Friday Film Review: Notting Hill (& 90s Rom-Coms)

collage: @laurenelburns

With Valentine’s Day just days away, and out-for-dinner-dates clearly crossed off the menu, I’ve got a feeling that many people who ordinarily wouldn’t, might turn to a film at some point on Sunday. This week, I’ve been thinking about the romantic comedies I grew up on, specifically the ones from the nineties (and early noughties) and their lasting social and cultural impact. For better or worse, these films have left their mark.

Richard Curtis is a name synonymous with the nineties rom-com, having directed a trail of them back-to-back from the 1990s to the early 2010s. He’s responsible for Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994), Bridget Jones’ Diary (2001) and About Time (2013), as well as Notting Hill (1999). Notting Hill is a textbook rom-com. Hugh Grant, working in his Travel Bookshop, meets Julia Roberts, an actress. They’re initially strangers before a meet-cute involving orange juice leads them to see each other again. Then, they face separation due to fame (big, extenuating circumstance) and, ultimately, get together in the end. That is pretty much it. And it’s the plot line of more or less every rom-com ever made; with quirky jobs, friends, side characters, and a pretty part of a big city being just some of the typical rom-com traits threaded throughout Notting Hill. Despite the separation and sad undertones, there’s an easy idealism to it. Even Hugh Grant’s character admits: “This is the sort of thing that happens in dreams, not in real life.” when he’s in the interview room pretending to be a journalist from Horse and Hound, of all the magazines! Highlighting that the film is self-aware, that it knows how ridiculous and rare its events are. But, juxtaposing with this is the notion of relatability. The famous line: “I’m just a girl standing in a front of a boy.” even insists on being relatable, by bringing the characters down to the same level as anyone else. This is problematic as Notting Hill's situation is far from reality, feeding into unrealistic expectations. However, it's interesting to consider how Julia Roberts navigates fame in the movie, especially with our society now, as it is with social media and reality TV. Its focus on privacy and celebrity culture, as well as the difficulties that arise for people in the public eye, who are, ultimately, no different from anybody else, is a worthwhile message to takeaway.

Moving away from Notting Hill, throughout the nineties, there was a swathe of rom-coms, all made in a very similar vein. High school films like 10 Things I Hate About You (1999) starring Heath Ledger and Emma re-telling Clueless (1995) became modern classics. As did Nora Ephron’s You’ve Got Mail (1999), Sleepless in Seattle (1993) and Pretty Woman (1990). The noughties brought Bridget Jones, 13 Going On 30 (2004) and The Princess Diaries to screens. So, for years, there was a steady stream of rom-coms, following Notting Hill’s template of a storyline. But, as we move further into the 21st century, many have noted that rom-coms are dying out. Or at least they’re at a point of change following their “golden age”. Netflix’s weak attempts at replicating the rom-com’s heyday with To All The Boys I’ve Loved Before (2018), for instance, prove that the genre doesn’t have the same place in pop culture as it used to. Perhaps we’ve outgrown the format which doesn’t function so well in 2021. After all, the world has evolved and changed rapidly within the thirty years since Pretty Woman.

Yet, the basic rom-com plot has hardly changed, in nearly a century of filmmaking. Two romantic leads who are total strangers, or barely know each other meet serendipitously, face obstacles, break up then get back together. Each film is the same, centred around meet-cutes, chance and grand gestures. These events are seen as hopeful or naive, dependent on your perspective. In the films, love simply happens to people. It finds them, no effort or action has to occur, which doesn’t reflect reality. Other common attributes are cities like New York and London, where the protagonists work in magazines or independent bookshops. According to Vanity Fair, the: “Most common professions were in the media or arts, with writing professions represented most strongly.” So there’s a focus on more “female-orientated” and creative work. There’s always a cast of side characters, including a best friend who exists to discuss the main character’s problems. The predictability of the happy ending is something we all look for too, as the reality is much messier. We are seeking hope that difficulties can be overcome. The sweet, familiar layout of rom-coms and their inevitable happy endings are comforting, explaining why people buy into them, despite their deep-seated issues.

Age differences, cultural differences and class differences are just some of the obstacles rom-com couples have to overcome. However, 93% of rom-coms studied by Vanity Fair focused on a straight, white couple. Displaying a lack of diversity, stories and voices, constrained further by the simplistic narrative outlined above. In reality, a lot of the grand gestures and events portrayed would also be cheesy, creepy and unnatural. And a lot of the “romantic behaviour” would be labelled stalking, unhealthy or obsessive in the real world. The intense focus on love itself is problematic as the characters, especially the female ones, treat finding romantic love like it is the only thing worth having in life - when it’s obviously not.

While they are problematic, un-diverse and potentially damaging for their probably young, impressionable viewers, rom-coms, as with “chick-lit” and glossy magazines, are frequently underestimated. They are deemed “low-brow,” frilly fantasies because they’re written by or feature women. When done well, they’re as worthy of recognition as any film. They shouldn’t be underestimated just because they were designed with women in mind.

Still, these films have ingrained unrealistic expectations into heads for decades, doing more damage than good. Yet, love them or hate them, they’ve had a profound impact on nineties and noughties culture. And, years later, for all their good and bad bits, they’re still worthy of watching. As Mindy Kaling said: “I regard romantic comedies as a sub-genre of sci-fi, in which the world operates according to different rules than my regular human world.” So, if you’re spending this Sunday alone with wine and chocolate, remember when you’re scrolling through Netflix that rom-coms aren’t based on real life. They’re movies for moderation and can taint days like February 14th if you let them, by turning them into something much bigger than they are. But they can brighten them too.

by Lauren Burns (editor)

Follow Lauren’s Instagram

❀