Can men ever learn to love chick flicks? Not until empathising with women is a natural part of society’s status quo

My weekly newspaper column for The National.

It’s a luxury to have an evening to spend simply watching a film from the sanctuary of the sofa. I ask my husband if we can watch a romantic comedy, and he concedes out of affection. Plus he knows the important statistic: romcoms result in a higher ratio of per-minute cuddling than any other movie genre.

When it comes to films, chick flicks are supposed to be only for women, and no self-respecting man would think to declare that what he really wants to watch is a romcom. It’s usually under duress from his female partner that he’s forced to sit through a formulaic plotline of will-they-won’t-they-yes-they-will.

The most obvious reason seems to be that they are too emotional for men, who aren’t allowed to admit a hankering for romance. Romance is that girlie, soppy stuff that will result in mocking for any male exponent.

The male lead is the standard for films, as well as books, the norm that both men and women are expected to connect with and relate to. But as soon as a female character is the lead, it’s a story for women only. So no wonder that chick flicks are belittled as being for women only: the female is the lead and the men play the same character in every film; their role to be interchangeable and act as screen sweets. The latter is, of course, exactly how women feel about themselves portrayed in films generally. I’d like both to be more rounded, not just one-dimensional and pretty.

There are chick flicks that appeal to men. There’s Something about Mary was a global hit. So was Notting Hill. Broad appeal films like these don’t expect male viewers to have to empathise with the heroine. The cynic in me says that these films let men off the hook from finding it totally natural to relate to a female character. It would be nice if they did. Instead, which is just as important, they have strong male characters which allow men to invest in the film. If only moviemakers would apply the same strong characterisation to female characters in films with a male lead.

Of course, even I will admit that many chick flicks are just simply rubbish. Weak characters and unbelievable plot lines can render them into dire productions. And I’ve been at the front of the queue to criticise them for creating the archetypal passive princess waiting to be rescued by Prince Charming, at which point life will be perfect.

I’d have no hesitation in condemning chick flicks, except for the fact that the terms “chick flick” and “chick lit” refer not just to romantic comedies. Sometimes they refer to anything about women or featuring female characters. The tone of the terms is to disparage the art as subgenre, deviating from the male norm or just a bit girlie and weak.

I’ve been trying to figure out what the opposite to a chick flick would be. Some of the suggestions are rude, so I can’t write them here. (Google is your friend if you want to know.) But I have the sense that the opposite of a chick flick would be awesome, energetic, realistic and, most importantly, it would appeal to everyone, not just women.

Movie-makers and publishers need to change the characterisation of the male and female leads, but we also need a change in society. Both men and women have a need to see the subjects of emotions and love, as well as female leaders, role models and protagonists as totally normal on and off-screen. Love and feisty chicks, they are for everyone.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post