Andrew (24)
Dave Enkosky (15)
Wayne (13)
Pete (12)
Mike (11)
Sir Phobos (11)
Andy (9)
justin (9)
Lauren (8)
Fitz (7)
I really, really hate the term ‘chick flick.’ Not because I hate so-called chick flicks themselves, but because I don’t like the word ‘chick.’ It’s an unflattering and harsh word that was first recorded in Sinclair Lewis’ Elmer Gantry, a novel about a womanizing jerkwad who “didn’t want to marry” a particular “brainless little fluffy chick.” Classy, right? It’s not a word I would want someone to use when referring to myself or another woman, so I don’t want to use it when referring to what are generally considered films for and about women.
In his 2008 articl
e for Vanity Fair entitled “The Right Fluff: A Guy’s Guide To Chick Flicks,” James Wolcott said: “There are those who would argue that the candy-flavored phrase ‘chick flick’ is demeaning, reductive, and sexist. Well, too bad. It’s catchy, it rhymes, and it gets me where I need to go.” So here’s the thing: it’s a demeaning term, it’s reductive and sexist, but so what? Yeesh. Unfortunately, I have to admit that Wolcott has a point; I may hate the terminology, but I still have to appreciate how it functions. And it does function: it’s a term that speaks volumes about the films it represents. When you tell someone that a film is a chick flick they instantly know a lot about it: they know you’re watching a movie that features a female protagonist and that the focus of the film is a relationship (romantic or otherwise). They also know that the film is going to be heavy on the emotion, rather than the action, and that women are the film’s target audience. If you’re well-versed in the tropes of the chick flick then you’re probably expecting some romance, a misunderstanding that needs clearing up, maybe a gay best friend, and certainly a couple of pratfalls. (Side note: the ‘clumsy but lovable heroine’ thing sort of went over the deep end with “The Ugly Truth”–nothing like a good vibrator-at-the-dinner-table joke to really endear you to the protagonist, right? Right?)
.
Anyway, I can’t deny the usefulness of the term, but what really bothers me is that it is a term that demeans both women and the films to which it refers. I’ve never heard another genre tacked with the term ‘flick’; we’ve got films noirs, Western films, romantic comedies, musical films, and suddenly…chick flicks? The term rolls off the tongue with an implicit derision–a sense that one must actually apologize for lowering themselves to the act of watching cinematic drivel. I’m not defending all chick flicks (my hatred for “The Ugly Truth” is pretty obvious), but I don’t really understand the disrespect and scoffing that often come with discussions of these films.
I hear people complain about the predictability of a chick flick–from the meet-cutes to the inevitable montages of the protagonist picking out an outfit, singing into a hairbrush, or dancing with her girlfriends–but I find these criticisms bizarre and even hypocritical. After all, genres are by definition generic–repetitive, familiar. No one complains when, for the billionth time ever, some guy in a white hat shoots a bad guy in a black hat dead in a town square while the sun’s beating down and the townspeople cower behind wooden barrels and saloon doors. That’s a Western, and it’s well-worn territory, but it still works, so people keep watching. And versions of that same film continue to be produced because there’s nothing wrong with the formula, people seem to enjoy it, and the repetition is comforting. The expected is okay. It works. And yet no one is trying to call Westerns “dude flicks” (at least I hope not, anyway). So why do chick flicks get criticized for doing the same thing that Westerns do, and then get saddled with a snarky and insulting name? Is it because they’re a little bit silly and emotional? Or is it just a sad consequence of our affinity for rhymes? Whatever it is, the ugly truth of it all is that the term ‘chick flick’ isn’t going away any time soon.
Twitter: manilovefilms
November 5, 2011 11:19 am
We had a LAMBcast awhile back where we discussed rom-coms and/or chick flicks and got into a debate about this. There’s no doubt that the term is at least somewhat derogatory towards the films it encapsulates, but it’s hard to say that that’s not without merit. What we found even more was that we were unwilling to apply it to films that we (collectively) though of high quality, an issue that arose with Heather’s list the other day. For example, you include a pic from Clueless here and I wouldn’t saddle it with that label. Somehow, I think this justifies its usage – if both men and women apply it only to what we deem as the lowest rung of rom-coms (you know, the ones starring McConnaughey and Zelwegger and Heigl and Butler and Aniston, etc., etc.), then I think we can come to a general agreement.
Also, there’s kind of a male equivalent, though it’s applied more to the audience than the films themselves: fanboys. I’ve never really took offense to it because I’ve felt that it applied to me, but I do see it as derogatory and diminutive. Boys with their toys and immaturity and comic books and whatnot. Feels like two sides of the same coin.
Dylan, you bring up some valid points. I hadn’t thought of the fanboy angle and it’s an interesting angle. I’m not sure how derogatory I feel ‘chick’ is; I think it’s one of those words for which it is all about HOW it is said that determines whether it comes across as derogatory or not. As for the films, some formulaic ones are total crap: did anyone with self respect go to see The Number? Like all genres it is all in how the formula is applied.
Out of curiosity how to you feel about chick lit?
Dylan brings up a good point–that romcoms and chick flicks are fairly nebulous territory that blend together. Perhaps the difference is in quality–something gets elevated to ‘romcom’ if it’s better than a middling ‘chick flick’? I do think it’s a useful term (or at least one that has taken on a lot of meaning) despite my distaste for it. Perhaps I need to give a little more leeway to the changing meaning of words like “chick,” which used to have a derogatory meaning but can now mean so many things…
Twitter: manilovefilms
November 7, 2011 7:58 pm
Well, I think most romcoms could fall under the chick flick banner, but yeah, I think there’s something to the quality angle. At the same time, there are films out there (most that I’ve probably not seen) that I would totally call chick flicks that might well be fantastic, ie Beaches, Steel Magnolias, The Women, etc. I suppose the common thread there is that they are so overwhelmingly feminine that it just doesn’t seem like there’s much there to appeal to me. That’s probably an incendiary statement (as in, if a film is high quality, I should want to see it regardless), but I think I can get away with it because I freely apply that line of thinking to many “masculine” films just as much.
Mostly, though, it seems like a semantic-driven argument. It’s all about quick compartmentalization, and the rhyming just works so well. You could call high-testosterone movies “dick flicks” and I wouldn’t get too bothered.
May I suggest “est fests?”
Twitter: Limette9
November 6, 2011 8:07 am
Great idea for an article – I’ve often thought that “chick” sounds very much like “chicken”, and how deprecative the whole term “chick-flick” really is. Personally, I tend to call those films “girls-just-wanna-have-fun films” – a long term, but I find it more fitting. And by that I don’t mean that girls just want to have fun and nothing else, but if we watch a “chick-flick”, we do want to have fun. Just fun. Of course, a film noir or any other genre may be fun, too, but you know, not guaranteed, 100% (sometimes brainless) fun.
I have always been a firm believer that the only power words have is that which we give them. Joanna, by your own admission, the term ‘chick flick’ communicates its meaning easily. To my mind, that’s what counts in the end. When we’re unable to communicate with each other, that’s when the problems really start.
But I think we have to be aware of the full meanings of our words, both historically and currently. Chick flick gets the meaning across, but at what cost?
But you just admitted in your response to Alison above that the meanings of words do change. If ‘chick’ doesn’t mean the same thing now as it once did, then what’s the problem?
Also, FWIW, I looked at the LAMB master list and found four (4) blogs with the word ‘chick’ in the title, including one called Just Chick Flicks. Imagine that.
I think what I’m saying, Rich, is that we just need to be cognizant of a words history, whether we chose to use it. The discussion here has helped me acknowledge something I didn’t think about before, which is that I wasn’t giving credence to the malleable nature of language. That being said, it’s the very malleable nature of language that makes “chick flick” a dangerous term. We may use it without offense behind it, but others may use it as the derogatory term I perceived it as.
Regarding the use of ‘chick flick’ in MILF: we’re a bunch of different writers with different opinions. We share this space, regardless of whether we agree with each other. I’m not a fan of its use, but I understand its use by the other writers here.
The history of words is important. I completely agree with you there. And people should be judicious in which words they use and where. The current controversy involving Brett Ratner is proof of that. I just don’t like the idea of words being a danger to anyone as if it were a threat to one’s life. No, that’s not what you said, but when you call it ‘dangerous,’ well, it’s hard to interpret that any other way.
I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.
Twitter: callmesirphobos
November 8, 2011 12:06 pm
I hardly think a writer of one blog in a network of independent ones has to answer for the name or content of any of the rest. If anything, this piece could be directed at them.
Not saying she should. Just pointing out that there are women out there who feel differently about the word.
Twitter: callmesirphobos
November 6, 2011 11:11 pm
I did not know the origin of the word chick. If nothing else, I learned me some knowledge.
That said, I think the word can be reappropriated. For instance, if I meet a girl and I think she’s cool, I might say to my friend that “She’s a pretty awesome chick.” Obviously, I’m not using the term in a derogatory manner. Quite the opposite.
As for chick flicks, I only use that for when the movie looks like its entire existence is to appeal to the lowest common denominator of movie-goers. The people that really don’t give a shit about plot, characters, acting, writing, etc. They want to see a handful of things that they can check off in their mind. Cute female lead, handsome male lead, quirky yet endearing encounter, whirlwind romance, seemingly insurmountable problem, awkward yet endearing heart-to-heart, everyone lives happily ever after, maybe the parents of the groom even make a fart joke or something. Oh, the hilarity!
Sure, anything can be done well. It’s the ones that aren’t that I label chick flicks.
I’m really intrigued by this idea that a couple people have mentioned, that only BAD female-centric films get the label ‘chick flick.’ Doesn’t that sort of imply a sense that ‘chick’ means something lesser? Or is there no correlation between the rom-com/chick flick label and the terminology? Hmmm…
Twitter: callmesirphobos
November 8, 2011 4:17 am
You know what? I don’t even use the term chick flick. I call all of them romantic comedies. I just make sure to let whoever I’m talking with know whether I think it’s a good one or not. Like I said, I could use the word chick with both positive and negative connotations. But since the term chick flick is supposed to lump a bunch of people together under one assumption, I just don’t go there. I agree with Dylan that those movies can also be broader and overtly feminine and not just centered on sappy romance.
Oh, and First Blood is a dramatic action movie. Transformers 1-3 are dick flicks. I’m totally fine with lumping all the guys who love Transformers into the category of dicks without brains. Apologies to anyone who does like those movies, but c’mon. They’re not actually defensible.
Not true as far as I’m concerned. Some of the screwball rom-coms of the 30s and 40s – ‘Bringing Up Baby,’ ‘The Awful Truth,’ ‘The Women’ – I would consider chick flicks, and these rank among the finest films of the classic Hollywood era.
I think this is a really interesting breakdown of the terminology and how problematic it is; how it’s basically used to immediately demean films that are supposed to be “for women”. And I think that speaks to the greater problem of “chick flicks”: the idea that THESE are the only kind of subjects that women enjoy or want to see. So many of these movies are the only kinds of films women get lead roles in and the movies are often structured around insipid subjects and perpetuate bullshit stereotypes about women and relationships. There’s a really great article about the “for women” fallacy that I think is a great companion piece to this article; you should check it out!
http://www.movies.com/movie-news/girls-on-film-ldquofor-womenrdquo-fallacy/5041
Interesting article & discussion, Joanna. As a woman, I personally am not offended by the term but at the same time I understand that some people are. Like Sir Phobos said, depending on the use, it’s not always derogatory. It’s too bad that ‘chick flicks’ seem to have a bad rep as there are really fine gems among that genre.
Twitter: MarkusWelby1
November 8, 2011 11:27 am
Good stuff Joanna. I think the important thing to realize in regards to the word “chick” is that we’re dealing with slang. I love slang and I’d never want it to disappear from any language. It makes general speech much more colorful and exciting. Unfortunately there’s a wide spectrum of slang, and a lot of it falls into the offensive category. There are far more offensive terms referring to women than chick which is why it’s probably more accepted in our lexicon. My wife isn’t offended by it….nor are many women that I know. I use the term myself quite often, but I feel I do so affectionately. I’ll just make sure to never use it when referring to you. Again….very thoughtful stuff.
In all seriousness, I want to thank people for making me re-think the idea that ‘chick’ is immediately a derogatory term. The malleability of language and its development over time are important to consider. I still might not always like the term, but I have to do some thinking about my gut reaction to it.
Ashley, I think you’re very right–the real problem is not this terminology but the ideas behind it that limit the scope of the feminine/female/woman experience.
For what it’s worth, I’m offended by the term ‘Oriental’ even though it’s not always derogatory either. It’s strange sometimes what word we may find offensive. I find the term ‘broad’ more offensive than ‘chick.’
Twitter: NeverTooEarlyMP
November 12, 2011 10:00 am
I suppose that one solution would be to just use the term romantic comedy, or something like that. But that still doesn’t fix it in my mind. For me, the big problem is precisely that there is no similarly-derogatory male version. Dylan mentioned fanboy, but even that doesn’t have the same emotional relevance. I think his suggestion of calling the guy’s films “dick flicks” or “prick flicks” would feel more equivalent. And believe me, if it actually caught on, the guys would start to get offended. In theory we may say we’re fine with it, but start using those terms consistently to describe films that guys love–and not just ones that us bloggers think are over the top– and suddenly you’ll see a very different reaction.
Granted, big studios often go for the 18 to 25 year old male demographic, so there might be a whole lot of films that fall into the guy version. But isn’t that the point? Since so many films are geared towards the guys, the ones that are aimed at women end up getting lumped together. I mean honestly, are westerns and horror films and superhero stories and war flicks and action movies REALLY all that different? We’ve devised all of these various terms to describe prick flicks (yes, I’m using that now), to make it look like violence and fighting and guns and explosions are all really different things.
But the many DIFFERENT emotional learnings that happen in Women’s Cinema, Filme Femme, Emotion Pictures, and Auteur Demure get falsely confused in the male mind. Shooting someone while riding a fast horse is considered a whole different genre than shooting someone while driving a fast car, but learning to love yourself, or your partner, or your child, or your job, or your friends are somehow all the same thing?
Twitter: callmesirphobos
November 12, 2011 12:37 pm
OK, if dick flicks don’t have a popular word or phrase to define them, that sure hasn’t stopped a whole shit-load of women from rolling their eyes and asking us why we like such stupid, juvenile crap. Even if we’re talking about a movie like, oh, I don’t know, First Blood. The go-to phrase to call it “retarded man-child entertainment” isn’t there, but the sentiment sure is.
On a side note, looking through my action movies just made me realize I had Jaws in there. WTF?
Twitter: NeverTooEarlyMP
November 12, 2011 8:15 pm
The eye rolls may be equal, but the offensiveness and power of a sexist society is precisely in that conversion from eye roll to a commonly accepted name for a genre. There IS a difference between a sentiment and a catchphrase, particularly one that is used so often.