Male rom-com characters really aren't all that

Don’t get me wrong, I love a good romantic comedy. Whether I am cuddled up on the sofa bingeing chocolate or in bed falling asleep in front of a 90s Hugh Grant, the structure of a rom-com never gets old; boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy wins girl back. But should the boy ever win the girl back? Grand sweeping gestures don’t fix every problem, and it sure isn’t an actual apology.

Take 27 dresses as an example. It’s easy to get lost in James Marsden’s dreamy eyes, but let's not forget the man wrote a double-page article about her sad life as a bridesmaid. He stole her diary and faked being interested in her sister's wedding to get to her. Okay, Katherine Heigl’s character isn’t entirely sane, but she apologises to him!

Blockbuster American comedies aren’t the only victims of this crime. There is a major fault in our wee British characters as well. My personal favourite, About Time, is the most quaint picturesque film. But the ginger-haired protagonist isn’t without his flaws. He forces the meeting of himself and his future wife multiple times by time travelling. I mean, get the hint, if it's meant to be, it will be. And then he meets the love of his life and doesn’t even tell her that he is a time traveller.

Love Actually, the star-packed rom-com that appears on our screens every Christmas is also packed with rubbish male characters. From Andrew Lincoln’s wife-stealer character to Alan Rickman’s cheating character, it’s easy to say this film could have been a major flop if it wasn’t for the radiant likes of Keira Knightley, Emma Thompson and Laura Linney.

Let's never forget Bridget Jones. Although Hugh Grant’s deceivingly charming Daniel Cleaver is obviously the antagonist from the start, we need a serious chat about Mark Darcy. The first time we meet Colin Firth’s awkward character, he is snarky and rude, clearly disapproving of Bridget’s job, friends, and habits. Although his character doesn’t change throughout the films, we’re supposed to believe they are perfect together. I don’t think so.

The magnificent Paul Rudd is ageless, but his character in Clueless doesn’t exactly stand the test of time. As well as being a snobby judging college graduate, the man still lives with his ex-stepfather, for Christ's sake. If the supposed nine-year age gap between Cher and Josh wasn’t bad enough, the fact they used to be step-siblings is even more horrific. Although this film is widely regarded as a cult classic, it definitely wouldn’t be produced today.

So it begs the question of why the hell do women in rom-coms keep letting these flawed men back? Why is a grand-sweeping gesture after one-hour-and-45 minutes of deception acceptable? These male characters are severely short of perfection, but do we really want flawless characters? Maybe the faults of rom-com’s male characters are the thing that draws us back to such films every time.

Edited by Jemma Snowdon