User:Anna.yacura/Chick flicks

Definition
The term chick-flick has long been thought to represent a specific type of genre of films, TV shows or series. Genre is a French word, meaning ‘type’ of ‘kind,’ which employs a specific idea or connotation about a film. Chick flick is a term used to describe a genre of films that primarily target a female audience and was created in the 1930’s by men to mean “woman’s film.” These movies often focus on themes such as romance, relationships, emotions, and friendship. The term “chick flick” originated in the 1980s and gained popularity in the 1990s as a way to categorize films that were perceived to appeal more to women than men. The protagonists are often female characters who navigate various challenges in their personal lives, careers, or relationships.

Evolution & Controversy
These works have risen since the 1980s, mostly noticed in the early 2000s, and continued to evolve through the 2010s and early 2020s. In its early development, the films were created as white-female-targeted films, primarily involving white-female characters, topics, and interests.

As the genre developed, there was repetitiveness in the plot and characters of these productions. “Chick flicks” often began with single characters, who soon after unexpectedly meeting a suitable and charming significant other, their lives took a turn for the better.

The first productions of this genre were not initially labeled as “chick flicks”; they were just known as “Girly Films”. “What sets it apart from other films geared towards a female is its focus on consumer culture.”. Iconic films of the genre such as Clueless (1995), The Princess Diaries (2001), and Mean Girls (2004) act as evidence of such. In all of them, buying feminine clothes, makeup, or shoes is portrayed as a large part of women’s identities. Women are often portrayed as overly emotional and dependent on men; reinforcing patriarchal societal expectations that women should prioritize finding a romantic partner and getting married. These expectations can be interpreted from movies such as He’s Just Not That Into You (2009) and The Notebook (2004).

Many believe that the content of this genre in the industry is more inclusive than discriminating. Different varieties of the female protagonist and plot themes are being noted more often. The representation of women in noticeable male-dominated professions and/or positions is seen in films such as Legally Blonde (2001) and The Proposal (2009). There is a broadening of topics the films portray in films such as The Edge of Seventeen (2016) which “explores themes such as loss, grief, and depression, but in a dry, humorous and cutting fashion.”. These films have become a vehicle for other issues in our present society including homophobia and women’s rights. This can be seen in films including, but not limited to Love, Simon (2018) and Lady Bird (2017). The industry has evolved the genre from solely portraying soapy romance stories to a focus on more realistic hardships.

There is not doubt that “chick flicks” are misunderstood as simply appealing for audiences of the teen girl persuasion, and not a serious contender for awards and recognitions. Sex and the City (1998-2004) – a “chick flick” series – was nominated for 54 Emmy Awards, 24 Golden Globe Awards, 11 Screen Actors Guild Awards, 10 Directors Guild of America Awards, 7 Satellite Awards, and 4 Producers Guild of America Awards. Additional greatly successful “chick flicks” in the box office are Love Actually (2003), Notting Hill (1999), and Mamma Mia (2008).

Critique of the Genre
The term chick flick has generated several negative responses from the modern feminist community. The word chick at the height of the women's liberation movement in the 1970s was considered an insult directed towards women. “Chick,” was used to demean women, casting them as childlike, delicate, fluffy creatures in need of protection from men. The affiliation of chick, with chick-flicks has resulted in an immediate negative response to many women and feminists.

Chick-flicks are stuck with many negative stereotypes where women are typically portrayed with women who are klutzy, sassy, airheaded, etc. When a movie is branded with the title of ‘chick-flick,’ for many it diminishes the credibility of a film, inherently saying that the movie is cheesy, predictable and has a poor plot. This labeling is specifically seen with movies that have subject matters that revolve around women, often reinforcing the idea that themes surrounding women in movies should not be taken seriously. Most criticisms of the genre concentrate on the negative consequences that arise from gendering certain interests, in this case, film. Author of ''The Chick Flick Paradox: Derogatory? Feminist? or Both?'' Natalia Thompson states chick flicks are "an attempt to lump together an entire gender's interests into one genre."

Many critics argue that unnecessary gendering can negatively affect many different social groups. There is evidence from Russian social scientist Natal'ia Rimashevskaia that gender stereotypes further perpetuated by the media can lead to discrimination against women and limit their "human and intellectual potential." More criticisms of the term arise from the actual content of the films in the chick flick genre and how the content affects society's perception of women. Some say that chick flicks are micro-aggressions actions or exchanges that degrade a person based on their membership in a "race, gender, age, and ability."

Film critics take issue with the content most chick flicks have in common. Although the subcategories represent different plotlines, they all share several characteristics. Many chick flicks can have the "ironic, self-deprecating tone" that film theorist Hilary Radner associates with chick lit. This tone is one of the genre's defining characteristics, and she argues many feel it lacks substance compared to other genres. She says they follow “a set of narrative tropes,” which can be seen as “repeated film to film.”  Radner also goes on to say the genre is "incredibly heteronormative and white-washed." These common characteristics of the genre can lead to criticism from minority groups and social justice activists. It is often visible through the films and their tendency to use typecasting for their roles; because of this, actors such as Reece Witherspoon, Cameron Diaz, Seth Rogan, and Sam Claflin fall into the category of “white-washing” the film. More issues with the genre emerge from the opinion that chick flicks play to every woman's "patriarchal unconscious." Radner furthers that claim by saying that it “constitutes a very attractive–and hence often exploited–version of feminine identity."

Some argue against the criticism of chick flicks. Researcher Sarah-Mai Dang acknowledges that the films can be “criticized as threatening backlash to the achievements to feminism”, however, she contends that they can be celebrated for their representation of female freedom. Dang further proclaims that it gives space for the female voice to be present or heard in contemporary work like chick flicks.

Diversity of the Genre
Chick-flicks are often also lumped in with the genre of romantic comedies. This narrows what can or cannot be considered a chick-flick, with many people believing that for a film to be considered a chick-flick it must have romance and comedy. There are key differences in how a romantic comedy v.s. a chick-flick is marketed. A romantic comedy is often produced/marketed with men in mind. However, a chick-flick is “a motion picture intended to appeal especially to women.”

More recently, women have been wondering why is it that romance is the only thing that is marketed to women, when in fact there are many other themes, topics and issues women could relate to? Due to there not being a “dude-flick” category, many individuals are not asking if there is a need to associate a movie genre to women, and then make them feel guilty for liking it. Others argue that chick-flicks have been a continuation of the “chick cultural explosion,” which reflected and promoted the new visibility of women in popular culture. Instead, chick-flicks were grouped with the product of chick culture and the deliberate decision to address female audiences, meaning that womens significance in contemporary culture was increasing.

The typical narrative in a chick-flick of falling in love has now been adapted, and instead there has been an upward trend of including a greater representation of women in chick-flicks. Women who instead focus on their professional life, women who reject beauty standards and feminist themes have all been seen in more recent chick flicks. There have also been chick flicks that aim to raise questions about the many choices women must confront such as the possibility of having it all, and the different effects of beauty standards in films such as Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001), The Princess Diaries (2001), and In Her Shoes (2005).

There has been little to no emphasis on including individuals from ethnic/racial minorities in chick-flicks. If an individual who is an ethnic/racial minority is cast as a lead role, their co-star will usually not be an ethnic minority. In the movie Hitch where Will Smith was cast as the main male lead, and Eva Mendes was cast as the female lead was a deliberate decision. A black or white woman was not cast in the role, as Will Smith believed that a black couple would have put off audiences worldwide while a interracial couple with a black male lead and white female lead would have offended viewers in the U.S. Casting Eva Mendes was seen as a solution because a Latina female lead and a black male lead was not considered taboo in the U.S. We see this type of casting with many different chick-flicks such as Upgraded (2024) having a Latina female lead and an English male lead. This is an ongoing issue that raises questions about racism and issues of ethnic minority inclusion in the film industry, with much progressing needing to be made in showcases people from ethnic minorities and displating LGBTQ+ relationships.