Discuss: Will 'Sex and the City' Change Hollywood's View of Chick Flicks?
Filed under: Fandom, Politics, Polls
Let's talk about Sex, baby ... I got an email from Melissa Silverstein over at Women and Hollywood yesterday, asking a pack of women who work in various aspects of the film industry to share our thoughts on whether a successful box office turn for Sex and the City, which opens this weekend, might herald a change in Hollywood's attitude toward chick-centric movies. Melissa posed the following questions:
- If it's a success do you think that this will change Hollywood minds about whether women can "open" movies?
- If it doesn't do the predicted numbers, do you think this will spell more difficulties for women centric films?
- Do you think that because this is an "event" that other films about women will be held up to an unrealistic standard?
- Do you think there is a double standard for this film?
- Are you surprised by the nasty tone that some of the media has taken on this week?
You can read my response, and the thoughts of some other smart women, over on Melissa's site, but in the meantime, I thought this was a great set of questions to pose to Cinematical readers. Whether you love Sex and the City or hate it, what are your thoughts on whether a big box office run for the film might change the way Hollywood thinks about movies for and about women? Discuss away ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-30-2008 @ 10:32PM
Gina said...
I find some of those questions hard to answer because not all women are "Sex and the City" fans. Thus, for instance, I don't think all "nasty" criticism of the film is necessarily misogynistic. Some of it could simply be coming from people like me who find these women shallow, materialistic, and unbearably self-centered.
However, if the movie does well, I can see a slew of copycat films being made in its wake, and then dying away as most trends do.
Reply
5-31-2008 @ 12:23PM
Gregory Rubinstein said...
If this film does well, which it probably will, I think future chick flicks will be held up to an unfair standard. There are several reasons for this. For one thing, this movie already has a built in fan base. Anyone that was a fan of the show will likely see the movie. Secondly, this is the most promoted romcom in resent memory, which means that unless the romcoms that follow in its wake are promoted heavily, they will not be as known to the public. Finally, both my parents have female friends from work who are going to the movie in a group (though neither of them are going). This is a VERY good movie to go with a group to because friends can talk about it whether it lived up to the show, whether they identified with the characters, etc. Most romcoms are not like this. For one thing, a lot of women are seeing this with their friends even though most of the intended demographic is couples. Most forthcoming romcoms will not have the benefit of being a good "galpal" movie because they will likely not be about a GROUP of girlfriends, like this one is.
Reply
5-31-2008 @ 12:15AM
V.M.L. said...
I agree with Gina. I myself am female but I don't like those kind of so-called "chick flicks." I just came back from watching INDIANA JONES. I love action films, hehe!
People should also look into the actual audience of SEX AND THE CITY. I doubt its popular among young women, but older women tend to enjoy the series. Hollywood movies don't cater much to older women audiences nowadays, something that people often complain about.
Reply
5-31-2008 @ 1:16AM
pete thomson said...
I saw the film and liked it a lot more than I thought I would.
It wont change chick flicks because as already said its an established brand with a unique point of view. Greater nudity of both sexes and a frank adult discussion of sex, though less so than the series. Hollywood is too product driven and male dominated to make movies that objectify men. It's ok to make childish kidadult Will Farell type movies that are largely mysoginistic childish and homophobic and stupid but girly chick flicks will never offer a female equivalent.
Reply
5-31-2008 @ 1:18AM
YouFaceTheTick said...
We were in the mall tonight and the line for Sex in the City was hilariously stereotypical.
Reply
5-31-2008 @ 2:34AM
Dwacon said...
SATC isn't a chick flick... not in the pure sense. The following is based on the insane popularity of the series. Compare SATC's numbers against "Made of Honor" to see...
* DWACON *
Reply
5-31-2008 @ 10:40AM
Camperton said...
No.
Reply
5-31-2008 @ 11:05AM
Mr. R said...
Four of the most annoying women in TV history who had no idea there was a world beyond Manhattan and who's only true appeal was that they worked little to earn a lot of money and spend it in shoes. They are not even really that fiscally attractive. If that is what is appealing to chicks this days then Hollywood will give them more of that.
At least back in the eighties, the characters from chick flicks like 16 candles and Pretty in Pink lead a little more of a real life, came with a little social contact. SATC is just plain old American consumer dreaming.
Reply
5-31-2008 @ 6:26PM
Malren said...
I find it odd that so many of the "feminists" in that thread are so concerned with how people talk about and portray women, in films and in the industry, but they have no problem castigating, insulting and generalizing about all men as though we are all one entity.
Welcome to why people despise Feminism 2.0: The Interweb Version. It's not about equality, it's just a flip side of hate, discrimination and nonsense.
Reply
5-31-2008 @ 8:29PM
Ryan said...
Devil Wears Prada did quite well before SATC.
Reply
6-02-2008 @ 5:13PM
khia213 said...
Funny how people who criticize this movie for being about shallow narcissicistic characters are probably the same people who think Seinfeld is the height of comedy, a show about shallow, narcissists.
Reply