Variety
Peter Bart
Fri., May 9, 2008, 1:58pm PT
Is the expression “chick flicks” a put-down?
Movie marketers think of “chick flicks” in a positive sense — films that appeal to female sensibilities but also transcend gender boundaries. But talk to folks like Tina Fey and Amy Poehler and they wince at the “chick flick” tag. To them, it suggests pandering to women’s tastes, which they insist their film, “Baby Mama,” doesn’t do.
Now along comes Manohla Dargis, the New York Times’ lead female critic, with her unique take on the issue. According to Dargis, the argument over “chick flicks” is irrelevant because no movies are being made for women anymore. Hollywood is now perpetuating “the new, post-female American cinema,” she avers.
This will come as news to studio chiefs who feel their summer slates embrace more cross-gender comedies — indeed, more chick flicks — than ever before. How about “Mamma Mia” and “Sex and the City” for starters?
Baloney, retorts Dargis, who dwells in her own definitional universe. “The girls of summer are few in number and real women (in film) are close to extinct,” she blurts. As for the feature version of “Sex and the City,” fans of the HBO show know that “its four bosomy buddies are really gay men in drag.” And Meryl Streep? She’s just earning a big payday in a “jukebox musical.”
I sense several arguments brewing here. Sarah Jessica Parker will doubtless be displeased that her movie has been instantly transgenderized. Meanwhile, the producers of “Mamma Mia,” perhaps the most popular sing-along in show business history, might resent their show being dismissed as a jukebox.
But then Dargis also has her theories about guy films, as well. It’s her view that the protagonist in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” — a sensitive type prone to crying jags — is “basically another chick.” Indeed, the actor, Jason Segel, is so “softly plumped, he even looks as if he could fit into an A cup.” Fearing this characterization, that’s perhaps why Segel, who also wrote the script, injected two scenes displaying his full frontal phallus.
While the Times’ critic obviously suffers from sexual disorientation — maybe that’s what happens when you see too many movies — her syndrome points up the problems in deciding what is, or is not, a chick flick. I’ve always thought — perhaps simplistically — that a chick flick is, basically, a good date film. The difference is that it’s the girl who motivates her guy to buy the ticket.
And the guy is usually grateful. That was certainly the case with movies like “Sleepless in Seattle,” “My Best Friend’s Wedding,” “The Devil Wears Prada” or even “Juno.” All were breakout films because their appeal transcended gender.
On the other hand, I find myself resisting movies that seem, on the surface, to be mega-chick flicks. Any title with the words “Traveling Pants” worries me. I never want to meet anyone named “Miss Congeniality” and when stars like Julia Roberts decide to make “issue pictures” like “Mona Lisa Smile,” I take refuge in zit flicks like “Speed Racer.”
The coming weeks, however, will offer a substantial number of films that, on the surface, sound as though they’ll carry broad audience appeal. Think of “What Happens in Vegas,” “The Love Guru,” “Get Smart” or “The Pineapple Express.”
There’ll be more comedies than ever this summer, and some of them will be aggressively cross-gender, and more of the thrillers, too, probably will appeal to women as well as men. The model may turn out to be “Iron Man”: Its protagonist (Robert Downey Jr.) is a lot hipper than previous superheroes, isn’t scared of women like “Superman” or addicted to kinky gear like “Batman” or anatomically overequipped like “The Incredible Hulk.” I suspect many women will find “Iron Man,” to be downright sexy in his own clanky and clunky way.
Hence, I suspect that several chick flicks will end up on the “sleeper hit” list by fall, even though they may get kissed off by some critics who clearly need to get a life. Even a transgender one.
Link.