Genre Analysis

Introduction

At the heart of classical romantic comedies is just that, the heart. Historically, love was the fuel which made the romantic comedy genre burn while celebrating the “power of love to conquer class differences, erase ethno-religious tensions, and dissolve personality clashes” (Doherty, 2010, p. 26). With love conquering all, a classical romantic comedy was characterized not by consumerism or product placement but by “manners and the quirky mating rituals of sophisticated adults in a well-defined social setting. The point of the pas de deux was foreplay and aftermath, not climax” (Doherty, 2010, p. 26). In other words, classical romantic comedy, often referred to as rom-com, is not simply about the wedding but about how the couple got there.

Similarly, unique to Hollywood’s treatment of classical romantic comedy is a relatively narrow production code which operates on a formula which consists of characters that are “predominately white, middle class, and heterosexual” (Johnson and Holmes, 2009, p. 369). Interestingly, one very important piece of the formula that Johnson and Holmes did not initially incorporate was the female variable. With this in mind, it is suggestible that the classical romantic comedies of Hollywood appealed to a relatively heterogeneous audience, i.e. white, middle class, presumably heterosexual, and female. Certainly this is not an absolute yet according to Johnson and Holmes ,“ viewers with similar ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds to those depicted on screen may see the portrayals as relevant models on which to base their own behaviors and expectations, whereas viewers with differing backgrounds may identify less with these portrayals” (Johnson and Holmes, 2009, p. 369) therein reinforcing a particular code of production and audience.

Past and present the classical romantic comedies of Hollywood both speak to and deviate from the classical model of the rom-com mentioned above. And although there is exception to this formula – audience, class, gaze, gender, race, and sexual orientation – the romantic comedy all-the-while still emphasizes the pas de deux. With this in mind, the primary focus of this analysis is to shed light upon how There Is Something About Mary which is classically Hollywood and to identify how Coming to America differentiates from the classical Hollywood formula.

Analysis

Coming to America

Coming to America is a romantic comedy although it is not a classical romantic comedy. Coming to America shows an unoriginal and uncomplicated plot characteristic of Hollywood’s classical portrayal of romantic comedy which is fairly predictable: “boy meets girl, and they work through a serious of complications and misunderstandings until they are finally joined in marriage or a union presumed to be headed for the alter” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 163). Furthermore, “the true drama is over character, whether the two leads will be able to work out their differences in personality, worldview, responsibilities, or expectations and discover what the audience has known all along: they are meant for eachother” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 163).

In this sense, Coming to America is a classical romantic comedy as it exhibits classical characteristics of the genre superficially. Yet, upon further analysis there are two fundamental points which distinguish Coming to America from what would be considered a classical romantic comedy. First, Coming to America appeals to a male gaze, i.e. the main character is male and the two other lead roles with most face time are male. Secondly, Coming to America is defies classical expectations of romantic comedy as a genre because the cast is African American.

In accordance with the general theory of Laura Mulvey “plot and spectacle in Hollywood films are designed for the male gaze. The plot portion of the film is a linear storytelling function; this is analogous to the male sex act in its insistent forward motion, its drive for closure and conclusion (Cohen, p. 79). In light of this theory, it is suggestible that Coming to America does just that, it moves forward. In the beginning of the film the main character Hakeem Joffer [Eddie Murphy] experiences a sheltered life as a pampered prince who awaits an arranged marriage to a bride of his royal parents’ selection. As the film progresses, Prince Hakeem expresses discontent with the rose pedals he walks upon, refuses his bride to be, and decides to move forward by embarking upon a journey to find his princess which lands him in Queens, New York. By Hakeem refusing his parents prescribed plan of action and insisting he find his own bride he metaphorically moves forward upon a path or his own direction which can be understood analogously with Laura Mulvey’s proposed male sex act theory. Moreover, by choosing his own path Prince Hakeem reinforces male gaze as he is action oriented and forward moving.


To further the notion of male gaze, not only does Hakeem insistently move forward but he also succeeds by finding a bride while abroad; because Hakeem is able to determine his path and succeed by “winning” the princess of his choice he metaphorically “climaxes” in accordance with Mulvey’s proposed idea and ultimately brings conclusion to the film. On this note, Coming to America is a film situated by male gaze and is moreso a patriarchal comedy as opposed to a classical rom-com.
Not only does Coming to America differentiate from classical Hollywood conventions of romantic comedy in that it is designed for male gaze but it also has an African American cast.

In a broad sense, Hollywood is conservative which is evident in the types of characters which are commonly cast as leads. With some exception, take Spanglish and Coming to America, “romantic comedies portray white, attractive, fairly or very affluent men and women as protagonist” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 164) for the most part. Furthermore, “most exceptions to the whiteness of the genre are not all that profound since the female leads are typically ‘light-skinned women with Caucasian features and the bodies of fashion models’” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 164).
With exceptions in mind, Coming to America might only be an exception in so far as the eye can see. Although Coming to America casts African American’s they are marginalized by Hollywood’s classical representation of whiteness as both of Prince Hakeem’s brides drive home the aforementioned notion: they are “light-skinned women with Caucasian features and the bodies of fashion models” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 164).

With this in mind, Coming to America is more of an exposé of Hollywood’s white ideals. Furthermore, the idea that classical romantic comedy marginalizes by the generic portrayal of whiteness serves as platform to suggest that whiteness is not necessarily characteristic to the genre but rather that it is racist. Driving home this notion, Moddelmog writes that “given that the premise of romantic comedy is that the central characters are wild for each other, the genre seems to have difficulty accommodating people of color unless they deliberately play against stereotypes depicting them as hypersexual and promiscuous. That is, if the leads in a romantic comedy are people of color (especially African Americas), the film must play up their respectability and tone down their sexual passion” (2009, p. 164).

Recalling the plot of Coming to America the film operates precisely in the model described by Moddelmog. That is, Prince Hakeem is a prince, he is refined, plays polo, is cultured, educated, and sophisticated; prince Hakeem is not a sexmonger and when given the chance to “sow his royal seed” he declines. In the scene where Prince Hakeem refuses his royal bride to be, his father takes him aside to talk in the garden which permits Hakeem to express himself and his desires. While attempting to gain his father’s understanding –Hakeem wants to convey that he wants to find his own true love, not be handed one- his father interprets his message as indicative of Hakeem needing to gain experience by tasting the fruits –women metaphorically – of far off lands. Playing up his respectability, Prince Hakeem embarks upon a journey where he finds true love contrary to his father’s perception bringing el fin to the film.


There’s Something About Mary

There’s Something About Mary is a “Hollywood film” as it contains all of the factors which make a classical romantic comedy, classical. First, There’s Something About Mary depicts a hilarious love story between Ted and Mary which establishes an audience which is classically Hollywood: middle class and white. Second, the films conservative script is about romantic, “perceived to be monogamous, eternal, and, of course, heterosexual” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 164) coupling which is typical of the romantic comedy genre. Third, it is suggestible that There’s Something about Mary uses female gaze despite Ted’s leading role.

In opposition to Laura Mulvey’s proposed linear storytelling function analogous to the male sex act, Paula Marantz Cohen states that “movies show us bodies in motion, engaging with material things. And romantic comedies engage with material things in a particular way: the glory in them and glorify them; they make them an expression and extension of the self. As such, they appeal to the “material girl” in viewers (male and female alike)—or translating Madonna’s idiom into more academic terms, they appeal to the female gaze” (Cohen, 79). In There’s Something About Mary the heteronormative male gaze is not necessarily the only code for viewing. In romantic comedy, maintains Cohen:
“women gaze as women, disconnected from a conventional male economy of desire, whether or not a man made the film or a patriarchal perspective informs it. What constitutes the difference is that the plot-spectacle hierarchy, which Mulvey associates with the male gaze, is turned on its head. In romantic comedy, spectacle becomes central, and plot, secondary. As a result, these films have been denigrated as trivial or silly, and only recently have third-wave feminists noted that they offer unique pleasures. I want to go further and argue that women watch romantic comedies not just for the anomalous pleasures they afford but for more substantive reasons: to learn how to use the material world creatively and to assimilate things into a style of being that defines and empowers them. I should note that male characters, as well as female ones, often have a material presence and a relationship to things in romantic comedy that has nothing to do with plot (Cohen, 80).

The idea that Mulvey’s theory is turned on its head is evident through various examples in the film. For instance, Mary is played by a very attractive Cameron Diaz who is inherently adorned by long blonde hair, striking blue eyes, and big red lips who recognized by everyone for being beautiful throughout the film. More, is that in addition to being naturally beautiful Mary dresses in such a way that lends reason for why women occupy center stage in the material world of romantic comedy: because she has more accessories at her disposal than her male counterparts (Cohen, 81). Furthermore, “this may be why women tend to be middle-class or above in these films – they need to have access to a large assortment of expressive (and expensive) items” as does mary (Cohen, 81).

Another example of how There’s Something About Mary lends to female gaze and relays female power through adornment and clothing is in the scene where Mary comes home to find one of her stalkers having gathered all of her high heels with the intent of steeling them. In this scene the shoe thief submissively lies on the ground while grasping on to Mary’s shoe collection while she stands above him ordering in an authoritarian manner commanding him to leave her shoes behind which inherently suggests that her clothing yields some sort of power. In Cohen’s words, “high heels, which second-wave feminists condemned as a byproduct of patriarchal oppression, can be the expression of female assertiveness when viewed in the context of these films” (p. 83).

In There’s Something About Mary clothing empowers Mary. Likewise, Mary’s particular style although not flamboyant harnesses female gaze and turns what is seemingly masculine or patriarchally informed upside down. One scene in particular metaphorically compounds Cohen’s idea. After much discussion with a friend, Ted learns that going on a date without masturbating is like “going out with a loaded gun” which can be quite dangerous. With this in mind, Ted takes his friends advice and goes to the bathroom to “unload” his “gun” yet Ted runs into a problem. Having successfully “unloaded his gun” Ted is dismayed because he cannot find his “bullet”. After much time spent searching Ted decides to give up when Mary arrives at his hotel to pick him up for their date. Ted opens the door to a beautiful Mary and they engage in discussion and after some small-talk Mary looks at Ted with a bewildered expression and asks him “what is that on your ear, hair gel?” and without hesitation Mary reaches for the “hair gel” and in one motion styles her bangs with it while thanking Ted because had just ran out.

The “hair gel” scene in There’s Something About Mary brought the film much fame yet this scene film serves as a great example of how the female lead commands female gaze. By taking Ted’s semen to style her hair, Mary metaphorically uses Ted as an extension of herself. What this suggests is that Mary, through the power of female adornment, commands female gaze therein matriarchally informing the audience as she exploits what is ultimately masculine for her superior feminine purposes.

Mary establishes female gaze not by appearing naked of by being a commanding officer but rather through her “clothes and how she wears them that promote her centrality as an eye-catching, in control presence” (Cohen, 84). Together, Mary’s over-the-top hair style and expressive language serve forms “an expressive idea that can serve as permission to women to be themselves – to look and talk in outlandish and idiosyncratic ways” (Cohen, 85) which reinforces the concept of female gaze and centrality.

More is that women want to “find themselves, not reduced or negated, but set off and amplified by a partner who, literally fit them like a well-tailored dress. In most romantic comedies, the consummation of love is signaled by a kiss, a merging of bodies that, incidentally, doesn’t require the removal of clothes” (Cohen, 86). With that said, There’s Something About Mary effectively consummates female gaze and love simultaneously in the famous hair gel scene; Mary finds a partner whose gel perfectly styles her hair –ok maybe it is not a dress but . . . – with the consummating kiss following shortly thereafter.
Conclusion

If there was a recipe for the trajectory for the romantic comedy it would be “Lovely to look at, delightful to know, and heaven to kiss” (Cohen, 87). For the most part, depending on the audience its seems that the recipe holds true. In classical Hollywood portrayals of romantic Laura Mulvey’s narrative theory of male gaze superficially holds true as many films of the past were male produced and or patriarchally informed. In Coming to America prince Hakeem and his fellow cast that have the most face time are male and the plot drives forward for the ultimate conclusion of marriage, i.e. analogous with the male sex act and climax. In this sense, Coming to America follows a typical Hollywood protocol for rom-com production. Differently, at a superficial level the film is seemingly non-Hollywood as it casts African American in attempt to perhaps to portray the genre as not racist and marginalizing but rather equal and inclusive
therefore making it different than what a traditional Hollywood romantic comedy would look like: White, middle-class, and heterosexual.

Yet in advancement of previously mentioned arguments it seems that although Coming to America differentiates in terms of racial casting norms the movie still marginalizes minority cast by portraying them against hypersexual white stereotypes and instead as kings and queens. It seems novel to present a minority in this light at first glance but upon second glance we see that Coming to America is a classic Hollywood production: “light-skinned women with Caucasian features and the bodies of fashion models’” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 164).

There’s Something About Mary is perhaps less classical than Coming to America but not at first glance. There’s Something About Mary points to all of the tell-tale signs of rom-com as far as the Hollywood treatment of whiteness is concerned: the cast is all white, middle to upper class, and presumably heterosexual. More is that, Something About Mary reinforces white ideals which leaves little room to see how this film might actually be very different from classical Hollywood models especially with Ben Stiller – Ted – cast as the lead. But, as argued from the position which Paula Cohen takes, Something About Mary defies Mulvey’s classical model for male narrative when Mary styles her hair with Ted’s gel. Indeed, there are many other examples which further this argument still the hair-styling scene epitomizes Mary’s female prowess and gaze.

Coming to America and There’s Something About Mary are both typically Hollywood films in terms of audience design and code production yet the latter may be the less of the two which inherently makes it more of a romantic comedy. Because There’s Something About Mary is able to turn traditional gaze on its head it distinguishes itself from traditional narrative models and that is what most romantic comedies achieve, the spectacle is primary and the plot secondary. Cameron Diaz as lead perpetuates this idea because of her natural beauty and adornment she is able to captivate both male and female audiences in a feminine way. Both films share another element which is that of racism. In Coming to America the cast is marginalized by unrealistic roles and There’s Something About Mary has an all white cast. Ultimately, “romantic comedy is a genre about citizenship, impressing on viewers the form their desire must take for full citizenship to be granted” (Moddelmog, 2009, p. 162) and neither film grants full citizenship to everyone thus reinforcing Hollywood’s classical white ideals.









References

Cohen, P. (2010). What Have Clothes Got to Do with It?. Southwest Review, 95(1/2), 78-88. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Doherty, T. (2010). The Rom-Com Genre and the Shopping Gene. OAH Magazine of History, 24(2), 25-28. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Johnson, K. R., & Holmes, B. M. (2009). Contradictory Messages: A Content Analysis of Hollywood-Produced Romantic Comedy Feature Films. Communication Quarterly, 57(3), 352-373. doi:10.1080/01463370903113632
Moddelmog, D. A. (2009). Can Romantic Comedy Be Gay?: Hollywood Romance, Citizenship, and Same-Sex Marriage Panic. Journal of Popular Film & Television, 36(4), 162-173. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.