The Scene and Herd

Does the jackass who said of Bridesmaids, “Proof that chick flicks don’t have to suck!” have any idea how anxiety inducing those words are? Do the marketing geniuses who essentially made that line the tagline for the film have any idea how offensive it is? Good Lord. I saw the film yesterday and it was amazing and I’m hella relieved about it. I have this idea that women can be funny, without any disclaimers, and I went into the theatre feeling like the honour of all womankind was on the line.

So now that I can rest easy, I want to address the main question at hand – Chick Flick: What does it mean?

1. It might mean a film with female protagonists. Granted, these are few and far between but if this is the definition of a chick flick than surely there is a precedent for a chick flick that doesn’t suck. Ever heard of a little flick called Mermaids?? It was on television last week and it’s awesome. Then we have, like, every other film that Winona Ryder has ever been in, plus Beaches and, more recently, Black Swan. There you go, I’ve listed at least three and I barely even thought about it.

2. It might mean a film that is sappy and poorly written, with female protagonists. There are a plethora of these and I don’t think I need to give any examples. But a film that is sappy and poorly written does, by definition, have to suck, rendering the chick-flicks-don’t-have-to-suck line illegitimate.

3. It might mean a film that subverts traditional, Hollywood film language that favours the male perspective and objectifies women and … actually, no. Nevermind. That’s probably not what it means. (And if that was what it means, chick flicks would MOST DEFINITELY NOT SUCK!!)

4. It might mean a film that has been written and/or directed by a woman. Wow. That would be so, insanely derogatory. I don’t think that’s what it means.

So then, Bridesmaids cannot be “proof that chick flicks don’t have to suck.” Can it be proof that we don’t really know what a chick flick is? Because me, I don’t. Should we root for #3?