• More
Back to PopWatch Main
Complete Archive
Get Latest Headlines

Hollywood's chick flick crisis

Apr 9, 2008, 03:26 PM | by Gary Susman

Categories: Film

Devilwearsprada_l According to this New York Times article, Hollywood is trying to figure out how to get more guys to buy tickets for chick flicks. Buried in the third-to-last paragraph, however, is an acknowledgment that the studios need to figure out how to attract female moviegoers as well, as ticket sales to younger women have slumped in recent years. Aside from The Devil Wears Prada (pictured), there are few recent chick flicks that have attracted a mass audience.

I blame formulaic scriptwriting. There's also been a lack of starpower, but folks will come if they like the story. (Case in point: The Notebook. Rachel McAdams wasn't a household name before that movie. She should have been one afterwards, but Hollywood has been slow to cultivate young actresses to whom Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock, and Meg Ryan can pass the torch.) Today's chick flicks lack clever plotting or sparkling dialogue, and they all look the same -- overlit tales of big-city career gals in well-appointed apartments with full shoe closets. I'm sorry to keep recommending Judd Apatow as an example, since his movies have their own problems with formula, but check out something like Knocked Up, which found a creative way to weave an entire movie out of a situation that's fairly ordinary and typical for women, and one that addressed women's concerns about parenthood and aging in a funny but not patronizing way. And the result was a romantic comedy that attracted both men and women, despite its lack of name stars. It can be done; just stretch outside the comfort zone.

M Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 05:42 AM EST

Speaking as a dude who gets occasionally dragged to these by his wife, there hasn't been a worthy chick-flick since "The Devil Wears Prada" which (surprise!) had an actual script and sharp performances. Maybe the "Sex and the City Movie" will help reboot the genre, otherwise we'll have "Fool's Gold 2--Fools in Love."

Princess Vespa Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 03:35 PM EST

I agree that the issue is not how to "butch up" chick flicks and make them more appealing to men, but how to make BETTER chick flicks. Making films for women is not a lesser art, it's simply done so poorly most of the time.
I also have to throw in an AMEN to FNL LOVER, Jayel and Christy's comments. I find Apatow's films completely antithetical in terms of appealing, interesting and positive female characters. I'll be interested in his material once he gets the "slacker funny guy vs. hot ambitious humorless girl" chip off his shoulder.

Elizabeth Bennett Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 02:41 PM EST

I think wit would win the game. I hate shoes. Elizabeth Bennett was pithy and she is as current today as she was in 1815.

dana Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 01:35 PM EST

I'd say a large percentage of these movies should be relegated to the Lifetime channel. But there are a few keepers out there. And don't knock Julia Roberts. She had at least a couple of good ones.

dma69 Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 01:02 PM EST

Problems with chick flicks:
1) lead actress that can't act/have no personality/can't distinguish one from the other
2) lead character insecure/man-hungry/ambitious/brokenhearted/marriage-minded/tryying-to-look-plain-but-isn't-fooling-anyone
3) funny best friend/gay best friend with the best one-liners
4) bland unattainable guy
5) bland guy the lead character gets/loses/wins back
6) angry boss lead character is eager to please
7) nosy parents
8) obnoxious kids trying to play cute
9) mean girls/evil rivals

In a nutshell, the same old, same old.

Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 01:00 PM EST

More t*tties.

Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 01:00 PM EST

More t*tties.

Dee Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:15 PM EST

I'm so tired of the way women are portrayed in almost every genre. In so-called chick flicks they seem so silly and weak,almost childish sometimes, and in almost everything else they are either just the hot, supporting wife and/or sidekick or else they are a cold, shrewish antagonist. I'd like to see females as actuals leads in lots of kinds of movies, and not just in token supporting roles. I'd like to see truly intelligent and funny females, not just silly, klutzy women who are allegedly spunky. If you look at old classic movies, it seems there were lots more great parts for women where they were written as intelligent, capable people in a wide variety of roles. It seems so rare now to have a movie from a truly female point of view.

Sally Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:45 AM EST

I think there are more guys out there that enjoy chick flicks than we girls think. I also believe it's the mark of a true 'man' who can put aside Tarantino and enjoy a good love story now and again. Now, that's my kind of man!

GingerCat Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:43 AM EST

As Gary Susman notes, most romantic comedies are so formulaic, you know exactly what's going to happen within the first 15 minutes. If the characters aren't compelling, as they usually aren't, there's no reason to keep watching. Also, most of them aren't funny AT ALL.
So yes, it's the writing more than anything. "Juno"'s subject matter could have made it a chick flick, but sharp, humorous writing gave it wider success--more so than star power, because the biggest name in it, Jennifer Garner, had a pretty small role.
I don't really see why Meg Ryan and Julia Roberts are held up as rom-com queens. Meg had exactly one GOOD rom-com (When Harry Met Sally), and ALL of Julia Roberts' rom-coms have been terrible.

StaleCake Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 10:11 AM EST

GAry, you are almost right, but the real reason is NO SCREENWRITING. Forget sparkling dialogue, there isn't any! Every plot point is highlighted by a pop song with the actors silently montage-ing along. There is NO writing! The average chick flick goes Nora Jones / Nina Simone / Colby Caillat / Aretha Franklin / Ingrid Michaelson / Aretha Franklin again / the end.

Ames Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 09:31 AM EST

Eric F. -- You forgot to mention ROMANCING THE STONE. I love that movie, and Kathleen Turner is the star, not Michael Douglas. Not only was it romantic, but it has real adventure, not special effects while trapped on a set.

And can we please stop saying "chick-flick"? Please!? Good movies are good movies.

EP Sato Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 09:26 AM EST

Lord help me, I agree with Susman. My wife's a HUUUUUGE "chick flick" fan and constantly orders them through netflix. Why do they all seem to have the same plot? Whether it's Eva Longoria, Patrick Dempsey, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Ryan Reynolds, Claire Daines, Jennifer Lopez or Julia Roberts, there are maybe four plots (my best friend is getting married, I'm a small town girl in the big city, I'm a young woman who just got a new job, there's this guy I like but he doesn't know I exist) and no one bothers to waver from this overused formula.

Of the "chick flick" actresses, only Anne Hathaway (and maybe Amanda Bynes) have found ways to reach out and get guys to see and enjoy their movies. I loved Sydney White and thought the Princess Diaries was really cute. If a few more plots or ideas got floated around, we might see more of the smart chick flicks like "Double Happiness" (one of Sandra Oh's best BTW).

Jayel Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 08:57 AM EST

You're not SERIOUSLY suggesting Judd Apatow movies as positive portrayals of women, are you? This is a joke, right?

Christy Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 08:47 AM EST

Contrary to what others will say, Judd Apatow's movies are not chick flicks. I think that it is safe to assume that if the movie contains a beer pong, it's not a chick flick. I agree with Katherine Heigl's retracted remarks about the film.

Eric Friedmann Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 08:44 AM EST

Consider this: the majority of films that have won the Oscar for best picture of the year have all been dominated by while male lead characters. I can only pick out a small handful of winners that feature a female lead.

Examples: THE SOUND OF MUSIC (1965), TERMS OF ENDEARMENT (1983), DRIVING MISS DAISY (1989), THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991).

Eric Friedmann Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 08:07 AM EST

Julie, you hit the nail right on the head! I vowed some time ago, to once and for all, stop wasting my time, money and brain cells on worthless Hollywood crap! I am now very, very picky about what I choose to see in a movie theater. No more sequels, threequels, remakes or franchise films for me! There was a time I went to the movies constantly. No more. This year alone, I've only seen two movies; NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and THE BANK JOB; both indies. I'm a much happier moviegoer because of it.

Eric Friedmann Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 08:02 AM EST

There was a brief time, from the late '80s to early '90s where Hollywood was churning out stories with strong female leads. Movies like ALIENS, BROADCAST NEWS, WORKING GIRL, THELMA & LOUISE and TERMINATOR 2 portrayed women as stable, confident, self-sustaining and even ass-kicking! Even those who were portrayed as weak or vulnerable in a film like THE JOY LUCK CLUB were not dependent on a man, a pair of shoes or chocolate to bring them back to where they belonged.

By the mid-to-late '90s, I think, CGI had completely taken over movies, which only re-opened the door to cliche white male action stars. Not that I completely condemn white male action stars, but like everything else in life, the word is moderation!

Julie Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 07:48 AM EST

Hollywood has always churned out tons of crap. Look at your film history: in terms of sheer numbers, the crap outweighs the good stuff no matter what decade you think of. That's why the good stuff stands out so very much. TV, same thing. If people want better films, they need to be more choosy about where they spend their money. That's the only thing that gets the attention of the studios.

NineDaves Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 07:45 AM EST

it'll be interesting to see what tina fey does with the genre when baby mama opens in a few weeks. i think she might make the perfect chick flick that even straight guys like (heck, she kind of did it before with mean girls...)

Nee Nee Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 07:28 AM EST

I guess I can just consider myself lucky. My husband likes watching chick flicks with me. Yes, I have to first persuade him to watch them, but once he does he usually likes them. He especially likes movies like Notting Hill, Return to Me, and The Notebook, which are some of my favorites. I think as long as there is a sufficient amount of quirky comedy and/or a happy ending, he likes it. The movies that try too hard for comedy or romance, don't win in either one of our books. The ones that are completely predictable annoy me.
I noticed that somebody mentioned the new McDreamy/My Best Friend's Wedding remake. I noticed how uncannily similar the plot appears to be to My Best Friend's Wedding, and I think that's kind of ridiculous. I'll still probably see it, only so I can gawk at McDreamy for an hour and a half.

mary Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 07:27 AM EST

My friend dragged her husband, kicking and screaming, to Pride and Prejudice. He was bored out of his mind. My son was dragged by his girlfriend also. He being a romantic, surprisingly admitted that he liked it, but I think the fact that he thinks Keira Knightley is gorgeous had something to do with it.

Nose Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 09:24 PM EST

I don't agree with blindly following female-led films just because they're female-led. As Gary has stated, most rom-coms are formulaic crap. Why would I go and see those movies? That's not helping the cause any. Now, put a woman in a strong lead role, and I'm all over that. I think that a movie like Juno was a great, sink-your-teeth-into-it role for a woman, she wasn't upstaged by the men in the movie (although Bleeker was great) and it had a romantic happy ending. We need more flicks like this.

LK Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 09:15 PM EST

yeah these movies are so formulaic and unbelievable now.. with the young twenty something woman living in a huge apartment and working as a journalist, reporter, or p.r. person..when in fact none of those jobs pay enough right out of college to afford an apartment or even a hole in new york city...im sorry im just jaded by the fact that im a senior in college majoring in journalism and i'll be dirt poor with student loans to pay off pretty soon

kim in kentucky Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 07:45 PM EST

part of the problem is indeed the movies, but a lot is simply the men -- most of the women I know say that they didn't go see a certain movie (say Brokeback Mtn, Devil Wears Prada, etc) because their husband/boyfriend didn't want to see it -- but they end up going to see whatever HE wants to -- no matter how dumb/awful the movie is!

Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 07:12 PM EST

The problem isn't simply a lack of so-called female movies. It is a lack of movies with a female in the lead. Even in romantic comedies, the female main character is left to the side as the man and his sidekicks often get the best lines and most amusing situations. The problem arises when you cater only to one gender--now people may argue over the value of Knocked Up, but individuals with both male and female parts found it funny. And what Apatow does best is turn the everyday into funny without going completely over-the-top. Perhaps what studios need to create is a movie featuring a grounded woman who deals with real problems other than how many pairs of shoes she owns. Might I suggest Lauren Graham? And studios should leave the fantasy to Disney.

Rasha Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 06:18 PM EST

I agree. I think it is just a lack of diversity across the board. Plots are predictable, about 99% of leading ladies are white and the characters are flat. With that said, I thoroughly enjoyed "Definitely, Maybe."

I do think this is a problem with most genres of movies, though, not just rom-coms. If studios would actually invest in decent, star-driven dramas, instead of horror movies and comedies, things might improve.

Audrey Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 05:59 PM EST

Laura's right! We need more non-romance women's films! I mean, what's next, onscreen adaptations of Harlequin romances? I'm not saying that I am opposed to romance in movies- I just think that movie quality goes down when the whole focus is "girl and boy fall for each other regardless of how ridiculous the plot is or how boring they are".

Em Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 05:52 PM EST

As a woman, I definitely support women in cinema (for example, The Women, which I can't believe people are daring to remake. I really love many female characters in old movies, actually. But now I can't stand the movies that are being peddled to women for the plot/writing issues mentioned by other posters. Studios should focus less on the gender of the audience, which is really irrelevant, and start focusing and producing really well-written/acted, etc. films, period.

Alyce Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 05:24 PM EST

I am sorry Gary, but "Knocked Up" was not a good example to use. That was a "dude-flick," NOT a very female friendly movie.

K Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 05:17 PM EST

Just gotta say that as a woman, I found "Knocked Up" to be extremely offensive. Why should I laugh when a clearly intelligent, ambitious woman is left pregnant by a guy who, the whole movie, never steps up to take responsibility for his actions or be supportive. Said guy and his stoner friends instead stay in their wonderful, lackluster existence even in the face of reality. Something like this might work in an Adam Sandler movie in the 90s, but somehow Adam Sandler managed to pull it off with a sort of goofy ambivalence... These guys I just wanted to smack with a blunt object

JenJen Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 05:15 PM EST

My household rule is that if I watch a guy movie with my husband, then he owes it to watch a chick flick with me. Women need to support female fronted movies, or progress will never be made.

T-Rex Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 04:52 PM EST

The Notebook was an abomination. Period. The premise of Knocked Up was beyond ridiculous to the point that the movie was just an excuse for stupid jokes. But to solve Hollywood's problem I suggest gratuitous nude scenes from young actresses. That'll bring in us men.

maya Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 04:45 PM EST

I just watched Knocked Up finally, and Judd Apatow clearly has no idea what most women are like, or what most women want. As FNL Lover notes, the two female characters were shrill, humorless killjoys. Note to Apatow: women laugh! they tell sex jokes! SATC got a little ridiculous, but the way those women interacted was real.

But your point about Rachel McAdams is interesting, and telling. There aren't really female stars anymore, only starlets, most of whom are interchangeable, as are the generally dumb, vapid, one-note characters they play. Prada worked because of Meryl Streep.

paige Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 04:09 PM EST

i blame Callie Khouri. She was gonna be great after writing the (still) groundbreaking, (still) landmark Thelma & Louise. but what is she doing now? Mad Money... remember that movie with Diane Keaton, Queen Latifah and Katie Holmes??? yea exactly...

paige Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 04:06 PM EST

I'm glad someone mentioned "The Upside of Anger"... Joan Allen is underused and always brilliant. even in Face/Off!!!

Eric Friedmann Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 03:48 PM EST

Meanwhile, those two girls from THIRTEEN gave a more solid performance than Meg Ryan, Sandra Bullock and whomever else you want to mention, combined!

fredric Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 03:34 PM EST

Is this just a prelude to the inevitable future EW Cover Story about the remake of The Women (with, gasp, Meg Ryan)?

cimagato Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 03:33 PM EST

You said it, Susman. Studios trying to tempt us with another mediocre rewrite of a medocre rewrite. That's why My Big Fat Greek Wedding was a surprise hit. Nice to see a regular girl get the guy. Now they're trying to rewrite My Best Friend's Wedding with McDreamy as the Julia Roberts character. Hey, we've seen it.

FNL LOVER Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 03:26 PM EST

Interesting point about Knocked Up, but I completely disgree. The women in that movie were two dimensional and shrill. Definitely not falttering to women at all. I hated that movie, but went with my hubby because it was a guy film, not a chick flick.

Laura Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 03:23 PM EST

Speaking of Sandra Bullock, "Miss Congeniality" was a rare great "chick" movie because it was really funny, and the driving plot was about a strong woman trying to unearth a terrorist as opposed to trying to unearth a "dream" man. The fact that she ended up with one in the end wasn't really a big deal - exactly like in "guy" movies where the main guy sometimes ends up with a girl in the end.

The same goes for "The Devil Wears Prada", where the driving plot was all about her trying to deal with her psycho boss, and not about romance. This is exactly why both of these movies were so successful. Hollywood, we need more non-romance women's films!

Sally in Chicago Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 03:18 PM EST

P.S. I love you was a chick flick and it made $50Mil the last I looked. It was a slow climber, but women went to that. And it had Hilary Swank in it who normally doesn't attract women. Writing is a problem, but the writing starts with the novels that are being published. Back in the days of Gone with the Wind, Wuthering Heights, etc. there were epic women writers. There are no epic writers today. We need a good female detective/cop on the screen, and that too has been missing.

Rob Grizzly Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 03:11 PM EST

All great points, Gary. Poor writing will kill it almost everytime. And unfortunately, Audiences don't seem to have the faith to invest in actresses who aren't well known. Yet they will support drab stuff like 27 Dresses just because Katherine Heigel is in it.
I have to say though, that I'm actually surprised that lack of male audiences at chick flicks is something Hollywood is actually concerned with. Don't they have other things to worry about, like overall lack of originality in general?

Eric Friedmann Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 02:58 PM EST

The so-called "chick flicks" that I've enjoyed were about real honest-to-goodness grown-up WOMEN; not little twits in their mid-twenties who don't have a damn clue what they want out of life outside of shoes and a man!

Consider Joan Allen in THE UPSIDE OF ANGER. Here was a woman who had what she perceived as a decent life and then suddenly lost it. The only reasonable reaction for most anyone would be anger, bitterness and the need to asign blame. The fact that she falls for Kevin Costner in the end seems only symantic, as she was not searching for him in the first place.

Heather Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 02:50 PM EST

That "chick flick formula" actually pointed out the main problem today. There seems to be a belief that all women want one thing - a big career in the big city and a closet full of shoes. It's the opposite of years ago when the chick ideal was a husband and kids and a pretty house. There's a balance. Look at *why* Sandra Bullock made so many chick flicks. She was an attainable ideal for many women. And she made movies like "While You Were Sleeping" that had an ordinary guy and an ordinary girl. Actually, trying to appeal to more of women than just the Sex and the City fans would be a good idea, because not every woman wants to be Carrie Bradshaw.

Nose Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 02:39 PM EST

I don't know...maybe we've passed the point where looking cute a la Meg or Sandra is enough of a draw.

I wouldn't really call Knocked Up much of a romantic comedy, as it was much more 'comedy' than 'romance.' The love story of the movie was completely unbelievable to me. I just enjoyed it for the laughs.

I guess we're at the point where we can say, "They don't write 'em like they used to." Times have changed.

Eric Friedmann Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 02:39 PM EST

As a heterosexual male, I can honestly say the best "chick flick" I've ever seen was UNDER THE TUSCAN SUN. Here was a woman (played wonderfully by Diane Lane) who struggled to find life and meaning for herself within the walls of a decrepid villa in Tuscany, Italy. The film also successfully lent the cliche of "a man's house is his castle" to a woman. Movies need to portray women as something more than men-seekers with the comic relief woman or gay man as a best friend.

Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 02:38 PM EST

getting pregnant after a one-night stand is "a situation that's fairly ordinary and typical for women"???????

really gary?

advertisement

Add Your Comments

The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject — or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.



  • 1000 characters remaining
      • When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.