When Harry Met Sally

January 05 2009 16:34 Filed in: Comedy
harry-sally-topper
Clearly this film is not currently playing in theaters, however I would like to keep my reviews on films that I have seen recently that have left an impression on me. I received the DVD for Christmas, and couldn’t wait to watch it. For some reason it seems that a lot of my male friends haven’t seen this film, which is a real shame because this is one of the rare romantic comedies that appeals to men and women alike. Both Meg Ryan and Billy Crystal embody traits and neuroses that women and men seem to bring to relationships, and even though the film was made in 1989, many of the themes still hold true today.

I watched the film with a friend of mine, and afterwards we got onto the subject of what makes a romanic comedy able to stand the test of time. We tried to think of recent ones, but were unable to come up with any that future generations will surely be familiar with. I believe that this film will be watched for years to come. I believe that the reason the film is so special is because the way the relationship between the man and the woman develops. As I have come to understand it the romantic comedy genre follows this formula:
  • Boy meets Girl
  • Boy and Girl don’t get along
  • Boy and Girl fall in love
  • Boy screws up and looses Girl
  • Boy wins Girl back
Now those of you familiar with the film know that in this simple sense When Harry Met Sally fits this formula beautifully. I’m not saying that the problem with romantic comedies is following the formula, it’s relying on some kind of gimmick that makes the formula work. For example, It Happened One Night follows this pattern as well, but the obstacle there is the class difference between the two characters. This is also the obstacle in other romantic comedies such as: Pretty Woman, Shakespeare in Love, and Roman Holiday. But in When Harry Met Sally there is no outside obstacle (I’m counting society as an outside obstacle.) Here the obstacle is Billy Crystal’s own inability to compromise his preconceived notions of relationships. I watched the making of documentary with writer Norah Ephron, and she explained these differences as The Christian tradition, and The Jewish tradition. She explained the Christian tradition is the traditional sort of romantic comedy with an outside obstacle, whereas the Jewish tradition she explained was more in the style of Woody Allen, where the obstacle is the man’s neuroticism. And I think that speaks volumes to not only why this film is so successful, but when put in that context why Woody Allen’s romantic comedies are so successful as well.

Another reason that the film is so successful is because it attempts to answer the age-old question of “Can men and women be friends?” The fact that this question is addressed the first time that the two meet sets the stage for what’s to come. Harry believes that it is impossible for men and women to be friends, whereas Sally disagrees. Again, this seems to be consistent with the man’s perspective versus the women’s perspective. So immediately the women in the audience identify with Sally, and the men identify with Harry because all men and women have a friend of the opposite sex and have wrestled with this question.

Because the context of their friendship/relationship is so ordinary, the whole movie relies on the characters’ chemistry and the writing. I must say that this film has some of my favorite lines from any romantic comedy, and the dialogue takes the film just out of the ordinary and into the realm that people wished they lived in. On top of that the great thing about the film is that I believe women think Sally is justified in acting the way she does after (SPOILER) they sleep together, and I think men believe Harry is justified in his actions as well. And the truth is, they are both right. Sally is offended when he runs off and treats her the same as the other women he’s slept with, whereas Harry is afraid of loosing her completely, but doesn’t know how to act. I really think the final scene where they are reunited is believable because Harry’s last resort is to make himself completely vulnerable, but Ephron has Sally get defensive and she doesn’t forgive him right away and declares, “I’m not your consolation prize, Harry.” To me this line is perfect and comes at the perfect time. It depicts Sally as a strong woman, and she’s not willing to forgive him in two-seconds just for merely showing up. He does give a sweet heart-felt speech about why he loves her, concluding with “... I came here tonight because when you realize you want to spend the rest of your life with somebody, you want the rest of your life to start as soon as possible.” And while still not ready to forgive him, Sally says, “You see? That is just like you, Harry. You say things like that, and you make it impossible for me to hate you.” It’s really a perfect resolution from Boy screws up and looses Girl, to Boy wins girl Back, and Ephron does it in a way where the women in the audience swoon rather than roll their eyes.

Milk VS. The Times of Harvey Milk

January 05 2009 16:34 Filed in: Drama | Documentary
paradeSized
When I heard a movie was being made about the life of Harvey Milk I was ecstatic. All I knew was that he was the first openly gay man elected to public office and that he was assassinated. So when I saw the trailer, the thing that excited me most was the fact that I would get a little bit of history out of the film as well. My parents were living in the Bay Area during this time, and so I made a point of seeing the film with them hoping that would put the film in a bit more of a historical context. But rather than my parents telling me about Harvey Milk, my dad rented a documentary called The Times of Harvey Milk, which won an academy award in 1984. So having seen the documentary first, my opinion of the Gus Van Sant film may be a little skewed.

As far as the documentary goes, I can’t think of a better one I’ve seen about a political figure, or any public figure for that matter. The pacing is excellent and begins with Milk making his way to San Francisco and opening a camera store, and then into the aftermath of Dan White’s trial. As I was watching the documentary, I couldn’t help but wondering “Why hasn’t Hollywood made a film about this before?” And it wasn’t until I sat down to write this that it hit me – because the documentary is so good. I honestly think Hollywood was afraid that if a film was made about him people would say, “if you thought that was good, go see the documentary.” And I have to say, if you thought Milk was good, go see The Times of Harvey Milk (It’s available on NetFlix.)

But back to Milk. I have to say I still really enjoyed the film and of course the acting was wonderful, and Sean Penn is a serious Oscar contender. But after watching the documentary, I have to say that Sean Penn really doesn’t have the presence that Harvey Milk had. Harvey really owned a room, and I felt that Sean Penn played him maybe a little too timid and was too conscious that he was playing a gay man, rather than a man who happened to be gay. I have to say that my favorite performance in the film however was James Franco (and the fact that he’s gorgeous has little to do with it.) I’m use to seeing him as a brooding rebel in the Spiderman series, and was pleasantly surprised to see that he can be sweet, tormented, and vulnerable all at the same time. I really thought he added the human depth to the story and his scenes with Sean Penn were my favorite.
medium_penn
I do have one major complaint about Milk however, and that is that it should have been released before the 2008 election. I honestly think that if this film came out before the election California’s Proposition 8 would have had a better chance of being defeated. Not necessarily because I think it would change people’s mind about homosexuals in general, but maybe it would inspire people to get out and protest about the violation of basic human rights that was at its core. The main political plot point is defeating Prop 6 that would have denied homosexuals the right to teach in schools, and due to the main character’s adamant protesting, they manage to defeat the proposition. I can’t help but think that this would have given the audience the motivation to take action. It’s actually quite sad that in 1978 people were more accepting of homosexuality than they are in 2008.

But back to the films. The reason I’m so conflicted between choosing a favorite between these two films is because they really deal with different aspects of Harvey Milk’s story. I watched the documentary with the commentary, and the woman who edited the film mentioned that she always heard the film referred to as The Life and Times of Harvey Milk, when really it’s just The Times of Harvey Milk, which was a conscious decision made by the film makers in order to make for a more fluid story. So in the documentary, nowhere does it mention the suicide of Milk’s lover portrayed by Diego Luna in Milk. I think it was a smart move for the documentary to deal specifically with Milk’s political career, and especially smart for Gus Van Sant to focus so much on his personal life. This is why I have a hard time choosing a favorite. I think I admire the work that went into the documentary and am in awe of how flawless it is, but wanted to know more about the man behind the politics, which is what I got from Milk. Both films are really worth seeing, and I would like to hear someone’s opinion of both films after seeing Milk first and then the documentary to see if you have any different reaction.