There's a fellow named Edward Tufte ( long 'E' - Tuff-tee ) who is the expert regarding how to make pictures that mean things. If you're into graphs ( aka 'information graphics' ) Tufte is your man.
One of his concepts is that when you want to represent variation between similar things, you should take little snapshots and stick them side by side - he calls them 'Small Multiples'
Here are some examples:
Alex Rodriguez batting over three years
Example showing payroll expenses for groups of departments
As you can see, in both examples multiple similar pictures are grouped together to highlight the differences between them.
So in true geek fashion, I will now explain my affinity for romantic comedies.
When I look at a romantic comedy, I see small multiples. Movies like French Kiss, Hitch, 50 First Dates, Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail share so many qualities that many people ( men ) will look at them and say 'Seen one? Seen them all!'.
However, I look at them and see the formula
Let's compare Meg Ryan in French Kiss with Meg Ryan in You've Got Mail
Lives with boyfriend - gonna get married.
Meets charming, intriguing stranger ( Kevin Kline and Tom Hanks, respectively ) who irritates the crap out of her.
Falls in love with stranger, but doesn't choose to stay with him...
Stranger surprises her at the end of movie by chasing her down and smooching her.
All the same...but all different. It's the variations on the formula that make it interesting.
Yep, that's why I like them. Also, they make my heart go pitter pat. But mostly it's the analysis that gets me. Yep.
So compare your favorite two movies in this genre and see what matches up and what's different.
If we do enough thinking we might be able to come up with Romantic Comedy Bingo - then we can play it and assemble a plot that makes us a million bucks.
One of his concepts is that when you want to represent variation between similar things, you should take little snapshots and stick them side by side - he calls them 'Small Multiples'
Here are some examples:
Alex Rodriguez batting over three years
Example showing payroll expenses for groups of departments
As you can see, in both examples multiple similar pictures are grouped together to highlight the differences between them.
So in true geek fashion, I will now explain my affinity for romantic comedies.
When I look at a romantic comedy, I see small multiples. Movies like French Kiss, Hitch, 50 First Dates, Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail share so many qualities that many people ( men ) will look at them and say 'Seen one? Seen them all!'.
However, I look at them and see the formula
- boy meets girl
- girl doesn't like boy - or does, but boy does something stupid
- boy wins girl over by
- standing outside a window playing 'In Your Eyes' on a boom box
- being sweet despite ruining the business her mother built
- her discovering he's the right one at the last possible minute
Let's compare Meg Ryan in French Kiss with Meg Ryan in You've Got Mail
Lives with boyfriend - gonna get married.
Meets charming, intriguing stranger ( Kevin Kline and Tom Hanks, respectively ) who irritates the crap out of her.
Falls in love with stranger, but doesn't choose to stay with him...
Stranger surprises her at the end of movie by chasing her down and smooching her.
All the same...but all different. It's the variations on the formula that make it interesting.
Yep, that's why I like them. Also, they make my heart go pitter pat. But mostly it's the analysis that gets me. Yep.
So compare your favorite two movies in this genre and see what matches up and what's different.
If we do enough thinking we might be able to come up with Romantic Comedy Bingo - then we can play it and assemble a plot that makes us a million bucks.
Comments
What word could I create to communicate the geekery love of comparison? Analysephilia? Projesteronimous? Cornyscope? Ukalalia?
I don't know, buddy. You NT's (Myers/Briggs) are a strange bunch to me. However, we NF's are even al little stranger...
I tend to love romantic comedies for the revolution of heart the characters go through. I am not plot driven. I am person driven, and that makes my heart go pitter pat.
A while ago, I also had a wonderful time comparing the Bourne Identity book, old movie, and new movie. So telling about our times. And, I'll admit, taking a closer look at Matt Damon/Jason Bourne isn't such an unattractive idea. See this old blog post. http://heidi-spot.blogspot.com/2007/12/bourne-then-and-now.html
The act of analysis and comparison is such a thrill, although I don't actively seek it. I sort of wait until I'm hit on the side of the head with the need to. There was the time when I watched Shrek in the theater, and was so blown away by the song "Hallelujah"...I made William sit and watch all the credits so I could see who did that song. It was written by Leonard Cohen, performed by Rufus Wainright. We actually bought the soundtrack because of it, and then I went on itunes and downloaded the versions I could find and put them all together on a CD. Jeff Buckley's version could almost make me cry, it was so sad. However, I loved the song for various reasons, and comparing and contrasting the three versions was a way to burrow still further into the depth of what it did to my soul.
I think that the analysis is just a way to burrow deeper into the thing that makes my heart go pitter pat.
Most people know that the author of Bridget Jones’ Diary, Helen Fielding, was greatly inspired in her writing by Pride and Prejudice, the novel. In the book the parallels are numerous and fairly obvious, even though the heroine of Pride and Prejudice is slightly more attractive and well mannered than Bridget. But, we are dealing only in movies so- the basic similarities are:
-Bridget’s mother is always trying to set her up with well-to-do bachelors
-Elizabeth’s mother is intent on her marrying any wealthy single man in the vicinity (as well as any of her other daughters doing the same)
-Bridget’s mother is vulgar and embarrassing, her father a wet-blanket
-Elizabeth’s entire family has very little propriety
-The future love interest in both in named Darcy (Fitzwilliam and Mark)
-Bridget is snubbed by Mark at a Christmas Party
-Mr.Darcy openly slights Elizabeth at the ball by refusing to dance (among other haughty statements)
-Mark’s old friend is the guy Bridget likes, named Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant), Daniel tells an erroneous lie about Darcy which furthers Bridget’s dislike of him
-Mr.Wickham endears himself to Elizabeth, telling a great falsehood about Darcy and causing Elizabeth’s opinion of Mr. Darcy to fall even lower.
-Meanwhile, Mark has become interested in Bridget and makes a declaration of this to her, she is still unsure of how she feels about him and distrusts him greatly
-Mr. Darcy has grown to admire Elizabeth, proposes to her, is rejected
I really could go on and on here, but I won’t. The similarity in the plot is pretty obvious, with modern updates and twists, and of course kissing and other contemporary additions to courting that no respectable person would have done in Edwardian England (or at least, done openly).
What appeals to me about these stories in that the way we perceive and represent human relationships has not really changed that much in over 180 years. You will see the same kind of conflicts, misunderstandings, obstacles and triumphs in the stories of Jane Austen as in a lot of Hollywood movies today. These issues are still relevant to us, which is why, I think, you shouldn’t discount the romantic comedy genre. No matter how silly or romanticized it may be, it still has the power to tell stories we want to see, because on some level we identify with them.