Junkie: Don't Worry About Will Smith

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Tuesday, 26 March 2013

What's a Chick Flick?

Posted on 20:58 by mohit
Everybody thinks they know what a "chick flick" is, but in practice it seems that nobody can agree on a standard definition. Does it mean a romantic comedy? Does it have to involve romance? Does it have to appeal to women or be told from their POV? Does it need a female lead? Do drag queens count? And is the term inherently a put-down or do we consider this a real genre?

Well, it depends. "Chick flick" is a term that refers to a group of movies in terms of their perceived audience rather than their content. It's predominantly used by men who apply it to films they think appeal strongly to women, often in a dismissive way, but not always. What's pretty consistent though, is that men use the term chick flick as a designation for movies that they don't consider to themselves to be part of the normal audience for. This is a highly subjective determination, so nobody agrees on exactly where the boundaries are. This doesn't mean that men and boys don't think it's acceptable to watch and enjoy some chick flicks. However, they recognize that there is a societal expectation, strongly backed up by the media, that certain stories and subject matter and content are not supposed to appeal to male audiences, so they are trained to be wary of them.

It's fascinating to look at what movies some people consider chick flicks, when you keep that in mind. For instance, "Hitch," "Crazy, Stupid, Love," and "500 Days of Summer" are commonly cited examples of guy-friendly chick flicks. Not surprising, since the stories are entirely male dominated and told from the male POV. They were marketed with male stars as headliners, and the vast majority of the screen time goes to male characters. So why are they considered chick flicks, while the similar Judd Apatow movies are not? I think most of it has to do with framing. The chick flicks are marketed as romances, all about relationships and emotional connections. Judd Apatow movies are sold as comedies first, and even if there's a lot of male-female interaction going on, the emphasis is on sex and raunch, even if the amount of touchy-feely scenes in "40 Year Old Virgin" and "Crazy, Stupid, Love" is about the same. The message is that romance is for women and sex is for men, but is there really such a big dividing line between them?

Then you've got the chick flicks without much romance, like "The Devil Wears Prada," "Bridesmaids," and "Pitch Perfect." These movies all the get the label for the simple fact that they star women. It has long been the assumption that men cannot and will not easily identify with female characters, unless they're in male-friendly scenarios like Jessica Chastain's character in "Zero Dark Thirty," or Jessica Lawrence in "The Hunger Games." And even then, having multiple female leads can tip the scales. So "girl power" movies like "Whip It" and "Bend in Like Beckham" are chick flicks, even though they're about sports. Want to tip the scales back the other way? Then you have to sex up the heroines, like Zac Snyder did with "Sucker Punch," to signal it's okay for the guys to take an interest. Unfortunately, filmmakers tend to go too far when they do this, which is why nobody has managed to get a female superhero movie right yet.

Do female audiences' opinions factor into determining if something is a chick flick or not? Absolutely. If female viewers display an outsized affection for a certain film, that's enough to make it a chick flick. Take "The Princess Bride," for example, which is a boys' adventure tale through and through, a bedtime story about pirates and duels being read by a grandfather to his grandson. But thanks to the "Princess" title and the adoration of female fans, it's considered a chick flick. Some guys define any movie that they only feel comfortable watching with female company as a chick flick, so it's really the perceived opinion of women and girls that is the most important as opposed to the actual opinion. i can't help but be reminded of a certain breed of grown-ups who will only watch cartoons if a kid is present, because they think it's not acceptable to watch them on their own, even if the cartoon wasn't intended for kids at all.

Chick flicks are a silly gender expectations construct, and there's no greater evidence of this that the fact that there's no male equivalent of the chick flick. Women and girls don't have any psychological barriers to watching male-centric and male-oriented films, aside from their own tastes. There are no movies that are considered off limits for the female half of the population, simply because guys like them in large numbers, or they ask them to identify with a male lead character. And if they dislike a film, they get to dislike them on their own merits. Yes, there are a lot of bad movies primarily aimed at women, but there are also a lot of bad movies primarily aimed at men, and if there seems to be outsized rancor towards "Twilight" and "Sex and the City," I suspect it's more about male viewers getting caught up in fulfilling social expectations than anything else.

And while the term "chick flick" is often used as a put-down, it's the guys who lose out, and who I end up feeling sorry for.
---
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in movies | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Well, There Goes the "Community"
    Oh, the studios can be so unkind. Yesterday, about an hour after I posted my final thoughts on the third season of "Community," i...
  • So Mindy Kaling Got Her Own Sitcom
    The pilot of Mindy Kaling's new sitcom "The Mindy Project" popped up in various places last week, so I gave it a look. I'...
  • The Movie Gender Switch Project: The Princess Bride
    YAM Magazine, an online publication about cultural media, came up with this interesting little prompt: The Movie Gender Switch Project . Si...
  • Malick's Latest is a "Wonder"
    Since reviewing "The Tree of Life" last year, I went and hunted down all of the remaining Terrence Malick films that I hadn't ...
  • Turning Down the Volume
    Now this is good timing. On Tuesday, the FCC passed the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act (CALM), which tells broadcasters t...
  • A Trip to the Past With "Hugo"
    I didn't see "Hugo" in 3D, though many of its proponents have been raving about how well the new Martin Scorsese family film i...
  • The Death of Internet Authorship
    Crediting seems so easy. You quote a few lines from a book, and drop a footnote to provide the name of the author and page numbers. You p...
  • An Update on "They Shoot Pictures"
    Last summer, when I had gotten through about 500 titles from the "They Shoot Pictures Don't They" ("TSPDT") list of ...
  • An Appreciation of Peter Greenaway
    I was going to write up one of my usual "favorite film by so-and-so" posts for Peter Greenaway, but this director presents a speci...
  • Adventures in Reddit
    A little over a year ago, I was introduced to the news aggregator site Reddit, and it has slowly but surely become the website that has take...

Categories

  • aaargh (9)
  • aaargh. (1)
  • action (122)
  • animation (52)
  • awardshow (22)
  • batman (3)
  • chuck (1)
  • comedies (100)
  • crime drama (35)
  • crime dramas (20)
  • critics (9)
  • disney (19)
  • documentary (7)
  • dramas (133)
  • fandom (16)
  • fantasy (79)
  • horror (30)
  • kevin smith (1)
  • liveblog (2)
  • marketing (40)
  • movie (5)
  • movies (346)
  • musicals (10)
  • oz (2)
  • reality (9)
  • reviews (118)
  • reviews. (4)
  • romance (32)
  • scifi (68)
  • spider-man (1)
  • starwars (6)
  • superhero (25)
  • trailers (5)
  • TV (175)
  • web (43)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (148)
    • ►  June (21)
    • ►  May (26)
    • ►  April (25)
    • ▼  March (25)
      • More Bunnies, Less Crucifixions
      • A Brief Guide to the Great Directors as Actors
      • The Fandom Fringe
      • What's a Chick Flick?
      • Let's Check in With "Archer"
      • What Do You Want Out of a New "Star Wars" Movie?
      • Uncrowding Thursday TV
      • Any Worthwhile New Streaming Services?
      • "Holy Motors" is a Trip
      • Selling "Spring Breakers"
      • What Happened to Youtube?
      • Brave New "Utopia"
      • My Favorite Carl Theodor Dreyer Film
      • How High Will "Veronica" Go?
      • New Disney Movies Based on the Old Disney Movies
      • Well, I Wanted an "Oz" Franchise
      • A View on "The View"
      • More Podcast Recs
      • The Forgotten Oz Masterpiece
      • Movie Trendspotting 2013
      • Jon Stewart, Director?
      • My Top Ten Favorite "Seinfeld" Episodes
      • Regarding "Psychopaths"
      • My Most Anticipated Films of 2013, Part II
      • My Most Anticipated Films of 2013, Part I
    • ►  February (25)
    • ►  January (26)
  • ►  2012 (309)
    • ►  December (25)
    • ►  November (25)
    • ►  October (25)
    • ►  September (25)
    • ►  August (26)
    • ►  July (32)
    • ►  June (25)
    • ►  May (26)
    • ►  April (25)
    • ►  March (25)
    • ►  February (25)
    • ►  January (25)
  • ►  2011 (43)
    • ►  December (25)
    • ►  November (18)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

mohit
View my complete profile