The month of May in The Rom-Com Project was originally going to be Bickering Bickersons month, where I focused on romantic comedies that had a bickering couple at the center. Then I remembered that “bickering couple at the center” described about fifty percent of romantic comedies and realized that I needed to narrow my focus. Instead, I declared May as “Battle of the Sexes” Month, focusing on romantic comedies that had a male and female lead in direct competition with each other. Then I sifted through the suggestions I received from my readers and picked the comedies that fell into this category. This month, I watched Adam’s Rib, The Shop Around the Corner, You’ve Got Mail, and Someone Like You.
In three of these movies, the male and female lead are in direct professional competition with each other. Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn in Adam’s Rib are the district attorney and a defense attorney in a high-profile trial, and they also happen to be a married couple. Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullavan in The Shop Around the Corner are two employees of a Budapest gift store who work together but can’t seem to get along. Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan in You’ve Got Mail (a modern update of The Shop Around the Corner) are two rival bookstore owners, he of the Barnes & Noble-esque megastore and her of a quaint children’s bookstore. Finally, Ashley Judd in Someone Like You is not in professional competition with Greg Kinnear or Hugh Jackman, but her relationships with both men inform and inspire her war against the male sex as a whole.
(It also feels noteworthy that three of these films star actors who have worked together on other romantic comedies. Hanks and Ryan were together in Sleepless in Seattle, Stewart and Sullavan were in three romantic comedies together, and I think I heard somewhere that Tracy and Hepburn did an obscure picture or two, here or there…)
Anyway, after watching these movies, I noticed a tendency among the filmmakers to try to play the Battle of the Sexes so that both sides win – except, in the end, the men win almost every time. In Battle of the Sexes comedies, the lead female characters usually possess two things: a job and a feisty and/or spunky independent personality, but by the end of the films, they have to Learn a Lesson about either their careers or their relationship choices – or, if they’re lucky, they Learn a Lesson about BOTH things.
First, let’s look at the career choices of these lead female characters. All four of them are employed, but with the exception of Katharine Hepburn’s lawyer in Adam’s Rib, they have the “woman who works in an art gallery”-type job that Mindy Kaling talks about in “Flick Chicks” – the kind of job that is professional yet ultimately nonthreatening for the male lead. Margaret Sullavan is a salesgirl at a gift shop, Meg Ryan is a children’s bookstore owner, and Ashley Judd is a production assistant at a popular talk show.
Next, let’s take their personalities into consideration. Hepburn is her husband’s intellectual equal with a sharp wit and tongue. Sullavan initially comes across as a shy, desperate young woman looking for a job, but proves to be an adept saleswoman who can easily take Stewart to task. Ryan is cute and spunky and makes a lot of “adorable” facial expressions (and her character’s name is even Kathleen Kelly, for krying out loud). Judd is professional, direct, and bright, enjoying a rapport with Jackman as she takes her womanizing co-worker down a peg or two.
These two qualities – a job and an independent personality – seem like prime ingredients for a feminist lead character and a feminist romantic comedy, right? Well, sure – but most recipes require more than two ingredients, and any feminist message that these movies might contain collapse when you don’t read the directions. (This is a really bad metaphor. I’ll move on from it now.) These independent women with careers each have to humble themselves and learn a lesson about work and/or romance, while their male partners get to stay the same and reap the benefits of being around the softened versions of the independent women they supposedly love.
Of the four female leads, Margaret Sullavan in The Shop Around the Corner probably has the best ending. She considerably softens her behavior toward Jimmy Stewart, yes, but not because she’s humbled or put into a position where she learns how wrong she was to judge him. She’s nicer to him because he’s nicer to her (after he learns that she was the identity of the “Dear Friend” he had been writing to). At the end of the film, she’s still his employee, so the power imbalance still exists, but the issue seems minor compared to the bond they created. She fares pretty well.
The same cannot be said for her modern counterpart, Meg Ryan in You’ve Got Mail. Ryan’s character starts from a higher position, in which she owns The Shop Around the Corner, but by the end of the film, her store has gone out of business thanks to the competition from Fox Books, the store owned by Tom Hanks’s character. Don’t feel too bad for her, though – there’s a quick scene in the film where she wanders through Fox Books and sees children happily browsing through the shelves, and she realizes that the megastore isn’t the soulless corporate monster she had been envisioning. Also, being forced out of her career turns out to be a good thing because she can now pursue a dream to write her own children’s book. This is supposed to make it okay that she ends up with the man whose business ruined hers, because she and Hanks were in Sleepless in Seattle together and REUNION MAGIC!
Meanwhile, Ashley Judd in Someone Like You is on a doomed mission from the beginning of the film, and everyone except her can see that it’s doomed. She falls too hard too fast for the Wrong Guy (Greg Kinnear, who was also Meg Ryan’s Wrong Guy in You’ve Got Mail), and when he inevitably breaks her heart, she develops a faux-scientific theory about why ALL men are predisposed to being unfaithful. We all know she’s full of crap, but she doesn’t know she’s full of crap until the eleventh hour, and the only reason she comes off as remotely smart is because Ashley Judd has an intelligent, likable presence onscreen. She learns at the very end that all men are not jerks and has to humble herself in front of Hugh Jackman before he kisses her in the street.
Finally, Katharine Hepburn’s character in Adam’s Rib has the most disappointing, frustrating trajectory of all, because hers was the story that began with the most potential. She takes the case of a woman who shot her husband, hoping to argue that her client was not in her right mind. The case particularly interests her because she knows that a sexist double standard could work against her client. I was interested in this story, foolishly expecting to see a somewhat nuanced take on a courtroom dramedy and a humorous portrayal of a loving couple sparring in court. I should have known better. As the film went on, it became clear that Tracy’s character was entirely in the right and Hepburn’s character entirely in the wrong. He had the objective, correct take on the case while she was the overly adamant feminist harpy who flirted with another man and humiliated her husband in court. In the end, she has to admit to being wrong after her husband threatens her with a gun – a gun that turns out to be fake, but the damage is still done.
After watching these four films in succession, I can’t claim there’s a strong anti-feminist message in all of them. No, these stories have messages of faux feminism – or milquetoast feminism, or wishy-washy halfway-feminism. The female leads can be feisty, they can spar with their romantic male leads, and they can have jobs, but they can’t be more successful than their romantic male partners, and they’d better not take the sparring too far, even if their careers and livelihoods depend on making successful arguments. And don’t even try to be a woman who takes a stand for other women, because your arguments are either completely stupid (Ashley Judd in Someone Like You) or you present them in an inappropriate forum during the wrong time (Katharine Hepburn in Adam’s Rib).
I also can’t help but feel that, if the roles in You’ve Got Mail were reversed and the female lead was the person who owned the megastore, she would have had to close it down or resign her position after learning that love was more important than money.
Maybe there are more “Battle of the Sexes” romantic comedies where the female lead is the one who triumphs – or, better yet, where neither triumphs and the message focuses on mutual respect and understanding. If such movies exist, I’d definitely like to see them.
So movies like this have a message but it seems to be the only the woman that has to learn it? Reminds me of that movie with Aaron Eckhart and Catherine Zeta Jones.
It sounds like the Hepburn movie could have been fixed with a less clear cut case in terms of right and wrong and some lines seen throughout the movie that hinted at earlier trials the two had been on opposite sides of with a roughly equal win ratio on each side. If the movie had the right tone they even could have had a small joke where they kept score.
The funny thing about Adam’s Rib was that the movie had a very sympathetic view of the woman Hepburn was defending, and she actually does win the case. The woman who shot her husband is portrayed more sympathetically than the husband who was shot. The audience is meant to sympathize with her. But there’s a sense that, while Hepburn’s character was right to defend her, she took it too far, and in the end, Tracy basically bullies her into admitting that no one has a right to shoot anyone, ever.
So there’s a really weird message – if you’re a battered woman who does something violent when you’re not in your right mind, you deserve pity, but if you’re an assertive woman who stands up for said battered woman, you’re too shrill and you’re taking things too far.
My thoughts about abused women who kill is that if you want to stop it happening you need to address the abuse and have a system in which women being abused have other options and can seek effective help and an actual viable way to escape the horrible situation being forced upon them, and it has to be real help, not lip service.
I remember reading something about a situation where a woman who short her abusive partner/husband/etc was jailed but a woman who went through all the “proper” channels ended up being shot by the man who abused her. The former was punished by the law for defending herself and the woman who did it the “correct way” ended up losing her life because she wasn’t protected. That story informs my view on this subject. I just hate the thought that out there are some women who are essentially being made a victim, both by the abuser and by the system that should be keeping them safe.
And I may have gone off on a rant, this is something I feel passionately about.
It’s disgusting that people in abusive relationships are so judged for not leaving, and yet the system does so little to enable them to leave safely.
Well said.
Never apologize for going off on a rant about such an important subject. 🙂
The problem with “battle of the sexes” flicks is that there’s always that battle so there has to be a winner and a loser, and the main characters are always on opposite sides. The whole battle of the sexes thing in our culture bugs me anyway. But it would be great to see a romantic comedy that doesn’t have that underlying battle theme.
Agreed. It’s also one of the most heteronormative tropes out there.
I feel like I liked romantic comedies a lot more when I was much younger, which is surprising since I would think I would be interested in them more as an adult when I can better and clearly understand what is going on. It’s really made me wonder if I’m still operating on a child-like mindset, at least in the way that I prefer them presented, because I enjoy them most when they treat the idea of love with the least amount of seriousness (i.e. when they’re heavily parodied, thoroughly deconstructed, or functionally non-existent). I think this is also why I really enjoy Shakespearean romances. Unlike the way most writers in the mainstream media seem to understand his plays *coughcoughStephenieMeyerTaylorSwiftcoughcough*), Shakespeare does not invite his viewers to think that any of the relationships he portrays will actually work. Romeo switches from Rosaline to Juliet in the space of 2 seconds, and Juliet must be the one to demand marriage because no evidence is given to prove that Romeo will remain faithful. Orlando decides that he’s in love with Rosalind after knowing her for 5 seconds, thinks that the best way to do something about it is to post bad poetry on all the tress in Arden forest, and Rosalind proves that he can court a young man just as easily as a woman he supposedly loves. The beauty of Shakespeare’s comedies is that they end just short of tragedy, and even in the actual tragedies everyone dies before the relationships fall apart. It’s true that there would not be any balance between the sexes in real Elizabethan relationships but I feel more sympathy for the women in his plays than I do in supposedly modern love stories featuring women who are liberated and in positions where they are capable of doing something about a problem if they’re facing one. Others may feel differently, of course.
(Erm, sorry for veering off topic :/)
The beauty of Shakespeare’s comedies is that they end just short of tragedy, and even in the actual tragedies everyone dies before the relationships fall apart.
Well said. My dad’s a Shakespeare professor and he’s always said that the Shakespearean couple that was most deeply in love was the Macbeths, which just goes to show you how highly the Bard thought of romantic love (as in, not highly at all).
I will admit to having a bit of a weakness for Orlando, though, and I think putting the poems on trees is really cute. It might have helped that the actor who played Orlando in the first production I saw was REALLY handsome and charming.
I don’t think that “Someone Like You” really fits in the battle of the sexes category, because I look at it as more of a character study that deals with the trauma of breaking up. Basically we have Ashley Judd think she finds an amazing connection, and then it blows up in her face, and she’s so angry and hurt and broken she even tries to get a surgeon to remove her sense of smell so her memories won’t be triggered by Kinnear (who is a coworker, so she’s kind of stuck with him.) And then Hugh Jackman’s character is portrayed as a womanizing scumbag, but he says that he never pretends to be a “white knight” and that he’s always upfront about his promiscuity (which may or may not be the case). However, we also find out that he is like this because he, too, had his heart broken. And he obviously is trying to heal that with casual sex and it’s not working too well.
The scene at the end is kind of a cop-out, I think, because they went for the dramatic kiss ending rather than a more adult, realistic admission of feelings, but I still see this as a movie where two people who were destroyed by love help each other heal and realize, in doing so, that they can fall in love again.
Not that I’m saying it’s perfect or anything, but that’s my take on it.
I appreciate your take on the film and you have a lot of good points. I think I would have liked the movie a lot more if not for the “Dr. Marie Charles” plot, because I do think Judd & Jackman’s growing friendship was believably played and moving.
The dramatic kiss at the end also didn’t work for me because I honestly didn’t buy that either of them were in love – yet. I can believe that these two characters would fall in love eventually, but I didn’t believe they were already in love. An adult admission to attraction, and her asking him out on a date, would have worked better for me.