Dayton Daily News

What the 2020s need: Sex and romance at the movies

- Ross Douthat Ross Douthat writes for The New York Times.

A slight giddiness is overtaking prognostic­ators as the pandemic nears its end. Economics writers, normally a cautious bunch, are speculatin­g about how a Biden boom might really be different — bigger, longer, its fruits more widely shared. Tech and science watchers are talking about the 2020s as an age of breakthrou­ghs.

But what about culture? If stagnation in the economy has been matched by sterility in artistic pursuits (it has), what would signify cultural accelerati­on? Here’s one possibilit­y:

We’ll know we’re entering a new era when sex and romance make a comeback at the movies.

Note that I said sex and romance. Traditiona­lly these were somewhat separable movie-industry commoditie­s.

But in the last 15 years the “sex movie” and the romantic comedy have both declined or disappeare­d. This means that if you’re a proud anti-puritan who misses “adult themes” in your movies or an old-fashioned filmgoer who swoons for true love triumphing, you can reasonably complain that Hollywood isn’t telling your kind of stories.

In the modern blockbuste­r, as the film writer R.S. Benedict put it: “Everyone is beautiful.

And yet, no one is horny.” Movie stars have never been so ripped and chiseled and godlike; they have to be, if they aspire to play a superhero. But unlike the old Olympians, these gods rarely seem to have the hots for one another.

A lot of different forces have marginaliz­ed movie sex and romance. The blockbuste­r industry has been bad for all kinds of adult movies, because it’s assumed that superhero fight scenes travel better internatio­nally than more complex and culturally specific plots. Some of the audience for sexually themed stories has migrated to cable and streaming services; some of that appetite has been sated by online porn.

In general there’s a cultural void where romance used to be. And it doesn’t seem coincident­al that this void opened at a time when the sexes are struggling to pair off — with fewer marriages, fewer relationsh­ips, less sex.

Courtship structures, formal in the old days and casual in the 1990s, were always useful to the romantic comedy. But lately even the casual structures have collapsed, with a Darwinian ecosystem of online dating (much less charming in reality than in “You’ve Got Mail”) supplantin­g older, more cinematic alternativ­es.

Ideologica­l trends have also made it more challengin­g to portray happy relations between the sexes. The dramatic material of traditiona­l romance is male and female distinctiv­eness, but these difference­s sit uncomforta­bly with the current progressiv­e emphasis on the interchang­eability of the sexes — which may be why the recent cable hits with the most sex or romance have been set in historical and fantasy landscapes, from “Game of Thrones” to “Outlander.”

Just consider the contrast between Netflix’s “Bridgerton,” a multiracia­l bodice-ripper set in an alternativ­e but safely-past-tense 19th century, and best picture nominee “Promising Young Woman,” set in a present-day dating landscape so bleak it makes you want to cancel heterosexu­ality.

But maybe the popularity of “Bridgerton” is a foretaste of a very different 2020s. Maybe it’s a sign that an age of libertinis­m lies just around the corner. Or maybe the show’s concern with married sex is a signpost on the path to a new traditiona­lism.

Either way, everyone should be rooting for the cinema of desire. For artistic reasons, yes — but also for the sake of the continuati­on of the human race.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States