Sunday, December 11, 2005
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Chick-Flicks With a Vengeance
Recently, a friend left a comment on this here blog in regards to my entry on “chick-flicks”. This comment, along with a recent happening at Best Buy, has inspired me to once again post on the topic. This friend, who shall remain nameless for the sake of making him sound more mysterious, attempted to define what a “chick-flick” is. And I quote:
“The best definition i can think of is a movie that inherently appeals to, and is marketed to a female audience. An addendum to that definition would be a film that is too girly for me to enjoy.”
Now I ask you, oh mystery friend, how does a company decide how to market to a female audience? What is it that has classified a movie “too girly” for you? What ideas and attitudes have led you to these conclusions? My answer would have to be the decades of brainwashing by the media from the moment you are born! Every aspect of commercialism and advertising has been given specific gender roles and characteristics. Things like having baby boys wear blue and baby girls wear pink. Or how about the mass industry of baby fashion? Where the clothes for boys are pretty much the same as for adult men but miniaturized as if to say “my baby is a little man”, while girls are dressed to look like little fragile princesses. What, I ask, is “too girly”? I guess the answer to that pretty much depends on the person, but that’s not even the point I’m trying to make here. My point, and what bothers me the most about the casual use of “chick flick” is that it is being used as a genre. It is NOT a genre. The genre of what most people call “chick flicks” is in fact a romantic comedy. “So what about those movies where all the lead characters are female?”, you might be inclined to ask. Well I’ll tell you. They’re a rare case of Hollywood stepping out of its sexist shell and believing that a group of leading ladies can carry a film.
Allow me to pose a scenario. Under what genre would you categorize a movie with the following plot:
Two disparate siblings who have lost a parent go on a journey of discovery as they come into conflict with each other in almost every scene until ultimately they see just how much they truly love each other and establish a bond like no other.
Would you say drama? Or would you say chick flick? Think about this one for a second, and then consider the following: when released under the title of Rain Man, the above movie went on to become one of the most powerful dramas ever put on screen. But, when this story came out as In Her Shoes, it was regarded as one of the most unsuccessful “chick flicks” to ever hit the movie world. It became the “what was Cameron Diaz thinking?” movie. The problem, all the “experts” said, was that it was too much of a girly movie. There is something seriously wrong with that.
So this is what happened at Best Buy. After I wrote about How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days here, they showed the movie on tv like 10 times in a week and I realized how much I really enjoy the movie. So I go to Best Buy to get that movie and anything else that might catch my attention. I ended up coming out with the classic King Kong Collection and How to Lose a Guy. This is how it all went down at the register:
Cashier Lady: [picking up How to Lose a Guy] Is this for you?
Me: Yes.
Cashier Lady: haha and you said yes! Are you serious?
Me: Yeah…it’s a great movie.
Cashier Lady: It’s a chick flick.
Me: Don’t get me started, I can’t stand that term. It’s a great rom-com.
Cashier Lady: [calling over the greeter] hey, what would you call this?
Greeter Guy: A chick flick.
Me: [to greeter guy] Chick flick is not a genre. A good movie is a good movie.
Greeter Guy: hey man, there’s no shame in it.
Me: hell yeah there’s no shame. I’m proud of buying this great movie.
True story.
You know what really bothers me? The fact that I just wrote this 700+ word post in about 10 minutes and it took me about 38 hours to come up with 480 words of my 1250-word essay due Wednesday.
...hold my watch, because if it breaks I'll kill everyone on this train
“The best definition i can think of is a movie that inherently appeals to, and is marketed to a female audience. An addendum to that definition would be a film that is too girly for me to enjoy.”
Now I ask you, oh mystery friend, how does a company decide how to market to a female audience? What is it that has classified a movie “too girly” for you? What ideas and attitudes have led you to these conclusions? My answer would have to be the decades of brainwashing by the media from the moment you are born! Every aspect of commercialism and advertising has been given specific gender roles and characteristics. Things like having baby boys wear blue and baby girls wear pink. Or how about the mass industry of baby fashion? Where the clothes for boys are pretty much the same as for adult men but miniaturized as if to say “my baby is a little man”, while girls are dressed to look like little fragile princesses. What, I ask, is “too girly”? I guess the answer to that pretty much depends on the person, but that’s not even the point I’m trying to make here. My point, and what bothers me the most about the casual use of “chick flick” is that it is being used as a genre. It is NOT a genre. The genre of what most people call “chick flicks” is in fact a romantic comedy. “So what about those movies where all the lead characters are female?”, you might be inclined to ask. Well I’ll tell you. They’re a rare case of Hollywood stepping out of its sexist shell and believing that a group of leading ladies can carry a film.
Allow me to pose a scenario. Under what genre would you categorize a movie with the following plot:
Two disparate siblings who have lost a parent go on a journey of discovery as they come into conflict with each other in almost every scene until ultimately they see just how much they truly love each other and establish a bond like no other.
Would you say drama? Or would you say chick flick? Think about this one for a second, and then consider the following: when released under the title of Rain Man, the above movie went on to become one of the most powerful dramas ever put on screen. But, when this story came out as In Her Shoes, it was regarded as one of the most unsuccessful “chick flicks” to ever hit the movie world. It became the “what was Cameron Diaz thinking?” movie. The problem, all the “experts” said, was that it was too much of a girly movie. There is something seriously wrong with that.
So this is what happened at Best Buy. After I wrote about How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days here, they showed the movie on tv like 10 times in a week and I realized how much I really enjoy the movie. So I go to Best Buy to get that movie and anything else that might catch my attention. I ended up coming out with the classic King Kong Collection and How to Lose a Guy. This is how it all went down at the register:
Cashier Lady: [picking up How to Lose a Guy] Is this for you?
Me: Yes.
Cashier Lady: haha and you said yes! Are you serious?
Me: Yeah…it’s a great movie.
Cashier Lady: It’s a chick flick.
Me: Don’t get me started, I can’t stand that term. It’s a great rom-com.
Cashier Lady: [calling over the greeter] hey, what would you call this?
Greeter Guy: A chick flick.
Me: [to greeter guy] Chick flick is not a genre. A good movie is a good movie.
Greeter Guy: hey man, there’s no shame in it.
Me: hell yeah there’s no shame. I’m proud of buying this great movie.
True story.
You know what really bothers me? The fact that I just wrote this 700+ word post in about 10 minutes and it took me about 38 hours to come up with 480 words of my 1250-word essay due Wednesday.
...hold my watch, because if it breaks I'll kill everyone on this train
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)