Gloria Steinem: In Defense of the ‘Chick Flick’:
“I propose, as the opposite of “chick flick,” films called “prick flicks.” Not only will it serve film critics well, but its variants will add to the literary lexicon.” (read article)
Maybe the term “prick” is too strong. It’s not the word I would’ve chosen, yet it answers the fact that a lot of women are put off by the tone and expression, if not the word, used when we hear the term “chick flick.”
Steinem’s editorial reminds me of something that occurred in a “Modern Fantasy” literature class I took, back in the seventies, when Mary Stewart’s first two Merlin and Arthur novels, The Crystal Cave and The Hollow Hills, were recent bestsellers. One of the young men in the class was so taken with them, he asked what other books Mary Stewart had written. I told him she’d written mostly romantic suspense in the past. I had an entire collection of her books at home, older hardcover editions gleaned from thrift store shelves. I thought when he expressed an interest that here was another new fan. But when the young man heard the word “romantic,” he took on a look of utter distaste and lost interest.
Some female mystery novelists still publish today using their first and middle initials rather than their full first names, in order to stretch past that still-existent gender barrier in many male readers’ minds, a practice reminiscent of the Brontës publishing under masculine names. One would’ve hoped that by the time this century rolled around we’d have advanced further. I don’t have statistics on this, but I’ll hazard a guess that there are more women who read and write fiction containing a predominately masculine point of view than there are men who read or write fiction containing a predominately feminine point of view.
Yet I know women, myself included, who enjoy a good action film, of the type once considered a favorite of men. Why is it that women, both in their reading and writing, as well as in movie preferences, might more readily cross old gender barriers?
Mind you, many men do take an equal interest in less violent or less action-oriented movies and books, and I admire men who are open to genres and interests considered historically feminine. I also admire women who open up more to interests previously considered masculine. More women today are sports fans than ever before, and don’t restrict their interests, as I do, to figure skating. My lack of interest is mostly due to bad experiences in physical education classes — I was that awkward, non-athletic kid always picked last for the team. It has nothing to do with my admiration of any outstanding achievement, physical or otherwise, and I enjoy watching good sports-related movies.
What is it that continues to keep some men from enjoying what they term as “chick flicks?” Is it that they truly don’t enjoy more thoughtful, slower-moving, or less action-oriented stories, once they give them a chance? Or is there another reason? Is it adrenaline addiction? (Understandable, among men and women, in today’s world, though perhaps best not encouraged.) Is it fear of what their friends will think? I’m trying not to make assumptions here. I’d really like to know, especially as a female writer trying to sell my fiction.
We all have types of stories we don’t like, or even parts of movies we like that we could do without. I personally back away from anything about child abductions, gangster movies that are overly violent onscreen, comedies that resort to tasteless bathroom humor (bathrooms have doors for a reason), and horror with too much blood and gore added for shock value. As far as I’m concerned, vomit and excrement belong off-screen. There’s enough of them in real life, and they’re not entertaining. They’re certainly not the kind of realism I’m looking for in a story.
I can understand someone not liking romance, even though I usually enjoy it provided it’s not overly sappy. But no one’s personal preference for certain types of stories and not others explains why we need the term “chick flick,” and especially not why it so often seems to be used as a derogatory term. Do the men who don’t like “chick flicks” prefer movies with only men? Is that what it boils down to?
I’m reminded of a line from Frank Herbert’s Dune regarding taking the “waters of life.” It mentions the place in their minds the Bene Gesserit mother superiors (women) fear to go, a place they believe only the fabled Kwisatz Haderach (a man) can access. The Kwisatz Haderach, once he accesses that place, becomes a superior being destined to lead his people to freedom. I wonder about the allegory Herbert intended, if any. Is there a place like that inside the female psyche, where some of the toughest men fear to go? Is that what they fear about “chick flicks?” Will they gain power if they find a way to access that, or will they lose power, possibly even die, as many men did who attempted to become the Kwisatz Haderach? Or will they simply gain a broader understanding of life and the world around them? In that case, maybe it’s worth a shot.
Gloria Steinem makes an interesting observation about power, and about nouns and adjectives in labels:
“Just as there are “novelists” and then “women novelists,” there are “movies” and then “chick flicks.” Whoever is in power takes over the noun — and the norm — while the less powerful get an adjective. Thus, we read about “African American doctors” but not “European American doctors,” “Hispanic leaders” but not “Anglo leaders,” “gay soldiers” but not “heterosexual soldiers,” and so on.” (read article)
1.
I think the word ‘chick-flick’ is meant to be derisive and I find it a little insulting, as if love stories were somehow something we should be ashamed of. I think love stories are the stuff of life and find (many of) them truly beautiful.
Comment by violetismycolor — July 10, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
2.
Dear Barbara,
In Googling myself this morning (this is not as narcissistic as it sounds: I’m moving to Paris and wondered what kind of presence I have on the internet and how it can support my new undertakings), I came across your review of my book THE WRITER’S MENTOR on your June 2005 blog. What a lovely review. Thank you for writing and posting it! Congratulations on sticking with your blog for these long years. I admire your consistency.
And thanks, too, for your entry on Gloria’s wonderful suggestion re “prick flicks.” Pure genius!
All good wishes, Cathleen
PS My newest book, about developing community through movies, is THE MOVIE LOVERS’ CLUB: HOW TO START YOUR OWN FILM GROUP.
Comment by Cathleen Rountree — July 11, 2007 @ 11:11 am
3.
violetismycolor — I so agree that love is the stuff of life. Is the best part of life, love for one’s significant other, for family, or for friends, or anyone for that matter, anything to be ashamed of? Not at all. I wouldn’t want to live in a world without love.
Cathleen — You’re very welcome. Your book still has an honored place on my shelf, to be reread whenever I need a boost. Thanks so much for stopping by. Best wishes with your move to Paris. How exciting!
Comment by Barbara — July 11, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
4.
Why men (or women) tend to like the sorts of movies or books they do beats me. I’d guess a lot of men find the idea of reading a book pretty unmanly. Seems to me a lot of male writers are actually a little uneasy about that. I’ve seen male writers who insist they are really businessmen, as if business is a more macho profession than writing books that real men are not going to read. And then there’s all the violence and tough posturing in a lot of current books. But sitting at a computer writing tough doesn’t make you tough. As for me I have absolutely no interest in firearms or cars. I was advised to read a book by a wildly well thought of author. The first chapter was nothing but guns and vehicles — bang bang vroom vroom. Big deal. My eyes about glazed over. That was as far as I got in that book. So, the sorts of questions you’re pondering, I’m the wrong person to state an opinion.
Comment by Eric Mayer — July 12, 2007 @ 6:54 am
5.
I love “chick flicks.”
Romantic Comedies at this point require screen writers to really hone skills. I find it fascinating to watch how much better these movies get.
Comment by creechman — July 14, 2007 @ 5:57 am
6.
Eric and Creechman —
Eric wrote: “I’d guess a lot of men find the idea of reading a book pretty unmanly. Seems to me a lot of male writers are actually a little uneasy about that. I’ve seen male writers who insist they are really businessmen, as if business is a more macho profession than writing books that real men are not going to read.”
I’m certain the idea that anything a man engages in must earn money, or be practical, or be treated as a business is simply a carryover from outdated traditional roles, and that men are as trapped by roles from the past as women, in expectations that are handed down to us, or trained into us from the cradle.
We all (including me) carry around these knee-jerk responses to new ideas. I think it’s good for each of us to examine our reactions.
Creechman, I know you’re interested in tennis as well. Have you ever seen the movie Wimbledon? It’s one of my favorite romantic comedies, and one of my favorite sports-related movies. I suppose some would call it a “chick flick” — but why?
Comment by Barbara — July 14, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
7.
Kirsten Dunst is interesting because she’s just good enough, still young enough, talented enough, to escape the “chick flick” label. Yet here comes Spiderman again.
“Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” was clever. You must see that movie two or three times to get it.
The writers could have done better with the “Wimbledon” story, seeing they spent so much on special effects. I mean, how standard is the stock dad?
I thought “Match Point,” the Woody Allen movie with Scarlett Johansson, was better, if a bit operatic. Allen gets that way. Hammers us over the head with that or Jazz. “Crimes and Misdemeanors,” same way. Still, he’s incredibly brilliant, writes it all.
I’m not a trapped man, but I want to be, before I turn fifty.
Creechman
Comment by Creechman — July 22, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
8.
I recently read a study which proposed that the (verifiable) differences in the structure of men’s brains versus women’s brains predisposes women and men to different approaches to life, and therefore, to literature.
Really, I don’t care if there are differences or not, nature or nuture, What I do care about is the fact that one approach to life is denigrated, while the other taken as the highest example of the art: women cook; men are chefs. Men are authors; women are female authors. Etc. As Steinem said, the addition of the adjective is intended as a diminuition of the honorific.
I am also reminded of the way speakers are introduced: May I present the lovely Mrs. So-and-so, wife and mother of two darling girls. And by the way she is a professor of physics at the U. of Wherever. The “lovely” and the “wife” and “mother” all remind us to put her in her biological frame, in which women are gauged by attractiveness and domestic utility.
I am not amused.
Comment by Sarah — July 22, 2007 @ 2:12 pm