The Dickflick Defined
[Removed at request of author]
See full article at On The Issues.
1
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Dickflick Defined.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15334
I don't get this post at all.
You take issue with the term "chick flick", yet you insist upon condescendingly referring to Terminator as a "dick flick". Is that not a little hypocritical?
You talk about how feminine qualities are devalued, and then paradoxically go right on to talk about how the most critically acclaimed movies have feminine qualities. Err... what? Make up your mind.
As an aside, you also apparently think that love and compassion are the realm of the women, and brutal violence is the realm of the male. ignoring how obnoxious and incorrect this assumption is to begin with, you're creating two black and white camps. Terminator, Transformers, GI Joe... all cater to a specific demographic that is indeed mostly male, however not exclusively, and it *certainly* does not include all males. Transfomers is certainly not considered "cool dude" by Roger Ebert or other male critics. These old guys are as much ignored as you are. The only ones who benefit are young men and a few women, because they are the only ones who like this stuff. Stop acting like women are put on mass ignore or something in favor of all men. It's much more complicated than that.
Not to mention that the Terminator franchise has one of the strongest and well developed (as in character development) female characters of any action franchise ever.
Not to mention that the Terminator franchise has one of the strongest and well developed (as in character development) female characters of any action franchise ever.
I truly like the cut of your jib!
And, OMG, I'm gonna see G.I. Joe AND Julie and Julia! I must be some strange anomaly....
That quiet conversation, ideas, and yes, compassion and empathy, are "boring" to Americans is a scary thought that goes far beyond movies.
Not really. Movies are meant as entertainment. Something to wow, or shock, or make laugh. Sitting for two hours watching people have a conversation about life...doesn't do any of those things.
It's dull. I'm sorry that concept seems to slip you. There's a reason slow, plodding, dull movies where people spend 90% of the time having conversations without doing anything, where nothing really happens...
Kinda look like Napolean Dynamite. Awful, unwatchable, garbage.
I also agree with a lot of the points that the above commenter made.
Point is, a lot of women also enjoy movies where things blow up, but very few men enjoy sloppy romantic comedies, or the "women reminisce about their childhood for 2 hours" films. Fact is, a lot of women don't enjoy them either.
Hollywood will produce what makes money and entertains people. It's why big loud movies make money, and indie art films don't.
It's not people refusing to see them because of sexism, or calling them boring because of it, it's because... they actually find such things boring.
I actually do go see films like terminator and occasionally I actually enjoy them. I really did enjoy wolverine and watchmen. With the exception of the ending Indiana Jones was pretty good. I also would love to see more movies like julie and julia though. And heres the thing guys need to understand, just because you don't like a movie and not all women like it some do and we should have a full range of movies we like to see as well, movies shouldn't only be made for you, we like to be entertained too, and most of us don't think that discussion based movies are boring. We like them
If this was true, "discussion-based" movies would make more at the box office, *because women would be watching them*. Thus Hollywood would make more "feminine" movies at the expense of blockbusters.
But it's not, women don't, so they don't.
And also, not to be rude, but you're acting like "guys" have some kind of say in what kinds of movies get made. Here's a hint: we don't. What, you want me to go see a movie I hate in the name of "box office equality"? If you want to see more of a specific genre, pay to go and see it in theaters, and hope others do the same.
....."youre acting like "guys" have some kind of say in what kind of movies get made"
Uh duh, Hollywood is definitely patriarchal and sexist. Guys DO have a say, if not the majority of say in making movies and the types of movies that get made.
No "Guys" DO NOT have a say in what kind of movies Hollywood makes.
A handful of rich White males in suits in boardrooms in Los Angeles decide what movies Hollywood makes.
Yes, they are mostly men - but they are a couple of hundred rich guys in a nation with 150 million men.
So if you don't like Hollywood movies, blame those handful of rich men, instead of blaming every man in America!
I agree with Cank. You can't really fight against the "chickflicks" term by inventing another term to separate "men's" movies in the same way. I actually really enjoyed Terminator, Wolverine, Watchmen, and I`m looking forward to G.I. Joe and a couple more actions this summer. At the same time, Julie and Julia doesn't really interest me.
The fact that Hollywood classifies and markets action films as for men, and romance films as for women, and from there, devalues romance films, is problematic, but this post doesn't exactly refute this assumption on the part of the film industry.
I can get behind this. Action flicks attract huge amounts of men and moderate amounts of women. Chick flicks (oh no!!!!!) attract a small chunk of women and a smattering of men. Is it really that surprising Transformers gets more attention then freaking Julie and Julia? You can take issue with the advertising campaigns of actions, but not really with action movies themselves.
Furthermore, actions really aren't as common as you seem to think. They're way too expensive to They get a lot of external advertising, yeah, but take a look at any theater and most of the movies will be a romantic-comedy, some kind of "true story", or a low-budget. The point is, "dick flicks" do not in fact dominate theaters, especially not outside the summer season.
I agree with kandela. I am a HUGE fan of the Terminator movies and the first two were definitely feminist in their portrayal of female characters. They are action movies with intelligent plots and no sexist stereotypes. The third Terminator is OK, and it really surprised me that the fourth one barely had any female characters. Then again, the movie overall sucked and it had less depth than the prior Terminators and less of an interesting plot. So no, I would not consider the Terminator movies "dickflicks." And movies that were supposedly great like Happy Go Lucky sucked...I almost had to quit watching that movie in the middle of it because that woman was so damn annoying!!
PS- In the Terminator movies, Sarah Connoris depicted as a kick-ass, strong character that just happens to be a woman. There is no mention of her looks like in other action movies (where it like oh she's hot AND she can fight, but most importantly she's hot). Sarah Connor, played by Linda Hamilton, is one of my fave characters ever.
Well, she's dead now, so whatever.
Also the fourth one was way better than #3, but still pales in comparison to the first two.
I'd disagree. T3 at least still felt like a Terminator movie, however weak.
T4 just felt like it was insulting my intelligence and enjoyment of the franchise.
What I liked about the 4th film was the way it paid homage to the earlier films by inserting shot for shot scenes, reusing music, etc. It also gave me the impression that 'all this had happened before and will happen again.'
Okay, now I *have* to go see Terminator Salvation. An action movie where the "action" in *almost every scene* refers to "something exploding, a robot attacking someone, or people beating each other up"? I'm officially interested.
The action movies I tend to deride as "obviously total guy movies" are the ones where half the action is the violent/pyro/exciting sort of "action" meant by "action movie" and the other half of the movie is "action" as in "ugly, obnoxious, misogynistic dudes with no redeeming qualities getting it on with all sorts of really hot chicks anyway." THAT tends to strike me as a pretty clear "This Movie Is For Dudes" giveaway (unless it's really well done, like in The Sopranos. It's just usually not, like in anything Frank Miller has ever been involved in). And if we're going to invent the word "dickflick", I think that's what it should refer to--movies that cater to the lowest common denominator of douchebro's desire to see, like, chicks, dude! Chicks! Chicks with big tits and no personalities! *That* would be the inverse of the fantasy-based, idealized romcom heroes who are the reason why "chick flicks" have such a terrible reputation even amongst women.
But stuff blowing up? I *love* stuff blowing up! I'd like more movies with girls doing the blowing up of stuff, of course, but I'll still take dudes blowing stuff up over girls doing boring things, like fret about being single.
So, did the OP regret the initial post or was there some copyright issue?