What a relief! I thought I was the freak who didn't like this movie -- and for exactly the reasons you mention: they are both unlikeable people. In my mind, Sally was especially insufferable but it's been so long since I saw the movie that I no longer remember all the details. I haven't wanted to rewatch it to refresh my memory but I do recall being surprised at how much people seemed to love this film.
It is one of the very few films we have ever turned off in the middle.
Our reasons were not quite those you mentioned, though they can exist in parallel.
The movie seemed to be a tutorial in how a sexist male can control and pressure and whine until they overcome the resistance of the same woman over and over again — a woman who repeatedly says no to what the man wants.
The movie title should have been “when no means yes.“
It just seemed to repeat this — no learning curve for one and multiple clever strategies for her sexist pursuer who probably despised her at some level for her childlike gullibility to his infantile manipulation.
A lot of romcoms cosign stalking as a dating strategy. It's gotten somewhat better in recent years, I think...but in the 80s it was a huge problem, and you still see it.
There are some exceptions—Pretty Woman, weirdly, while it has other problems (imo), doesn't really have this one, in part because it's so thoroughly Julia Roberts' film. But it's an issue in Say Anything, for example, a movie I mostly like in other respects.
I remember even as a kid being irked at that scene for that precise reason. I was also incredulous that she would have been so expressive or loud- faking it or not- during sex, and I don’t think she’d be the type of person to even recognize that what she was doing was faking.
Gonna have to check out some of the good ones you listed now, yay escapism!
Great review! You nailed something really important here: "If they were too appealing, or too clearly drawn, you might end up caring about them, rather than about yourself." This unpacks for me as follows: 1) characters are drawn somewhat blank so we can project attributes onto them, thus becoming emotionally invested via the work we've had to put in to give the characters some depth (animator Samantha Youssef talks about this being standard, very deliberate Hollywood practice); and also 2) shallow films provide a permission structure for viewers to live shallow lives.
"Sally mimes an orgasm in a full restaurant to show him that he can't. The scene is a good gag. It's also completely out of character. Sally is uncomfortable talking about sex and very conscious of what others think of her."
Yes!
I mean out of context the scene is hilarious—but in context that's why I never really engaged with it. Why is uptight Sally suddenly engaging in publicly miming an orgasm? Was it to embarrass her uptight "pal" Harry? Or is it just so Rob Reiner can put his Mom on camera saying "I'll have what she's having"? (I know his Dad, Carl Reiner, swears Estelle was one of the funniest people he knew—and Mel Brooks was his BFF!)
Speaking of which—I could never really buy Harry and Sally as a couple, because I never really bought them as friends in the first place. Bill Crystal's usually great at playing the Cranky Jewish Intellectual who learns to lighten up over time, but here he's mostly the insufferable kind of East Coast Intellectual Liberal that you think HAS to be a Right-Wing strawman...until you actually meet a few in the wild.
And I don't care how cute she was in this picture, Meg Ryan is not a good fit for him, either as an intellectual foil or as an emotional shelter—both of which the movie expects us to believe she is. They don't even have that sparring mutual attraction which is what I'm sure Nora Ephron was going for here—she wants Beatrice and Benedick from MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING, but Ryan is the wrong Beatrice for Crystal's Benedick as Crystal's Benedick is for Ryan's Beatrice. (I'm trying to think of a right Beatrice for Billy Crystal, and I'm coming up blank.)
Ryan can be both foil and shelter playing alongside Tom Hanks—and was, because Hanks doesn't use his intellect as a shield, and when he crosses swords with Ryan it feels more like flirting which she enjoys as much as he does.
Maybe I enjoyed When Harry Met Sally so much because I really dislike romcoms. Noah, your analysis explains it to me: I liked the funny scenes and didn’t have to care about the characters!
What a relief! I thought I was the freak who didn't like this movie -- and for exactly the reasons you mention: they are both unlikeable people. In my mind, Sally was especially insufferable but it's been so long since I saw the movie that I no longer remember all the details. I haven't wanted to rewatch it to refresh my memory but I do recall being surprised at how much people seemed to love this film.
We tried to watch this movie a few years ago.
It is one of the very few films we have ever turned off in the middle.
Our reasons were not quite those you mentioned, though they can exist in parallel.
The movie seemed to be a tutorial in how a sexist male can control and pressure and whine until they overcome the resistance of the same woman over and over again — a woman who repeatedly says no to what the man wants.
The movie title should have been “when no means yes.“
It just seemed to repeat this — no learning curve for one and multiple clever strategies for her sexist pursuer who probably despised her at some level for her childlike gullibility to his infantile manipulation.
Thanks for your more elaborate analysis.
A lot of romcoms cosign stalking as a dating strategy. It's gotten somewhat better in recent years, I think...but in the 80s it was a huge problem, and you still see it.
There are some exceptions—Pretty Woman, weirdly, while it has other problems (imo), doesn't really have this one, in part because it's so thoroughly Julia Roberts' film. But it's an issue in Say Anything, for example, a movie I mostly like in other respects.
I remember even as a kid being irked at that scene for that precise reason. I was also incredulous that she would have been so expressive or loud- faking it or not- during sex, and I don’t think she’d be the type of person to even recognize that what she was doing was faking.
Gonna have to check out some of the good ones you listed now, yay escapism!
Great review! You nailed something really important here: "If they were too appealing, or too clearly drawn, you might end up caring about them, rather than about yourself." This unpacks for me as follows: 1) characters are drawn somewhat blank so we can project attributes onto them, thus becoming emotionally invested via the work we've had to put in to give the characters some depth (animator Samantha Youssef talks about this being standard, very deliberate Hollywood practice); and also 2) shallow films provide a permission structure for viewers to live shallow lives.
This is great!
Now, PLEASE, do "Four Weddings and a Funeral!"
"Sally mimes an orgasm in a full restaurant to show him that he can't. The scene is a good gag. It's also completely out of character. Sally is uncomfortable talking about sex and very conscious of what others think of her."
Yes!
I mean out of context the scene is hilarious—but in context that's why I never really engaged with it. Why is uptight Sally suddenly engaging in publicly miming an orgasm? Was it to embarrass her uptight "pal" Harry? Or is it just so Rob Reiner can put his Mom on camera saying "I'll have what she's having"? (I know his Dad, Carl Reiner, swears Estelle was one of the funniest people he knew—and Mel Brooks was his BFF!)
Speaking of which—I could never really buy Harry and Sally as a couple, because I never really bought them as friends in the first place. Bill Crystal's usually great at playing the Cranky Jewish Intellectual who learns to lighten up over time, but here he's mostly the insufferable kind of East Coast Intellectual Liberal that you think HAS to be a Right-Wing strawman...until you actually meet a few in the wild.
And I don't care how cute she was in this picture, Meg Ryan is not a good fit for him, either as an intellectual foil or as an emotional shelter—both of which the movie expects us to believe she is. They don't even have that sparring mutual attraction which is what I'm sure Nora Ephron was going for here—she wants Beatrice and Benedick from MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING, but Ryan is the wrong Beatrice for Crystal's Benedick as Crystal's Benedick is for Ryan's Beatrice. (I'm trying to think of a right Beatrice for Billy Crystal, and I'm coming up blank.)
Ryan can be both foil and shelter playing alongside Tom Hanks—and was, because Hanks doesn't use his intellect as a shield, and when he crosses swords with Ryan it feels more like flirting which she enjoys as much as he does.
Maybe I enjoyed When Harry Met Sally so much because I really dislike romcoms. Noah, your analysis explains it to me: I liked the funny scenes and didn’t have to care about the characters!
You will not convince me that “When Harry Met Sally” isn’t the funniest romcom of all time.
Interesting to hear a dissenting opinion about a movie that has long been praised by others.
Millennials. They think their upside down view of the world is common, when everybody knows they're just weird.
It's so-so, but not the worst. Big and Pretty Woman are two of the worst.