Sex and the City finally opens on Friday.
Honestly, I really can’t wait for this to be over. We need for the movie to make at least $30 million (that’s the prediction for the weekend) on opening weekend so that Hollywood will (maybe) finally (again) view women as a legit audience. Yet even as women are making their viewing plans for the weekend and beyond, leave it to the media to do its best to diminish any gains we might make by actually scaring off any guys by saying, in essence, that no guys are going to be caught dead in the theatres interested in seeing this (except of course, for all the gay guys.)
This is such a sexist double standard.
It makes me angry that it is all on women to make SATC a hit. No other film has that burden. As Philadelphia Inquirer Flickgrrl Carrie Rickey and said on her site last week: “Remember when movies — and books — were mass-marketed? When studios assumed that moviegoers were equally interested in Working Girl as Superman?”
No movie about men or starring men has ever had to deal with a headline like yesterday’s AP story- Can Women Alone Make Sex and the City a Hit? or today’s Variety story Sex sells, but will men see ‘City?
Think about last year’s hit film Wild Hogs. It was about four guys (including Tim Allen and John Travolta) on a middle age road trip. The film opened in March to $40 million, with over 53% of the audience male, and 65% over 25. Even though this was not a film targeted at women, women went to see it because the point is that no one gives you the impression that seeing a movie about four guys going through a mid-life crisis is not worthy of your time and your money.
Even though Sex and the City is going to be a hit what the media and the marketing has done here is to really divide the sexes. I don’t blame New Line/Warner Brother for marketing the film this way. They need to make it big and they know that guys would rather not see the “so-called chick flick” so they are eliminating the guilt that women feel when dragging the guys to see these types of films by saying essentially, don’t bother bringing him this time, leave him home with his friends and the kids. Give yourself the night out.
I just worry that this has clearly become more than just a movie — it’s an event — and these types of events are very, very hard to replicate. And also, maybe because it’s become such an event (and looking at the pipeline there are not too many others coming down the pike) it will be another excuse for Hollywood not to take women seriously.
But, then, on the other hand, I was heartened to read yesterday on Hollywood Wiretap that someone else has put in writing what I say consistently- that this film (and other films about women) might have some serious legs beyond opening weekend (I really hope someone will keep track)
Because Females 25 Plus are generally not the crowd that always rushes out to see a movie on opening weekend, “Sex and the City” is more likely to open very well and then hold even better in coming weeks. I am looking for at least $30 million on opening weekend, and with nothing particularly adult-skewing until Fox’s “The Happening” on June 13, this movie, starring decidedly grown-up women, has a chance to join “The Devil Wears Prada” and “Hairspray” in the very exclusive $100 million Summer Chick Flick Blockbuster club.
While I’m not a fan of SATC, I would rather see it than sit through another men’s mid-life crisis movie. I stayed away from Wild Hogs as if it were the plague. I wasn’t even that crazy about Lost in Translation, and I’ve loved Bill Murray since I was a kid.
Wow…..
It has been crazy, all of this attention to SATC and if and when women will flock to the theatres to see it. Well, we’ll know soon enough….won’t we?
I know that I plan to go on Sat. eve….but I think I’m usually an exception, not the rule. A 43-year-old female who loves movies….and loves to see them when they open, with a crowd of like-minded movie-lovers.
Friends of mine are different….they wait for word-of-mouth, etc. To them, there is no rush.
I love Melissa’s analogy about “Wild Hogs”. Never was that promoted as a “guy flick”…..leave the women at home and see it with your buddies.
Like the previous commenter, I stayed away from that — but because it looked awful. It wasn’t because it was about middle-aged men.
I do love that SATC is spurring conversation….I just wish we could finally move away from “Will enough women go?” or “Will enough men go?” to…..”Will an audience go?”
As Carrie Rickey discussed….Isn’t that what it should be about? Movies used to be mass-marketed. Is the movie good? Is it an engaging story and done well? Will it find an audience? Those questions don’t have anything to do with gender, as far as I’m concerned.
Hmmm…..guess that’s why I’m not in a suit in the big Hollywood office. :)
On a side note….this convo always makes me think about the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s. Most of the big stars were women. Yes….WOMEN. And they were in the big pictures that EVERYONE saw. No one wondered if men were gonna see those flicks.
Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Katherine Hepburn, Ava Gardner, Grace Kelly, Ginger Rogers, Elizabeth Taylor, Deborah Kerr, Judy Garland, Maureen O’Hara, I could go on and on — but you get the drift.
And……these women were not washed up at 30 or 35.
Sheesh……what happened?
I’m confused – why NOT hold the marketing firm accountable for being divisive?! Yeah – so it sells more tickets for this movie – which I confess I have no interest in – but their marketing is only going to further ENTRENCH the notion of marketing by gender – at the expense of women-centered films – NOT at the expense of men-centered films.
Since SATC first hit tv I have personally been primarily turned off by the MARKETING of the series. It has kept me – a feminist film lover – away from the show. The marketing of this whole series & film has turned off this viewer – NOT just men. To me, the marketing screams – CHIC flick divisively & derisively.
Sorry to rant, Melissa, but my feminist film watching desires are majorly alienated by all of this. Women-centered does not always mean feminist.
And then there is Hunt’s Then She Found Me – AWESOME feminist film.
Melissa,
Thanks for staying on top of all this. What I love is that it stars a woman over 50. Kim Catrell. And other characters that are over 40. What is everyone so afraid of. Do they think men will be exposed to a sublimal message in movies with women that will render men defenseless to our taking over the world?! And of course this is not the only female movie that has been labeled in this way. How can a movie about women be such a threat that men need a warnng! MEN OUT THERE! You need to speak out and say you are stronger and braver than that. You CAN TAKE it. It is just a movie afterall and you will probably love it. Open yourself up to all the possibilities out there. You might find out you like movies about women? You might find out we can be entertaining, enlightening, inspiring, smart and witty. You might find out we can tell a good story. And it is about a good story and letting women have equal representation in the media. So suck it up men, don’t listen to the naysayers and go see Sex and the City.
I am concerned about the divisive marketing. I think its a problem. But, one of the things that I probably did not make clear enough in my writings is that I don’t believe that just because a film stars a woman means it is a feminist film. There are plenty of women centric films that are not pro woman or are in fact anti-woman. What I want to see is more good female roles for women of all races, shapes, and ages so that there are more options for all of us.
Melissa