The common conception of romance involves a man and a woman who spend time together as their love bonds draw them closer until vented emotions and passions are released. In Nora Efron’s Sleepless in Seattle, you’ve got the beautiful girl (quite a shocker to realize that Annie was Meg Ryan) and the handsome young man (well, Tom Hanks isn’t THAT dashing) that concludes in the way all clichéd romance movies do. But there is a fundamental difference that transcends this film from the ordinary and that is the screen time in which the couple spends together, a whopping 2 seconds before the grand finale. Yes, that is right, Annie Reed and Sam Baldwin fall in love without actually meeting each other. But hey, that’s the magic of love and cinema, right?
My Introduction to Film Class had a screening of the classic love story Sleepless in Seattle, which, oddly enough, is based upon ANOTHER classical romance called An Affair to Remember. To summarize the story in its crudest form, Hank’s wife dies, son becomes depressed, advertizes his dad’s bachelor status, dissatisfied woman from across the nation hears his story, randomly falls in love, she gives up everything, and they coincidentally meet at the top of the Empire State Building. Is that ambitious enough of a plot? Well, I would like to believe so, because this entire film is just plain ridiculous. The absence of realism is horribly plain and the plausibility of the couple’s scenario is too bizarre for a person to fathom. Unfortunately, rather than exploring the characters and the plot of the story, director Nora Efron decides to write off any incontinuities by claiming them all as “magic.” Several times throughout the film, the characters repeat, “Oh, it’s so magical!” or “It’s a sign!” and “Our marriage was magic!”
It is impossible to not be annoyed by the constant reminder that magic can solve all the problems of our daily lives, especially our romantic aspect. Especially the treatment of the secondary characters, Walter and Hyena (I apologize for not remembering her name – from this point on, she’ll be known as Hyena), is just plain despicable. They each carry an exaggerated flaw, one seems to be allergic to everything from pollen to sarcasm and the other cackles like a drunken hyena (hence her eponymous nickname) that end up being their downfall in the romantic relationship. While not necessarily the only factor, the director uses these failures to help make Sam and Annie’s already ludicrously miraculous relationship possible. Unless this happened to be Sleepless in Hogwarts, magic cannot be the key to everything. This romanticized story does nothing more than show how impossible long distance relationships could be (those of you with love partners on the other side of the US, don’t be disillusioned by this film
).
My ranting aside, there were many cinematic elements that made this romance story as poignant as it is today. For one, as mentioned in the beginning, Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan don’t spend much time together in the same shot, but there are a couple moments when they share the screen. Interestingly enough, the famous movie poster showing the two of them on opposite sides of the world, with Seattle and New York seamlessly transform into the other, perfectly depicts their relationship that would ensue in the movie (there is an alternate poster of the couple together, but that destroys what the movie is attempting to portray). Both sets of eyes stare into the deep skies with a look of hope, wondering if there is another out there with the same sense of loneliness and longing.
The movie is assembled in a way that, despite vastly different settings, feels as though Sam and Annie were sharing their time together. The constant shift between one person to the other creates an almost unbreakable bond. The actual “magic” of the movie is in the photography, as this fluid connection inspires a feeling of close relationship that cannot be fathomed in reality. The moment in which Annie and Sam share the statement, “Oh sure you do,” shows the connection of thoughts and emotions despite the actual distance. My favorite aspect of this film is the opposite relationship of distance. There is an inverse relationship between love and distance. As mentioned before, Hyena and Walter are close in proximity with the main actors, yet are unable to find true love despite their efforts. Annie and Sam, on the other hand, never make any direct attempts to associate their consummate love but still find their relationship growing stronger.
Another thing I noticed was the silences. When Sam and Hyena or Annie and Walter share a moment of silence, there is an air of awkwardness. The clumsy movements of the characters or the stumbling dialogues kill the atmosphere. On the other hand, when Hanks and Ryan share a moment, the screen becomes clouded by the power of emotions that engulf the two. The shots of Hanks on the edge of the port and Ryan sitting at the end of the dock coincide so that their eyes match.
All in all, while I was disappointed with the elementary plot line, which was neither stimulating nor original, its cinematic techniques were something to behold. The quick succession of scenes between the two unknown-to-each-other lovers helped to close the wide physical gap between them. Especially with the eye angles and eye sights, Nora Efron manages to pull off a romance that does not involve the main players interacting with one another. All in all, I think that the real “magic” of the film is not the implausible romance plot, but the cinematic expertise in weaving the frames together.
Although you criticize the absence of realism in the film, one has to remember that the goal of a film is not to duplicate reality. The story still works, despite the explanations that are not present.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think you are right on target in stating that the magic of the movie lies in the photography. It is the job of the director to find the right shots and arrange them in a way so that the desired perspective is conveyed. This is how Efron succeeds in bringing two people's lives together into one story.
True, the narrative of "Sleepless in Seattle," does present unrealistic circumstances of falling in love, but isn't this what romantic comedies are all about? I have yet to watch one romantic film in which the narrative develops in a realistic way(which is why, incidentally, half of the men in the US are in the doghouse; many women are hopeless romantics expecting to be swept off their feet. Thank Hollywood.)
ReplyDeleteUnrealistic plotline aside, I think Efron does an exceptional job of selling the reality of the story through non-verbal devices, such as eye-line matches across the country and side-by-side on the Empire State Building. According to Cooper, these strategically placed eye-matches actually create spatial continuity and coherency that allows the audience to at least "want" to believe--although they know that this is not reality, they are nonetheless drawn into the plot. In this sense, Efron acheived one of the central concerns of filmmakers, which is having a narrative self-produce, and a film make meaning, for its viewers.
I thought your point about the silence between Sam and Annie as opposed to between their counterparts was great; and again, it speaks to the significance of non-verbal cues that are established by spatial transformations. Sam and Annie, when their gaze finally meets in a unified space, say only there names, but the cathartic culmination of their cross-country connection creates(woah, no alliteration intended), as you say, a "cloud of emotion" that many filmmakers strive, and fail, to capture.
Over all, the rather pejorative term "chick flick" is a genre incited by this film. None are realistic, yet they remain successful in theaters because audiences are continuously invested in the storylines of the characters. In "Sleepless in Seattle," spatial continuity and the power of eye-line matches create an unconscious, yet realistic counterbalance and visual subplot to the hopelessly romantic narrative. And because of this, we want to believe.
You concisely sum up all the reasons why this film is unrealistic and incredibly melodramatic, and also point out the main flaws of Ephron's storytelling (especially about Walter and the Hyena). You should remember, though, how the characters themselves admit to how absurd the premise is, and all the reasons why the romance should not work. I do like how, despite your feelings towards the film, you pay respect to how Ephron visually and cinematically connects the two characters. This also is what I enjoyed about the movie and what makes the film worth watching. How do you make an unrealistic plot and idea actually appear like it could happen. How can you make magic seem real to your audience (without taking a train from a fraction numbered station in London, that is)? Film is an escape, and, boy, is "Sleepless in Seattle" an example of that, but it is entertaining to see how Ephron visually connects two physically distant characters.
ReplyDeleteGreetings Justin,
ReplyDeleteThis is Alexis, the person grading the blog posts for this course. You do a good job pointing out the absurdity of the romance of the film. And it is interesting that you chose to do close readings of the posters that advertised the film. From your title I was thinking that your discussion would take a more indepth look at the way the technical aspects of the film created the "magic" of a relationship that (as you point out) never happened in realtime. Also it is important to integrate the reading assignments into your analysis of the film.
Looking forward to continuing to read your work.
Best,
Alexis
That was a movie in which I remember that I buy viagra for my uncle, that is why I will never forget that sleepless in Seattle movie.
ReplyDelete