womenandhollywood-google-maps

I've talked about how all movies about women seem to be relegated to chick flick status no matter what they are about. It's no surprise that it's happening for books too:

Having cottoned on to the fact that chick lit books sell like cupcakes, publishers are now adding chick lit-style covers to any book written by a woman whether it fits the genre definition or not.

...books aimed at women are becoming increasingly homogenised, girly and bland-looking.

But this affliction doesn't only blight women who write. Male authors who create sympathetic female characters are also at risk. Douglas Kennedy's work is frequently lauded for its intelligence and vision, yet his novels all feature non-descript pictures of wistful-looking women and the ubiquitous flowing script that denotes a female-friendly beach book.

The great chick lit cover-up (The Guardian)

The weekly Hollywood insider show Shootout (show airs Sunday mornings at 11am EST on AMC) , hosted by "The Peters" (Peter Bart, Editor in Chief of Variety, and Peter Guber, big time producer) focused this weekend on women's films (AKA "chick flicks"), Sex and the City and Sarah Jessica Parker.

Peter Bart started out by showing how out of touch he is by saying that he didn't think that "chick flick" was a pejorative and that it is a good way to target women (I am paraphrasing.)

Peter Guber then talked about how "chick flicks" don't travel well overseas because they are dialogue driven, and then to contradict himself listed a bunch of them that have performed extremely well both here and overseas. He also talked about how they are a stable, successful part of the film business.

The problem was that they lumped a film like Juno in together with the Judd Apatow movies as examples of successful films targeted at women. While Juno was a great woman-centric film, lumping Judd Apatow flicks in here just goes to show how little women matter now in a film world where as Lisa Schwarzbaum in EW says: Guys are the New Girls.

These men behaving softly (but still manfully) are no accidents of nature or of the seasonal movie release calendar. They're diplomats of unisex appeal in the latest Hollywood campaign to keep romantic comedies viable- and profitable.

The bad news is that — as with any experiment involving gender, Hollywood, and the mutable factors that go into taste — finding the perfect recipe for a successful heterosexual romantic-comedy hero is subject to operator error. And, pssst, those operators are mostly male.

Because women go and see the Apatow movies in large numbers, and they are relatively cheap to make, we can guarantee that the masculinization of films targeted at women will continue.

I want to make it clear that there is a difference between a woman-centric film and a film targeted at women. Hollywood is trying to think about how to get men to go see films that used to be targeted at women to punch up the numbers. I want more films with women as leads, women as directors and writers and stories about women. I really don't want to see more stories where the guys play the so-called girls parts (ala Made of Honor) that are demeaning to both men and women.

The one thing that I agree with Peter Bart on is that it's a myth that these films don't travel well. The numbers below prove that. The numbers also show that Nancy Meyers is the smartest, most successful woman director/writer in Hollywood. Three of her films are on the list below (What Women Want, Somethings Gotta Give and The Holiday which was written off as a failure.) Whoops. $200 million gross is no failure. She knows how to make films that are interesting to both men and women, have strong female characters and don't demean either the male or female characters.

Successful women targeted films
Enchanted - $340 million worldwide gross
The Runaway Bride- $309 million
What Women Want- $374 million
Somethings Gotta Give- $265 million
The Devil Wears Prada- $327 million
The Holiday- $205 million

Bart went on to say that the chick flicks that don't work are the issue pictures like Mona Lisa Smile. He said if it's about feminism it will have a limited audience. Why are films about young women's lives in the 50s about feminism, when films about young men's lives are just about life?

They then greeted Sarah Jessica Parker and I thought the interview was extremely boring. The closest thing to interesting that SJP said is that she hates the term chick flicks, and that Sex and the City is a movie for men and women.

Some other quotes:
Why they created the Carrie Bradshaw assistant role Louise (played by Jennifer Hudson):

(Director) Michael (Patrick King) had a real instinct that first of all we needed to have a 20-year-old in this movie. We have to remember that there is a significant audience now because of syndication that has hooked into this show that are very, very young and it's a great way of reminding people of who Carrie was when she first came to New York. What was New York? What did it mean to her? What did it symbolize? What are the hopes and potential of this city that we all cling to when we come to this city and how is it different for a 20-year-old today and how is it the same?

On casting Jennifer Hudson:

African-American women and women of color have been a big part of the (SATC) audience for a long time. We really haven't been responsible to them in a way and we haven't given a woman of color an important and significant role and she is especially lovely in this movie.

This last quote did not make it onto the show but is exactly why we need more women-centric movies. The pressure on Sex and the City is just enormous. I see it everywhere. I think that women will go and see this film, but if there were other women's movies opening on a regular basis we wouldn't have to pin our hopes and future films onto only a couple of films.

"I was saying to someone the other day. I know this better than anything. I know this better than being a mother, a wife. This is kind of part of my DNA and I feel there is a lot at stake."

There is a lot at stake. Women even if you hate the crowds on the opening weekend, you must go. There is a lot at stake. I don't say this lightly. Get your tickets now!

The shootout with SJP re-airs Thursday, May 22nd at 6:15am ET & PT/5:15C and Sunday, June 1st at 5:30am ET & PT/4:30C. You can also see highlights from the show at www.amctv.com. Set those DVRs.

Most women who work in the film business in any capacity absolutely hate the term "chick flick." They all wish the term had never been invented (who should we blame for this?) since it seems that even films made before the term was coined in the late 1980s with this definition -- "a motion picture intended to appeal especially to women" (Webster's On-line Dictionary) -- have been shoved into this category. And let's make no mistake about this: the chick flick is a pejorative and demeaning. And to take it a step further: by assigning films that star women or are about women as "chick flicks" we take away any power the women might have since quite frankly we can't say anything of import in a "lite" "chick flick" film.

It used to be the women could star or co-star in romantic comedies, but the reality in Hollywood today is that most movies that star women and are about women are no longer coined romantic comedies, they seem to be stuck with the chick flick moniker. We all know that there are other movies and stories that star women and deal with issues of substance, but most of those films now have to go the indie route and will usually not get seen by a large audience.

The studios are not in the business anymore of making movies that star women because quite frankly they don't play well overseas and the international market has become a huuuge priority for the studios. Just look at the handful of recent releases starring women from this year: You have Nim's Island (which I have not seen yet and is more targeted at kids even though it stars Jodie Foster); The Other Boleyn Girl; and the one true success this winter 27 Dresses.

The others like Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day, Penelope, Mad Money, Bonneville, some better than others, all struggled, with Miss Pettigrew (the best movie of the lot doing the best with $10 m so far.)

As you can tell I am ambivalent at best with regard to the chick flick and so when I saw the NY Times story this morning with the Title "Wary Hollywood Plans More Chick Flicks (and Hopes to Lure the Guys) it made me want to tear my hair out. The premise is that Hollywood is all nervous about two movies now shooting Confessions of a Shopaholic starring Isla Fisher and directed by P.J. Hogan (a guy) based on the Sophie Kinsella novel, and Julia & Julia starring Meryl Streep and Amy Adams directed by Nora Ephron and based on the best selling memoir of the same name.

The male producers of the film are really trying to make it clear that these films are for a wide audience not just women. Uber producer Jerry Bruckheimer said about his film Shopaholic: “We all have spending habits, a lot of us do,” and Laurence Mark said about Julie & Julia: "We hope this will be a movie for everyone who likes eating."

What pissed me off about this is that they never have these conversations or issues with movies that star men. Why is everyone so nervous about movies that star women? It's probably because that Hollywood is predicated on the fact that women will go see movies that star men and that men won't go see movies that star women.

But women go to the movies, we bought over 50% of the tickets in 2006 (according to the MPAA) and in fact older women are growing as an audience. It's just that we don't run out on opening weekend because maybe we have other priorities and also maybe because the theatres are too crowded. I think that Hollywood should a) make better movies that star women cause no one wants to see a stinker; and b) stop worrying about getting men to come see movies about women and try and figure out how to get WOMEN to see these movies cause we all know they are doing a bad job at that.

Hollywood Plans More Chick Flicks (And Hopes to Lure the Guys)