What constitutes a "Chick Flick" ???

MsManhattan

MsManhattan

Well-known member
OK, being a "chick" myself, on a board largely composed of "non-chicks," allow me to ask an honest question: On what basis do you categorize a film as a "Chick Flick?"

I'm not trying to stir up any controversy here -- I am genuinely interested in your thoughts.

Personally, I am not sure how I feel about that designation. I guess if I made a feature film, which I hope to do, I'd be disappointed if it got categorized as a "Chick Flick" just because I happen to be female. I would probably feel that the term marginalized my efforts.

Someone told me recently that he hadn't been interested in seeing The Hours -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0274558 -- because it was a "chick flick." I would definitely disagree, but because it starred three women, that's how he classified it. The book -- a Pulitzer Prize winner -- was written by a man (Michael Cunningham), and while the main characters are women, the story hinges on a male character. Anyway, this is just an example of how I find the "chick flick" classification confusing.

On the other hand, I would myself probably classify, say, Sleepless in Seattle as a "chick flick..." And when I say that, I would have to admit that I am using the term somewhat dismissively.

So, what do you consider a "chick flick" and why? Is the term a way of dismissing a film? Or simply a synonym for "date movie" or "sensitive movie" or what? And is there a male equivalent -- do you think of "shoot-em-up/blow-em-up" films as "Testosterone Joints" ???
 
If I had to sum it up, I'd suggest that "Any movie where there is an emotional (read, whatever we call this thing called "love") connection" - Usually this connection is between male and female, but I don't think it's necessary.

These are the sorts of films that most people I know call chick flicks. As a man, I feel it's quite an offensive term as it suggests that only women enjoy emotionally connected films. Unfortunately, like most generalisations or cliche's, it became a coined phrase for a reason - most movie watching men I know ARE emotionally disconnected :)

I say - bring em on!
 
I can't tell you exactly what it is...but I know it when I see it. :grin:

Some examples that come to mind:
Steel Magnolias
Fried Green Tomatoes
Terms of Endearment

I'm afraid these movies don't interest me. I was dragged to see them at the theater and I feel like the guy in the Coke commerical who gets water from the ice on his eye and his girlfriend mistakes it for a tear. :grin:

The light comedies are a little easier to take. I've seen quite a few and have enjoyed some of them. These would include: Bridget Jones' Diary, When Harry Met Sally, Notting Hill and Shakespeare In Love.

It's kinda funny. When a lady suggests she doesn't like Braveheart or Last of the Mohicans because of the violence, I explain that it's really a love story and by inference, a "chick flick." :evil:
 
If I walk out of the movie crying... its a chick flick. King Kong was a chick flick.

I would say I think of movies that deal with any complicated lover relationships. These movies attract women more than any other movie so I think thats why the term Chick Flick was invented.
In the case of King Kong, if you look past all of the eye candy its a complicated relationship and is probably more of a chick flick than anything but will never recieve that designation because it has action and CGI fx in it. I bet many women will not even go to see it because in their mind they will think its just another monster movie.
 
What constitutes a "Chick Flick" ???
Click to expand...
It suck's? :cheesy: :beer:

Chick Flicks: trite, sappy, emotional, soap-opera-ish, cliched, melodramatic, weepy, and trivial...

Alright, alright....

I too have watched some of the lighter romantic comedies and have enjoyed them. I love When Harry Met Sally, Ghost, Working Girl, Fried Green Tomatoes, Four Weddings and a Funeral and What Women Want...

Sleepless in Seattle was nice, even some of the Kate Hudson, Jennifer Anniston films are 'tolerable' for light entertainment....

The probelm with Chick Flicks is that they are sometimes just too:

Well, this is spot on:

""I can be cute and assertive too"

and

"I'm emancipated but it's OK to long for romance, to get hung up on a guy, to obsess about mothers or children."

I don't know. They generally just suck. Too cutesy. Too formulaic. Too safe. Too White Bread. Too sugary.
 
Aram Bauman said:
If I walk out of the movie crying... its a chick flick.
Click to expand...

LOL... By that definition, Saving Private Ryan could be construed as a chick flick. Of course, your definition sort of dovetails with what Aza said -- films with emotional connections. But I guess this is where I find the phrase confusing because... don't we love movies because of the emotional connection that either (A) we as viewers feel toward the characters or (B) because they are emotionaly resonant in some way. I mean, yes, obviously we love movies sometimes strictly for the entertainment value, but even the Simpsons, to borrow from Birdboy's post, can be emotionally resonant, right?

Anyway, I am learning a lot from these responses -- please keep 'em coming.
 
MsManhattan said:
LOL... By that definition, Saving Private Ryan could be construed as a chick flick.
Click to expand...
I think you've got it. Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, Last of the Mohicans, Blade Runner and the list goes on and on...:shocked:
 
John_Hudson said:




Too formulaic. Too safe.
Click to expand...

I agree. My favorite thing is to see the actors in these films talking about how they wanted to do the film because the stories and characters were so original and like nothing they had ever seen before.
 
Totally Right ?

Woman (Insert job; writer, housekeeper, advertising executive, lawyer, waitress) is (single, divorced or in a dead end relationship) and meets Man (Insert job) where they generally disagree (Or are against each other for some reason, or trapped together in a situation) but love will find away as they realize they are really in the same boat.............................

Of course this is all after one of them drives the other one batty. One of them is usually a player of sorts while the other is the more grounded and real person. By the end of the film, one of them goes against their normal choice and take's a chance on love.................

Sigh (Sniff)
 
Hudson's got some good analysis going there. I'd say it's probably about that simple.

I feel sorry for the actors that fall into a series of those roles, because it's hard to shake it. McConaughey is about to become the next Hugh Grant.

Even Brokeback Mountain is a chick flick. (100%) I'd expound but I can't say it any better then JH just did... too effin' sugary... these are my feelings and now watch me talk to everybody about them for two hours.
 
anything were the most of the actress are in their 50's and its a large group of them and some one dies of a diesase that comes out of no where.
 
Chick flick to me.... a bunch of scantily clad silicone enhanced women having a no men allowed slumber party...the pillow fight leads to the scanty clothes coming off.... and much frolicking ensues...

Oh...wait... not that kind of a chick flick?

Then to me it's the kind of movie that only your more "sensitive" man would like, and still not admit to liking or even seeing in a bar full of his buds.

Hello, I'm Robert... I have seen...and enjoyed....even....cried...at several chick flicks in the comfort of my own home....
 
MattinSTL said:
Even Brokeback Mountain is a chick flick. (100%) [/I]
Click to expand...

I really don't think those in the gay community at large would agree that Brokeback Mtn is a chick flick.

I think its narrowminded and beyond a generalization to say a movie about emotions or talking about your emotions, etc. is chick flick material. If a movie is "sugary" then its a chick flick? It has to have testosterone and explosions to be "man's movie"? Come on!

I think the whole Chick Flick label is appalling anyway. A good story is a good story period. You should be able to relate or enjoy it regardless of sex, ethnicity, etc. As a society we seem to be obsessed with keeping everyone separate again and make a point of showing what makes us all different rather than the things that make us all the same.

Fight the power!
 
Obviously, to sum up the definition of "Chick Flick" is going to take some subjective reasoning. It doesn't mean the same thing to everybody.

To me, a "chick flick" is a much more character-driven story than a non-chick flick, which is more plot-driven.

If you take a non-chick flick, you will see that they usually have one thing in common: a lot of eye candy. However, its ironic that the eye candy in non-chick flicks is everything BUT a woman. It's usually cars blowing up, or cool special effects or funny slapstick antics. I mean, this non-chick eye candy actually BECOMES part of the story and very integral in the storytelling. The main focus on these stories is the plot. The entertainment value on these films is based on what you see, or how its told, i.e pacing, cutting, etc.

A "chick flick" has less eye candy and have plot lines that are centered around how the protagonist is "feeling". The entertainment value on THESE films are based on what you feel. Its the emotional state of the protagonist that drives the story, not the plot. In a chick flick, virtually nothing has to happen, but as long as we identify with the emotional state of that lead actor or actress, its a chick flick. i.e girl#1 meets guy. girl#1 loves guy. guy is dating girl#2 who is all wrong for him. guy dumps wrong girl#2 and hooks up with girl #1. They live happily ever after. Simple.

In a chick flick, we will find EVERYTHING out about her. How she brushes her teeth and argues about being single with her mom; at the same time. How she loves to watch her favorite TV show at night with her girlfriends by having the TV on and the speakerphone on at the same time. How she likes her coffee. Or how she paints her toe nails. What she does for a living, and so on and so on. It is a literary trick that endears us to her. Women feel like they can identify with her (or for the guys, we identify with Billy Crystal in WHEN HARRY MET SALLY for example). We know those people and are familiar with their story and since she and he are playing "US" out here in audience land, we are rooting for them and their happily ever after.

In a non-chick flick, we could care less about the little things that make up the protagonists. What does he do for a living? Who cares? Unless hes a cop trying to save the world, it doesn't matter. Even in that situation, an action hero, his job description is nearly pointless (Insert Harrison Ford movie here).


So, for me, in a nutshell, a "chick flick" is character-driven. A non-chick flick is plot driven.

I happen to like chick flicks a lot. Not because I am a wimp. But, I act. So, I can appreciate stories that give me more character information. I also prefer the tempo of films that chick flicks usually adopt. I love films that are set in small towns or focus on the microcosmic dealings with someones life. I like that 'Americana' feel behind many of them. Movies that stir up the same feelings in me that COUNTRYTIME LEMONADE commercials attempt to evoke.

But thats my bag. I'm straight and I'm sticking to it.

Hope this helps.

Rick
 
Really, all joking aside, for me a chick flick is really a movie where all or most of the main characters are women. Very simple. I liken it a lot to those Lifetime movies. Their stories about women someone somewhere feels speaks to all women kind or something like that.

I just feel when you get to the heart of it, a good story has all the basic elements to make anyone relate, empathize, etc. with your characters. Everything now a days get pigeonholed even more because we're on a separtist marketing kick... for example, I wrote a story where one of the main characters was gay. All of a sudden my cool weird things happening at summer camp short story became "gay fiction"... yes, I am generalizing a bit, but so is the term "chick flick" "chick lit" etc.

I don't think its about emotions or being sappy etc. Is "Field of Dreams" a chick flick? No, and is it just because its really about Costner and his dad? Would it have suddenly become a chick flick if it were told about Costners wife and her mom?

Another reason I really dislike the term in general is that it does limit your audience at the same time as trying to streamline it. Mention "chick flick" and see how many average males go... mention Afro-American see how many Caucasians go....etc. A good story crosses all boundaries. Then again, how many of those Lifetime movies have good stories...or even stories.... hmmm....
 
Yes, I can see what you are saying about "streamlining your audiences" and using terms like "chick flick" tends to label a portion of your audience. However, I think its unavoidable. People catagorize and generalize things. It helps us to understand it. We do this with the types of cars we drive, the types of foods we eat, types of places we live, and definitely the types of movies we watch. I think "chick flick" is a term that gets the bad rap because it borders on political INcorrectness. However, no-one has a problem with the genre labeling; suspense, horror, western, comedy, etc. So, I accept the label myself. If someone says, "it's a chick flick", I know what to expect.

I personally think FIELD OF DREAMS was a chick flick. It was unique though because instead of being a love story between a man and a woman, it was a love story between a man and the game, as corny as that sounds. And men, in general, can accept that. And Kevin Costner, when he is on, is cool.

If a "chick flick" can be defined by a movie with women in it, then CHARLIES ANGELS would be considered a chick flick. And we all know there was a lot of LOVELY eye candy in that crap movie.

That's my take.
Rick
 
Yes, I do think genre labeling is necessary. I like having it broken down, like for example...(sorry, I can't stop doing literary refs because I'm working on a novel) Fiction-Horror. Maybe some slight subs as well...ghost, zombie, etc.

I remember working in a bookstore 10 years ago and being screamed at--I mean SCREAAAMMMMEEED at-by a woman who was upset that we didn't have an Afro-American section. I felt the same way then. Fiction is fiction. We don't have an Afro section, we don't have an Irish-American section, we don't have an Italian-American authors section.... FICTION. Plain and simple. My rationale again is that it gets nuts...you have an Afro-American homosexual Jewish author...where does it go???!!!!

Anyway, I would agree that Field of Dreams has many similar elements to what has become know as a Chick Flick, but it was more male slanted. And yea for me in alot of ways Charlie's Angels is a Chick Flick in the modern sense...girl power. True it will appeal to males who aren't uptight about seeing sexy girls kick butt but it is more action and therefor mainstream. If the three Angels were nuns coming to terms with life in the convent there wouldn't be a question of it being a Chick Flick...worse yet a Catholic Chick Flick. LOL.

To say like I did its central chars are all women is too broad, forgive the pun, I know... there are tons of exceptions, blah blah.... but that's part of the reason I think the whole term is ridiculous anyway. In the end its a term that turns people off because it may not be a masculine movie to see, or its going to be sappy, blah blah.

I guess in the end it doesn't matter if we call it fluff or chick stuff, people will get the same connotation (ie: type of piece it is).

Perhaps for me it is just a question of needing to constantly find a niche to exploit or pander to or to just try and sell garbage to a specific group of people by attaching their name to it.

I still don't know what a chick flick is, but I know I don't like the term. LOL!!! Sorry!
 
Ought2bCommitted said:
Perhaps...it is just a question of needing to constantly find a niche to exploit or pander to or to just try and sell garbage to a specific group of people by attaching their name to it.
Click to expand...

Ms. Manhattan-

I think theres your answer right there!

Rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top