There are many reasons I don’t like romantic comedies (in fact that could be an article on its own), but the most common one is: they aren't funny, and they aren't romantic. This movie crept up on me because it actually manages to be both.

Why most romantic comedies make me sick:

I had to include this part because you may have noticed, most of the romance section on our website isn’t the most positive stuff–there’s a lot of bad alleged romances out there. Much of what constitutes a romantic comedy nowadays is: 

• Guy meets girl. Guy and girl don’t like each other until they find each other physically attractive and fall into bed together. Then they say, “So what does this mean we are?” And zaniness ensues.

Now, perhaps I’m being too harsh, the couple doesn't always fall in bed but there is almost always without exception, a connection formed on lust and encouraged by a momentary feeling. What I mean by this is, we too often in our modern culture define and explain love as an overwhelming feeling that just possesses a person (or persons) and compels them to act on it. It’s expressed all the time by the teenage boy in the angst drama who says, “I’m so in love with you I can’t help myself, I want you so much,” and he uses this as an excuse to convince a girl to have physical intimacy (it happens in Gilmore Girls with Rory and Jess). It’s a theme from the man and woman that allegedly hate each other until they see each other undressed (The Proposal 2009) and then they have feelings for each other and must act on them. 

I could never get behind any of these romances because none of them display actual Biblical love. Love is not an overwhelming feeling that possesses us and makes us do things. If it were, then all manner of adultery, fornicating, and loose uncommitted relationships would be justified. And, in the Godless world of Hollywood with many romantic comedies, it is. I’ve seen trailers for movies where the premise is two married people meet their exes and fall into bed with them again, and they realize there’s still a spark so it justified their cheating the whole movie. This spark is simply lust and a feeling that can be overcome or indulged. If we excuse it as something that just “happens to people,” which they can’t control, every marriage and relationship is suddenly in danger. So to Jess trying to get Rory to sleep with him I say, he doesn't love her. Because if he did he would be aware of the consequences of his actions, and put Rory’s comfort, safety, security, and virtue first before his own desires. To the Andrew and Margaret in Proposal who hate each other as people but want to date when they see each other undressed, they’re not in love they’re just having lust. So what is love?

• Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud, it does not dishonor others. It is not self- seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices in truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes and always perseveres,” (1st Corinthians 13:4-8).

This verse is going to come up a lot when I talk about romance in books or films. To put it plainly, when I’m watching an alleged romance I don’t buy that the couple is “in love” unless I see some or all of these virtues being expressed. A man lusting after a woman doesn't mean he loves her. Characters must seek in some way to put their significant other first, and preserve what is near and dear to them as well as seek what is good for them. You don’t love someone if your only goal is to corrupt or possess them. Now that we got those clarifications out of the way, let’s talk about why this movie did a good job of writing a relationship based on more than smut.

For once there’s a traditional guy with a modern lady:

A common contention I have with a lot of romantic comedies is the man is almost always a playboy pervert who doesn't want to settle down, and for once he meets a woman who won’t take his crap but is just as beautiful as all the models he’s been hooking up with and he settles with her. I’ve never been one to give a guy credit for sleeping around as much as humanly possible till he’s in his 30s and then settling with a woman who's much too good for him. This isn’t just a recent trope, it goes all the way back to Dorris day in the 60s. Far too many times does Rock Hudson, or James Garner, play some guy with illustrious affairs who settles down with Doris Day after partying with other women like mad. For once, this movie takes the different approach where the man is more traditional with a higher standard of virtue than the woman. Now take note the woman isn't a particularly loose or worldly person she simply isn't as old fashioned as someone from the 1800s. 

• Hugh Jackman as Leopold the 3rd Duke of Albany, he’s a bachelor who’s grown cynical of the idea of ever falling in love because his family wants to marry him off to strangers after his wealth. He’s a future inventor and gets tossed into the modern world. 

• Meg Ryan is Kate Mckay, a hard nose who works for a New York advertising agency. She’s recently single and conveniently lives in the apartment right above her annoying ex, Liev Schrieber–who’s really funny in this film and aims to perfect time travel.

What’s interesting about these characters, and the set up, is it makes sense to the audience why they would be eventually drawn to each other. Meg Ryan’s character just came out of a relationship with an entertaining character but not an awesome boyfriend and is bitter and cynical. Hugh Jackman’s character is tired of meeting the same type of women after his money so he’s relieved to meet Kate. The two characters spend time together and get to know each other before anything romantic happens. And the concept of non-committal relationships and the flawed modern approach to dating is addressed by Leopold when he speaks to Kate’s brother. Leopold criticizes the modern approach of acting like a buffoon to pursue a lady and not making your intentions clear. In the same conversation, Kate’s brother turns it around and puts Leopold on the spot for not having confessed his feelings for Kate. The non- committal and unclear relationship is criticized in this movie and when forced to confront his feelings Leopold does make his intentions clear to Kate and the two begin a relationship ¾ of the way through the film. This is only after he writes her a formal apology for crashing her date with her boss (who did have ill-intentions). But Leopold acknowledges it wasn't his place to step in because he and Kate are not actually a couple and he hasn't been perfectly as he should. There’s concern for the other person in the relationship and there’s ownership for mistakes made. It’s not simply two people overwhelmed with passion who desperately want to consummate their relationship. 

Love for the right reasons:

Another pet peeve of mine in relationships is when the characters want each other for all the wrong reasons but call it love. In Vampire Diaries, Elena claims she loves Damon right after he tells her he killed someone, and prior to this he’s been manipulating and philandering with women left and right. But, she says despite him forcing her to go against what she stands for and question her own values she loves him. Then of course they sleep together. This isn't love. This is two sexually frustrated people giving in to their desires despite knowing it's wrong and romanticizing it. Elena just stated all these horrible things about Damon but her desire for him is so great she overlooks what's right. In the long run that's simply putting your own selfish desires first. Therefore, it's self seeking, it’s not patient because she isn't willing to wait till he’s a better man, or plan for their futures she just wants to sleep with him now. 

Kate falls for Leopold because he’s a gentleman who respects her, puts her needs first, and sticks up for her against a manipulative boss who wants to take advantage of her. She likes him because he’s everything our modern generation isn't.  Kate is a flawed character but it’s addressed when she breaks up with Leopold because they have one fight. She’s so used to the modern generation of relationships being fleeting and brief without commitment, she almost loses Leopold because she falls back into her loose modern values where nothing lasts. 

Forsaking something selflessly for something else:

Both characters forsake something for the other out of concern.  Leopold leaves Kate when she breaks things off because he’s convinced he’s not what she needs in her life. She’s up for a promotion, she’s ambitious, and she tells him she’s worked for years to earn the position she’s in. Leopold loves her, so he wants what's best for her. And since he’s from the past, he doesn't believe she could be happy forsaking all of her success and comforts of the modern world and he doesn't want to deny her the fruit of her hard labor. Kate nearly leaves Leopold behind till convicted to go after him because she realizes he’s more important than any success or material comfort. She gives up all comforts of the modern world, her promotion, and her success  to go back into the 1800s and marry him. In this couple there is displayed:

• Selflessness, and forsaking of their needs for each other.

• The prioritization of a lasting relationship and love over materialism.

• The return to the traditional and fundamental over the modern non-committed ways. 

• The absence of frivolous illicit affairs and a romance based solely on lust.

  In a nutshell:

  So in conclusion, Kate and Leopold is a romantic comedy that does its best to be charming by portraying a relationship not purely based on smut. It’s a refreshing breather from the common movies out there which have a much less traditional approach to love and marriage. The movie’s not perfect, because intimacy is implied when Kate and Leopold get together 3/4 of the way through the film. The movie does its best to still mend the typical secular elements that crept into the film. Even though I don’t appreciate that its implied the couple sleeps together they do get engaged at the end of the film, and they are in a committed relationship. Hollywood had to let its own loose values slip in, but the movie is still fairly unconventional to most romantic comedies standards. The movie is charming, and shows the value of having a traditional gentleman for once instead of a secular modern character out for his own gain. In short, it’s on a small list of romantic comedies my sister and I like, which can be named on one hand.

  -Jubilee