Seattle Post-Intelligencer LogoHearst Newspapers Logo

Is 'Sleepless in Seattle' the most toxic rom-com ever?

Sure Tom Hanks' boat route makes no sense but, toxic seems strong

By Zosha Millman, SeattlePI

|Updated
"Sleepless in Seattle" came out in 1993, a big year for Seattle. Grunge was still going and sports was fun to watch (Randy Johnson's pitching, Sonics in the playoffs). Those things ended, but the movie's legacy lives on, through the throngs of tourists who shout ...("Sleepless in Seattle" 10th anniversary edition DVD)

"Sleepless in Seattle" came out in 1993, a big year for Seattle. Grunge was still going and sports was fun to watch (Randy Johnson's pitching, Sonics in the playoffs). Those things ended, but the movie's legacy lives on, through the throngs of tourists who shout ...
("Sleepless in Seattle" 10th anniversary edition DVD)

Seattle in the '90s was known for many things: the sight from Frasier's apartment on "Frasier;" the grunge wave; Microsoft and the growing tech boom; "Singles," and towards the tail end, "10 Things I Hate About You." But perhaps no Seattle skyline loomed as large as that of "Sleepless in Seattle."

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

For starters, the city was right there in the title. It became a status update, of sorts, for people to immediately link to the region; you could buy t-shirts on your way out of Sea-Tac that had the phrase splashed across the front.

And the movie largely occupies a sweet-spot in Seattleites' hearts: You may not love it, but it doesn't do our city dirty, and hey it's Nora Ephron!

So when people come to besmerch it, well, we're going to have a few things to say about it.

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

Like this latest hit piece from Bustle, titled "'Sleepless in Seattle' is a toxic rom-com for these three reasons'" which sums up its point thusly:

Yes, Sleepless In Seattle boasts two of the '90s most talented rom-com thespians, and it was co-written by real life word witch Nora Ephron. All the same, sorry to say, Sleepless In Seattle is the most toxic rom-com ever. It features (in no particular order): an argument being made for treating perfectly nice romantic partners/potential partners like trash; advocating for choosing a voice on the radio instead of the guy you've been in a relationship with for a long time; and, oh yeah, a weirdly supportive attitude toward stalking.

Okay, you got us. We're a city full of people who are so starved to bundle up together (for warmth, but also to afford our rents) that we've taken to endorsing stalking people to find potential mates, which we then discard based on voices we've heard on the radio.

No, of course Bustle didn't mean to indict the whole city; by the end of the article it notes that it's a perfectly fine movie so long as it's not taken as relationship advice. Which is true, but isn't that true of basically every rom-com? And is "Sleepless in Seattle" really the most toxic?

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

After all, rom-coms are not exactly the paragon of healthy relationship development.

It's certainly not "While You Were Sleeping" when a woman lies to a whole family about being engaged to a guy she's never met only to fall in love with his brother. "You've Got Mail" doesn't exactly make a compelling case for finding love on the internet, while "She's All That" and "10 Things I Hate About You" shows you can't always trust real life set-ups either.

And that's just from the '90s. ("Love Actually," released in 2001, makes a compelling case, multiple times over for being the most toxic rom-com.) Sam and Annie aren't great to their exes in "Sleepless in Seattle," and their love seems to be built on lingering eye contact, but the movie makes just as compelling a case for a "instantaneous shared attraction" as basically any other rom-com does.

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

We might be sleepless in Seattle, but we're not stupid. Rosie O'Donnell's character is there for a reason.

Zosha is a reporter for seattlepi.com.