Golden Globes ruined by "chick-flics"...

[beckwall]

Mr. Beckwall (graduate, U. of Utah film school) and I both found Road to Perdition beautifully filmed, yet much too violent in nature. That has to be the most “anti-chick flick” released in the past few years. I’m a chick, and I thought some of the cinematography was stunning, in a dark sort of way.

Last night, we saw About Schmidt together. We laughed and cried, so does that make it a chick flick even though the main character is a man??? No violence, no explosions, no gratuitous sex. What market is this film aiming for?

I’m so confused.:smack:

[Michael_Ellis]

*Originally posted by bean_shadow *
**Well, this is nice. How lovely to see that all the chauvinistic pigs have come out to play. **

Oink! Oink! :rolleyes:

[Bren_Cameron_1]

*Originally posted by RexDart *
That said, the protagonist is not very female. I’d go so far as to say that gender is pretty much irrelevant to that character, which is to say that her gender does not affect the plot or story in any significant way. Contrast with your other example, Silence of the Lambs, in which there is a sexual component of the relationship between Jodie Foster’s character and Anthony Hopkins’ that depends in part on gender.

Wait a minute. You mean somehow it doesn’t count unless Ripley had a romance or sexual encounter, or used her Super PMS Powers to kill the alien, or cried a lot over tea with the alien queen as they discovered their true sisterhood, somehow that cancelled out her gender? Why does it have to be relevant to the plot to count as an edgy movie with a woman? Why does not engaging in stereotypical behaviors mean one “isn’t very female?” If I were making a list of edgy movies with blondes, would you expect each actor to exhibit some stereotypical blond behavior in order to count? The character was female. You can tell because the other characters referred to her as “she” and the person portraying her is female. Sure, gender was irrelevant to the plot. So was hair color. So was the price of tea in China.

I guess what bugs me is that if the character had been male, no one would say, “well, the character wasn’t very male. His gender didn’t affect the plot or story.”

[Agrippina]

*Originally posted by Michael Ellis *
**Oink! Oink! :rolleyes: **

Indeed.

[Miller]

*Originally posted by RexDart *
Yeah, I’ll give you Alien (but not the sequel.) The original was very edgy in its look, utilizing the Giger designs, and one of the greatest suspense/horror/scifi films of all time. That said, the protagonist is not very female. I’d go so far as to say that gender is pretty much irrelevant to that character, which is to say that her gender does not affect the plot or story in any significant way. Contrast with your other example, Silence of the Lambs, in which there is a sexual component of the relationship between Jodie Foster’s character and Anthony Hopkins’ that depends in part on gender.

Well, as it happens, the role of Ripley was originally written as a man. Not that I see how this has any bearing on this thread, or anything at all, for that matter. In general, most of the characters in Alien were underwritten, as the characters were just there for the monster to snack on, like most horror movies. In Aliens, on the other hand, Ripley demonstrates more of a maternal side in her relationship with Newt. Her character (all the characters, really) were much more fleshed out, making her a more believable female protagonist. One of the many things that made Aliens a superior movie to its rather by-the-numbers forebearer.

And I reject the assertion by some that I can’t judge the nature of The Hours without having seen it. Kidman and Julianne Moore quite clearly explained exactly what it was about in a full hour on Larry King Live with accompanying video clips. Now the clips alone might not tell the whole story, but I think one can make a pretty decent conclusion about the theme and style of a film from the actors opinions on it, especially two experienced actors, one of whom is somewhat talented.

Well, you’re wrong. Dismissing a work without firsthand knowledge of the work is an insult to the artists who labored on it, and a fundamentally dishonest way to open a debate. Not to mention the elemental error of relying on Larry King for a detailed or accurate synopsis of anything, from US politics to world affairs to celebrity gossip.

And South Park most definitely was a musical, though the subject matter was a little unorthodox for the genre. Many of the songs actually advanced the plot, and the main themes were woven into the score throughout. It’s alot different from just some animated flick with songs in it, like say Tarzan, which is just a movie occasionally tossing in a Phil Collins piece.

Can’t argue with that. South Park is the best movie musical I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen almost five of 'em.

[Guinastasia]

*Originally posted by Clint in Wichita *
**“Thelma and Louise” was a bad movie, regardless of the gender of the actors.

There is nothing wrong with “chick flicks”. Some people love them, and that’s fine.

However, I don’t want to see DeNiro baking browines while lamenting the fact that he can’t find true love, nor do I want to see Jennifer Lopez wielding a pair of uzis while singlehandedly fighting the War on Terror. **

So in other words, women have to stick to the kitchen while the men do all the real work and save the day?

:rolleyes:

:dubious:

[FallenAngel]

*Originally posted by jr8 *
**I haven’t seen Chicago yet, and am torn between seeing it on stage or on film. Any suggestions? **

If there’s ever a stage vs. cinema version of a production, always see the stage version. The film might be good, but it’s impossible to capture the immediacy and intimacy of a stage production through the filming process.