hm.

so, this is an odd list of movies which the compilers claim are ‘romantic movies without the schmaltz.’

sound of music? annie hall (gag me — woody allen needs to be restrained. why do we keep letting him waste film and actors who could be doing much more interesting things)? say anything? romeo and juliet for god’s sake, possibly the most loaded, dribbly, and potentially boring and self-indulgent romantic story ever, even in the zefferilli version with the lingering close-ups of the young juliet who, rumor has it, he was sleeping with himself?

clearly there is something inherent in the definition of ‘schmaltz’ of which i have been previously unaware. much like arthur dent and definitions of ‘safe.’

Advertisements

One thought on “hm.

  1. I’m giving them credit for including <>Wall-E<> and <>I Know Where I’m Going!<>, which is British schmaltz circa 1945 and hilarious (it’s on The List). But I think the problem with the list is similar to the problem inherent in compiling any “best of” erotica/porn collections. One person’s anti-schmaltz is another person’s too-schmaltzy-for-words, and boring to boot (romeo and juliet?: shoot me now — actually, shoot <>them<>). After all, how are they defining “romantic” movies? And, as usual, they’ve left most of my favorites off the list — <>stranger than fiction<>? <>little voice<>? <>kinky boots<>? <>state and main<>? <>goodbye, lenin<>? <>beyond silence<>? ( . . . and that’s just off the top of my head ;).) all of those movies have love stories in them, whether or not those stories take center stage, and often (for me, anyway) carry much more resonance than 3/4 of the films on the above list.

Comments are closed.