Certainly all the pansexual polyamory and other nontraditional relationships to be found in the Seattle of today would be alarming and confusing to the film's protagonists imagine if Annie had flipped to Savage Lovecast that night instead of whatever Dr. But (I sincerely hope) no one is watching Sleepless in Seattle, the very blueprint for modern rom-coms, hoping for a multidimensional take on heterosexual relationships.
#WATCH SLEEPLESS IN SEATLE MOVIE#
The movie makes a lot of klutzy, '90s-era commentary on gender relations that very occasionally winks with a dull glint of nuance. To be fair, Annie is from Baltimore, so maybe we just need to start setting our radius a lot wider in hopes of escaping that infamous Seattle Freeze. Meanwhile, we can’t even get our Hinge dates to stop bailing last-minute. What Sleepless in Seattle Gets Wrong about SeattleĪnnie traverses the entire country in hopes of catching a glimpse of a man she knows only by his voice on a radio program. See the incredulous and mildly disgusted way Meg Ryan says “ Seattle ,” when trying to reason her way out of a growing attraction to a bereaved man living across the country. Torrential Hollywood rain, of course, a lunch scene at the Athenian in Pike Place, Tom Hanks’ floating home abode-all of these paint a picture of a waterlogged, wacky West Coast backwater that one would only move to as a last resort to escape the pervasive memory of a dead spouse. The film, which jumps back and forth between its protagonists in Baltimore and Seattle, establishes its setting in the Emerald City through a number of vague gestures. What Sleepless in Seattle Gets Right about Seattle 1.In a scene early on, we come to understand that Walter, despite his many good qualities, will never be able to keep up with vivacious and cosmopolitan Annie, after he reveals he doesn’t know what dim sum is-which, to be clear, is perfectly legitimate grounds for ending an engagement. So here, without further ado, are the 40 things I noticed rewatching the Nora Ephron masterpiece as a fully grown woman. Weirdly, the two characters I liked most on the rewatch were the ones I found putrid as a child: Sam and Annie's initial other halves. And they weren't the only ones - even adorable little Jonah, Sam's son, came off as a real jerk. In short, I found I'd gone from completely doting on the two leads when watching it first time round as a kid to finding them the absolute worst watching again an adult. They were replaced by a guy who has a, let's say, old-fashioned attitude towards women, and a woman who is pretty damn morally dubious with regards to her relationship to her fiancée, who she proceeds to string along for months while pursuing another man. Rewatching it as an adult felt wildly different: gone were the two indisputably adorable, 100 percent morally sound leads I remembered. I'd nostalgically remembered this movie as being the pinnacle of sugary-sweet romance.
Which meant this film was way overdue a rewatch.Īnd what a rewatch it was. Penned by the brilliant Nora Ephron, who was behind movies like When Harry Met Sally, You've Got Mail, and Julie & Julia, this 1993 film is arguably the definitive romantic comedy of the '90s, mostly because it revolves around a singularly smart trick: the two romantic leads never properly meet until the last moments of the movie.
If you have a weakness for romantic comedies (which I very much do), I'm guessing you've already seen the classic Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan movie, Sleepless In Seattle.
0 kommentar(er)
