Or, I guess I do know why I haven’t heard back from any m
Here’s an article on how, as Amanda Marcotte from Pandagon describes it:
sexist demands from studio executives are making it nigh well impossible for screenwriters to create characters for romantic comedies that are anything resembling “characters” so that such films can be what used be called “funny” and “entertaining”. Apparently, if a female romantic lead is anything but clumsy, flighty, unambitious, with no wit or bite or ever a mean instinct, and functionally celibate, the script gets sent back for a rewrite.
Well. Good thing I don’t write characters with “wit or bite or ever a mean instinct,” or who like to fuck, isn’t it?
Continue below for more excerpts from the article itself (or if you want to see me get really depressed…), but you should really read the whole thing, and Amanda’s comments as well.
heartbreak does not call, under any circumstances, for excessive, depressive or erratic behavior of any kind (Rule No. 3). The jilted heroine will not indulge in unflattering self-destructive action such as drinking too much or indulging in a sordid rebound.
Again..good thing there are no big, pivotal moments in my screenplay where anything like that happens, isn’t it?
Sexiness is good, but having sex is problematic (Rule No. 5). How much is too much? As one writer I spoke to puts it, “Sexuality is a no-no for romantic heroines. They can be sexy, adorable and even seductive but we don’t want to think they’re kinky or overtly sexual in any way. “
I could just cry.
I guess it’s film school after all for me.
