(Honest Title) Why Men Don’t Like Chick Flicks

Nov 1
22:00

2004

Martin Winer

Martin Winer

  • Share this article on Facebook
  • Share this article on Twitter
  • Share this article on Linkedin

(Honest Title) Why Men Don’t Like Chick Flicks (For those ... minded) Why Men Don’t Like Female Centric Films (For those with a penchant for ... Why Men Don’t like Baby Bird Films A Cas

mediaimage

(Honest Title) Why Men Don’t Like Chick Flicks
(For those politically minded) Why Men Don’t Like
Female Centric Films
(For those with a penchant for subtlety) Why Men Don’t
like Baby Bird Films
A Case Study : ‘Notting Hill’
-- Martin C. Winer --

1) Plot inconsistencies.
The plot in all female centric movies seems to center around prolonging a
certain romantic uncertainty. This is usually done at the expense of logic.
There are two good examples of this in Notting Hill:
i)
William (Hugh Grant) goes out in the morning to find a frenzy of Paparazzi
outside his door. He knows this will upset his actress girlfriend Anna
(Julia Roberts) but only mentions “don’t ask” when she asks him what’s going
on outside. He lets her walk outside and be confronted by the same
Paparazzi. This,(Honest Title) Why Men Don’t Like Chick Flicks Articles of course, upsets Anna who wrongly accuses him of
summoning the Paparazzi and causes a ‘break up’. This, in turn, provides
Hugh Grant a grand opportunity to apologize (despite his innocence), setting
the female audience swooning and the male audience hurling.
ii)
William goes on a movie set where Anna is being filmed where she greets
him warmly and intimates that she’d consider getting back together.
Unfortunately, she’s just in the middle of a shoot so she walks off to film
a scene and William is provided with a headset to hear what is going on
unbeknownst to Anna. While casually preparing for the scene, a fellow actor
asks Anna: “Who was that rather difficult chap (referring to Grant) you were
talking to on the way up?” Anna replies: “Oh... no one... no one. Just
some... guy from the past. I don't know what he's doing here. Bit of an
awkward situation.” Grant reacts negatively and leaves.
When Grant asks her later as to why she would say such a thing, she
dismisses it as: “You expect me to tell the truth about my life to the most
indiscreet man in England?” This is an example of terrible writing where
the writers dig themselves out of a whole by floating to the top in syrup.
Why didn’t she just answer the fellow actor with “He’s a friend” and leave
it at that? Why does Grant have to put up with such behaviour and accept
such lame excuses? Of course, in tradition with all Grant films, he accepts
the explanation and leads up to:
2) The grand apology.
It seems a new trend in the effeminized America to have the leading male
prancing around apologizing. In every Grant movie there is a huge apology
where he apologizes to some horribly behaved woman to get her love.
Watching Grant wince his eyes and beg forgiveness having committed no wrong,
aside from his selection in screenplays, is like fingernails on the
chalkboard for the male audience. Ross (from Friends) and Grant (in every
movie) always apologize for no apparent reason, and in fact, often apologize
for not apologizing. Perhaps the only real apology in such films should be
an on screen cameo by the screenplay writers apologizing for overly syrupy
content.
Looking at the movie script: http://www.juliaroberts.de/script2.htm, Men
apologize some 23 times compared to 8 times for their female counterparts.
The male lead Grant apologizes some 12 times, compared to Julia Roberts
apologizing a mere 3 times. Somewhere around the 10th apology, women in the
audience are becoming enraptured while their male counterparts are wondering
when the next episode in the Star Wars saga will premier so they can watch a
movie where men can proudly wield their light sabers and offer no apology in
so doing.

Also From This Author

Reconciling Biblical Numbers:  Three Million at Sinai is making a Mountain out of a Molehill

Reconciling Biblical Numbers: Three Million at Sinai is making a Mountain out of a Molehill

Imagine a historian 500 years from now constructs the following proof. “The culture of 1960’s widely accepted homosexual activities. Evidence can be found in the theme song of a popular cartoon of the era, ‘The Flintstones’. This is a cartoon involving the implied homosexual activities between the two male lead characters Barney and Fred with no visible objections of their wives which they mutually took for procreation. The theme song ends: ‘we’ll have a yabadoo time… we’ll have a gay old time.’[1] Clearly, this open admission was made in front of millions of watching viewers and there is no archeological record of a single objection to their categorization as being gay.” Do you accept this method of proof to be valid?
Intelligent Design:  If A Tree Falls In The Forest, It Does Not Land In A Science Classroom

Intelligent Design: If A Tree Falls In The Forest, It Does Not Land In A Science Classroom

There has been a lot of controversy regarding the proposed integration of ‘Intelligent Design’ into current biology curriculum. Intelligent Design is the hypothesis that all life on Earth was created and designed by an intelligent designer. Subsumed by this hypothesis, although not clearly stated, is that most proponents of Intelligent Design believe the intelligent designer to be the most intelligent designer, namely God. It is proposed that in the name of impartiality, Intelligent Design be taught along side Darwinian Evolution in biology classes.
Kierkegaard, Don Giovanni, and the Messiah

Kierkegaard, Don Giovanni, and the Messiah

“If you marry, you will regret it; if you do not marry, you will also regret it; if you marry or do not marry, you will regret both; whether you marry or do not marry, you will regret both.”-- Soren Kierkegaard.Soren Kierkegaard was a tremendous fan of Don Giovanni (aka Don Juan). Kierkegaard pined in regret over his broken engagement with Regine Olsen. He feared that once she saw the rottenness and evil within him, that she would no longer be able to love him. Many of his earlier works were works dealing with faith and coming to grips with his decision not to marry her. Such a person would be interested in the character of Don Giovanni who slept with thousands of women in fear that no one woman would ever love him. Both Kierkegaard and Don Giovanni had a fundamental lack of faith: Not a lack of faith in God, but a lack of faith in humanity. We’ll soon see that the two are related however.