Saturday, October 10, 2009

The Age of Romance

Wright wrote that: "these films never deal directly with present social and political problems; second, all of them are set in the nonpresent…third, the society in which the action takes place is very simple and does not function as a dramatic force." I'd like to address the more or less timelessness of contemporary romance films / chick flicks / whatever you'd like to call them. While it's certainly possible to date films based on the featured technology, cars, fashion, etc., a large majority of romance films from the past decade make little direct reference to their timeline. This may be thanks to filming far in advance of release dates, but it also works on the other end--with fewer cultural references, films can still seem relevant years after initial viewings.

I was ill for about a week over the summer, and wound up spending a large majority of that time in bed. Once the initial novelty of not living life by my iCal wore off, I wound up having little to do other than catch up on reading and indulge in channel surfing. One of the things I stumbled upon was a cable airing of "Serendipity." As I enjoyed John Cusack in "High Fidelity," I decided to watch. Although the film was released in 2001, it still felt relevant--some topics (like unrequited or lost love) never manage to seem dated. Certainly, the home video market benefits from this, since old titles can still sell, simply because a potential viewer didn't see something when it first came out. In theory, a good movie from 2001 would still be considered good in 2009.

No comments:

Post a Comment