If you wanted to see a romantic comedy this year, you were in luck—especially if you wanted to see the old formula flipped on its head. A new wave of “feminist” romantic comedies attempted to empower women within the traditional meet-cute to happily-ever-after relationship story arc.

Trainwreck, starring comedian Amy Schumer, is perhaps the most talked-about example, but others include 50 Shades of Grey—lauded by some for its female-centric portrayal of sex, though not for its gender dynamics—and the Alison Brie-led Sleeping With Other People, about a woman who can only develop a healthy, balanced relationship with a man once the pair agrees to not have sex.

Those who argue that these films are empowering say something like this: The women in these movies are fully in touch with their own sexuality and unabashed about asking for what they want. They are not princesses waiting to be rescued nor incomplete without a man. These women are fully capable of walking away, no matter the man’s charm or wealth or persuasive ways.

You could dismiss these movies as superficial illustrations that "modern women like sex and that's okay," but they actually illustrate something that frustrates a lot of women—both Christian and not—about relationships: it seems like there’s no middle ground. You can choose sex without emotional involvement, or you can choose emotional involvement without sex.

But I’d argue that these movies do not empower women. Instead, they obfuscate the reality: sexual liberty doesn't reduce emotional vulnerability.

Sexual empowerment is not the same thing as power in a relationship—something many Christians readily acknowledge. But when we also deny that we even have a human appetite for sex (a much more common attitude within the church), or suggest it’s an entirely negative desire, we fail to provide a practical approach to real relationships, with all the uncertainty, negotiation of wants and needs, and vulnerability they involve. Neither stance addresses the reality that relational vulnerability is hell when it’s lopsided.

In the traditional rom-com formula, the woman usually takes the first step of vulnerability by acknowledging her feelings for the other person. Then eventually, the man must make up for lagging behind through some grand public gesture. In this scenario, success for the woman is to become the object of desire, but at least this (arguably) elevates her value.

Trainwreck flips the gender roles by making love interest Aaron (Bill Hader) the emotional one and Amy (Schumer) the one who makes the grand romantic gesture in the end. The lesson of Trainwreck is that the modern, sexually liberated woman doesn’t need emotional support from a man—until he makes the first emotional move, and then it’s okay to lean in.

In Sleeping With Other People, Lainey is so emotionally incompetent she constantly seeks out sex that leaves her feeling used in the aftermath. She repeats this cycle over and over until a man, Jake (Jason Sudeikis), becomes a safe emotional attachment figure by agreeing to a no-sex rule. In this case, while both Lainey and Jake embrace the freedom of sexual activity and had sex earlier in their relationship, not having sex seems to be the real equalizer. (It’s so old-fashioned it’s dysfunctional.)

When we see these women as examples of female empowerment, though, we preach that denying our vulnerability is a form of safety. Amy and Lainey “protect” their hearts with a barrier carefully built of narcissistic confidence and the idea that it’s ok to sleep around, without regard for or fear of potential emotional complications.

This mask has been around since at least the Rock Hudson/Doris Day sex comedies of the late 1950s; back then, it was the "unreformed bachelor” stereotype. In order to project the visage of an aloof “single and loving it” character, one must have a rampant and well documented sex drive, fear of commitment and repressed emotional life. Assigning these characteristics to the female protagonist, as in Trainwreck, does nothing to reform the rom-com formula or empower women, since the male love interest in these examples still swoops in to rescue or reform by allowing the female to admit how she feels.

While this new wave of rom-coms puts the emphasis on the female sex drive—the female leads are very proactive in the sexual aspect of their relationship—the women in these examples are still waiting for the man to lead emotionally. He has control over her ability to accept what she feels and the safety to express it—and in my opinion, that’s a step back for women. This is a passive role, not an empowered one.

I would never hold 50 Shades up as a good example of a functional relationship, but Anastasia (Dakota Johnson) is actually the most honest of these three examples regarding her vulnerability in relationship with Christian (Jamie Dornan). She submits to his sexual wishes despite reservations, but draws a line at denying her heart or accepting his dismissal of her feelings. Equality it’s not—using sex as a power play is never healthy and the relationship portrayed is full of red flags for abuse—but in owning her vulnerability, Ana is actually more courageous than the supposed empowered examples elsewhere. She walks away at the end of the movie not because she’s denying her feelings, but because she’s owning them.

Many storytellers concede that healthy, happy relationships are too peaceful to provide great stories: feelings are acknowledged and resolution happens quickly. This is called the Moonlighting effect, because of a wildly successful 1980s show that quickly went downhill once the two leads got together.

My go-to cinematic example of a working romantic relationship is Coach and Tami Taylor in Friday Night Lights. But their marriage is already well established during both movie and TV show, and the audience never sees the negotiations involved in beginning to build their mutually supportive relationship.

Fortunately for storytellers, many people haven’t experienced mutual consideration and healthy resolution in their relationships—particularly in the early days. Many of us have never experienced a relationship healthy enough to eclipse the messy ones. In poor combinations, two mostly mature and well-adjusted people can bring out the worst in each other.

This unavoidable drama can make women long for the wild mutual desire that, in rom-coms, is the only necessary ingredient for a “happily ever after” (especially the kind of wild desire that makes one run through the airport or chase a cab). Many of us rail against the formula and welcome stories that have some fun with it, but still look for the signs of happiness we’re taught on screen.

The essence of the romantic narrative is a journey from unequal power dynamics (the uncertainty of dating and the early stages of testing your fit with another person) to equality motivated by love. But in real life, romance still plays a role—that improbable, grand, mysterious ingredient—but so does intentional alignment with the other person’s needs. Love interwoven with a desire to know and serve the other is also God's kind of love. "This is because I want faithful love, not sacrifice/I want people to know God, not to bring burnt offerings," reads Hosea 6:6.

Where is the alternative model for the woman who doesn’t want to wait around to be the object of some man’s quest but also cannot accept the sexual without compromising the emotional? Not in pop culture. But also, unfortunately, not in the church. Christians’ relationship solutions often involve denying the messiness of emotional negotiation and human interaction. Plenty of youth groups (some influenced heavily by Joshua Harris’ I Kissed Dating Goodbye) push the message that romantic relationships are dangerous, perhaps unintentionally promoting the idea that the confusion of feeling something about another person should be hidden or denied. Messy relationships are unavoidable. Navigating them requires grace for people and faith in something better.

Ultimately, a healthy relationship is not about power, because power assumes that one is greater than the other. Power, when looked at in a relationship, comes from both acknowledging vulnerability and granting that power to the other out of trust. To gain power, you've got to lose it, in other words—a lesson the church ought to be able to teach.

But until we come up with better examples, women will keep looking to rom-coms and learning through painful trial and error.

Alicia Cohn is a regular contributor to Christianity Today's Her.meneuticsand freelance writer based in Denver. She tweets @aliciacohn.

Why The New ‘Feminist’ Rom-Com Is a Lie

Full Screen

1 of 6

Amy Schumer and Bill Hader in 'Trainwreck'

Full Screen

2 of 6

Bill Hader and Amy Schumer in 'Trainwreck'

Full Screen

3 of 6

Jason Sudeikis and Alison Brie in 'Sleeping With Other People'

Full Screen

4 of 6

Jason Sudeikis and Alison Brie in 'Sleeping With Other People'

Full Screen

5 of 6

Jamie Dornan and Dakota Johnson in 'Fifty Shades of Grey'

Full Screen

6 of 6

Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan in 'Fifty Shades of Grey'

Of all the adjectives people might use to describe documentary films–important, artsy, difficult–one that does not spring immediately to mind is fun. But the new documentary Finders Keepers challenges this preconception of nonfiction films as hard work, offering a wild tale full of severed limbs, courtroom drama, and plenty of salty humor.

In the midst of the many belly laughs the film offers, though, it also poses a key question for sensitive viewers of documentaries: when is it okay to laugh at the people onscreen?

The story revolves around a legal dispute between two men over a preserved, amputated leg. When irrepressible showboat Shannon Whisnant finds the leg in a grill he purchases at auction, he sets out to do the American thing and make some money off the spectacle. John Wood, the leg’s original owner, demands its return. Whisnant refuses to budge. The two men trade words and eventually take each other to court. Filmmakers Bryan Carberry and J. Clay Tweel keep their focus tight on the two characters, and Whisnant especially fills up the screen with his charisma and homebrewed witticisms.

As funny as the film is, I found myself a little unsettled at certain points laughing at its contents. At The Dissolve, Scott Tobias pinpointed one source of my unease when he described the film as “borderline hicksploitation.” Finders Keepers takes place mostly in one small North Carolina town, and both Whisnant and Wood represent an oft-mocked sort of Southern whiteness. So as Whisnant rattled off one down-home proverb after another, I found it hard to determine why exactly I found myself laughing. Was it because Whisnant said something genuinely funny and provocative, or because he said it in a rustic, unsophisticated way, with a twang in his voice?

The divide between laughing with and laughing at the characters in a film has never been clear in documentaries, and it must be navigated with caution. As opposed to a fictional comedy, the stakes in a documentary have real-world meaning: documentary subjects have inner lives that actually exist, and real dignity that can be assaulted.

The director has a responsibility, of course, to present the characters of a film in ways that do not distort their personalities exploitatively. Yet even the most sensitive directors must rely on the audience to complete the picture accurately. When Errol Morris' first film, Gates of Heaven, was released, some people accused the director of mocking the subjects of his film—pet owners who wanted their deceased to have loving, often extravagant, burials. In my view, Morris presents the pet owners with remarkable sympathy–their quirks emerge as part of the larger picture of their humanity–but it takes a sensitive eye to suss out the fine line between tragedy and comedy.

Are we as audiences sensitive enough to the glorious contradictions of our fellow humans—the dignity mixed with foolishness—to see documentaries like these and respond appropriately? Sometimes it seems highly unlikely. At the same film festival where I saw Finders Keepers, I also caught Nick Broomfield's chilling documentary Tales of the Grim Sleeper, about a serial killer who, through police negligence, carried on his gruesome murders of African-American women for thirty years in Los Angeles. In his films, Broomfield appears as a character, investigating events while putting himself in the story. Over the course of his sleuthing, Broomfield strikes up a friendship with Pam, a prostitute who knew many of the murdered women. Like Shannon Whisnant, Pam fills every scene with her verve and charisma. Like Shannon, she often rattles off humorous turns of phrase. Given Tales of the Grim Sleepers' higher narrative stakes, however, the question of when to laugh becomes even knottier. Unfortunately a good chunk of the audience I saw the film with gave little consideration to these subtleties, and roared with laughter nearly every time Pam opened her mouth—including during several emotionally charged moments during which Pam described lost friends. In this context, the audience clearly crossed a line, laughing not at what Pam said, but at Pam herself, for her lack of formal eloquence, her propensity to liberally salt her language with swear words—at all the markers that distinguished her from them.

Photo still from the documentary movie, Tales of the Grim Sleeper. Pam Brooks in the front, the guide/gadfly cited in the story. The director, Nick Broomfield, is in the back seat. Credit: Barney Broomfield/South Central Films (Nick's son, who served as dp and photog). The documentary is a movie that's as much a portrait of the complicated culture of South Central as it is a look at a notorious Angeleno serial killer. At left, British documentarian Nick Broomfield at work. Credit: Barney Broomfield/South Central Films

Documentary audiences have hardly cornered the market on insensitive viewing—at the recent screening I attended of the tense but fictional drug war film Sicario, many people whooped and hollered through the film's deliberately troubling portrayal of violence. But the imperative to watch with empathy and discernment strikes me as all the more important in a form where the subjects onscreen are not actors, but real people. When the people we mock and feel superior to have real lives, real struggles and pains and joys, it makes our desire to dominate them through ridicule that much more twisted, a slap in the face of the imago dei.

Can we do better? Can we laugh without laughing at others? Is the time honored command to laugh with people, and not at them, possible in the slippery world of documentaries?

I think the answer lies, in part at least, in laughing less, and laughing better.

Tamping down the urge to laugh does not come easily, especially since laughter often strikes us out of the blue, for unexpected reasons. Adults no less than children tend to resort to laughter as a defense mechanism, when confronted by something new and troubling. Controlling these urges takes practice and self-awareness, a guarding of the self.

The point here is not, of course, to rob ourselves of the joy of laughing at funny things. And we certainly should not cut down on laughter in order to view characters such as Pam with a feeling like unadulterated pity, an emotion no less condescending than mocking laughter.

Instead, our goal should be to cultivate a desire to see beyond the surface and witness people in the depth of their complexity. If you find yourself watching a documentary and reflexively laughing every time a particular character comes on screen, you can safely assume you have swapped out the reality of that person for a caricature. When you find a giggle rising in your throat, catch yourself before it escapes. Hold it a minute, and ask yourself why you want to laugh in this moment. Then release it or beat it back down as necessary.

As Christians, we should excel others in sensitive viewing. When we watch people talk about themselves and their lives onscreen, we should listen attentively and empathetically. If we laugh at Shannon Whisnant, it should not be because he's some dumb hick who makes us feel better about ourselves, but because he has a rich, complex personality that bursts at the seams with enthusiasm and energy. Laughter at its best gives us a potent way to appreciate the tangled beauty of creation, even as it comes to us through the story of a nonfiction film—so long as we laugh from joy, and not derision.

Asher Gelzer-Govatos is a Ph.D. student in Comparative Literature at Washington University in St. Louis, where he lives with his family. The film critic for the Columbia Daily Tribune newspaper, his work has appeared in outlets such as Paste, The Week, and Books & Culture.

Laughing At, Or Laughing With?

Full Screen

1 of 4

'Finders Keepers'

Full Screen

2 of 4

'Tales of the Grim Sleeper'

Full Screen

3 of 4

Photo still from the documentary movie, Tales of the Grim Sleeper. Pam Brooks in the front, the guide/gadfly cited in the story. The director, Nick Broomfield, is in the back seat. Credit: Barney Broomfield/South Central Films (Nick's son, who served as dp and photog). The documentary is a movie that's as much a portrait of the complicated culture of South Central as it is a look at a notorious Angeleno serial killer. At left, British documentarian Nick Broomfield at work. Credit: Barney Broomfield/South Central Films

'Tales of the Grim Sleeper'

Full Screen

4 of 4

'Finders Keepers'