Chapter 1 in Wes D. Gehring’s Romantic vs. Screwball Comedy presents a clear and well delineated introduction to the five main differences between both genres. Moreover, the chapter outlines the historical circumstances that shaped the two genres. It ends with a description of the post-Depression developments of both genres.

The first main difference that Gehring describes is the emphasis on love vs. comedy. Screwball comedies place its emphasis on “funny” as opposed to romantic comedy which “accents love.” This represents the America’s “take on farce,” with its desire to see physical comedy and absurd events. This is in contrast to romantic comedy which grounds itself in reality. The second difference is the depiction of the love process. Screwball spoofs such romance, while romantic comedy keeps the process visible, consciously highlighting it. The third difference Gehring describes involves basic character development. Screwball comedy uses an eccentric main cast, with an equally satiric support cast. Romantic comedy uses a less controlling and more serious heroine and the supporting characters tend to be “more funny than flaky.” The fourth difference is the “dating ritual.” In screwball, the heroine often finds herself in a “triangle” with her desire and his fiancée and the heroine’s role is to separate the serious (and boring) fiancée and to then capture his heart. In romantic comedy, the tension often lies in character differences, as opposed to another character itself. The fifth difference is plot pacing. Screwballs escalate near the end, while romantic comedy drags the tension throughout the end.

Next, Gehring discusses “Depression-Era Developments.” The first point Gehring presents the emergence of the “anti-hero” in 1920’s film. The second point is the fascination of the population with the upper classes. The third development is the implementation of the Production Code in 1934. The fourth “period factor” was the film industry’s growing use of sound technology. The fifth discussion point was the influence of “manic comedy of teams.”

The chapter then discusses key pictures. My Man Godfrey is described and analyzed throughout this part of the chapter. Analysis of the connection between Marx Brother’s comeback film’s (A Night at the Opera) success and that of Godfrey. It is described as “a surreal lead-in.” Gehring argues that Morrie Ryskind aided in this success as he was the co-writer of both films.

The chapter ends with a presentation of “Post-Depression Developments of Both Genres.” There is focus on WWII as a reason for the dwindling demand for screwball comedy. Moreover, a slew of poor remakes is argued as tainting the screwball genre. Gehring then charts screwballs re-emergence in the 1960s and then a “mini re-emergence” in the 1980s.

Wes D. Gehring’s Screwball Comedy presents a thorough analysis of the said genre. Chapter 6, “The Screwball Genre and Comedy Theory,” applies comedy theory to screwball comedy. The first part of the chapter presents a “superiority theory” and applies it to the genre of screwball comedy. The model focuses on three key aspects: “the concept of implosion, genre space and conflict, and the comic tendencies of pivotal directors.”

Screwball makes fun of the status quo—in particular of the wealthy. However, it is done as to “grow fond of these wealthy wackos, in a superior sort of way.” Moreover, Gehring believes that screwball minimizes “socioeconomic differences of the leading duo and key on their initial conflicts concerning eccentric behavior.”

Gehring then reverts back to political implosion and space and conflict. It is argued that the leftist movement of the 1930s was upset that Hollywood focused on the Depression despite the public’s fondness of such topics. Gehring then discusses how screwball doesn’t have “determinate space” and isn’t concerned with “threatened space,” but rather society and attempting to adjust to the “cultural milieu.”

The chapter then moves to discuss Henri Bergson’s Theory of Superiority. There are three components of character development that can be applied to screwball comedy: absentmindedness, inversion, and supporting comedy characters as satellites of the lead performer. It is described that absentmindedness usually comes from the lead male performer. It can be seen through rigidity, as is the case with the slightly aloof Godfrey. Inversion is then described as when “‘certain characters in a certain situations’ pull a switch.” This can appear when the antihero male believes he is in charge of his life, but isn’t. Gehring then describes the incident in Godfrey when Irene (Carole Lombard) tells Godfrey (William Powell) that he “is my responsibility now.”

Gehring then presents three key items that differentiate female “activity” from that of the male. Firstly, the female assumes the eccentricity mainly to win over the male. Despite her zealousness, Irene (Lombard) displays rationality, telling her sister “you can’t rush a man like Godfrey.” Secondly, there is a double standard with respect to the reversal of “stereotype gender activity.” Thus, the female heroine is allowed to be aggressive. Lastly, is the” battle of the sexes.” It is argued that the female eccentricity is not anti-social because of her desire towards marriage—a societal foundation.

The final part of the chapter deals with satellite characters. Gehring describes the supporting characters as antiheroic and sometimes fatherly. This applies to Godfrey as the father character, Alexander Bullet, is indeed the true forgotten man as well as a satellite father figure.