I thought I was a “chick flick” pro before reading Mindy Kaling’s article Flick Chicks (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2011/10/03/111003sh_shouts_kaling?currentPage=1) I love watching adventure and action movies just as much as the next person, but chick flicks will always have a special place in my heart. Without a doubt, they are the highlight of girls nights and almost vital after a long, terrible day. Romantic comedies grab the heart and soul of a woman and usually, but not always, leave her believing she too can have her prince charming and be the woman she dreams of being.
Sounds like a good happily ever after, right? The perfect woman finds a perfect man, there are a few bumps in the road, together they find a way to fix it, and they live in perfection with one another for the rest of their lives. I admit to being a hopeless romantic, but that’s just sick. In her article, Kaling breaks down what makes up the typical onscreen woman. Every woman from The Ethereal Weirdo to The Woman who works in an Art Gallery has their own sparkling personality and flaws we have all seen before. I can even relate to the Sassy Best Friend and the Klutz, which allowed me to connect to the article much more.
I’ve never noticed before, but movie try too hard to display to types of women we want to see onscreen. They are good at it, yes, but I’ve never taken the time to analyze each character. I never considered how the outside world really looks at women and the roles they play. This article definitely gave me a new perspective on chick flicks and romantic comedies.
photo: http://www.newyorker.com/images/2011/10/03/p233/111003_r21359_p233.jpg
I have also noticed that every chick flick has at least one of the girls stated in the article. What ever happened to average looking girls with no problems. I wish directors would be more original because having different movies with different actors that all play characters with the same personality makes all the movies look exactly the same. It makes it boring
ReplyDelete