The New York Times discusses “chick flicks” today. Actually, all they’re really doing is creating editorially sanctioned advertising for two new films marketed towards women, P.J. Hogan’s Shopaholic Takes Manhattan, and Nora Ephron’s Julia & Julia, under the guise of having an important and/or interesting discussion of a potentially polarizing categorization. The article talks about how people in the business get nervous about genres like “chick flicks” because it will turn (man) people off to their movie. Um, it’s not so much that you’re calling your movie a “chick flick” as you’re making a movie about a woman addicted to shopping that might turn off certain viewers. It may come as a surprise to Hollywood, but that’s not everyone’s favorite thing.
But just what is a “chick flick”?
Trying to pin down what, exactly, constitutes a supposed chick flick is more of a parlor game than a science. “An Affair to Remember,” in which Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr played star-crossed lovers, clearly makes the cut. “Knocked Up,” in which Ms. Heigl and Seth Rogen played a star-crossed couple of another sort, probably does not.
Really, New York Times? Parlor game? How about this: movies that are about two people falling in love accompanied by melodramatic elements and excessive romanticization of “chick flicks” that are by and large enjoyed by more women than me are “chick flicks,” and movies that involve farting into someone else’s pillow so they get pink eye and a full crowning shot are “general interest.” Did I win?
All that being said, I still don’t really know what to think of Kate Hudson’s new movie, What Is Up With My Hair, Y’All? It’s definitely not going to appeal to everyone (anyone?).