Another Movie

David Bordwell, a prominent American film scholar, suggests that the whole purpose of American film narrative is to "unite the romantic couple." In other words, movies are just there to get the guy and the girl together. Now obviously that's a pretty broad generalization and it doesn't apply to lots of films but, on the other hand, it does apply to lots of others. Think about your favorite movies. How many of them involve the "boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-wins-girl-back" structure? A lot of them, right? Nothing wrong with that.

When Suzanne and I were watching Garry Marshall's Valentine's Day the other night, my first thought was "This movie is so lame, it needs crutches and orthopedic shoes." But then I decided that it was actually the ultimate culmination of what Bordwell is talking about. It's like your standard American romantic comedy but on steroids. It is the Costco of romantic comedy. It has everything for everyone and in bulk.



Every kind of boy-girl coupling you can imagine is represented here: young and dumb (Taylors Lautner and Swift), old and wise (Hector Elizondo and Shirley Maclaine), straight and gay, mother and son, "I never realized the perfect person was right under my nose," and so on. The film is thick with pretty people in pretty settings and characters doing highly unlikely and improbable things. Larry Miller's airport worker giving Ashton Kutcher a free pass to any gate in the airport? Really? I know it's a romantic comedy but am I supposed to suspend all disbelief? Am I supposed to assume this movie takes place before 9/11? What about all the standing around and doing nothing George Lopez and Ashton Kutcher, two professional florists, seem to be doing on Valentine's Day of all days? The restaurant owner who allows Jennifer Garner to humiliate one of his customers and make a scene in his place just because she's a scorned woman? Really? What about Jessica Biel's character being alone and unloved? I'm not saying a pretty woman can't be alone or feel unloved but her neurotic schlub in 900 dollar shoes act wasn't very convincing.

Anyway, the point is that the movie tried to give everything to everybody and, therefore, ended up not giving much to anybody. It tries too hard to cover every possible angle and ends up creating flat, underdeveloped characters caught in vague, low-pressure predicaments that get resolved in obvious, trite ways.

I don't think this movie really represents what filmgoers want to watch. I like to think people are smarter and a little more discriminating than that. I do think, however, that it is what some marketing bunch in Hollywood thinks we want. And that's a shame. Hopefully, the film's critical drubbing and the subsequent box-office drop-off will let studio heads know they need to produce better than this.

P.S. With Redbox, I feel a lot better about renting movies like this. If I had paid Blockbuster's ridiculous 4.99 per movie price, I'd be a lot more feisty about this.