I read this blog post yesterday What does this say about U.S. manhood: Male critics actually like ‘Eat Pray Love’ by Patrick Goldstein of the LA Times and it didn’t really get to me enough to blog about it. But while I was tossing and turning in bed this morning Goldstein’s post came to my mind and it made me angry.
The point to me is not that male critics like the film — male and female critics both like and dislike the film — it’s that there is surprise in the fact that some male critics actually like the film. Not mentioned is that some women dislike the film, but that doesn’t seem to be as big a sin than men actually liking a film about a woman.
I seriously can’t believe that this conversation still goes on. The job of a reviewer is to look at a film and say whether they like the film, the characters, you know the whole package. The fact that it stars a woman or is about a woman should not automatically let men off the hook because really, how are they supposed to like a film about, oh my god, A WOMAN.
Can you imagine the reverse sentence ever being written?
What Does it Say about US Womanhood: Female Critics Actually Like The Expendables? (or substitute any of the hundreds of movies that star men.)
Would never happen.
What does this say about U.S. manhood: Male critics actually like ‘Eat Pray Love’ (LA Times)
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
I can’t help but wonder, what about male critics who like older iconic films about women such as PERSONA, MILDRED PIERCE, STAGE DOOR, JEZEBEL, GONE WITH THE WIND, etc… oh IMAGINE THE HORROR!!!!!!!!
What an absolutely pathetic article.
Can you imagine an article with the title “What does it say about U.S. whitehood, white critics actually like The Pursuit of Happyness?” I mean the fact that they ran that piece is completely outrageous to me.
I wouldn’t so easily dismiss Patrick’s underlining questions: Are male critics more dismissive of films like EAT, PRAY, LOVE? Remove Julia Roberts from the equation, would the current critical reaction have been the same? The answers could be illuminating.
Over the last 10 years or so, rhetoric around male and female centric films has shifted, but not expanded. As en example, critics often talk more about the intended audience (male, teen, etc.), but rarely talk about just the audience. As an example, Rom-com’s get bashed for what they say to women, but generally not about what they say to (not about, but to) men as well.
And films like Scott Pilgrim are praised (and I’ll admit I liked it), but very few male critics spent anytime discussing the underlying premise that Ramona is a prize to be won, or highlight that her lingering issues with past relationships are being solved by proxy, robbing Ramona of any agency over her own emotional life. Isn’t that the same knock that’s been directed at Rom-com’s? So what is the film saying to the mostly under 25 and male audience that went to the movie? What is it saying to women?
One last thought.
There used to be a time when critics used to champion young actors and outside of a handful of names, I’m not sure that’s happening much anymore. In fact, I’d argue that when it comes to women, we’re much more likely to tear down than build up. If Julia Roberts had released MYSTIC PIZZA today, would she even be respected critically? For young actresses, their “cinematic sins” seem to haunt them forever (18 years later, Marisa Tomei still gets grief about winning her Oscar for MY COUSIN VINNY at the same time people are praising her work in films like THE WRESTLER).
My problem isn’t that we’re still having this discussion, it’s that we still aren’t asking the right questions.
I have to say, I think C. Judson has some great points above. And I would add that aside from the title of Mr. Goldstein’s article (which I think he used to gain more attention), Mr. Goldstein actually brings up an interesting point. He’s exploring whether we are less prejudice than we thought (both male and female critics). Which to my mind, is a great question. (often I think our worst enemy is ourselves/our own perceptions versus what’s “real”) An example, when I went back to my 10 year high school reunion, it seemed like a lot of the cliques were self imposed, especially 10 years later, rather than other people imposing onto you which clique you belonged to…
“Maybe Julia Roberts gave the film credibility with a sizable percentage of men? Maybe guys like chick flicks more than they let on?”
Men love Julia Roberts, they always have. And yes, guys like chick flicks much more than they let on…
ann: And so maybe we should stop calling them “chick flicks,” yes? :)
Maybe that would lead to better marketing and better audience turnout for said films…
Well, we have to have the man ‘splaining of any woman-led thing. Again, it’s doubly confusing if the trailer for a ‘chick’ flick doesn’t have the girlish scream, a shot of the heroine in her underwear for the dudes, some scene where she puts herself down for eating/gaining weight/looking horrible, scene where she gives an older bitch her comeupness, ends in wedding or baby.
Agreed. We should kill and hold a funeral for the word “chick flick”. Films used to be called a good movie or a bad movie, not a boy movie or a girl movie.
I agree with everything people posted above (words can’t begin to describe how over the term “chick flick” I am), but I have to say I keep bumping into sentiments like the one in the original article. I agree we should be way past this stage, but for a lot of people, men and women, we aren’t. One of my co-workers, a man in his late thirties who, while generally friendly and intelligent, has a habit of saying things like, “it’s a chick show but it’s actually really good!” or “I know it’s about a teenage girl, but I actually really liked it”. His tone like he was embarrassed but trying to convince me that girl things can sometimes actually be interesting and entertaining like it was some shocking revelation is unbelievably annoying. Even moreso because he doesn’t seem to understand that as a person with my very own uterus, I might already know this and might actually be insulted at his surprise. I run into this with other people in my classes, too, from guys and girls. Nobody stops to think about the implications of these statements, it’s become rote.
I completely agree with you Bevin. Not only is the surprise or embarrassment over finding a “chick show” entertaining both offensive and ignorant, the fact that they aren’t even AWARE of the fact that what they’re saying is offensive is just downright depressing. This is what I mean when I tell people sexism is so deeply embedded in our culture that people don’t even know how to recognize it when they see it.
What’s happened in the film industry is no different than what has happened on Television. Every program, network etc.. airing is generally geared to a specific demographic. ESPN is geared to men, the CW is geared to younger women, Lifetime once geared to women, is now going after the younger female audience. Look at the broadcast networks, ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS. Even their programming is becoming more targeted. NBC trying to go after the younger more affluent audience, Fox going after the younger male audience, ABC going after younger females. CBS might be the only one a bit more balanced or maybe they are the only one actually interested in appealing to both older and younger audiences while the rest seem to be after one specific demographic.
I actually miss the days when entertainment seemed to be targeted more for a general audience. That includes television, theatre, and films. Now with a zillion more options available, everyone out their has to narrow their focus. I guess it’s easier to make a film or show appealing to one demo group that to try and be creative and come up with something that might appeal to a wider audience.
“There used to be a time when critics used to champion young actors and outside of a handful of names, I’m not sure that’s happening much anymore. In fact, I’d argue that when it comes to women, we’re much more likely to tear down than build up.”
Yo, Charles: The answer is “Yes,” yes, critics still champion young actors… even when they’re feamle. Case in point: Jennifer Lawrence. WINTER’S BONE opened on 4 screens on 6/11 & it’s now playing on over a hundred screens (still playing here in Chicago!), & it’s likely to cross the $5M mark this weekend, making it one of this summer’s Big Indie Hits with virtually no advertising. Kudos to director/co-writer Debra Granik: You Go, Girl!!!
Here’s my review:
http://www.womenarts.org/reviews/WintersBone.htm
But Katie that still doesn’t answer the underlying, and more important question. Even IF things have become more fragmented why is it that a woman being interested in male-centric media (books, magazines, series, movies) is NOT looked at in the same degrading, guilty-pleasure sort of way that the reverse is? No one would be surprised or perplexed about a female critic giving a good review to the Expendables. No one’s going to give the side-eye to my Mom because she watches a lot of Spike TV.
I don’t know Chris. I believe there was a time when “chick flick” was not used but I do think it applies both ways. I hear The Expendables being called a testosterone flick so is that really so much different than calling EPL a Chick Flick. But you do make a valid point. It doesn’t seem as hard to imagine in the media that women can like The Expendables. Yet it’s a shock that men might like EPL. I think it’s just representative of our society. Read Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth. A real eye opener and a lot of the subject matter in the book I believe is 100 percent correct sad to say,
Can I recently say thats a relief to discover somebody who basically knows what theyre preaching about on the internet. You truly understand easy methods to bring a challenge to light and work out it imperative. The most effective method to should see this and see why side of your story. I cant think youre no far more well-liked basically because you totally hold the gift.
{ 1 trackback }