In “The Argument of Comedy”, Frye refers to classical and Shakespearean comedies to explain his point that the same situations can be portrayed in both comedy and tragedy without any detriment to the respective genres. He suggests that the difference between the two is the fact that they adopt opposite perspectives of human nature. While tragedy is pessimistic and suggests that our unconquerable moral failings will be our own undoing, comedy is optimistic and works to maintain hope for both social structures and individual spirit. This optimism of comedy is mainly evident in the ending; the chaos is controlled, the menace is restrained, and the protagonist finds inner peace.
In “Pursuits of Happiness: The Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage”, Cavell goes into more detail about how this inner peace is often found in successful romantic partnership, specifically explaining the sub-genre that is the comedy of remarriage. He also stresses the importance of the tension between the characters’ personal desires and the societal expectations by which they function. This is especially clear in remarriage comedies (romantic comedies in which two characters have to find a way to love each other again) because the relationships that are portrayed in these films are older and thus more complex than those that display new romance. As a result, he suggests that these films have something meaningful to teach us, that we can find love and happiness once we self-reflect and face our flaws to fix relationships. Of course, that is not to say that romantic comedies inherently have a meaningful message to convey, but Cavell raises an important point about the potential of the genre.
Cavell’s message works alongside Frye’s point about happy endings to suggest that if we are emotionally literate and open with partners, we can make things work and have a happy ending. My Best Friend’s Wedding (Hogan 1997) is one of very few romantic comedies that do not have a happy ending (at least not for the protagonist). In a way, it jumps back and forth over the line between comedy and tragedy. The film is full of witty dialogue, a key feature in remarriage comedies as Cavell suggests, but Frye suggests that difference between comedy and tragedy is the ending, which could easily be described as tragic. We see Julia Roberts go on a strenuous emotional journey, and the audience is encouraged to have hope that Dermot Mulroney will want to run away with her and live a happy life together. Yet instead of this, we see Roberts’ heart break over the rejection, and that is the end of the movie. We see no pay off, so it requires more awareness from the audience to recognise the lesson that is supposed to be learnt from the film.
If the function of a romantic comedy is to give hope and be positive about romantic prospects, then what is the function of a romantic comedy with a pessimistic ending? Is it still encouraging the audience to be honest with themselves and communicate their emotions or is it suggesting that if we do that, we will lose the people we care about and end up sad and alone? It is difficult to say, and perhaps the point of that is for it to be open for interpretation. Perhaps the point is to give people the same entertainment as a conventional romantic comedy without lulling them into a false sense of security. Whatever it may be, I think My Best Friend’s Wedding is exemplifies the deeper potentials of the genre that Cavell discusses.
Northrop Frye, “The Argument of Comedy,” English Institute Essays (New York:
Columbia, 1949), 58-73.
Stanley Cavell, Pursuits of Happiness: The Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard, 1981), 1-8, 16-26, 30-34.