The lure of romance
Tuesday, 24 June, 2003
I've still been thinking through the issue of romance and why we find it attractive. The other day I was trying to understand what specifically I liked about romantic movies and I decided to list my top five “favourite” romantic movies and what I liked about them:
(Please note that these are not necessarily my favourite films of all time.)
- Pride and Prejudice: Mr. Darcy is so gallant in going off to London to sort out the Lydia mess for Lizzy's sake. And he doesn't marry her for her money.
- Ever After: I like how Danielle spurs Prince Henry on to think of other people, not just himself. I thought his character complemented hers rather well.
- When Harry Met Sally: I like how Harry and Sally became such good friends and then fell in love and got married.
- Bridget Jones's Diary: I like the part when Mark Darcy helps Bridget out by giving her an exclusive interview with his clients who have just won their human rights case. I also like the fact that he likes her “just the way she is”. Shame they don't get married.
- Kate and Leopold: I like how Leopold did nice things for Kate—like organising a beautiful dinner on the roof with their own private violinist, like putting her to bed, like going through with the butter advertisement even though he thought the stuff was vile ... And they got married in the end.
I think that there are basically two things that “do it” for me when it comes to romantic movies:
- The guy does nice things for the girl—sometimes at great cost to himself;
- They get married (because marriage, for me, symbolises the ultimate commitment of love between two people—“'til death do you part.”).
On Friday after IBM we were at a friend's place watching Two Weeks' Notice with a large group of people which included a couple of guys from Hong Kong and China. One of these guys had a stack of DVD's with them which we were browsing through and I noticed that he had a lot of romantic movies in his collection. It seems that Asian guys are quite into this particular genre; one told me that he had watched Serendipity six times! (Seems quite excessive for such a fluffy movie.) I started talking about romantic movies and my Top 5 and what I'd deduced from making that list and they were hanging onto my every word. I thought it very strange but then I remembered a little passage from The Changeover (Margaret Mahy):
“Fancy you accusing me of romance!” Laura told him severely. “You read romances yourself.”
“And you want to know why?” he guessed.
“Why?” Laura asked.
Sorry [it's short for Sorenson—that's his name] gave a deep sigh. “It's a treacherous question,” he remarked. “Well! All right! My mother used to read them. One or two a week. Supermarket love stories bought along with the soap powder.”
“Miryam?” Laura cried disbelievingly, almost laughing. Sorry had a scrubbed potato in his hand. He tossed it up in the air and caught it again. Then he shook his head.
“My other mother,” he said. “I missed her for ages. I still miss her. Many times I've wished I could see her again, but there you are—she loved babies, not grown-up, shaving men, and besides it all got so terrible. There's no way she can ever think of me except as something that didn't work out and filled her life with trouble. So I used to read romances just to—to keep in touch with her, I suppose. And they're quite interesting in their way. I know they're awful, but they're so very popular there must be something in them that women find irresistible. Something like catnip. If I could work out exactly what it was, and isolate it, I'd be irresistible too.”
Methinks that is exactly why romance appealed to these Asian guys. But what about the girls?
It is funny that, while we were watching Two Weeks' Notice, comments from various group members indicated that they didn't want Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant to get together in the end. Perhaps it was the fact that his character wasn't very appealing (so dependant, inconsiderate and pathetic—a nice antidote to your stereotypical romantic lead). Perhaps it was they didn't care much about her. I noticed the wording in the crucial final scene—so devoid of commitment and any real meaning: “I think I've fallen in love with you.” No, that's not what I like about romance.
Blinks:
A way of funding writing in the future: pitch and idea and get people to support it.
Place where you can hire play equipment for parties, etc.
How to recalibrate the home button on your iPhone.
Unsolicited manuscripts accepted by Pan Macmillan with certain conditions.
Thought Balloon is a group blog in which the writers tackle a new theme every week? month? with one-page scripts. This URL is for their Phonogram ones.
How to sew a zipper on a knitted garment.
Issues organised by tale.
|
|
Disqus comments
Other comments
That’s a very telling remark, “I think I’ve fallen in love with you.” Falling in love is so different to “love.” As you said, it’s the commitment. Fall in love, fall out again. Love requires something more.
The guy does something at cost to him for the girl.
Shalom,
Jan
Although the current crop of “romantic comedies” are mind-numbingly stupid. Take, for example, “Two Weeks’ Notice” starring Hugh Grant and the ever-perky Sandra Bullock. A female friend imposed this disaster upon me one rainy night a week ago.
And don’t even get me started on “Alex & Emma”. Luke Wilson, call your agent!
In both of these films, I don’t see how anyone could find the “romance” believable. You know the drill: they meet. They subsequently hate each other. Then (surprise!) it turns out they really love each other, despite how annoyed they are by each other’s behaviour up until this moment. Realistic, right?
IMNSHO, romance is a bad indicator of future success in marriage.
What I look for in a woman is not romance. I’m not a teenager anymore, and what I look for in a woman is far less “romantic.” I hope the blokes reading this ask themselves the following two questions:
1. Do you like her?
2. Is she kind, not only to you, but to others?
3. Will spending your life with this woman improve your life or impoverish it?
4. After you have your first child, and your wife looks the like the first third of Saving Private Ryan below the waist, will you be able to deal with that?
Just two bits from a Yank.
Sorry, that was 4 questions!
Yes, granted that in Two Weeks’ Notice the guy does something nice for the girl but all he really does is keeps his word. That’s not so hard!
ARGH! Karen I just typed an email to you and then when I clicked send it said I had to log in again (I spent too long typing it)!! *sob*sob* so I don’t know if was sent to you or not…If you didn’t get it, let me know and I shall compose my thoughts once more….
Theres nothing wrong with romance. I wish I could yell that one.
Romance is the expression of the heart, use it wisely in glorification of God.
I don’t think Jesus said “don’t be romantic”. When I’ve had the chance to be romantic it is some of my favorite memories, if God doesn’t think romance is a good idea then I don’t agree with him and he better convince me otherwise.
“IMNSHO, romance is a bad indicator of future success in marriage”
Are you crazy? Without the romantic Chemistry I wouldn’t bother getting married, I can do everything else I want to do alone.
What are you defining as romance, Philip?
I didn’t like Two Weeks’ Notice (Hugh Grant’s character was a backboneless playboy and I couldn’t stand him), thought Serendipity was stupid (all that insistence on “if it’s fated, you’ll find my number” - just GIVE it to him already!!) and found How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days completely laughable. I mean, the girl’s acting a part throughout the movie, trying to get the guy to dump her. How can he fall in love with her when he’s never even seen the real her? He has no idea what she’s really like. She’s been treating him worse than most people treat their dogs. And he falls in love with her??!
I liked “You’ve Got Mail”, though. Probably one of the most believable movie romances I’ve seen. The way the guy struggles with himself after finding out that his email pal is also the rival he’s going to put out of business… very good.
I think there’s a distinction to be drawn (as you have done, Karen) between what society/the West considers to be romance, the romance presented to us in cinema, and a Christian kind of romance.
Philip…no, I’m not actually crazy
Note that I singled out “romance” by itself. Romance, considered alone, is not a good indicator of marital bliss. Why do I say this? Because romantic feelings are fleeting.
I don’t know what the rate is down there in Oz, but here in the States the divorce rate is above 50%. It’s probably comparable in the rest of the Western, English speaking world.
I think that there is a correlation between divorce and what Westerners use as their criteria for mate selection (at least the way the media portrays such things).
I forgot to add that I don’t want to come off as anti-romance. Romance has its place. But I’d rather consider other issues first when making life-altering decisions.
What do I define as romance? Firstly we need to separate romance from love from seduction. Most of the movies which show “romance” are actually showing the process of seduction between two people. Everyone goes through this process in some way or another, they manage to convince each other that physical rather than just intellectual intimacy is a good idea. But this is not romance.
Remember the movie “Romancing the Stone”, that’s just what they are doing, they are telling the stone how much they value it. That’s what romance is, telling someone and someone understanding how much they are valued by the other person in a intimate relationship. That is, to be romantic, for the other person to realize how much you value them in intimacy.
It is also accompied by a feeling of romance - heat beat increasing when meeting partner etc.
Seduction, however, seems similar, is actually a process of convincing someone else to enter a romantic relationship. Ideally both people try to seduce each other, but commonly one chases after another. i.e. my Minister said he had to do all the chasing, she (his current wife) was ignoring him, so he seduced his wife.
Now - you can’t get to love without romance and seduction, if you can tell me a story of two people being in a state of love without having first gone through any romance or seduction processes then I will be shocked. This is a mistake some Christians make, they assume you can get to a Christian love without any seduction or romance and that these processes are somehow wrong, but they are necessary. Reasons why they are necessary are that you need to undergo a biological change in order to feel in love with someone, they are a natural order (this seduction, romance, love story has been retold many times over), read Song of songs, does this contain seduction? is seduction bad?
Movies rarely show love, mostly they show seduction - who can blame them, seduction is exciting and fun to watch!
Yes I agree that how romantic a relationship is, alone, is not a good indicator of how long the marriage will stay together. However, if romance is not present I would say that the relationship is less likely to succeed, thus my point, I wouldn’t enter marriage without romance. You said “What I look for in a woman is not romance”, does that mean you don’t look for romance in a relationship? Then I assume you do not want romance in the relationship and I would conclude it will likely fail.
I would say that the high divorce rate comes about because of a few biological reasons, (drug abuse, depression and alcoholism of partners), incorrect intent at time of marriage, effects of parenting - ie, what did your parents do in their relationship, incompatibility in co-evolution together such as can you cooperate on tasks.
Also, people do not use rational (logical) criteria for getting into relationships (maybe in India they do sometimes, you should see a Indian dating web site some time, people list their income per year), they use their emotional intelligence. This assumes that people have developed their emotional intelligence well, and by looking around at people everywhere you can see mostly that’s not the case.
My central point is that I belive romance is a necessary component of falling in love and that romance is not sinful or wrong in any way, it does not distract from serving God any more than doing the dishes or feeding the cat. It brings a relationship closer, isn’t that necessary in order to join a relationship within Gods framework.
Maybe the guys like the romantic movies so they can relate to the girls who like them. One of my friends used to watch B.H. 90210 just to be able to hold a conversation with the girls, he said he really thought it was dumb.
I think we’re talking about two different things, Philip; that’s not how I was defining romance.