your entry, I was thinking that the moment didn’t strike me as all that false. Have you eaten in a Jewish deli? There’s enough noise in one of those places to make anyone forget there is a potential audience for what they are saying or doing. Now I do agree, and have always thought, that the end of the “orgasm” borders on ridiculous and exists far more for the funny movie moment than because it reveals any truth about these characters. However, the moment itself doesn’t feel false, so I accept the over-the-top “climax” 🙂 as a convention of comedies. Certainly, there are other scenes in When Harry Met Sally that are similarly less subtle than “baby fishmouth” but probably don’t make you angry. The wave at the football stadium comes to mind, as does the abandonment of Harry and Sally by Marie and Jess at the end of their horrific double date. Still, the characters have earned our good will by those points, so we just enjoy the laugh.
I am intrigued by the notion of a bad scene in a great film, and I’ll have to think of some contenders.
By the way, I’d argue that most of the films we love have “pure movie moments.” How is that a bad thing? Everything that goes on the screen has been crafted in a particular way to appear there? The virtue of making it seem as though it hasn’t been manipulated seems somewhat false in and of itself. “Frankly my dear I don’t give a damn” certainly is a movie moment, as is “May the force be with you,” “As you wish,” or any of a hundred other moments we adore. Hell, just check out your previous movie entry on this very blog. You think that moment in Moonstruck isn’t a “movie moment?” “We’re here on this earth to fall in love with all the wrong people…. ” – few people can spout Shanley words without Shanley first writing them. Loretta’s slap and “snap out of it” that we say all the time – pure movie moment, and I love it for that. So… don’t knock a moment in a movie just for being a movie moment. Most of the time, I wouldn’t want it to be anything else.
Some movies are meant to feel like movies. Take pretty much any Woody Allen movie… the one-liners are perfectly, beautifully written. Annie Hall feels completely like a work of imaginative cinema, though it has a lot to say about the realities of relationships.
The Princess Bride? Well, obviously that’s a “movie” movie. Likewise Star Wars and Gone With the Wind.
I disagree about Moonstruck. While that dialogue is wonderful, I believe Ronny and Loretta speak and act that way. It’s consistent with their characters, even if those characters are splendidly larger than life.
I’m glad you mentioned the double date in When Harry Met Sally. That’s another scene that bugs the hell out of me. It’s great for a cheap laugh, sure, but it rings totally false. I don’t get the same feeling from the wave, which is a hilarious concept… trying to have a serious (and funny) conversation while participating in a wave. Sure, the timing is probably off from that of an actual wave in order to fit the comedy, but that’s nitpicking.
The fake orgasm is not nitpicking. I’m sorry, but Amy would never do that. And neither would Sally Allbright, even after coming a bit out of her shell. The museum scene is nothing like the screaming public display in the deli.
And the “I’ll have what she’s having” line is equally false.
The reason those couple of moments rub me the wrong way is that the rest of the movie is so wonderfully right, even while hitting so many comedic high points. Sally’s complicated dinner order is exaggerated, but only ever so slightly… I’ve heard Alex (and Dana) order food with almost as many caveats.
I do love the conversation leading up to the fake orgasm, and both of them give great performances throughout the scene. But that’s the problem… it’s a great performance by Meg Ryan, not by Sally Allbright.
Well, I guess we will agree to disagree. I didn’t find the scene to ring false. And the only real difference between it and the museum scene is that the museum scene was filmed in such a way as to give the impression that mobody else was around. But, who knows? Maybe people were all around. Maybe they heard the wacky accents.
It’s a comedy, dude, and a great one at that…Lighten up!
The museum scene was a private conversation, spoken in normal volume (wacky voices aside), not a very public display of loud sexual shouting.
Any one of us would go to the mall food court right now and have a conversation in a silly voice. Not one of us would go to the mall food court right now and act out a screaming fake orgasm.
Although if you’ll give it a try to prove me wrong, first let me rush home and get my video camera!
No doubt it’s a great comedy… one of the best ever. Doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it in deadly serious terms! 🙂
Look, the fact is that as interesting and witty as all of us are in a deli, Perkins, mall food court, museum or otherwise, nobody would find it so interesting that it would be filmed or otherwise regarded as great movie humor. Obviously, comedy is, among other things, the art of exaggeration. So, yes, the orgasm scene goes over the top a bit, but it doesn’t make the scene false or out of character.
And, by the way, my theory is that the reason you are so bothered by that scene, so much so that you felt moved to anger and compelled to write a blog about it, is that 2008 Clay simply would not love or highly rank a Harry Met Sally like 1989 Clay. Sure, you have a fond memory of the film, stemming from a time when you appreciated such movies. But, your taste has changed, and now skews toward the more serious film, the art film, the drama, the independent film. What was the last conventional romantic comedy to land in your top 10 in the past 10 years?
No, I have felt this way about that scene since the movie came out, or at least since I can remember thinking about it. The scene is absolutely false and out of character (in my opinion) and I resent it because it’s the thing most people remember when they talk about the film.
I get that you disagree about that scene, but I’m willing to bet it’s not even in your top ten favorite scenes from that movie. True?
As for conventional romantic comedies in my top ten over the past ten years… I count one: Kissing Jessica Stein. Bridget Jones’ Diary came in at #11.
During that same span, you had three: My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Kate & Leopold and Bridget Jones’ Diary.
If you want to argue that any of those four films are in the same universe as When Harry Met Sally, be my guest. I beg to differ.
I think the key there is “at least since I can remember thinking about it.” I suspect you weren’t all that bothered by the scene in 1989, but perhaps became more bothered over the years as you migrated away from the genre. As I recall, Kissing Jessica Stein was not very high up on your top 10 list and I would also submit it wasn’t all that conventional a romantic comedy anyway (I also never really understood your high ranking of that film)
And I would argue that Bridget Jones was in the same universe, though WHMS was better.
If the deli scene doesn’t rank among my favorites, it is because, like a hit single from an album, it was so much out there in the marketing, etc., that it simply wore thinner than other scenes. I recall enjoying that scene very much when I first saw the movie. I didn’t find it false (though I did find it exaggerative toward the end for comedic effect).
My point is simply this…if WHMS came out this year, it wouldn’t be in your top 10. Period.
What I find fascinating is that, much like lipstick on a pig, this scene is getting far more “air time” than it warrants. We hold up an example of something we don’t like, then spend oodles of time analyzing and highlighting that thing. Let’s go back to blog entries about great moments in films, why don’t we? From When Harry Met Sally, I suggest the following great scenes:
the batting cage scene b/w Harry and Jess
the Casablanca split screen phone call b/w Harry and Sally
the Surrey with the Fringe on top episode in Sharper Image
the Baby Fish mouth scene that Clay highlights above
the first New Year’s Eve date
the “Joe’s getting married” frantic phone call
the final New Year’s Eve revelation
These are just a few that spring to mind. Most contain “movie moments,” but all are moments that I love more than the deli scene.
That’s complete bull. It would be #1 on my top ten list this year (so far).
The highest you’ve had any romantic comedy in the last ten years is #6 (Greek Wedding, and I have a feeling you probably wouldn’t rank it as high in retrospect).
If I were to rank my top ten romantic comedies of all time, the list would include the following (in no order): When Harry Met Sally, Moonstruck, Annie Hall, Manhattan, Hannah and Her Sisters, Say Anything, Shakespeare in Love, The Princess Bride, Pride & Prejudice, Romancing the Stone.
That’s off the top of my head and there are probably a few I’m not thinking of. There are also movies that are more comedy than romantic, like A Fish Called Wanda and Tin Men.
With the exception of Pride & Prejudice (which I didn’t list in my last post because I figured you would dismiss it as unconventional), all of those films are from the 80s and 90s.
I’d love to see you list ten films from the 00s that approach that group in quality. The only three that even made your top ten list sure don’t (I’ll give you Bridget Jones, though I don’t rank it on a level with this group).
This comes back to an argument I’ve made for all the years we’ve been having this debate… Hollywood is not making romantic comedies anymore as well as it did in the 80s. In many other genres, there have been great leaps forward, but in this one, it’s been a steady decline.
Pride and Prejudice a romantic comedy? really?
This is obviously a hypothetical debate at best, but I maintain that you rank many of those 80’s and 90’s films so highly because you were a different kind of moviewatcher back then. Your taste has trended toward the edgier, the darker over the years. You can argue all you want, but I say that Harry Met Sally if seen by you for the first time this weekend would rank below Batman, Ironman, and probably many of the other films in your present top ten, and even if it found a plae in your top 10 now, it would fall out by January.
While it may be debateable whether Hollywood has lost its way in making romantic comedies, it is also possible that you have lost your affection for them. This year, for example, you didn’t even bother to see Sex in the City. And, yes, I understand that you didn’t watch the show, but there are othe HBO shows like Entourage that you eagerly seek out and gobble up. Amy and I have raved about Sex in the City for years, but have you ever rented the DVD’s. And the movie arguably was very enjoyable in its own right (though I agree better served if you had watched the show). In many way, Sex in the City (at least the show) was a Hollywood project in the 00’s that merited your attention, but you gave it short shrift, clinging instead to films from 20 years ago that you claim are better done than the films you generally refuse to see today.
Do you think Sex and the City is anywhere near as good as any of the films I listed? Keep in mind that you have it ranked 8th so far this year, out of only 18 films, and you were a huge fan of the show. Give me a break!
I ask again, can you name ONE movie from the last 18 years as good as the best romantic comedies from the 80s?
Do you think Iron Man is a better film than When Harry Met Sally? I don’t.
And as for my tastes trending darker… you’re not looking at the whole picture. I’ve always loved dark films… Goodfellas, Reservoir Dogs, Miller’s Crossing, Miami Blues… all close to 20 years old.
And going back even more, there’s The Godfather films, The Untouchables, Do the Right Thing, Taxi Driver, Silence of the Lambs, Aliens, Blue Velvet, Raging Bull.
And I love plenty of “light” films from the past decade… they just tend not to fit the “romantic comedy” category so neatly. Rushmore, Knocked Up, Juno, every Pixar film, Sideways, The Royal Tenenbaums, Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, I Heart Huckabees, Bottle Rocket, School of Rock, Punch-Drunk Love, Kissing Jessica Stein, Amelie.
I think if there’s a theory to be had here, it’s that filmmakers have gotten away from the more traditional forms of romantic comedy in the past 20 years. There will always be films like Made of Honor and the collected filmographies of Kate Hudson and Jennifer Lopez, but where is the Moonstruck of today?
It doesn’t exist… and looking at either of our top ten lists over the past decade proves that. You keep trying to make a point about me, but your own lists betray your argument.
Obviously, SATC is not as good of a film as WHMS or Moonstruck. And I agree that a great romantic comedy (hell, a great ANYTHING of ANY genre) comes along only once in a decade or so.
I still maintain, however, that 2008 Clay would more likely have WHMS in the area of the present Forgetting Sarah Marshall. or maybe in the area of Knocked Up or Once in 2007. And, by the way, while Once was arguably more about romance (and music) than comedy, it was, in my opinion, and Amy’s, and many, many critics, a truly special film. I believe 1989 Clay would have ranked the film higher—perhaps over films like Jesse James that i can assure you NOBODY will be talking about in 10 years.
Yes, we have gone over this ground many, many times…but I still say that, at best, you now need the “plus” for a romantic film or a comedy to make its way to your top 5 or so. And, all things being equal, the film that is edgier and darker will prevail on your list over others.
Just to follow up and clarify my last point. Would you agree that WHMS is a conventional romantic comedy? No real “plus” there. In fact, one of the criticisms of the film was that Reiner was basically doing a Woody Allen style. Yet, you say it is among your favorite films. I say that this is because in 1989 you didn’t need the “plus” to consider a film great, and your impression of the film remains today in a very positive way. But, again, if you were to walk into WHMS today, sure you would enjoy it…much like you enjoyed a Once or Sarah Marshall or Knocked Up….but, without the plus, without the edge…it would NEVER make your top 5 and lilely not even make your top 10. Protest all you want…but I know I’m right:)
This is deja vu all over again, where I willingly concede that ANY film needs a “plus” to make my top five. That’s the whole idea.
I’m not sure why you’re suddenly convinced that my deep affection for When Harry Met Sally is a product of nostalgia. The fact is, you can’t name a film from the past 20 years in the genre that’s as good as that one… and neither can I.
If you don’t consider Pride & Prejudice a romantic comedy, please don’t try to argue that Once is one! And as special as it is, I don’t think anybody will be talking about Once in ten years, either.
Well, it depends on what you mean by “plus.” I tend to think the “plus” comes as a product of how a film is shot and written… WHMS (Woody Allen knock off though it may be) is expertly crafted in a way that something like Maid in Manhattan doesn’t even aspire to.
Once certainly has the “plus” factor by any definition, and yet you’re lumping it in with WHMS in this argument. That doesn’t follow.
Oh come on,, “expertly crafted” now equals plus? Talk about your stretches. And Once fits my argument because it does have the plus, is special, and yet found itself outside your top 10. And I dare say that people (including Amy and I) will be talking about and referring fondly to Once in 10 years far more than ANYBODY will be talking about Jesse James.
And, again, I agree and concede that there hasn’t been a conventional romantic comedy in the past 10 years as WHMS. I would argue, however, that those coming closest would include Knocked Up, Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Bridget Jones.
And I would argue that, protest all you want, WHMS would not be in your top 5 in any of the past years since we have been keeping lists (this year, of course is not over, and so I’m sure it would be ranked today ahead of the likes of Kung Fu Panda, but I would be surprised to see Panda in your top 10 by end of year anyway.
I certainly hope and expect that people who value film will remember Once ten years from now. The fact that it was a small film seen by few limits its ability to be on the radar of society at large, much like other small films in decades past have a small but loyal following. I doubt Manhattan broke box office records when it was released, but it certainly is cherished by film fans today.
As for the Sex and the City argument, while I certainly agree that the film in not in the same ballpark as the others we’re discussing, I agree with Dana’s larger point. The fact that Clay hasn’t sought the series out on DVD, despite hearing us rave about it for years, while he has stuck with a new and “buzzed about” show such as Mad Men, despite its less than captivating first few episodes, does suggest that he is more willing and wanting to find and value some fare over other fare. Which, by the way, in case it isn’t incredibly obvious, WE ALL DO. Some of us are just more willing to admit it than others 🙂
But I thought your argument was that only films with the “plus” find their way into my top ten… yet Once, which we both agree has it, did not. Be consistent, man!
If you’re conceding that there hasn’t been a romantic comedy to equal WHMS in the past ten years, why do you keep arguing this point?! Knocked Up, which you say comes close, was in my top ten! But you think WHMS, which we both agree is superior, somehow would not be? Your agrument is failing before it gets out of the gate!
Looking back at my lists since 2000, I can safely say that When Harry Met Sally would be in the top five in every year. I realize you’re dealing in some alternate universe where the “new me” would dismiss the film as unworthy, but those hypotheticals are preposterous.
I’ll make you a deal… when the next When Harry Met Sally comes along, we’ll see what I make of it. For now, the point is moot because we both agree that it hasn’t.
Amy, you might have found the first few episodes of Mad Men less than captivating… I disagree.
And I don’t see you guys rushing out to rent all seven seasons of Gilmore Girls (a romantic comedy) based on my recommendation. Why not?
I’m sure people who love Once will talk about it in ten years. Lord knows I still talk about films nobody else remembers. (And I’m not saying it doesn’t deserve to be remembered, just that I don’t think it will be any more than most critically acclaimed independent films)
It’s difficult to squeeze The Gilmore Girls in between all of the episodes of Friday Night Lights, Battlestar Galactica, and Heroes, which we now watch because you recommended that we give them a try.
But did you go with those over Gilmore because you have disdain for romantic comedies or some other reason? I went with Entourage over Sex and the City because of the insider Hollywood setting.
Yes, I went with those others because you more highly recommended them. While I know you and Alex watched GG, I don’t recall you strongly encouraging us to watch the series. 😛
And at least you’re finally admitting your need to be all “insider.” Baby steps, little brother. Baby steps.
It’s a good thing this torrent of abuse is good for page views. 🙂
I watched one episode of Giomore Girls and it did nothing for me. Sorry. And I don’t think Gilmore ever received the public accolades of SATC–demonstrated by the movie made of the latter and its great commerical success, and the upcoming sequel.
I also looked back at your top 5s over the past 8 years and I honestly find it hard to believe that you would have put WHMS in there had you first seen it in that year.
And my point about Once was that it was ranked relatively high by you because it was an independent and less conventional film, but the romantic aspect of it knocked it down a number of pegs because 2008 Clay doesn’t really like romances, much less romantic comedies–or at least doesn’t like them as much as 1989 Clay or the rest of us.
Ask yourself this; Why did you feel the need to rail against the orgasm scene in the first place? Why not pick “false’ scenes from non-romantic comedies? I believe the reason is because these scenes in these types of movies eat at you more than in other types of movies. And I further believe that if 2008 watched WHMS for the first time, these scenes would bother you so much that, combined with your relative dislike for the conventional romantic comedy in general, there is simply no way WHMS would make your top 5–which usually consists of films where you can nary cite a flaw–let alone one that makes you angry.
I’ve seen a couple episodes of SATC, which likewise did nothing for me. No harm, no foul. All I ask is that you don’t explode that into an indictment of my tastes, especially when you have a distinct lack of romantic comedies in your top ten lists over the same period as me.
2008 Clay doesn’t like romance? You’re talking about the 2008 Clay who ranks Before Sunrise and Before Sunset among his favorite films ever, and Pride & Prejudice just a couple years ago as his #1 film of the year. Glancing at my lists over the past ten years, there are plenty of romances represented (most of them not comedic, which is the larger point I’ve been making).
Why did I rail against the orgasm scene? Because (as you can read way back up in the original post) I saw a poster that put the “I’ll have what she’s having” line down as one of the best in movie history. And it isn’t… not even close. It’s not so much that the scene is a “flaw” or hurts the movie in some way… it bothers me that it’s the ONE scene people talk about in that movie. I looked at my When Harry Met Sally DVD last night and there is a page and a half of a 4-page info booklet dedicated to that scene. That’s what bothers me.
And why does it bother me? Because the movie is so much more than a cheap diner gag! It’s exactly because I treasure the movie so much that it upsets me to see it relegated to “that movie with the orgasm in the diner.”
Actually, this reminds me of Amy’s reaction to the theatergoers who described Burn After Reading as “a stretch for the guys who did No Country For Old Men.” She wanted to yell, “No, you dolts! The Coen Brothers are so much more than a couple guys who made a good movie out of a Cormac McCarthy book!” THAT is the spirit of my original post.
Okay, Mr Romance. Protest all you want. But I stand by my opinion.
Casblanca was so much more than “Frankly My Dear”…Star Wars was more than “May the Foce be With You” and Godfather was more than “I’ll Make him an Offer…” But somehow the line from WHMS burns your britches!.
As Amy said, each of these lines, as well as the “I’ll have what she’s having” line, are movie moments from great movies. They may not be your personal favorite lines or the ones you quote, but please stop railing against Hollywood or Joe Moviegoer for enjoying the hook of a movie. It comes across as rather elitist, quite honestly, and may cause Amy to turn back toward Sarah Palin, who I understand LOVES the orgasm scene:)
Oh, and don’t tell me that you didn’t get lured into Gilmore Girls more than you otherwise would have because of Alex! My guess is that if Alex had enjoyed SATC, you would have stuck with it, and enjoyed what the rest of the country saw in it–a great, witty coemdy!
I wish I had more self-discipline and was able to stop taking the bait. It just galls me when you insist you know more about my tastes than I do! Especially when the evidence suggests otherwise.
I don’t see romances of any sort on your lists, yet somehow I’m the one who doesn’t like romance? Meanwhile you’re the one who called Before Sunrise “dull” on this very blog. Maybe there’s a bit of projection going on here.
Is Amy elitist to resent those people for their ignorance of the Coen Brothers? Maybe so. You know what? To paraphrase Gordon Gekko, and another of those memorable movie quotes… “Elitism is good. Elitism, for lack of a better word, works.”
There’s a reason we have shit at the top of the box office most weeks, and shit in the Oval Office… it’s because not enough people in this country are elitists!
And we should steer the conversation back to music, so I can throw some elitist charges back your way!
When did I ever say I was fond of romances? I’m not really. I’m fond of comedies and, by extension, have a fondness for romantic comedies–the funnier, the better. This may explain to you why I found Sunrise and Sunset dull, as well as Pride and Prejudice. Not sure that makes me elitist, but admittedly perhaps boarish. And as Amy said, unlike you, I am willing to admit when I don’t like a genre.
You can take the bait or not as you choose–but the EVIDENCE is that you don’t really like romantic comedies all that much. The few you cling to are from decades ago when you were arguably less of a film connoisseur. You rationalize that the genre has regressed and has therefore left you behind, but the truth is that you have left it behind. You don’t really seek out the romantic comedies to watch and when you do see them (probably more often than not because Alex wants to), you tend to rank them lower than we do.
By the way, just curious how and when you saw a few episode of SATC. You don’t have HBO, you don’t rent the DVDs, right? But, of course, if you did watch a few episodes and it wasn’t your cup of tea, it would only underscore my point since, much like the pollo tropicale roll surveys, there are few out there who don’t recognize SATC as a great show–a great comedy–a great romantic comedy. Indeed, I would go so far as to say, to answer your question about comparators to WHMS, that there were any number of SATC episodes that would give WHMS a run for its money. The recent movie may fall a bit short of that standard–but the series rarely did.
And, as for eliticsm–it may or may not be a bad trait–but it is definitely one that could cost the Dems in November because few want to vote for someone who they think looks down on the rest of us. As for movie elititists, I have been arguing for years that critics rarely love a popcorn Hollywood movie because they are so geared to look to the odd, the unusual , the different, the original, that they dismiss a Greek Wedding or a Home Alone because it is “pedestrian” in its presentation. Now, admittedly, millions of Americans watch movies that I have no stomach for–whether they be slapstick comedies, horror flicks, action flicks, whatever….but I don’t really look down my nose at people who watch that stuff–it just ain’t my bag, man.
Do you two ever work?
I think this all boils down to you being very much a “genre” filmgoer, and me not so much.
You are quick to say you don’t like westerns, romances, war films, etc. while you do like comedies. I tend to like films across all genres when they work for me and dislike them when they don’t.
Do I seek out any and all romantic comedy that comes out? No, because 90% of them are shit. That’s just a fact. Look at your lists over the past ten years… the films at the bottom tend to be lousy romantic comedies. You sought those out because it’s a genre you like. I never saw them because reviews and word of mouth suggested they weren’t any good.
On the flip side, if a movie gets rave reviews I’m far more likely to see it, regardless of genre. You wouldn’t watch The Assassination of Jesse James if you were invited to the red-carpet premiere. And neither would I if advance word was horrible. But it got great reviews, so I saw it. I don’t care if it’s a western, I care if it’s a good movie.
You’re trying to apply your filmgoing habits to me to suggest that I missed Catch and Release because I hate romantic comedies and not because it got a 22% on the TomatoMeter. Sorry, that’s not the case.
Sex and the City… 50% Tomato, 2 1/2 hours long, and based on a TV show I don’t watch. That’s not a bias against the genre. Besides, why didn’t you see the X-Files movie? You’re supposedly a sci-fi fan. Could it be the 32% Tomato ranking and the fact that you have no connection to the characters? That was enough for you to stay away even though you do pick films based on genre.
As for ranking them lower than you, I have done voluminous research (sad, I know) that shows you’re absolutely wrong about that. I have ranked just as many romantic comedies higher than you as lower.
Re: SATC, I’ve seen a couple episodes in hotel rooms (Free HBO!) but I fully admit, I’ve never set out to give the series a try. If I did, it’s a pretty strong bet that I’d like it quite a bit. By all accounts it’s a great show.
But as you well know, TV is a completely different animal. Why haven’t you watched Buffy, Angel or Alias? Probably because dedicating that many hours of your life to something — even something you know is excellent — is daunting. I’m much quicker to pick up a Mad Men, Friday Night Lights or Entourage when they’re only a season or two old as opposed to a show that’s been on the air for 5+ years. I’m still trying to catch up with Curb Your Enthusiasm from a few years back. I gave up on The Sopranos, which is completely up my alley, because of the time involved. I’d love to watch The Wire but the prospect scares me.
So back to films, and all the fantastic romantic comedies that have come out in the past 10-15 years. You named three that you consider even close to the level of WHMS (Knocked Up, Bridget Jones and Forgetting Sarah Marshall). The first two, you and I ranked almost identically. The third, you liked more than I did but I think we agree that it’s the weakest of that bunch.
Is that the evidence you’re hanging your hat on? I say the genre has regressed and you call that a rationalization, but you admit there hasn’t been a movie as good as those 80s films since. Aren’t you agreeing with me?
Oh, Clay, Clay, Clay….
You argue for more like a politician with half facts to support your arguments.
You really couldn’t commit to renting (or borrowing from us) SATC, a half hour show that goes down like cotton candy. but you could sit through the hour long Madmens of the world? Come on! Give me a break. You gravitate to Madmen, and Galactica, and Buffy, and X Files and Angel because they are COMPLETELY up your alley (And, yes, Clay, you HAVE an “alley” — a genre preference, whether you want to admit it or not!)
And by the way, I did watch a number of X Files shows, but they didn’t grab me, and I also saw the first movie, which I thought was okay, but nothing that made me want more. And, also, I like space sci fi-but not so much of the earth bound variety of X Files or Twin Peaks. Even Heroes for me is on the cusp, and didn’t do much to help its case with me last night.
ANyway, I would happily now go through my lists to point out movies you comedies, romantic or otherwise, that you never bothered to see, but I can’t seem to access the site at work, perhaps I have a bad URL?
I guess I got my answer – a resounding “no; we never work” in the form of the past couple of epic comments.
As much as I’d like to jump in, I seem to have completely lost track of what is fueling this debate. We certainly left behind the overrated (which is different than God awful) scene in When Harry Met Sally, which started this conversation, several hours ago.
I can certainly attest to Dana admitting his bias for (or against) certain genres, which I’m certain makes him more likely to commit to a Battlestar Galactica than a Gilmore Girls. Alex is similar to Dana in that regard. She has the types of films that provide her “that’s why I go to the movies” statements and likely has similar feelings towards the tv fare she is eager to watch (thus, leaving Clay to view Mad Men on his own).
Clay and I tend to be less genre focused, though certainly we also can notice tendencies in the films/tv shows we gravitate towards and prefer. For instance, it takes a whole lot of +++++++s to get me to even consider watching a horror film, and when I finally buckle it’s usually for a film such as The Silence of the Lambs or Jaws, great films that are critically appreciated. This is the same reason I hid my eyes during a good 10 minutes of Heroes last night and have not asked for the box sets of Angel or Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. Violent and horrific stories and images tend not to be my thing, though I can certainly appreciate the few exceptions that manage to get my attention. Nobody, on the other hand, had to twist my arm to get me to consider watching Sex and the City, when we started renting the DVD’s 8 years ago. I was all too happy to give that breezy, witty, sophisticated show a chance.
So what is the debate? That Clay is less likely to forgive a scene he considers “overrated” in a film that isn’t “up his alley” than he would be in a film (or tv show) that is? While I certainly won’t presume (insert Sean Connery accent here) to tell Clay what his taste is, dozens of years of watching films and television shows with him make me think that Dana’s assumption is probably true. But, again, I think we all do that. We forgive the flaws in the films, shows, paintings, musical compositions, books, people we love more easily than in those we don’t. That’s human nature, though, apparently it’s not Clay’s 😉
Yeah, pretty much what she said…
Though I wish you guys would get off the whole “flaw” thing with When Harry Met Sally. Trust me, I love it quite easily. And the scene in question doesn’t keep it from being in my top ten (probably top five) romantic comedies (maybe even comedy comedies) of all time.
The truth is, I’m still flabbergasted (yes, flabbergasted) that you both think that scene is in character for Sally.
Well, I’m glad you concede the point once your sister makes it! So, now we can let it go
Yes, because the point she made echoed the point I made in the previous post!
This is the point she made that I was trying to make:
So what is the debate? That Clay is less likely to forgive a scene he considers “overrated” in a film that isn’t “up his alley” than he would be in a film (or tv show) that is? While I certainly won’t presume (insert Sean Connery accent here) to tell Clay what his taste is, dozens of years of watching films and television shows with him make me think that Dana’s assumption is probably true.
So, if you agree with that, we’re good!
I agree with what she said about genre focus. But as I said, she is wrong to assume I don’t love something like WHMS easily.
My point is that I love great movies easily, regardless of genre. I do have some favorites — I’m usually a sucker for crime and time travel, for example — but I don’t have a negative bias toward any genre.
Actually, maybe horror. I pretty much avoid all horror films unless they are unanimously praised.
To say I have a negative bias against comedies, or romantic comedies, is simply untrue. Many of my very favorite films of all time are in those categories. All I’m saying is that there are a lot more BAD comedies and romantic comedies each year than anything else (as all of our lists make clear).
Well, first of all, I think there are a lot of bad movies in every genre every year, period. But I agree that, in most years, you will find a better sampling of good dramas, which is why they dominate our lists.
And, in looking at your lists, I agree that you will tend to see a movie of any genre if it receives a sufficient amount of critical acclaim. But your bias is actually more apparent in the less critically praised flicks. In other words, you are more apt to see a non-romantic comedy that gets mixed or even poor reviews, then you are to see the romantic comedy with mixed or poor reviews. And, even when you do go see the mixed reviewed romantic comedy, my guess is that you go (or rent it) because Alex wants to see it or she doesn’t want to see the more harder edged stuff out there that interests you.
So, let’s go to the list to see if this hypothesis holds: In 2006 you saw Miami Vice (Tom 48), but not The Last Kiss (Tom 46) or Keeping Up with the Steins (not romantic, but a comedy) (Tom 36, but better regarded by Amy and me). In 2005, you saw Elizabethtown (T 20) and Elektra (T 9!!–I said 9!!!!), but you won’t see Rumor Has It (T 20). I could probably go on in each year, but will certainly be accused by Amy of not doing any work at all.
But I think that the evidence shows your relative lack of enthusiasm for seeing romantic comedies unless they are cream of the crop, much like Amy won'[t see a scary movie or I won’t see a period piece or western unless they are cream of the crop..
Elizabethtown is a romantic comedy, you know. It’s also directed by Cameron Crowe, a favorite of mine. Miami Vice was directed by Michael Mann and got as many raves as it did pans. And Elektra… that’s Jennifer Garner kicking ass in a skin-tight leather outfit. Worth a rental (though the movie sucked).
And you neglected to mention that at the bottom of my lists those same years are such notable romantic comedies as Monster-in-Law, Must Love Dogs, Bride and Prejudice and Something New. Would I have seen those movies without Alex? Absolutely not. And be honest now… would you have seen them without Amy?
I try not to see many movies that aren’t the cream of the crop… when I do, they are invariably action movies or comedies (often romantic comedies). Because those are the sort of movie you can get at least some satisfaction or diversion out of even when the quality isn’t high.
If you really want to find a bias, check to see how many critically-panned dramas I’ve seen. Bet it’s close to zero (unless they were directed by somebody I really like).
OK, to prove I’m a total geek, I did a little number crunching. I took the bottom ten movies on my lists from the past seven years and broke them down by the reason I went to see them.
There were five categories of specific reasons: Critical acclaim, directed by somebody I like, kids’ movie, starring somebody I like and sequel to a movie I liked. Then there was a large batch of movies that I saw despite not meeting any of those criteria.
Here’s the breakdown:
Critically-acclaimed: 10
Director I like: 10
Sequel to a movie I liked: 7
Kids’ movie: 7
Actors I like: 6
And of the movies I saw just for the hell of it:
Romantic comedy: 17
Comedy: 5
Action: 5
Drama: 3
I rest my case!
You lose your case. As you admit, you often see the romantic comedies because Alex wants to see them. Perhaps you see some of the action ones for that reason as well, though I suspect she wasn’t pushing you to see Elektra. 🙂
As for me, because I do like a romantic comedy, it takes little persuasion at all to get me to see one–in fact, I often lead the charge when the choice is a light comedy over some heavier fare. Now, admittedly, I will at times ask for a tomato check to see if we are setting ourselves up for a bad movie viewing, but i am also less likely to put the breaks on when the bad reviews are for the romantic comedy.
And while I didn’t see Elizabethtown, I don’t recall it being marketed as a romantic comedy at all. Rotten tomatoes says the movie “revolved around death.” and makes it seem like the romance (and any comedy) takes a far back seat to a hometown journey.
As for Vice–the tomato don’t lie–48 is less than half–a bit less than mixed, and far less than fresh— and I don’t remember you being such a Mann fan that you would feel the need to see Vice despite luke warm reviews. Just admit that you wanted to see a marginal action flick and be done with it!
And stop this insane breakdwon of rationalizations as to why you see bad movies. I’ll give you the kids movies, and I MIGHT give you the sequel argument (except that I believe in every case the sequel was NOT to a romantic comedy)—but that’s it! You are such a movie geek who likes so many friggin actors and directors, that to make that the basis for seeing the movies borders on the absurd. You don’t like Costner and Aniston enough to watch Rumor Has It?
Anyway–we can end this debate, or go on and on–but Amy and I both feel, after knowing you for many, many years–that you tend to favor action/drama over romantic comedies and you are much tougher on the latter–and bothered far more by the flaws in romantic comedies than you ever really seem to be in an action or drama film.
The prosecution rests?
How the hell did I get pulled back into this? I don’t feel that Clay tends to favor action/drama over romantic comedies. I do think he’s a sucker for a new and edgy talent, regardless of the genre in which that novel director might be working.
But the number crunching analysis Clay has done on the past seven years worth of movies concerns me. Is there a 12 step program he can enter? Perhaps we ought to consider an intervention. Hell, I can hardly remember why I went to see the movie I saw last weekend, let alone the movie I ranked 52nd six years ago.
ooh, oooh, ooooh!!!
And Amy just reminded me that Rumor Has It was directed by Rob (WHMS) Reiner!!!!! Was he not a sufficiently favorite director to have you see that movie? And, I know, Reiner has directed some lesser movies since WHMS — but Crowe’s record is also less than perfect — and you knew Elizabethtown was likely to stink at least as bad as Rumor, if not worse.
I said good day, sir!
Here are Ron Reiner’s last five films (I haven’t seen any of them):
The Bucket List
Rumor Has It…
Alex & Emma
The Story of Us
Ghosts of Mississippi
So no, his name is not sufficient for me to rush out and see a movie with a sub-40% Tomato ranking… not anymore. It’s sad, because his first seven films are absolutely freakin’ suberb, including three (Spinal Tap, Princess Bride and, yes, When Harry Met Sally) that are all-timers for me.
You didn’t really answer my question… would you see any of those shitty romantic comedies without Amy? As in, would you go to the theater (or pop in a DVD) all by your lonesome and check them out?
Of course not. and neither would I. We go to those movies with our spouse because it’s called a “date night” and we want to get a few laughs and share a tub of popcorn and a Coke without the distraction of work or kids. That’s what mediocre romantic comedies are for.
And not to defend Miami Vice, because I found it mostly lame, but the “Cream of the Crop” critics in Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 68% positive ranking and even the bad reviews rave about how well it is shot. Which it is. Just like Collateral, a movie I felt had some fatal flaws but a whole lot going for it.
That’s why I rented it… if I wanted to see a marginal action flick, there are hundreds to choose from, including the collected filmography of Jason Statham. You know how many of his action movies I’ve seen? Zero.
I agree with what Amy said above. I don’t favor one of those genres over another, and I am a sucker for new talent. Hell, I remember being stoked to see The Family Stone (a romantic comedy) and dragging you guys to see it on my birthday because I’d read it was an instant classic by a great new writer/director. That turned out not to be the case, but it’s why I went.
okay, okay…I must end this debate for my sanity and preservation of my marriage!
But I will say this…:) Ghosts of Mississippi was a good film in my opinion (and got mixed reviews), as was Story of Us (not quite as good, but still).
perhaps Amy is right, and perhaps my theory works because, for the most part, you don’t usually find a more conventional romantic comedy directed or written by the new hip guy. Your penchent for the new kid on the block certainly explains your high rankings for Apatow (despite your hatred of comedies:))
And to answer your question–I rarely if ever see movies alone, but, yes, if I were going to see something alone, it might well be a romantic comedy like Rumor Has it, directed by one of my favorite directors and with actors I generally like. I would go in hoping the critics were being unduly harsh and hoping to be pleasantly surprised. Of course, in the case of Rumor…I would be wrong. Dat movie was stinky!
I think I’ll go see Mamma Mia