This was originally posted at the TCM fan blog
I'm blessed to have been born and raised in Tampa, a city that not only offers great Cuban and Greek food on every corner, but also features one of the best classic movie houses in the country. Really, any lover of classic cinema or film history should make a pilgrimage to the Tampa Theater one summer when they offer their Summer film series of great old movies every weekend.
Last weekend it was Casablanca. It's a great movie, of course, but seeing it in a theater built back when it was originally shown... well it makes it a new experience. This is the time before stadium seating, plush chairs, and armrest drink holders. You're cramped right up with everyone else which makes the experience much more communal than the modern theater going experience.
But I've totally lost my point. The point is: after seeing Casablanca this weekend I was struck by the fact that the best Hollywood love stories tend to end in tragedy. Rick and Ilsa are parted. Rhett leaves Scarlett. Maria dies in Tony's arms. Rose watches Jack drown. Christian and Satine come together only for her to die in his arms.
Do I need to go on?
All of these films feature tragic endings and all of them are considered romantic masterpieces. Why is it that we are so drawn to love stories with sad endings?
Personally, I think it goes back to the concept of art as serving as a catharsis to the viewer. Aristotle first put forth this claim while talking about tragedy in theater. He said that watching the emotional stories common in Greek theater it allowed the viewer to purge their own negative emotions in a healthy way. It's human nature to repress our emotions in an effort to function in the daily world without just being teaming balls of rage, depression and angst. However, without a proper outlet these emotions can grow powerful and take over.
Aristotle suggested theater as an outlet for these feelings but film is the modern theater. And it really does seem to work. By watching these couples love and loss it allows the viewer an outlet for their own pent up emotions from tragic love affairs. When Rhett tells Scarlett that he no longer gives a damn we aren't just crying for them, but crying for the people in our own life who we have had walk away. When Rick and Ilsa part we tear up because it reminds us of the times we've been forced to let someone go. Although in our life we're probably not letting them leave because of the Nazi fighting potential.
There's a place for happy romances too. Breakfast at Tiffany's and When Harry Met Sally all help to imspire people to keep trying to find their soulmate. But at the end of the day these films don't have the staying power of the tragic romances.
So, what say you? Why do you think we love the love stories with sad endings? And what are some of your favorites of the genre?
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Do the people with the Breakfast at Tiffany's posters on their dorm walls realize what the movie is about?
Repost from my TCM fan blog
Breakfast at Tiffany's is a movie about a prostitute.
Don't get me wrong. It's a great move. I love it. I own a copy of the script. I picked an orange tabby rescue cat as a pet because of my deep affinity for that movie. But that doesn't negate the fact that it's a movie about a prostitute.
This isn't that surprising. After all, Hollywood loves making movies about prostitutes. Pretty Woman is the modern example but there is Irma la Douce and Taxi Driver and toner of other films that involve the world's oldest profession. But Breakfast at Tiffany's is odd because of the fact that most people seem to not realize that Holly is a call girl. Even people who have never seen Pretty Woman can tell you the profession that Julia Roberts plays in the film. But Breakfast at Tiffany's seems to stay clear of that associations. As a result you can find posters of Holly Golightly in her little black dress and tiara at Target or Wal-Mart or any other store frequented by people who would never think of glorifying that type of business.
I've talked to many people who consider themselves to be fans of "Breakfast at Tiffany's" who deny that Holly was a member of the world's oldest profession. "She's a party girl" they say. "They paid her for company" they'll assert and then justify that all the money she was given was just cab fair and powder room trips.
Uh huh. Sure. Keep telling yourself that.
The novella that was the basis for the film was more overt with Holly's profession, but even before I'd read Capote's story it was obvious to me. I was 13 the first time I saw the movie and at the end I turned to my mother and pointed out that this so-called greatest love story ever on film was about a hooker and a gigolo. But the fact that Holly and Paul were painted in shades of gray only makes their love more interesting to me. When two perfect people fall in love it's science fiction since there are no perfect people. But watching deeply flawed individuals find a way to fit the broken pieces of themselves together... that is what makes a great romantic movie. It gives hopes to the rest of us.
Part of the problem is that so few people who have latched onto the iconic image of Holly, one that you can find on t-shirts and art prints, have actually seen the film. Like the photo of Marilyn standing on the subway grate the picture of Audrey Hepburn as Holly was able to transcend film and become a part of the popular culture. Removed of any connection to plot the image is one of glamor and fun. Which is ironic since the Holly of the film was a woman who was unable to live up to that same facade of the party girl flitting through life. In a movie all about the importance of choosing the sometimes messy substance of life (love, connection, responsibility) over style it is almost comical that the impression most people have of the film is the exact opposite.
Breakfast at Tiffany's is a movie about a prostitute.
Don't get me wrong. It's a great move. I love it. I own a copy of the script. I picked an orange tabby rescue cat as a pet because of my deep affinity for that movie. But that doesn't negate the fact that it's a movie about a prostitute.
This isn't that surprising. After all, Hollywood loves making movies about prostitutes. Pretty Woman is the modern example but there is Irma la Douce and Taxi Driver and toner of other films that involve the world's oldest profession. But Breakfast at Tiffany's is odd because of the fact that most people seem to not realize that Holly is a call girl. Even people who have never seen Pretty Woman can tell you the profession that Julia Roberts plays in the film. But Breakfast at Tiffany's seems to stay clear of that associations. As a result you can find posters of Holly Golightly in her little black dress and tiara at Target or Wal-Mart or any other store frequented by people who would never think of glorifying that type of business.
I've talked to many people who consider themselves to be fans of "Breakfast at Tiffany's" who deny that Holly was a member of the world's oldest profession. "She's a party girl" they say. "They paid her for company" they'll assert and then justify that all the money she was given was just cab fair and powder room trips.
Uh huh. Sure. Keep telling yourself that.
The novella that was the basis for the film was more overt with Holly's profession, but even before I'd read Capote's story it was obvious to me. I was 13 the first time I saw the movie and at the end I turned to my mother and pointed out that this so-called greatest love story ever on film was about a hooker and a gigolo. But the fact that Holly and Paul were painted in shades of gray only makes their love more interesting to me. When two perfect people fall in love it's science fiction since there are no perfect people. But watching deeply flawed individuals find a way to fit the broken pieces of themselves together... that is what makes a great romantic movie. It gives hopes to the rest of us.
Part of the problem is that so few people who have latched onto the iconic image of Holly, one that you can find on t-shirts and art prints, have actually seen the film. Like the photo of Marilyn standing on the subway grate the picture of Audrey Hepburn as Holly was able to transcend film and become a part of the popular culture. Removed of any connection to plot the image is one of glamor and fun. Which is ironic since the Holly of the film was a woman who was unable to live up to that same facade of the party girl flitting through life. In a movie all about the importance of choosing the sometimes messy substance of life (love, connection, responsibility) over style it is almost comical that the impression most people have of the film is the exact opposite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)