To kill the Romcom

Zaza Gxarisa

Reality is bleeding into the romcom industry and not in the way it should be. Personal opinions and conservative behaviours are endangering this genre when movies don’t work like that.

Romantic comedies: a film sub-genre as old as the art form itself. I’ve personally branded

myself as a romcom expert (please refer to my podcast, Starring Cupid) and many think my

enthusiasm stems from being a hopeless romantic. At best, I’m a cautious romantic. The

actual reason why I love romantic films is that I think they’re great vehicles for presenting the

human condition in an approachable way. Dramas are great, but intimidating. Horrors are

relatable because fear is universal, but I’m an absolute coward. Romance was my best bet.

We may not all experience romantic tribulations, but we will have a funny best friend, or an

overbearing mother, or have to make a major decision that alters our lives. No matter the

romcom, there is something to take away. Foolishly, I thought this was how we all watched

romcoms. Apparently not.

Picture this: I am on the internet and see a post announcing a studio’s latest romcom where

a regular woman meets a regular man. Their obstacle is something simple, like contrasting

personalities. A real ant hill of an issue. I will enter the comment section of this post and see

at least a dozen people doom this film to failure because “I’d never stand for this”. At this

point, I sigh. A plot that doesn’t allude to any kind of abuse or ill treatment is shot out of the

sky because an anonymous user can’t imagine dating someone a little different from them. If

not this, the reactions are usually something equally boring — the lead isn’t hot, they live in a

small town, they argue once or twice, and the list goes on. Opinions aren’t a problem.

Consider when the teaser trailer for Eternity (2025) was flooded with comments saying

Elizabeth Olsen ought to choose Callum Turner over Miles Teller because Turner is more

handsome. Specifically referencing the actors because we knew nothing about the

characters they were playing. No other reason. Now I encourage everyone to discuss and

critique what they watch. The problem here is basing the quality of a film on how it may

compare to your personal choices. Storytelling, by design, exists to reveal something to us,

either about ourselves or the world. No filmmaker expects you to adopt the values of every

character they present. So why are audiences judging a whole movie off personal choices?

Back to Eternity, there was no indication whatsoever about each man’s relationship to Olsen.

Yet people were prepared to hate this movie if the character’s choice wasn’t the audience’s

choice. I agree that there are lots of romcoms out there with questionable circumstances.

However, that’s not what makes them bad movies. Bad movies are classified as such for

tangible reasons — bad pacing, poor dialogue, boring shots, weak third acts, inability to

deliver your message. Fair reasons. The romcom wasn’t bad because the leading lady

chose the guy you weren’t attracted to. It’s bad because it’s a Netflix original! (This is a joke)

I also worry that people aren’t willing to unpack why they do this. We’ve come a long way

from the romcoms produced in the past 30 years that heavily leaned on misogynistic, purist

messaging which made it difficult for female audiences to romanticise the story. And they

made up majority of the audience for these movies. I believe modern romcoms are trying to

bridge that gap, but we only started making those changes in the 2010s. So the genre is

trying to meet us in the middle. However, that magic middle is shrinking because we live inincreasingly unromantic times. People are opting out of community building and forming

emotional bonds because they don’t see the instant reward for either. It’s much easier to

focus on yourself because we can control ourselves. Even if they can’t, it’s still easier than

dealing with people you can’t control at all. It’s the illusion of comfort. That’s why it’s so

uncomfortable when they watch a movie where the main character doesn’t follow the perfect

person arc in their head. This perfect person arc is being built up by what we consume. For

example, the social media monarchs who have decided that we’re only allowed to

romanticise the lives of the luxurious and wealthy. Even if you’re from a middle or working

class background, you want romcoms to present the absolute fantasy scenario. So when

your online monarchs decree that it’s “cringe” to be with a man that works a service job, and

the other million disciples parrot this, then you’ll run to the theatre to call x an awful movie

because they made the love interest a plumber. Case in point: when Materialists (2024) was

released there was widespread discourse about how Dakota Johnson’s character was better

off with Pedro Pascal because he was richer. That was it. Even after the movie explicitly

shows how their relationship was unsustainable, opinions were unchanged and cloud

anything the movie was trying to say.

I wouldn’t be this frustrated if this was isolated to movie commentary but we see this

mentality corroding real-life dating. Men and women alike. People are going into the dating

world carrying fictional expectations and standards, then being shocked that no one will

match up. For example, men may watch these films and their big takeaway is that wealth is

the only qualifying factor in romantic love. The mind boggling part is that romance films

aren’t dictative. If they were, fat women, queer people, trans people, disabled people,

non-white people, and the unconventionally attractive would never know romantic love. The

most these films say is that if you are to get into a romantic relationship, let it be with

someone who cares for you deeply. The definition for “cares deeply for you” is subjective.

That’s why Johnson chose to be with Chris Evans, the person she felt genuine love and

affection for. A choice that made sense for her, an individual. Yet any discussion about this

story treats this decision like a woman threw her life away. I don’t understand when we

decided that love is this definite standard and anyone who opposes it is defying Eros* and

should be punished. We have to bring ourselves back to earth and remember the

importance of thinking for yourself. Form your own thoughts, values and expectations, but

tethered to the world we’re in. There aren’t a lot of people that can fill your whole office with

flowers, but there are lots of people that will buy you flowers and also love you. That is also a

great movie if you’re willing to write it.

There are other factors I’m gliding over like red pill misogyny, the state of the global

economy, the anti-intellectualism shift, parasocial celebrity worship, and the decline of

moviegoing. I’m not saying those factors are unimportant. I just don’t have the time nor

capacity to unpack each one. We’d be here all day. The gist of what I wanted to say is here.

If you’re wondering why I care so much, it’s because I fear the long term consequences of

this behaviour. The same voice treating popcorn romcoms like biblical scripture will convince

people to dilute the messaging of revolutionary or dystopian films. We can’t destroy a genre

that presents characters as humans containing multitudes before we start casting

marginalised groups (again, fat women, queer people, trans people, disabled people,

non-white people, and the unconventionally attractive). I also care because these stories

matter. They just do. Whether they’re low budget, or adapted from literature, or Hallmark

movies - they matter. Selfishly, I also want to make a few and refuse to let you sour apples

ruin my plans. In the name of my queen, Nora Ephron - cut it out!

[*Greek god of love and desire that inspired the creation of Cupid]