Has Feminism Ruined the Chick Flick?
by Motte Brown on 06/07/2007 at 5:06 PM
My wife and I watched The Holiday last night. It's a movie about two love-forlorn women who trade houses (in LA and England) over Christmas holidays in hopes of escaping their relationship woes. And despite the negative elements -- which you can read about here -- it was really quite enjoyable ... except for the ending.
[Spoiler Warning] Typically, a good romance climaxes with a couple overcoming their struggles and ending in wedded bliss, whether seen or implied. However, these days when that struggle means the woman must give up her career to be with the man she loves, fairy tale endings are hard to come by. Such was the case here.
Instead of wrapping up with girl-sacrifices-career-for-guy, the movie ended with enough ambiguity to satisfy only those who love political correctness. Yes, it would have riled feminists and irked some egalitarians, but most good romances have an "ah ha" moment when someone experiences personal growth and takes the risk to make it work.
To be fair, though, there was another issue for the heroine to overcome, the effects of her parents divorce. But when push came to shove, it was obvious (at least to me) what the solution would entail for a satisfying ending. And The Holiday just wouldn't go there. Lame.
1. k. said the following at 8:28 PM on Jun 7:
Darn feminists! Not content with ruining America and traditional gender roles, now they're training their firepower on chick flicks...is nothing sacred?!
2. Sasha said the following at 9:09 PM on Jun 7:
This is why I like "Kate and Leopold" so much. It's a chick flick where the girl realizes that she cares more about her gentleman than she does about her career. It's great. So many modern chick flicks cater to politically correctness in so many ways...very frustrating.
3. Tomi said the following at 10:16 PM on Jun 7:
ummmm I don't really know what to say, but I'm sorry that just the thought of a woman not giving up everything just to be with a man causes you soooo much pain. I guess just welcome to the 21st century? Its one thing to view things with a feminist mentality, but to live in anti-feminist mindset is beyond me.
Did you ever think that the movie was just trying to be realistic? Even though I'm not the president of a successful media company, I would most definitely think twice about permanently relocating halfway around the world to be with a man I've only recently met, and become an instant mother to his two kids. Just a thought.
I didn't like this movie for different reasons: underweight borderline anorexic Cameron Diaz nabs the sensationally suave drop dead gorgeous Jude Law, while the normal (and healthy) looking Kate Winslet gets charming but homely Jack Black. I think this teaches girls and reinforces for women that skinny=better.
4. Joshua Stevenson said the following at 11:31 PM on Jun 7:
Yeah there was no real hard fast resolution. I figured out if you take out about 80% of Cameron Diaz's scenes, it would make for a slightly below par chick flick, making it focus on Kate Winslett's transformation instead of Cameron's random, pointless, melodramatic cuteness.
5. Katherine said the following at 11:48 PM on Jun 7:
I don't know how a person could find a chick flick anything BUT lame. That sub-genre is by nature vapid, formulaic, silly, and insulting. There's little good in them to "ruin" in the first place. An intake of these kind of stories also drives my female friends to the belief that their lives would be profoundly better if only they had a guy. I have always taken serious issue with this "gospel" of chick flicks whereby personal peace and salvation is achieved through a romantic relationship: girl gets guy or vice versa, and all is well, happily ever after, forever and ever amen.
Also, ambiguous endings are favored for a host of stories nowadays, and such a preference has next to nothing to do with feminism, even though that is a favorite whipping child of Boundless.
6. Amelia said the following at 12:40 AM on Jun 8:
I agree, Motte! The ending was a bit lame, and terribly politically correct. It didn't indicate any permanence to their new relationships, which was disappointing and ambiguous. So, in this case, yes, feminism ruined the chick flick. But, thankfully, it would be a mistake to generalize that to all such movies.
7. hopefulromantic said the following at 4:23 AM on Jun 8:
hmm... I just haven't really been getting that "marriage vibe" in the movie industry these days. A romantic comedy has always ended in marriage as the pinnacle or the clencher. I can't think of a single Shakespearean comedy that does NOT end in marriage. But things have changed since Billy Shax's days as a playwright. The new cultural script dictates cohabitation as the precursor to marriage. I think, as a cultural audience, we have been trained to fear a couple that marries so soon after their follies. It's the test drive concept... and then throw in a lease before ownership. Healthy? Absolutely not. Let's not be so quick to blame feminism as the culprit.
Besides, I am partial to biblical feminism. I am an egalitarian (and yes, I do love the Lord and no, I am not manly, and yes, I hope to raise children, and no, I do not want to marry a man whom I can walk all over), and I too wanted the movie to end in marriage. I do not think, however, that a marriage would require only a sacrifice on Cameron's part. To use the complementarian lingo, what if Jude "pursued" Cameron so ruthlessly that he was willing to move?
8. Christine said the following at 5:19 AM on Jun 8:
As much as I'm grateful to feminists for fighting for the right to vote, for the right to an education, etc., I think that there are times that we as a society do limit ourselves because of current trends in feminism.
Though I don't agree with everything in it, I did appreciate that "Mona Lisa Smile" showed women choosing career, family or both. We need more of that.
9. John M. said the following at 7:58 AM on Jun 8:
I will not touch this topic with a ten-foot pole, lest I be flamed by the female readers. There is no right answer!
10. Michelle said the following at 8:22 AM on Jun 8:
I would definitely agree that feminism has affected the chick flick, but also that new ladism has had a great affect. (British academics like Dr. Andrew Parker of the department of sociology at the University of Warwick say a 1990s British phenomenon of "new ladism" may be partly to blame. New ladism, seen as a backlash to radical feminism, is, according to Dr. Parker, a male attitude involving, "a pub and porn narcissism, which centers around football, lager, and hedonism." He observes, "Some of these new lads may have become husbands and fathers and it is not unreasonable to assume that they have carried new lad attitudes, including a total disregard for others, into marriage.") That's just a small idea of what it is...but basically it's apathy to anyone...I reckon that combined with feminist attitudes and New ladism, we have developed the romantic comedy where often no one is going anywhere...Either you have films like Fever Pitch or About a Boy with apathetic male characters or those like The Holiday which could be lovely, escaptist works of art but instead are trying to make a statement by which the strong female lead exerts her equality. Oddly enough The Holiday tries to work some of these issues out between the characters. Cameron Diaz's character has become the atypical feminist woman who has been able to become successful but only through suppressing emotion and destroying any romantic relationships around her. Then there's Kate Winslet's character who, although very feminine and intelligent, is seemingly falling apart without a man. Even more, she is in love with a man who is using her. What kind of female role models are these? Either be clingly and completely dependent and maybe get a man or live a life devoid of emotion and real relationship. However, throughout the film these characters are deconstructed and evolve into women who are more appropriately women that God would want us to be. Caring, resourceful, nurturing, loving women. Yes, we can argue a lot of this film including extra-marital sex, however at least the characters evolved. It does sadden me that they just could not go all the way; that their characters could not take the plunge and commit.
Furthermore...
Being a regular film viewer, a student of film, a girl and a Christian I find watching films can be rather infuriating personally...I quite enjoy those endings that are realistic...(not that The Holiday is one of those) but the majority of my friends want the Fairytale, the dream, the sweep us off our feet...so who exactly is making these films? It's not really what the public wants...is it?
11. Michelle said the following at 8:25 AM on Jun 8:
oh and one more comment...simply about The Holiday being a chick flick...
This film went over splendidly with all of us North American girls living in London. The little differences between cultures. How we felt stepping off the plane and into the land of tea and crumpets and even dating in this country. Very different, and VERY FUNNY!!
12. Irene M. said the following at 8:32 AM on Jun 8:
Feminism has ruined "chick flicks"? Oh no, those of us who love emotional movies centered on women's lives will have to be content with the Oxygen channel, Lifetime network, certain soap operas, telenovellas,Oprah, romance novels, Christian novels, women's biographies, and older movies. How will we survive?!
As a side tangent, why is it that a film like The Divine Secret of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood that focuses on real life issues faced by some women called a "chick flick", but a film based on an extrodinary or contrived event like Oceans 11 is simply referred to as a movie?
//However, these days when that struggle means the woman must give up her career to be with the man she loves//
I saw Holiday and I am not sure that the women in question would have needed to abandon their careers. One runs her own business and has the means to either more to New York or help her boyfriend establish a new career in the States. The other works as a journalist and I am sure that there is plenty of journalism work in Los Angelos. Besides, how long have these couples known each other? Two weeks? It would not make sense for them to *completely* re-work their lives for someone they just met.
Really, I found the pre-marital sex to be much more worrisome than two women in their thirties refusing to drop their established careers for near-strangers.
13. Mandi said the following at 8:41 AM on Jun 8:
"Even though I'm not the president of a successful media company, I would most definitely think twice about permanently relocating halfway around the world to be with a man I've only recently met, and become an instant mother to his two kids. Just a thought."
Tomi, would you have sex with someone you "only recently met"? Why did she have sex with this guy if she felt no inclination to share or sacrifice less valuable with him, i.e., her job, city, etc. "Just a thought."
14. Sam said the following at 8:48 AM on Jun 8:
Ok, may I please point out that the movie took place over the course of a week? That last scene is New Year's Eve, just a few days after all the characters met. Did you really expect any character to get married within a week? I didn't get the impression that marriage wasn't in the cards; Jude Law's character had been married - happily so - and would therefore probably be more inclined to remarry. I also didn't get the impression Cameron wouldn't change for her man, either. She left becuase she felt it would not work and yet came back because she wanted to make it work.
I'm sorry you saw feminism written all over this movie while millions of other folks just saw a story.
15. Michelle said the following at 9:13 AM on Jun 8:
I reckon we have to look past the story line and more onto the character development. I wouldn't look at marriage as the main issue but rather the characters' character and personal development. Forget the marriage part, in fact I agree...marriage after a week? Let's take a look at (as i mentioned above) how these characters did develop...I would be inclined to retract my opinion about the that it saddened me that they didn't take the plunge and commit (to use my own words) but they did in some way grow and develop into more traditionally feminine roles. Did they not? Thanks for pointing out that indeed it was only two weeks...
one thing I would add is that I reckon we all just want closure. We expect that we will gain a solid closure to a film, like marriage because even traditionally films that have taken place over say 2 weeks or a couple of months have had wedded bliss as their ending because they would end the movie with "six months down the line" or something to that effect. Take a look at Pirates of the Caribbean (spoiler warning) if you watch after the credits even THAT movie has obtains closure. We're a culture that wants ending. We want to see what happens next, we don't want to imagine, we want to know. Instant gratification maybe? I like that it was pointed out that this movie was only 2 weeks in duration...I hear commentary constantly on film and find it amusing when we bemoan pre or extra-marital sex but condone obscenely quick commitment. I am at work so I can't give many examples at the moment. I do however believe that this opens up excellent doors to communicating about film and christianity.
16. Motte said the following at 9:40 AM on Jun 8:
Good storytelling requires a resolution. One of the issues for Amanda to overcome was her career-mindedness and how it affected her relationships. It was never resolved.
And yes, if you have sex 15 minutes after meeting someone and then say I love you within 10 days, I don't think it requires more suspension of disbelief for a couple of "I dos" before the movie ends.
Ever heard of the flash forward?
17. Sam said the following at 9:50 AM on Jun 8:
That wasn't the story the writers wanted to tell, Motte. Why can't it be left at that instead of ascribing the term "feminist" to this movie?
Btw, I just want it to be known that while I enjoyed the movie, I didn't agree with everything the characters did in it. But, it's a movie. I'm apparently able to cut myself off and not try to live out what characters in movies do. Maybe I have a better grasp of reality than most.
18. Lola said the following at 10:04 AM on Jun 8:
hopefulromantic said:
"A romantic comedy has always ended in marriage as the pinnacle or the clincher."
Have you seen "Roman Holiday"?
19. P&P said the following at 10:33 AM on Jun 8:
Lola:
Ah, Roman Holiday - wonderful film.
Tomi:
Excellent observation on Cameron Diaz/Jude Law, Kate Winslet/Jack Black pairings. Kate Winslet is one of the most stunning and talented actresses around, and her talents were wasted on this movie.
Motte;
That's not what I got out of the film at all. What I saw were two women who had been hurt and cut themselves off from romance be able to find hope going forward. Maybe they didn't find "the one" by the end of the holiday, but they did find a bit more of themselves and saw the possibiity of love again.
As for the "feminist" aspect, why not call it the realist aspect? I thought the end of "You've Got Mail" was awful ; Tom Hanks' business puts Meg Ryan's store out of business and she still ends up with him? Please. No woman in her right mind would marry the man who ruined her business. At least in the original, The Shop Around the Corner (Jimmy Stewart, Margaret Sullivan), she still had a job at the end.
20. BDB said the following at 10:48 AM on Jun 8:
Lola wrote:
>>Have you seen "Roman Holiday"?<<
Yes I did! Turner Classic Movies!
Though it didn't end in a wedding, it DID end with a "new beginning" - perfect for a sequel.
Wait - is that a "chick flick"? How embarassing...
21. sam said the following at 10:51 AM on Jun 8:
The Holiday to me has seem to hit the prong that tunes many womens' heart do to the fact that it is more so a realistic romance than the give up career or whatever else(by either character)to have the romance. I would say that there may be some feminist tones in the story but that doesn't mean the women in these stories are power super chicks who make men do what they want so they can have the independence with a little man time on the side. Both the men and women in this story are taking the steps in a relationship to make it work or find out if it will. of course the happiness and outsome of the story is left up to the imagination the person viewing whether it be the feminist or the girl who would love to exchange job or other piece of lifestyle for the companionship of the man she loves. either way I'm tahnkful that feminist, traditionalist on male can enjoy this movie.
22. Michele said the following at 11:06 AM on Jun 8:
Spoiler warning:::::::
I think the very best ending, for Cameron Diaz's character, would have been giving up her career. Long-distance, across-the-ocean, with Jude Law's character being a widowed father??? Not gonna work, even in fairy tale land.
I was happier with Kate Winslet's storyline and would have been thrilled if this had been two separate films. Though it was an interesting concept for romantic comedy.
23. xeres said the following at 11:07 AM on Jun 8:
You think "Holiday" is whack, the show "grey's anatomy" is more lame. Comparing to "Holiday" and "the Ya Ya sisterhood", "the ya ya sisterhood" is more interesting and far better storyline than "holiday" anyday.
24. Tomi said the following at 12:12 PM on Jun 8:
Well Mandi, unfortunately for many people, sex is just that--sex (especially in movies). People have sex as a precursor to, or just part of a relationship, regardless or where they intend the relationship to lead. Your comment reveals that you might be a little out of touch with the realities of today as far as many people's casual attitudes toward sex. In Hollywood land, sex has no strings attached.
25. xeres said the following at 12:48 PM on Jun 8:
having an casual attitude towards sex isn't okay anyways regardless on how common is in the attitudes of this generation. It reveals that men and women don't value one another as people and that there's no genuine self-respect. I don't what it is but in a lot of movies, sex is either goes public to the point of not being personal anyone and becomes a source of gossip or it is so private that if people will pull the consenting adult rationale card on you whether you bring up a legitimate concern especially if your friend knowingly foresees the physical and social havoc it will bring long-term but keeps on doing it anyway. Either sex is a big deal or not a big deal. When will the American Culture make up its mind? This indecisiveness isn't helpful at all.
26. Samuel PG said the following at 1:32 PM on Jun 8:
An interesting, yet meaningless, side-note: the term "comedy" once referred to any story that ended in a wedding. Thus, Dante's "Divine Comedy" was a comedy because it ended with marriage banquet of the Lamb, even though it included such early tragic elements as the inferno. "Romantic comedy" would have been fairly redundant. Now, to stop anyone before they tear into me I do realize that comedy no longer holds this meaning. Just a tangent.
27. Philippa said the following at 1:43 PM on Jun 8:
The Holiday is so fluffy it makes Bridget Jones's Diary look positively Shakespearean!
The Cameron Diaz/Jude Law romance was irritating. (Cameron, it has to be said, is less irritating than Jude.) I wasn't offended by Amanda's feminism(oh please, if this is a feminist movie, then I'm Germaine Greer) but, as Michelle remarked above, the Instant!Fantastic!No Commitment!Sex was a lot more troubling.
I much preferred the Kate Winslet/Jack Black romance, which was far more touching and poignant.
By the way, I never fail to be amused by Hollywood's chocolate-box depiction of England. Did the makers of this film have ANY idea of how much Iris's impossibly idyllic Surrey cottage would actually COST????
Well, at least they didn't have racoons running about, as in 101 Dalmations!
28. Bo said the following at 1:54 PM on Jun 8:
"Feminism has ruined "chick flicks"? Oh no, those of us who love emotional movies centered on women's lives will have to be content with the Oxygen channel, Lifetime network, certain soap operas, telenovellas,Oprah, romance novels, Christian novels, women's biographies, and older movies. How will we survive?!"
Irene M, you made me laugh out loud!
I am opposed to the "chick flick" in general because it perpetuates the same unrealistic fantasy that romance novels do of a perfect man coming along to rescue the women (perhaps from her career?), and then they will live happily ever after. This is so lame. My fiance calls chick flicks "female relationship porn," and I rather agree with him...
29. Anna said the following at 2:13 PM on Jun 8:
I haven't seen this movie. And I'm not a feminist, and I don't like feminism in chick flicks. But one movie I think actually does it well - The Prince & Me. [spoiler warning] The heroine has to choose between the career she's been dreaming of, a traveling doctor for Doctors Without Borders, or being a queen and marrying the man she loves. She gives up the man for the career, but in the end he comes back and says she can be a doctor and a queen. I actually think that wasn't an unreasonable conclusion. I think it almost would have been better to just have ended without their marriage. If you're not ready to fully commit to being a wife, if you're still committed to this vision you have, then it's better not to marry. I don't know if I would call that feminism, just wisdom.
30. Helen said the following at 3:54 PM on Jun 8:
First, as my sister pointed out, and I agree, what do we really expect from Hollywood? Why is it new that they demonstrate their characteristic behavior? It isn't necessarily an indication of feminism, but sin, period.
I'm not saying I endorse this behavior, and I pray for a turn in the moral direction of this country, but that's hollywood being hollywood.
Second, it sounds like the tendency to judge people based on their looks is more deeply ingrained in us Christians more than we'd like to admit. Why is it implied that because Kate ended up with Jack, she got the raw deal? Is he any less of a catch in the movie because he isn't a mirror image of Jude Law?
31. Laura said the following at 3:55 PM on Jun 8:
I thought the "whipping boy" remark was rather to the point. Much as I enjoy Boundless and the Line, you've got a couple of whipping boys that you trot out every now and then. Slapping the label "feminist" or "liberal" or whatever on something doesn't make it actually evil just because you've applied the term. Let's have some journalistic acumen and define our terms, and then apply those terms with precision and caution, shall we?
32. Alice said the following at 4:15 PM on Jun 8:
1. Why does "personal growth" entail "Girl sacrificing career for guy"?
2. Why does "fully committing to be a wife" entail leaving the vision you are committed to?
3. Why ON EARTH would the best ending have been for Cameron Diaz to give up her career?
It appears to me that most of the comments to this post seem to think that vision and marriage are mutually exclusive. This is dangerously wrong. The sole purpose of a woman is not marriage. Doesn't the Bible have strong women who had purpose and marriage at the same time? Deborah, Miriam, Ruth, Esther - and those are just a few from the old testament. The new testament contains much more. Seriously unless someone can point to concrete biblical evidence why purpose should be sacrificed for marriage and how that entails personal growth, this strategy needs to be re-thought.
As for sex and hollywood, that ship sailed long ago. Not that it's acceptable. But that argument is pretty much over.
33. Mandi said the following at 4:22 PM on Jun 8:
Um, why is it that there seem to be SO many professing Christian women who don't realize that Hollywood is poisoning our minds, imaginations, and expectations by these types of subtle (and not-so-subtle) messages in their storylines??? Come on, sisters, what you expose your senses to affects your behavior -- that's why advertising gets such a high priority amongst business people.
I'd echo the well-made point of Mike Theemling over at the "Satanic Satan" post that Satan is fabulously talented at skewing important truths "just a little bit", so as to go under the radar, because most people would be smart or strong enough to resist his blatant attempts to undermine truth. Satan, after all, can appear as an "angel of light" and is "a liar and the father of it".
As for "being realistic", I'm told by women who have had casual sex that it is anything but without emotional consequences. So Hollywood's the one that's unrealistic about sex.
34. Melissa said the following at 5:28 PM on Jun 8:
I agree that entering marriage does not mean giving up vison. I have a "vision" of what marriage might be like, what it could do, etc...
My questions: Why does "vision" and "purpose" seem to equal "paying career"?
Why doesn't a godly marrigage where the wife (maybe) doesn't have a paying job get to be a full-time career? When did the stay at home wife become a lame career?
When people fall into the trap of thinking a "career" is the only thing that really validates you, there are a whole lot of problems that crop up. What about all the people who can't or choose not to engage in a traditional paying career? (elderly, young, other situations)
If one of the original goals of feminism was to give women the OPTION of working and getting paid for it, we've strayed a long way. Now it's to the point where women pressure other women to work, instead of realizing that the whole point is so that there is an OPTION not a requirement you owe to womankind.
(In case you were wondering, I'm not a feminist.)
35. Kellie said the following at 7:47 PM on Jun 8:
How about a movie where the guy gives up his career to be with the girl he loves? :-) How times in real life does a person really have to give up their career to be with someone? You can always get another job...I personally was in a long distance relationship until I graduated from school and then moved up closer to him and married within 3 months time. Dropping out of school (or even just moving to be near him) was out of the question prior to being engaged as far as I (and my parents) were concerned.
36. DannieA said the following at 8:32 PM on Jun 8:
What? a movie not ending how it's "supposed" to???? ....maybe some movies are finally imitating real life...instead of filling women up with fairy tale nonesense
(and no i'm not a feminist)
plus for the ladies...there is always "lifetime...television for women"
37. BDB said the following at 9:39 PM on Jun 8:
Kellie wrote:
>>How about a movie where the guy gives up his career to be with the girl he loves? :-)<<
It's called Good Will Hunting
38. Naomi said the following at 11:53 PM on Jun 8:
I also recently watched this movie, and I think the problem is found not with the ending of the movie, but it's premise to begin with as well. The heroine in the film asks her later lover for no strings attached sex. So from the beginning, we're expecting this movie to be more feminist than the conservative might hope. I can understand your frustration with the ending, but if you keep this in mind, I'm not really sure how else you might think the movie would end.
39. Chris Krycho said the following at 9:18 AM on Jun 9:
Those who are rejecting the notion that there is feminism of a nasty sort inherent in this movie - that it's "just a movie" - are sadly mistaken and ignorant. There is no such thing as "just a movie" or even "just a story." Every story ever told reflects a particular worldview, a particular way of understanding life, the universe, and everything. That's an inescapable and undeniable fact, and it saddens me that so many Christians take the mentality that we can simply take in whatever media we choose, utterly undiscerning of the mentalities and ideologies shaping the choices of their creators, and be unaffected. Discernment is a necessity, and one that is sorely lacking in these parts, unfortunately. I'm not saying we shouldn't watch movies that don't fit our worldview, but I'm saying we need to be aware of the underlying messages.
(Aside: I am so sick of the refusal to engage in necessary intellectual analysis and engagement by Christians. Can we wake up and use the brains God gave us, please?)
Furthermore, Tomi and others who have taken the argument that "that ship has sailed" regarding pre/extramarital sex, etc... that's one of the worst things I've ever heard. "Well, our culture has pretty much sailed on the notion of (God's lordship/the Gospel/the notion of a Creator/insert Biblical doctrine here)..." Are you serious? So because our culture has made a bad decision we should throw up our hands, say "Whatever!" and "let well enough alone," so to speak? I hardly think that is the kind of mandate we as Christians have... certainly it doesn't fit terribly well with Matthew 28:18-20.
40. xeres said the following at 10:25 AM on Jun 9:
Chris
What I don't get is that how can people not understand that Everything in the media has a worldview or bias of some sort. However, not all ideas are equally valid nor true.
41. Sydney B said the following at 10:52 AM on Jun 9:
Spoiler Warning: I’m planning to address specific plot points in this movie, so if you haven’t yet seen it and plan to, skip my response.
I’m confused and bothered by several of Motte’s assertions, among them that the ending of the movie is ‘lame’ and has “enough ambiguity to satisfy only those who love political correctness.” For one, this film does suffer all around from shoddy writing and lack of attention to detail, as well as poor acting on the part of Cameron Diaz (Kate Winslet seriously outclasses her in this film, although even this is not one of her better performances). So for film studies purposes, it’s hardly worth talking about. However, since we are here, lets run with it.
First off, as a viewer who finds chick flicks as a genre lacking in artistic and intellectual substance, I would not at all be perturbed if they were ‘ruined.’ Chick flicks can prompt women to believe in a fantasy that just doesn’t exist – namely, that there is one perfect man waiting for her, that she will find him, and that he will be sufficient for her. They show men and women being forgiven for stupid choices that would seriously threaten real relationships, they show that broken commitments are ok, and no one else in your life should stand in the way of the “one.” Mostly, they display women who are unsatisfied if they don’t have anyone, rather than finding sufficiency in Christ. I realize Boundless supports biblical marriage, but I didn’t think that they would do so by elevating the chick flick as a romance with a good ‘ole aha moment.
In Motte’s assessment that the ending to this film is somehow a failed denoument, he glosses over several points of plot. As others have pointed out, the timeline of the film takes place over two weeks, hardly an appropriate point at which to get engaged, particularly when one is on the rebound. Plus, while Winslet and Black’s characters seem to be genuine and caring people, Diaz is self-absorbed and would make a frightful mother. The movie never interrogates family at all – which I think is an all around failing, not a subversive feminist agenda. Jude Law’s daughters are adorable, but he is clearly ashamed of them, and drops them off on a regular basis with their grandmum so he can go binging. While it’s nice to see a depiction of a struggling single dad, I don’t think the movie is quite in touch with reality there. But ultimately, Diaz DOES abandon her plane flight to return to him, and Black DOES fly all the way to London just to take Winslet on a first date. The movie ends here – there are no rings, no wedding gowns, but it is strongly implied that there is a relationship beginning. It is up to the viewer’s imagination to decide whether the pairings will make it or not, but the ending of the film does nothing to deter this presumption. So – because after two weeks the couples aren’t married off, this is a chick flick ruined by feminism?
While of course, as Christians, Law’s near-alcoholism and Diaz’s belief in no-strings-attached sex are points where we must seriously disengage from the movie, we can also applaud the rather more beautiful Winslet/Black storyline. This couple’s point of departure is not sex but conversation and healing, and the most physical we see them is a light kiss. For me, their relationship was more fun to watch, more interesting, and certainly better scripted (and acted). And may I just put in my two cents for Rufus Sewell, who is a splendid stage actor and very much could use a well-written part in a movie to catapult to the top of the A-list? So, keeping in mind that this film is a low-grade example of screenplay and cinematography and hardly bears close scrutiny, I still fail to see why the ending bothers Motte quite so much, why he defends the ‘traditional’ chick flicks which I feel don’t uphold Christian values, and why we must absolutely have a wedding gown in order to feel satisfied at the end of a movie, without any reference as to whether the two characters involved could make a successful or loving marriage at all.
I think, that as Christians, we need to be far more comfortable with ambiguity – this is what prompts us to think and analyze our lives and faith. We, to a degree, expect God to wrap things up for us tidily, like a chick flick, and this is manifest in our impatience and the agony we feel when making decisions. We don’t want to do the work of really thinking and praying through things, and we expect God to come up with pat, unambiguous solutions for us, so we can then stand up on our soapboxes and tell others that they are wrong. I find that Motte’s willingness to belittle feminism and liberalism without thinking through these complicated and multifaceted worldviews is symptomatic of this tendency to view everything, even the ending of a chick flick that shows a reunion of four people trying to help themselves heal from harmful relationships, in terms of severest black and white.
42. Heather said the following at 1:45 PM on Jun 9:
Chick flicks aren't really possible with feminism. Chick flicks are all about the interplay of the sexes while feminism is focused on equality to the point of androgeny--which isn't fun or interesting at all. Diaz played a jerk, but I enjoyed Winslet's character. Once she was out of England, Iris was actively generous to other people. (I loved her indignation at her brother's sleeping with Diaz)
But back to my first point: could feminism ever give us Beatrice and Benedict, Petruchio and Katerina, Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet? Thank God that the world doesn't revolve around feminist paradigms. If all men are jerks and bums, why do we have romantic comedies instead of only portraying women kicking men? That's *not* romantic!
43. anie said the following at 3:10 PM on Jun 9:
I totally agree! Thanks for your post.
I've learned that when I'm in the mood for a chick flick, I borrow them from the library - that way I won't be disappointed if I dislike it because it was free!
44. Sydney B said the following at 4:21 PM on Jun 9:
Although applying the term feminist to Shakespeare and Austen would be anachronistic, we should keep in mind that characters such as Beatrice, Kate, and Lizzie step far outside the cultural paradigms alotted to women. This is one of the things which makes Shakespeare and Austen such fun to read - their satires, as well as being good stories, interrogate the very social expectations on which they are based. For instance, in the other pairing in Much Ado, Hero and Leander, Shakespeare provides a criticism of the Renaissance double standard that applauded men sleeping around but held that a woman's sole virtue was her chastity. Austen's characters also display a depth of female character that is lacking in other works of the time, and her women frequently 'get away' with things that to us are perfectly normal, such as speaking their minds, or choosing whom they may marry - or not to marry Mister Collins! Before we claim that Shakespeare and Austen are the good ole days of traditional romances, we should remember that they too include ambiguities. For instance, Taming can be read as a sly-proto feminist satire in which the shrew defeats the tamer by strength of will and dry humor, or a comedy that runs rather close to amusing its audience with scenes of unmitigated domestic abuse and the presumption of unruly woman is overruled and she is put back in her place as a second class citizen. I for one prefer the former reading, although I have seen the latter played.
also I would like to point out that feminism does not mandate that men are useless or bums, which seems to be a common misconception.
45. Heather said the following at 9:51 PM on Jun 9:
I certainly acknowledge that with Shakespeare things can go either way--my dad fast-forwarded through a good bit of the Elizabeth Taylor/Richard Burton version of TotS because he loathed the pysical abuse heaped on Katherine. I'm mostly going on the approach given in Dr. Peter Leithart's "Brightest Heaven of Invention."
And Lizzie more illustrates the amount of freedom that was open to women (I think Victorian sentimentalism limited women more than anything else, but that was after Austen). Lizzie is blunt, but only the arrogant really take any offense. THE greatest limit in Austen's world is really money .
Sorry for the long literary analysis--this is one of my favorite topics.
And though feminism may not mandate bums, that has certainly has been its consequence
46. cn said the following at 10:07 PM on Jun 9:
I saw more feminism in pirates 3 than The Holiday... Elizabeth was "king." Why couldn't she be "queen?"
47. Philippa said the following at 4:42 PM on Jun 10:
Sydney B ... what a great couple of posts. :)
48. Cath said the following at 12:43 PM on Jun 11:
A lot of chick flicks are a form of female porn. Are we emotionally drawn to these movies as a vehicle of escape into fantasy land??
49. rnk said the following at 10:18 AM on Jun 12:
My favorite line in the movie that describes 95% of the reason why people date each other was Cameron Diaz saying to her husband in the beginning of the movie, "You like the idea of me and you."
50. Matt said the following at 12:58 AM on Jul 6:
I definitely was expecting a lot different of an ending after reading this post.
I think in someways it is suggesting that Cameron is willing to make her job come 2nd to her relationship. Yes, they don't explicitly say it but it implied. We don't need everythin spelled out in our stories.
51. Leah Williams said the following at 9:09 AM on Aug 28:
What?! I can't believe you thought the movie was about feminism. Wow. Might I remind you of Kate Winslet's "gumption". She let go of a guy who was stringing her along. And so did Jack Black's character. So many girls are in this type of relationship. And she had enough guts to say no. But---no offense, you are a guy--and the script was written by a woman...and probably can only be understood by a woman. And that's okay. I don't always understand what movies like Patriot are trying to say. But just so you know, this movie was not about feminism, it was about freedom and taking control of your life, not letting circumstances determine who you are.