Love on Screens

Whether in films or TV shows, love is everywhere. In fact, it is almost impossible to watch a film or series without coming across a love story at some point. Very often, it is presented as the ultimate goal. The characters have to find love for the story to be complete. Cinema and television have been selling up this idea for years: we all grew up with this type of representation on screen, starting with Disney movies and “they lived happily ever after”. This leads us to believe that personal success and happiness necessarily come through this, and that without it, we are missing out on something. Yet in real life, there are plenty of happy, fulfilled people who are not in a relationship. So why this on-screen obsession? Why are single people so underrepresented?

If you go back to some film or series, you can find some answers. The first tuning that comes to mind when you think about this question is the romantic comedy genre. For this kind of film, the pattern is simple: In the beginning, the characters are alone, often unhappy. Soon enough, however, they fall in love and after a few adventures, they end up together. The happy ending is guaranteed, with the music playing in the background and the credits rolling. You might think that this kind of performance is typical for romantic comedies, but that’s not the case. From the very beginning of cinema, love stories have played a central role. For example, in Gone with the Wind (1939), a classic, we have a film that lasts four hours with a very rich plot and historical background. But we almost wonder what will be left of Scarlett O’Hara without the romance with Rhett Butler and the other men in her life. In retrospect, Scarlette is literally defined by her relationships. And in the end that is also what structures the whole plot.

Well, it is the same with TV series. For example, throughout the ten seasons of one of the most cult series of its generation, F.R.I.E.N.D.S, the focus is on the romantic relationships of the six main characters. Ross and Rachel spend their time looking for each other, finding each other, leaving each other, finding each other again. Everyone waits for their happy ending, and of course, the show ends up with them reuniting, as if it were obvious. The implicit moral is that there would not have been a happy ending if they had not ended up together. And that’s also what the audience expected. Even Phoebe, who is the most independent and eccentric character, ended up getting married in the final season. This shows the underlying idea that being single is never a viable option in the long term. Being a couple on the screen is the real solution to happiness. That’s how it has to end. But how about being single? In fact, what we notice is that in the rare case where the character remains single, it is because their behaviour is atypical, or even unsuited to the rest of society. It is often someone who is quite marginalised, ridiculed by nature, because in any case, the couple remains the norm.

On this subject, we also have a rather famous example. It’s Sheldon Cooper in The Big Bang Theory. He is a brilliant character, but portrayed as socially inadequate, at least in the way he is represented. In fact, for much of the show, he is not even interested in relationships. But then again, his celibacy is seen as some kind of failure to be corrected. And guess what finally fixes it? His relationship with Amy! As soon as he gets into a relationship, his behaviour changes, he becomes a bit more human, more socially adapted. Once again, we’re shown that being single is a kind of transitional stage, a problematic situation that has to be resolved for the character to evolve. Because of this, singlehood is almost never portrayed as a choice on screen. If a character is single, it is often because they have not yet found the right person or because they have a problem. There is always this idea that the couple is the final and natural goal. So, apart from a few rare examples, being single is never seen as a chosen and fulfilling lifestyle.

I recently spoke to a friend who recommended the series Sex in the City. She said:”You’ll see, it’s a series that really highlights independence and celibacy”. I started watching it and, yes, it is supposed to be about independent, relatively modern modern. But what I have noticed is that in that we end up falling into the same pattern. Spoiler alert: all of the heroines end up in relationships, except for one (called Samantha). Once again, her single life is shown as something marginal, almost provocative: she appears different because she is single. In fact, she is the freest, most independent, but it is the fact that she is single that seems to differentiate her from the others. Since love is depicted in such a way as to be an end in itself in cinema, this suggests that celibacy will automatically be represented either as a transitional phase before experiencing a love story, or as a force of marginalisation, but never as a choice. By constantly repeating the same pattern of the couple as the only acceptable end, TV series and films help to install a social norm that will become part of our collective imagination.
In this regard, the philosopher Cornelius Castoriadis developed the idea that societies are built on shared representations, which give a common meaning to their realities and to the values that will be specific to that society. The collective imagination can be explained as a concept that designates the set of images, ideas, and representations shared by a social group that guide its way of thinking and perceiving the world.

These imaginaries are disseminated through many different cultural channels, cinema being one of them. Cinema is no longer just entertainment because it ends up contributing to an enormous social pressure outside of a movie screen, where people sometimes feel incomplete or a failure if they are not in a relationship. It is hard to fight this phenomenon. We are constantly watching films and TV series that convey this image to us, so it is hard not to be influenced.

The question of the happy ending is indeed fundamental because it will define our collective idea of happiness. And on-screen, the happy ending is almost always the same. It is almost always associated with love. Even in films where the main plot is not supposed to be centered on a romantic relationship, we often end up with a couple. For example in Lalaland, even though the main story is about the character’s career and dreams, the movie relationship remains central and their separation at the end is presented as a necessary but painful break-up, which almost gives the impression that their happiness would have been complete if they had stayed together. One example is the series Fleabag, which follows a single heroine who is not desperately looking for love. She goes through several relationships, but in the end, it is not a relationship that saves her, it is her own inner journey. At the end of the series, she chooses to be single, and this choice is seen as a form of liberation, not defeat. Today, the cinematic landscape is beginning to open up and break this pattern to some extent. We now have films and series that give us a slightly more nuanced representation of relationships, including celibacy, without portraying it as a failure or a temporary situation.

What we are looking for now are stories that show that you can be fulfilled as a single person, without it being seen as an anomaly. Being single, just like being in a couple, can be an entirely fulfilling life choice. So it is time for films and TV series to show this reality.

Blandine Morineaux