The Romantics

Gonna wrap up my not-so-comprehensive Sundance Week here. Just the other day we had my review of the Sundance film, "The Company Men," and now we've got another one for you called "The Romantics." To read some past reviews of this year's Sundance crop, check out my posts for HappyThankYouMorePlease, Nowhere Boy, and of course, Buried.

Genre: Drama/Ensemble
Premise: Seven friends from college reunite when two of them get married.
About: Starring Katie Holmes, Anna Paquin, Malin Ackerman and Josh Duhmal, this was one of the films playing at Sundance. Nierderhoffer has quite a history behind her. She's been producing small independent films for over a decade, focusing on dramatic offbeat fare such as Lonesome Jim (Casey Affleck) and Saving Grace (John Cusack). During that time, she's also written a few novels, such as The Taxonomy of Barnacles, and The Romantics, which she adapted into the screenplay herself. She will now become one of the few people who can claim to be an author, screenwriter, producer, and director, as she has directed this movie as well. I hear next year Galt will be up for the part of Mary Jane in the Spiderman reboot.
Writer: Galt Niederhoffer
Details: 113 pages


I always wanted to get back together for one weekend with six college classmates that, because of time and space and distance and life, I wasn’t able to keep in touch with. I wanted an unlimited supply of beer and to be out in the middle of nowhere and have seven sunsets a day so the lights’ always perfect and sexual tension so thick even the walls couldn’t stop it and music from ten years ago that makes you both cringe and smile at the same time, and unfinished business and decade old drama. But most of all, I just want to put life on hold for a few days and enjoy the company of people I spent four intimate years with, but don’t know anymore. I want to catch up and make out. I want to see where we all ended up.

But since none of this is likely, I wanted The Romantics to bring me as close to that place as possible.

Did it?

Holmes will play Laura.

The Romantics follows 7 friends from college: Laura, who we’re told is a “beauty,” Tom, who we’re told has “puppy-ish green eyes”, Lila, who has a “cascade of blonde hair,” Weesie, who’s “put together even in her pajamas,” Tripler, who sounds like a guy’s name but since there was no pronoun in his introduction, I figured out was a girl 60 pages later, Pete, who’s “handsome and athletic,” and then there’s Jake, who gets the only introduction that actually gives us a sense of who he is and what he looks like, described as a “shaggy haired modern-day Victorian poet," despite the fact that he's probably the smallest character of the bunch.

These 7 are the bestest of best friends. So best friends-ish in fact, that they’ve given themselves the nickname, “The Romantics.” There’s a lot of heavily implied history between the group, but unfortunately we don’t get any of it. The only piece of information that makes its way to us is that Laura and Tom are together and that Laura and Lila are closer than peanut butter and jelly. Waking up after a crazy night of drinking, the 7 realize that they’re all late for graduation, so they hurry up and get ready, only to run outside and see a sea of caps flying into the sky. The seven have missed their own graduation.

Duhmal will play Tom.

Flash-forward 10 years and we’re shocked to find out that Lila is getting married. No, that’s not the shocking part. The shocking part is that she’s getting married to Tom, Laura’s old boyfriend. The seven besties reconvene at Lila’s mansion, ready to reignite old times, with no one seemingly concerned about the fact that Lila is marrying her best friend’s boyfriend of five years. It’s as if no one thought this was going to be an issue. Laura pretends that everything’s fine. Tom bumbles around, rarely saying anything to anyone. It’s a really weird vibe and an awkward set-up to the weekend’s events.

Despite this triangle of non-fun, the rest of the group does their best to get drunk and live it up. There’s laughing, flirting, even a little bit of kissing. But it always comes back to Tom and Laura. How did they break up? Why would Tom end up with her best friend? Why is he marrying Lila??

Ackerman will play Lila

Apparently, the reason Tom and Laura broke up was because…well, actually I don’t know why they broke up. But the reason they’re not together anymore, according to Tom, is that he loves her too much. And they had such a great time together, he doesn’t want to screw it up. He wants their time together to remain perfect. Which brings us to his relationship with Lila. He hates Lila. For all intents and purposes, he despises her. Isn’t a single trait he likes about the woman. So obviously, he’s marrying her. Why? Um, I believe it’s because it makes him feel like less of a fuck-up. To complicate matters, Laura and Lila, who are still supposedly friendly with each other, have NEVER SPOKEN ABOUT THE FACT THAT SHE’S MARRYING THE MAN LAURA STILL LOVES. Am I the only one who thinks none of this makes any sense at all?

But that’s not the only problem with The Romantics. I never knew any of these characters. I was barely given a description of them in the first place so I had no idea what they looked like, and once we got to the present, I was never told who they are out in the real world, what they do, what their dreams are, what their problems are. And the person I’m told the least about, Tom, is probably the most important character in the entire story. And I know absolutely nothing about him. There’s vague notes thrown out like, “lawyer” and “married” but that’s all they are is notes. The lack of time you have in a screenplay prevents you from getting into a character's autobiography, but if all I'm told about someone after 110 pages is that they're "put together" and "married," I mean... how can I root for that character. It's like asking me to root for the stranger I watched cross the street the other day. And I probably know more about him than I do these characters, as I could at least take an educated guess about who he is based on what he was wearing.

I get it. This is a writer-director project. Not everything needs to be spelled out, as long as the director understands what she needs. But in leaving so much on the cutting room floor, in preventing us from truly understanding these people, all we're left with is a bunch of pretty faces.

The script does some things right. We have an obvious ticking time bomb here (the wedding) and potential for a dramatically played out love triangle. The opening and closing images were perfect. But it didn’t matter cause none of it felt real. I was miles away from ever understanding where these characters were coming from.

What's so odd about all this, is that the adaptation of her other novel, The Taxonomy of Barnacles, which I reviewed here, has some really nice character work in it. It was adapted by someone else but still. I came out of this one stumped.

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Ensemble pieces are a bitch. And my advice is to stay away from them. Why are these films so hard? I’ll tell you why. Coming up with an interesting character that an audience wants to watch for 2 hours is one of the hardest things there is to do in the world. That is not hyperbole. It’s why studios pay half a million dollars for screenplays that get it right. It’s why they then back up that investment with 100 million dollars to put it on screen. In what other medium is such a huge investment made on something so tiny? - So when you essentially say, “I’m not going to just come up with one compelling character, I’m going to come up with seven!”, it’s like asking if you can enter your lottery numbers in a drawing that’s seven times bigger than the normal lottery. And that’s just the beginning of your problems. As I mentioned above, one of my issues with The Romantics was that we didn’t know anything about these characters. Well, when you spread your movie out between seven different characters, there’s not a lot of time to *go into* these characters, which forces you to have to do *more* in *less* time. So it’s just a really hard type of script to get right. I am not saying it can’t be done. It has obviously been done before. I like these types of movies and have even tried my hand at a couple myself. But you just have to know that you’re stacking the odds against yourself when you do it. My advice is, if you’re still in the early stages of your writing, try to write a script that has a single compelling character for 120 minutes. If you can do that successfully first, and you still want to tackle the ensemble, then go for it. God be with you.

Happy Thank You More Please

Genre: Indie Drama
Premise: This coming-of-age tale follows six lives in modern day New York, highlighted by a 20-something aspiring novelist who accidentally adopts a 6 year old African American child.
About: Made the 2007 Black List with 3 votes, though I suspect it would've been much higher had more people read it. Radnor plays Ted Mosby on the sometimes hilarious sometimes average "How I Met Your Mother." With a cast of highly talented multi-taskers (Neil Patrick Harris is hosting the Emmys. Jason Seagal wrote and starred in Forgetting Sarah Marshall), Radnor obviously had to do something big to stand out. Writing, directing and starring in his own movie was the only way he could trump his castmates. Malin Ackerman and Kate Mara will co-star.
Writer: Josh Radnor

Take that Doogie.

Wow. I cannot stress how shocked I was when I finished this script, dug around, and found out that Ted Mosby wrote it. I was so convinced that there were two Josh Radnor's, a writer and an actor, that I kept surfing the internet for half an hour convinced that there had to be a mix-up or some bad information. I'm still not entirely sure, as IMDB doesn't even list the movie. It's not that I don't think someone from a sitcom can be that talented in another trade but...Actually, yes, that is what I think. Writing takes time. Getting good enough to compete with the awesome pool of talent at this level takes dedication. To write one of the top 15 scripts of the year, out of a sea of 50,000...you have to be dedicated to your craft. That Radnor belted this out in between spit takes with the flute girl from American Pie has my head spinning.

Obviously there's some untapped pool of talent in goofy affable sitcom leads. Following the Zach Braff model, Radnor wrote his script and got a hot female star attached (Ackerman). Then he got funding with him attached as both actor and star. The big difference between Braff and Radnor though - who could easily pass as brothers - is that Radnor can really write. While Braff did a great job on the acting and directing front in Garden State, the script itself wandered too much. I am so convinced of Radnor's talents after reading this that I'm willing to bet he was a writer long before he was an actor. There's too much confidence in his unique snapshot of New York City. From the characters to the stories to the dialogue (which came off just as electric as it did realistic) , we've been introduced to a story not quite like any other in a city that's been around for 300 years.

In the spirit of full disclosure, it should be noted that I'm a sucker for coming-of-age films. I've said it before and I'll say it again. But I'm also the first to admit that there's nothing worse than a coming-of-age film gone bad. Characters are complaining about their troubled suburban childhoods. Mommy and Daddy don't love me. What do I do with my life? When the amount of whine starts competing with Napa Valley, these screenplays can be like a bad night out at the Roxy. But while Radnor laments, he never dwells. His story moves at a brisk pace for a character piece. He knows when to chug along, when to slow down, and when to check in on the other characters.

Sam is in his late 20s, living in New York, rolling through girls like Big Macs, trying to become a novelist but not really caring if he succeeds or not. Although Sam won't admit it to himself, he's lonely. And his inability to come to terms with that is what drives his actions. Sam's best friend is the beautiful Annie. Annie has a condition called Alopecia Universales, which doesn't allow her to grow hair on her body. I know, I know. This has cringe-inducing written all over it but I'm telling you, Radnor knows what he's doing. There are a few times when Annie breaks down about her condition, but the condition is more symbolic if anything. Annie feels just like a lot of people - inadequate, not good enough. But she maintains a positive spirit through it all, and is one of the most *real* characters I've read in a long time.

Malin Ackerman will play the potentially award-winning role of Annie

Rounding out the group of friends are the fiery Mary-Catherine and Charlie, two New Yorkers who fight just as much as they get along. Charlie has been offered the job of a lifetime in LA but Mary-Catherine would rather cook her face in a microwave than move to that soulless concrete wasteland. Even though the two are probably the most "normal" characters in the bunch, the exploration of their problems is so universal that their story is just as compelling as the others.

So on his way to his first book deal, Sam observes a small black child amongst his mother, brothers and sisters on the subway. When the family leaves though, the boy, Rasheen, deliberately stays behind. Sam, feeling like he should do something, tries to take the kid to the police but Rasheen refuses to go (later we find out he's been in a number of foster homes and has been repeatedly abused). So Sam (naturally) takes Rasheen to his book deal meeting, and (naturally) the publishing people are a little confused as to why their new author is escorting around a small black child. Each time Sam tries to get rid of Rasheen, something comes up that prevents him from doing so, and before he knows it, he really starts to like the kid. So hours turn into more hours. More hours turn into days. Without even realizing it, Sam has unofficially adopted Rasheen. Which is just crazy. But I'm telling you. Radnor makes it believable.

Complicating matters is that Sam also meets the stunningly beautiful Mississippi, an aspiring singer who's trying to pick up the pieces of her life. When she won't buy into Sam's one-night stand proposal, in order to get her to have sex with him, he proposes a "three-night stand." The keys to his apartment, come in and out at any time, and they'll be a couple for three days. The idea is so absurd and Sam is so charming, she goes along with it. Of course after the alcohol's worn off the next morning, Sam can't believe what he's done. And when Mississippi finds out that Rasheen is living with him, all hell breaks loose. When she hears of the abuse though, she softens a little. And all of a sudden Sam has gone from single man on the street, to having his own quasi-family.

Kate mara will play the gorgeous Mississippi

Although there are a lot of great things about "Happy Thank You More Please," the thing that gives it an edge over a lot of similar films is how Rasheen fits into the story. What Sam is essentially doing is kidnapping a child. And the longer he waits around doing nothing, the more trouble he's going to be in when the authorities find out. So with each passing day, we become more and more anxious as we're fearing for Sam. Yet at the same time, we don't want Rasheen to go back to that horrible life he was a part of. Basically we're freaking out inside going, "What the hell is he going to do??" It makes us forget that there really isn't an overarching plot driving the story (though it was clever of Radnor to use the "3 Day Stand" device, as it gives the story an unofficial time frame).

"More please" perfectly captures the feeling of people living cramped together in this absurd but wonderful city, bumping into and bouncing off of each other - affecting each other's lives in ways they don't even know. The theme of "growing up" is present on every page and it's something I, and I imagine a lot of you, identify with. As artists, we grow up with the rest of the world looking down on us and thinking we're crazy for not, in their minds, "growing up." And I think Radnor paints a fair balanced assessment of this phenomenon.

The only question mark with the film is, should Josh Radnor play the lead? His default happy-go-lucky smirk doesn't exactly lend itself to Sam's harsh and sometimes abrasive behavior. Sam's got weight. You need an actor who can express that. Of course, none of us have seen Radnor's acting outside of yukking it up with Robin Chibotski, so who knows? He could very well be the next Dustin Hoffman. But in a project that's so strong on so many levels, Mr. Mosby better know what he's doing, because if done right, this has the potential to be today's Graduate. "Happy Thank You More Please" breaks into my Top 25.

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[x] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Parentheticals. The literary world has become more forgiving of parantehticals. Some people hate them but I love them. When you have a guy saying to a girl, "You look hot tonight," having the girl's response be "Thanks, I guess," changes quite a bit when you add the parenthetical "(not uncharmed)" right before it. With sarcasm and irony and people constantly saying one thing but meaning another, the parenthetical can ease a lot of the confusion.