commemorative photos of your visit

Digging into my DVD library for movies to analyze, tonight I came up with Roman Holiday, a movie I probably don't have to introduce to most of you. In this movie, elf-child Audrey not only makes explicit the tie between cutting your hair and freedom, she also discreetly illustrates the advantages of the flat-heeled shoes she would later make the height of fashion. Hepburn absolutely nails this role; it’s as great a bit of casting as Hollywood has ever managed. But what about the other aspects?

I'll agree with other critics in saying Gregory Peck is out of place in this movie. He tries (more than I can say for Kevin Costner) but in the end, he's got all the charisma of a marble statue.

The supporting cast, featuring Eddie Albert, is competent, but not really memorable.

The cinematography is competent, but a bit sloppy and uninspired. (Were they just trying to make Eddie’s photos look better?)

The script is well-written; a bit corny at times, but filled with charming little bits of business that make this such a beloved comedy.

William Wyler, as always, does a standup job. It was not until my fourth viewing of this movie (tonight’s) that I’ve been able to take myself out of the story enough to analyze it.

When I did look more closely, the first thing that jumped out was the editing. There are two scenes that make this movie for me. The first is the scene where Gregory Peck sticks his hand in the stone mouth. The dialogue leading up to this scene is about how great liars both of them are. They don’t need to tell us this; the whole plot up to this point is about deception. So we ought to be skeptical when Peck gives Hepburn the line about biting off the hands of liars. And yet – I fell for it. When he pulled his hand out of his sleeve, I was just as relieved as Princess Anne. Editing. This piece of business is what made me feel the romance.

Second, is the coda. It's a bit contrived (never seen a better behaved pack of reporters), but the final scene is a Masters course in subtext. Everything is wrapped up in five brief exchanges between the protagonists - three of which are non-verbal. When Audrey’s single glance keeps her attendants at bay, making me believe the actress really is royalty (Hepburn’s real-life mother was the Baroness Ella van Heemstra).

But that masterpiece ending makes me question the movie’s status as the archetype of Romantic Comedy. It is surely romantic, but it’s structured more or less as a tragedy.

At the outset, reality bites for Princess Anne – her only purpose in life is to smile and dispense the royal wave. Things look up after she makes her escape, building in feel-goodness up to the kiss. At that point, the lovers must decide between romance and duty, and, it being 1953, we're brought seamlessly down to the depths of the weepy farewell scene. Down, up, down = tragedy.

But the movie doesn't end there (boy, would that have blown). The coda doesn’t end the movie on a happy note, nor does it leave any hope for future happiness, but it does remove all the bitterness. It lands us gently back in the real world; a seemingly dreary world, but with moments of pure joy that make it all worthwhile. Tragedies can be feel-good movies too, no?