The Aussies Get it: Women Want Sistahood Onscreen

Interesting piece from the Age in Australia on the opening of The Women.

There were women who cried when they watched the Sex and the City movie, and it wasn't because they couldn't afford the shoes. These same women probably flocked to see Mamma Mia!, which The New York Times called "the worst performance of Meryl Streep's career" and yet, simultaneously, gave it a positive review. (They likened it to getting drunk on cheap cocktails.) All of these women will again probably go see The Women because, hey - they're mentioned in the very title! They want to see a movie about sistahood.

They've been dubbed GFFs - girl friend flicks - and it's evident that girrrl power has never been so strong in the cinema.

I kind like this term way better than chick flick.

Quote from Diane English

"The old ideas that females have to be rivals and there's only room enough in this town for one of us - that is very old-fashioned, and it's kind of disappeared over the years as women have begun to embrace each other and form networks and comfort each other when there's a divorce or a bad breakup, and just really be there for each other and appreciate each other. I think those kinds of friendships are something very special to women, to being female. I don't think men really have those kinds of friendships as strongly as women do, so it makes sense that that is going to make its way on to the screen."

And now The Women, a remake of the 1939 cult classic that starred Joan Crawford, Rosalind Russell and Norma Shearer...But, like its recent predecessors, it's really about the power of a girl gang.

I think it's kind of interesting that all these films were framed in this story about women's friendship. So many of the US stories never even touched on that, or if they did it was done it was done in a negative, catty way.
Giving women the flick (The Age)

Top Girls Seen Through the Prism of Sex and the City

I admit that I haven't seen the revival of feminist playwright Caryl Churchill's 1982 drama Top Girls now playing at the Biltmore Theatre under the auspices of the Manhattan Theatre Club. The reviews have been fantastic, but it was virtually ignored at the Tonys (with one nomination for Martha Plimpton). In The NY Times this weekend, Charles Isherwood (not necessarily know for his great writing about women) discussed Top Girls in the context of Sex and the City.

What's interesting is that while high brow critics on the one hand berate the low art of Sex and the City, they also validate its success precisely because the conversation about Top Girls and its cultural implications would not be happening had Sex and the City not been the success it is. Sex and the City is a change making movie. It has changed the conversation about women and film and now its spilled into theatre. Mr. Isherwood begins his article talking about Top Girls but ends it with question about women and films.

Hollywood movies, on the other hand, have all but abandoned women’s experience as a fertile subject for entertainment. The relentless pursuit of adolescent boys of all ages seems to have taken over almost completely. I look back with nostalgia at the wealth of women who had major film careers in the 1970s and ’80s: Jane Fonda and Sissy Spacek, Barbra Streisand and Jessica Lange, Diane Keaton and Meryl Streep and Bette Midler.

Now it seems that a superb central role for a woman — as opposed to the girlfriend-foil roles taken by the ingénues of the moment, like Anne Hathaway or Katherine Heigl — comes along once a year. Increasingly they seem to be given, as if by rights, to the rangy Ms. Streep, who stars in the forthcoming film versions of “Mamma Mia!” and “Doubt.” (Both of those, incidentally, or perhaps not so incidentally, are based on stage properties.)

“Sex and the City” at least gave women’s lives, however romanticized, a foothold at the multiplex. The superb foursome of actresses who star in the film were the top girls at the box office for a glittering, attention-getting moment, relegating even Indiana Jones — still swashbuckling into his dotage, apparently — to second place.

Glass Ceiling, Meet Sisterhood (NY Times)
(photo: Aubrey Reuben)

Feminists Write About Sex and the City

It's been a bit lonely out here. (I know that everyone and their sister has written about Sex and the City, but not too many from a feminist perspective. Here are some other opinions.

Amanda Marcotte aka Pandagon writing in Alternet

All these attacks on “Sex and the City” in light of the movie that has come out---mostly from people who probably never watched a minute of the show---are sexist. And they’re a particularly insidious form of sexism, one that feminists are prone to falling for, which suggests that women don’t deserve respect unless they distance themselves from unserious things.

But the worst is the assumption that because it’s about four women and it’s funny and it’s about sex and there’s expensive clothes, then it is by definition stupid. Why? Because it’s feminine, admit it.

And that’s why, as I’ve said before, the show is a fantasy for a lot of fans who don’t have that opportunity to live, well, like men get to. And that’s why the show is such a sore spot in our country, because it put a friendly face on that demonized woman, the independent woman. There’s not a lot of room for independent women still in the Hollywood machine. Movies like “Knocked Up” can push the envelope of raunchy humor, but still play it very safe and deny the threatening idea that a woman (gasp!) might not want to be tied down to just any random dude who asks. The Sexual Politics of Sex and the City

Sarah Seltzer on RH Reality Check

SATC allows its characters to feel the omnipresent judgments and conflicts in women's lives, and feel them deeply, in a way that resonates with truths about modern womanhood. But then, as the arc or episode draws to an end, the four characters always accept each other. That kind of unassailable sisterhood is a feminist ideal, even when accented by silly designer shoes.

Let's hope that the triumph of this film, combined with that of Juno, means that there will more smart movies for women. But more importantly, let's hope that it gives Sex and the City II, and other movies of its ilk, license to be more risky, to be more real, and to include racial diversity that's more than just a gesture. Sex And The City: Eww It's For Girls!

Anita Diamant in the Boston Globe

Ah friendship; the love that dare not speak its name. I speak of women's friendship, a thing nearly invisible in popular culture where women seem to operate in a near-friendless vacuum. Friends and the city

Judith Warner on the NY Times website

“Sex and the City” is the perfect movie for our allegedly ever-so-promising post-feminist era, when “angry” is out and Restalyne is in, and virtually all our country’s most powerful women look younger now than they did 20 years ago. Woman in Charge, Women Who Charge

Paula Kamen on Women in Media and News

But the reviews have gone above and beyond just criticizing the movie to being very defensive about the characters’ sexuality, to the point of exhibiting a strange hostility. New Yorker hostility beyond being ‘just not that into’ SATC

Sarah Jessica Parker on The View

Last Friday Sarah Jessica Parker went to The View to talk about Sex and the City. Some high points:

I had an instinct that the time was right. There were no numbers to look at because there are no films with women over 40 to look at.

What this hopefully means is that we have put a white hot spotlight in the fact that half the population of this country are women and they want to go to the movies and they want to see a story that is well told.

She also said that 41% of the audience had not been to the movies in two months. Duh, what would they have seen? It's a desert out there.

Sex and the City Aftermath: Will it Save The Women?

Looks like The Women, a movie that nobody would touch or even talk about for months is getting a new lease of life in the wake of Sex and the City's success.

Hooray. Can't say anything about the film cause I haven't seen it, but all I know is that it has a prime release date of Columbus Day weekend for months and then when Picturehouse (the distributor) got sucked into Warner Brothers (aka the studio that hates women) it looked like The Women was going to be dumped into a small release on September 12th. This 15 year in the making labor of love for Diane English was made for the paltry $16.5 million and stars some serious women including: Annette Bening, Meg Ryan, Jada Pinkett Smith, Debra Messing, Eva Mendes, Bette Midler and Candice Bergen.

Here's what a Warner Exec said to Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood: "We should give it another look."

Take a look at the trailer for yourself (this is the best quality trailer I could find). Seems kind of funny to me.



Do you think it will do better in the wake of Sex and the City? Will the hungry women's audience come out again?

PS- Sex and the City took in $5.5 at the box office on Monday making it the best non-holiday Monday of the year after Iron Man. News flash to Hollywood, women do go to the movies during the week. I'm excited to see how the rest of the week goes. Between the domestic numbers and the $37.5 its taken in overseas it it almost at $100 million and that's in less than a week of release worldwide. Incredible.

Final Thoughts on Sex and the City

Hollywood has a very short memory and it's Tuesday now and Sex and the City is in the rear view mirror as two more typical summer entries prepare to bombard the theatres this weekend -- Adam Sandler's Don't Mess with the Zohan and the animated Kung Fu Panda. Neither one of those films interests me in the least.

But what was unprecedented, as I've said before, is that for a short time Hollywood shuddered and paused to think about women.

I'm not naive to believe that a film that was built around an event, was marketed brilliantly, and played up all the materialism and issues we are all nervous about in this recession, will change a mentality that has been dismissive at best and at most times down right antagonistic to women -- especially those of us who dare to age.

I'm impressed that a movie starring four women who actually have lines on their faces were embraced by women across the country and the world -- overseas the film made $37.2 million since last week-- in such large numbers.

I think the point is that something larger is happening and this movie didn't cause it, it just reflects it. Whether or not you are a Hillary Clinton fan there is a gender conversation happening in this country, and women (especially those white and over 60) are angry. Did the fact that we are living in a highly gendered moment help drive women to the box office? I don't pretend to know the answer to that. All I know is that the last few months women have been talking about things and letting anger show (see all the Hillary Clinton articles) that was just whispered about before.

Sex and the City as a film is not groundbreaking. It's really a typical chick flick -- a film with some feminist messages but with pretty clothes and a happy ending. It fits perfectly into the chick flick genre in this "post-feminist" world.

But think about it, over the last several months women have been surprising Hollywood and this weekend is just further confirmation of that fact. Remember Juno? Changemaking movie. About a girl, written by a woman and embraced by everyone. Remember 27 Dresses? Opened to $23 million on a dreaded January weekend and has raked in over $155 million both foreign and domestic for a film that cost $30 million. How about Baby Mama? Opened at $17 million and has raked in $56 million since April 25. Does anyone remember these successes?

The big question that looms is, will the success of this film (which was the largest opening for a film that starred a woman beating Angelina Jolie's breast cones in Tomb Raider by almost $10 million) mean anything when other successes over the last years (The Devil Wears Prada, Something's Gotta Give- god I hate that we keep having to repeat those two films because THERE ARE NO OTHERS TO NAME) have done nothing to create more opportunities for women onscreen.

Again, I reached out to others for their thoughts as to whether anything might change and here are some of the highlights (names appear after the quote.)

The film is striking a chord. My feeling is that we'll be seeing many more iconic tv series, whose runs have ended, brought to the screen, like FRIENDS. Just a hunch I have. Good news though, in that no one in the industry predicted this kind of box office. After THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA and this film, I have a feeling we'll be seeing many more women's films set in the NYC fashion world. My daughter and her friends aren't label conscious at all, but still like PROJECT RUNWAY. Go figure??!!

-- Gale Ann Hurd, Hollywood producer of Aeon Flux, The Terminator films and this summer's The Hulk among many other films

I predict that there will be more Sex and the City movies but very few other changes in what types of movies Hollywood makes. I fully expect studio execs to explain away this weekend by saying the only way to get women to the box office is to have a tv show promote the movie for ten years before the movie gets made. The thing is they aren't interested in making movies for women because a) most of the heads of studios are men and b) the only thing those men assume other men (the only people who go to movies) find interesting about women is whether or not we are going to sleep with them.

Who we are, what we are curious about, what we are interested in just terrifies them. And now that we've proven that a movie that practically no men went to see can make 60 million in it's opening weekend, they're even more terrified. Because if they admit the truth, you don't need men to open a movie, then Hollywood would actually have to change. They might, for instance, have to hire a few more women and they certainly don’t want to do that.

-- Hollywood TV and screenwriter and woman who loves movies but hardly ever goes anymore

What "Sex and the City" teaches us is that it is unwise to ever underestimate the clout and power of women when it comes to the box-office. However, a film like this does not come along every week and any attempt to emulate or replicate this success, will be difficult. "Sex and the City" is a cultural phenomenon that combined well-rounded and truly distinctive characters with stories and situations that truly resonated with female audiences. Carrie Bradshaw and Co. gave women their very own "Indiana Jones" or "Star Wars"-style blockbuster. Can a "Sex and the City 2" announcement be far behind?

Paul Dergarabedian, President, Media By Numbers

The box office success of Sex and the City PROVES that there is a female movie-going audience out there with massive buying power that will come to the movies if stories are offered that relate to their experience -- Hollywood could make a windfall if they spent as much time developing and crafting movies about women as they do with the latest dude-centered comedy or comic book extravaganza. I'm sure studio executives will dismiss the box office as being solely based on Sex and the City's television run, but that just goes to show that female brands can do as well when properly exploited -- after all Spiderman and Ironman and Indian Jones are all pre-sold brands as well. Women have been ignored at the box-office for too long -- I'm hoping the studios will get off their asses and greenlight a slate of movies that will actually address the half the human population that is dismissed each week.

-- Angela Robinson, director, Debs and Herbie Fully Loaded

I think we need to be really careful about throwing out charges of "sexism" or "misogyny" when it comes to critique of this film's quality or skepticism/caution about What it All Means for the future of the industry. I think it's true that if you give women something they want to see, they will pay to see it. Nevertheless, in a world of niche demographics, I think lumping every female moviegoer in the country in the same bucket will prove, going forward, to be dangerously reductive. That's the lesson here––if we can agree that this same film wouldn't have had nearly the impact if it was "just" a 2.5 hour dramedy about women in their 40s and not an event pulling on a powerful nostalgia within the culture, then we should be able to agree that this success is more about branding than gender. If anyone can find another brand that means this much to this many women, maybe it'll translate into an equivalent hit. (America's Next Top Model: The Movie, perhaps? I'm not being totally facetious––that shit is huge.)

-- Karina Longworth, Spoutblog

Is this popularity founded on the perception of the group - as women are very big on being social, on connecting, and having girl friend getaways, or coffee klatches, etc. Now, I connect online, to hundreds of women, rather than a few good friends locally. It's the connection, and the women of Sex and the City have it.

Another thing I wonder, that Hollywood should be paying attention to, is that women (and not a few men, I think) love that personal touch. That face2face thing. While we are all prominent in social media, we hunger for the face2face connection. Sex and the City is proving that women go to the movies too, and they aren't shy about doing it in groups. The whole "me and my girl friends are going to see Sex and the City" thing was really big... it harkens back to a day when women were comfortable out with each other, "manless" if you will. The movie really did expose (in a good way) women's thoughts, feelings, and dreams...much better than some other movies, like Thelma and Louise - two women who were supposed to be strong and smart, but were dumb and weak (hence, they ended up driving off a cliff...the only ending that movie could have because, after all, wicked women like that do not belong in society, right?)

I hope we can see our way to recognizing the power of the purse -- to drive ALL sales in the U.S. Even movie sales. The worry is that women in Hollywood are not in positions of power. They still have to convince a man that their idea is worthy. If another movie like Sex and the City is pitched, it could be a hard sell. Despite the box office results. Men just don't want women intruding on their turf. Sad, but true.

-- Yvonne DiVita, marketingtowomenonline.com

What they can learn is that women are a valuable demographic, like it or not. While some of us don't feel like we're included in that group - I hate most Kate Hudson movies, for instance - when it's this massive, it's worth paying attention to.

The tribal movies with women, like The First Wives Club or Steel Magnolias seem to do better with audiences than films about singular women on a journey. Why is this? Probably because women aren't likely to shell out their hard earned dough liberally; it has to be something with a marginal payoff. If they know they're going to laugh and have a decent enough time they will probably rush out to see the film. If it's just one woman and they don't like the woman, they won't go. This is what explains the popularity of Meg Ryan and Julia Roberts way back when: they were women most women liked, as well as men. Now, these seem to be divided. I blame this on the current trend of catering to the target demographic.

I think the youth/gossip culture has done serious damage to women 40 and above. In the useless battle to stay young the benefits of aging are lost. Producers should take note, actresses should take note - there is still a market for stories about women with flaws. Sarah Jessica Parker has liver spots and man hands. She has had no work done. Cynthia Nixon is a woman who would never be cast as a sexy female lead in a Hollywood film were it not for the popularity of Sex and the City. Better Midler, Barbra Streisand, Whoopi Goldberg have been proving for years that flawed females sell yet there is constant pressure put on actresses like Nicole Kidman to be thin and wrinkle-free and most of all, young looking or else face not getting any good parts.

The point is that perfection doesn't sell nearly as well. This weekend proved that when women want to see a movie they don't have to ask mom and dad for the money; they just need to get out their debit card.

Is Sex and the City a good movie? Not really. But neither was the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull or just about any other money maker this year. What else is new? What's new is that women's films, without crossover appeal for little boys, can stand perfectly well on its own.

-- Sasha Stone -- Awards Daily

Will Mamma Mia! and The Women do as well? Unlikely. Sex and the City is an established popular brand. There was an appetite for this movie. But Hollywood regularly underestimates the power of the female audience, and thus tends to starve them. Maybe the studios will wake up and take notice.

Anne Thompson Thompson on Hollywood(from a posting)

A 20 MILLION Dollar Day for Sex and the City

Besting all the Hollywood projections, Sex and the City is poised to rake in $20 million today, the most money ever made for a romantic comedy on opening day. Just to give you a sense of how good it is, The Devil Wears Prada made a little under $10 million on its opening day for a total of a little over $27 million for the weekend. In an even more shocking turn, some people are saying that is could BEAT Indiana Jones for the weekend crown.

But these girls just can't catch a break to enjoy one minute of success before the Hollywood nasties make it clear that no matter how successful a weekend it has, it just doesn't matter. Brandon Gray of Box Office Mojo said to Reuters: "Because the marketing is preaching to the converted, one wonders whether it will have legs beyond the opening." Legs beyond opening? Isn't Hollywood only fixated on opening weekend? It's the reality nowadays that most movies have huge hype, big opening weekends, and then drop off at least 50% or more on the second weekend. I for one believe that while women turned out in force for the opening, there will still be others who will go next weekend after the crowds abate.

So the double standard rears its ugly head and the rules for success get changed again. Why is it so hard to accept that a film for women could be successful?

Others have said that the box office will drop off after Friday's opening. I don't think so. Fandango is reporting that it was selling tickets 7 tickets per SECOND on Friday and more than 1,000 showings are expected to sell out over the weekend. I had a report from LA that a midday screening was sold out and women were taking pictures of each at the theatre. A report came in from Columbus, Ohio that a midnight screening last night was sold out, and I stopped by a theatre in Brooklyn, NY tonight and it was packed with a diverse group of women (and some men) and there was a lot of laughter during the film and a huge round of applause at the end.

Here's another brilliant comment from a studio marketing exec as told to Deadline Hollywood "This is the wildest, most abnormal, movie of all time," Nice. I really find it hard to believe that this movie about four women looking for love is the wildest, most abnormal movie of all time. Come on. More horse manure. Is this film wilder than say pirates looking for treasure in the Caribbean in a ship of ghosts? Or a young man who gets bitten by a spider and develops powers to crawl and fly across the sky on spider webs to save people? Maybe the person means abnormal because the film stars women and not special effects or a comic book character. I find that comment truly offensive.

But just when I start to feel down, the good news is that this blog is starting to get around in a big way and we (all of us and thanks you commenters) are we are all injecting some new and different thoughts into a much needed conversation. I want to give a shout out to Simon Vozick-Levinson over at EW for following up on my story early this week and asking the question: Is there a double standard for 'Sex and the City'?

Huffington Post columnist Melissa Silverstein wrote a great column about this yesterday. Last year's Wild Hogs, she noted, was correctly seen as mass-appeal entertainment for moviegoers of all genders, even though it was all about four aging guys. And do you remember anyone ever wringing their hands over whether traditionally "male" action flicks like Transformers could get women into multiplexes?

Defamer also gives us a mention in its weekend box office roundup: We've heard Sex and the City referred to as everything from a "women's cultural moment" (that's me) to "plow donkeys wearing lipstick," (not me) a fantastically diverse spectrum of hype that reflects a true phenomenon — if not necessarily guaranteeing a box-office windfall.

More to come

A Women's Cultural Moment

Whatever your thoughts are on the actual content of Sex and the City, as a follower of movies about women I can't help but acknowledge that this is a cultural watershed moment for women's films for a couple of reasons.

1. Everyone (who talks about movies) has spent the last couple of weeks talking about a film that stars and celebrates women and women's friendships. Indiana Jones is so yesterday's news one week after being released after an almost 20 YEAR WAIT!
2. Everyone (who talks about movies) is scratching their heads trying to figure out how much money an R rated movie targeted at adult women can make. Imagine women preoccupying the minds of Hollywood's men.
3. The male misogynists in the film blogosphere have outed themselves in a big way with their extreme nastiness about the film with one actually calling the film a Taliban recruitment film.
4. This film has sold out almost 800 shows for this weekend.
   

Harry Medved of Fandango has been watching these screenings sellout all week and told me:

"It's unusual for a female driven movie to inspire so much fan anticipation. You would usually associate sold out shows with a comic book movie or a sequel to a summer tentpole. Clearly there is an audience for adult female driven pictures and many observers are hoping that Hollywood will make more of them. We haven't seen anything like this before.

I am tired of hearing myself talk about this so I asked women who work in a variety of areas of the business (writers, bloggers, producers, directors and many others) to comment on this moment and what it might mean for the future for films about women. (Some of the women chose to be anonymous to protect themselves and their jobs.)

Here are the questions I posed:

• If it's a success do you think that this will change Hollywood minds about whether women can "open" movies?
• If it doesn't do the predicted numbers, do you think this will spell more difficulties for women centric films?
• Do you think that because this is an "event" that other films about women will be held up to an unrealistic standard?
• Do you think there is a double standard for this film?
• Are you surprised by the nasty tone that some of the media has taken on this week?
  

The answers (some answered the questions, other gave their general thoughts- names appear AFTER the quotes):

I think that the discussion about whether women can open movies is multi-faceted and has little to do with this one film. It has as much to to, generally, with the scripts that are out there with strong female lead roles, and the gender role Hollywood, and, by extension, the movie-going public, expect women to play. Bottom line: Hollywood, and a big chunk of those who spend their dollars at the box office, still prefer to see women in supporting roles. The Queen, which had one of the best female lead roles in recent history, did just over $56 million domestically, and that was largely on the coattails of an Oscar push and savvy marketing. Men don't go to see an Angelina Jolie film because they're interested in her strong portrayal of a female character; if they did, A Mighty Heart wouldn't have tanked. They go to see Angelina Jolie because she's hot. Sadly, I don't see that changing anytime soon.

The paradox is, that yes, if the movie doesn't hit the expected numbers, male Hollywood will latch onto that as further proof of women's inability to open at the box office. But don't expect the reverse to be true.

I think other films about women are already held to an unrealistic standard, and this won't change that one way or the other. JUNO was an anomaly because it appealed to a broader cross-section, especially the teen market. But generally, a film about women has to have a driving component that males are interested in, ala KNOCKED UP, to reach that market and those dollars. Really, it's largely about the differences between men and women on a societal gender level. Women talk about their feelings, and women's films tend to be talky and to deal with issues men either don't care about, or don't care to face. Infidelity, unplanned pregnancy, relationships -- unless it's couched in a comedic element or shit being blown up, men just don't want to see that.

After the way Diablo Cody was attacked on the male-dominated sites? Not hardly.

Kim Voynar, Managing Editor, Cinematical

Of course I want the film to open HUGE this weekend, but the hoopla has really disturbed me in that it seems to celebrate everything we so need to get beyond. I feel the whole sales pitch for this movie has been to use women to sell what they're always expected to sell -- clothes, accessories, sex, neediness.

Believe me, I love these women in their (almost) diversity, but I feel that even if it's a huge success, it will be because it's an event and NOT really a movie and if it falls short it will be all our fault.

NO one will be willing to objectively respect the grosses for perhaps reflecting the actual appeal or worthiness of the movie.

And by the way, can we do SOMETHING about that horrific label "chick flick". Besides being demeaning, it is also dismissive, undignified, and disgusting. And you can certainly quote me on that.

And women shouldn't dignify the work by using it at all. --

Rosilyn Heller, producer, Trade

I think that Sex and the City will do well, and that it really should be another example of the obvious, that if films are made that really speak to women, women will come out and see the films.

Obviously, because of the success of the TV show, this is an "event" film. But the TV show was successful because it spoke to women.

Unfortunately, the Hollywood money machine seems to always find a way to dismiss successful women's films as anomalies, and I fear that will happen with Sex and the City as well.

But one hopes that slowly it will become clear that films that have meaningful women characters and themes that are important to women are often very successful.

Terry Lawler, Executive Director, New York Women in Film and TV

When women open movies anymore no one in the press seems to pay much attention. When Tina Fey and Amy Pohler opened Baby Mama it was just kind of glossed over. I think that if the film opens well they might consider the female demographic slightly more worthy of catering to, much they like they must begrudgingly admit that African-American audiences can really rake in the bucks.

It's possible. They have more than just being female, though, to contend with - they also are over 40 and not the kind of women the target demographic necessarily lusts after. This is why many of the male-dominated film sites aren't giving much attention to the film other than to bray about how unattractive the women are. If it doesn't make money it will confirm the worst - that even a movie version of a popular TV series can't overcome the general reluctance by audiences to watch films that are about women.

The event part is what is going to bring in the numbers.

Only in as much that there are so many movies about men who fumble through life and have dating and career woes. No one says a thing. What people seem to be responding to in a negative way is the "sex" part. There is something odd and intimidating about older women on the prowl. It was okay on TV, and they were a lot younger. Male viewers have been trained to respond only to hot, young things -- at least here in America that's true. It doesn't seem to be as true in Europe. The other thing is that there is a sense that these women are just collecting a paycheck and thus, they're to be disregarded as anything other than desperate money-grubbers.

Surprised and not surprised. Many of the fanboy movie coverage sites are so sexist they're intolerable. It is no wonder that the main criticisms of the film had to do with the way the women looked. On the flipside, women who write about film probably don't really want to be known as women so much as writers who accurately report on the industry.

Sasha Stone, Awards Daily

I think Hollywood will spin it as a chick flick. Not as proof that women can "open" movies. Pessimistic? Yes. Realistic? Probably also yes.

Until Hollywood reflects more women across the board, as executives, directors, producers, writers, vfx supervisors, production designers, etc. and I'm talking MUCH more than presently, I doubt it will be any different. I haven't seen evidence of ability to rise above the 13year old male as a common denominator in my many years here. I'm very sad to say this, but it's what I've seen.

I think anything can and will be used against making movies that aren't (easily and universally - read young male demographic) saleable. Or simply that the arguer doesn't like/want to make. Personal preferences play strong roles but more than anything, Money talks in Hollywood, especially since Hollywood now has to justify itself more and more to corporate America. Studios in particular are weaker than ever given the state of the business. Independent investors and alternate funding sources are the ones to watch in terms of innovation whether it be regarding women or minorities of any flavor. Or anything remotely alternative really.

I'm not sure about double standards actually, but I would not be surprised at any nasty tones thought I'm not sure which ones you're talking about. it is a chick flick, is it not? "chick lit" being an easy way to diminish women writers (not to mention the possible universality of female experience) across the board categorically, why not wield the same sort of weapon against potential film in-roads as well...I'm bitter, it's true.

Of course I only read variety a bit and the nytimes and latimes reviews, of which the nyt was dreck I thought the latimes article was nicely even handed, taking the good and bad into account and weighing it thoughtfully...bad girl Manohla!

VFX Supervisor

All I can really say is that although I may be one member of the media who has taken on a "nasty tone" in regards to SatC (and not just this week, but for the past two months since New Line started seriously inundating us with tie ins and overblown hype), I think $30 million is a conservative estimate. Chris Thilk at Movie Marketing Madness made an interesting comment today about how this is quite possibly the only film in the history of cinema that's been so blatantly targeted at one gender at the exclusion of the other (and possibly dangerously so––has any money or effort been spent to convince gay men that the elements of the show to which they responded will be incorporated into the version on the big screen?) Basically, if this movie *can't* make $30 million, the studios shouldn't waste their time making films specifically for women––it'll be proof positive that, at least as far as summer blockbusters go, the ol' four quadrant theory is better (and safer) business.

Karina Longworth, Spoutblog

If the film does as well as expected, the 'powers that be,' i.e. the studios, will come up with an excuse for it's success, once again calling it a 'fluke' and claim that it's success won't necessarily be repeated by another film starring women. In actuality, Sex & The City was a very successful cable show... went into syndication and found an entirely new audience of millions. So the timing couldn't be better.

I'm thrilled with the passion that women have shown for this film and their plan to see it on opening weekend. It can only be positive for 'the girls,' but don't get too excited and assume that they'll rush to make another 'chick flick' with women over 30 in the very near future. Sorry to be so cynical....

Producer of some of the biggest female centric films

I think it's FANTASTIC that there is a woman's event movie. I hope Sex & The City opens huge. No matter how it does the first weekend, I think it can only bode well for women in Hollywood. I'm confident that it will do enough business given the pre-sales to be the biggest "chick flik" opening ever! (Sorry, I know you hate that term but I've accepted it as the pop culture moniker for women movies.) Perhaps then our female executives in Hollywood would be brave enough to push for more female event movies. Women love to do things together, and I'm hoping that this film will be the proof necessary for studio execs to greenlight more female event movies. But, please, let women writers and directors have a bigger slice of the "chick flik pie." I'm also hoping that S&TC will hang out in theaters as long as "Greek Wedding" did to illustrate to studios that female-driven films build through word of mouth and opening weekends are less meaningful to women. Our purchasing behavior is absolutely different than those of boys and young men. It's worth investing in women. That's the bottom line that Hollywood needs to understand, and that's the message women must send to Hollywood.

Fay Ann Lee, director, Falling for Grace

The point here is: can women open movies? Meryl Streep can't. Jodie Joster can't. Julianne Moore can't. Julia Roberts can't. So, if this opens big, it's perhaps more on the model of Knocked Up -- the success of ensemble comedies.

I think the numbers will be phenomenal.

Possibly, because in general the people holding the films up are men, or women forced to think like them. The more women make films -- produce, write, direct -- for an audience they know exists, the better we'll all be.

No, in part because it was always a cult favorite, even if that cult was large and profitable. But now it faces the mainstream, mostly male, cultural critics. What would John Simon have written about the HBO series?

Thelma Adams, Film and DVD Critic, Us Weekly

I don’t put much stock in the success of any female-driven film changing the ossified Hollywood mindset. If SATC succeeds, as I think it will, the conventional wisdom will be that it worked because it was an adaptation of a popular cable show.

Could it be any more difficult for women-centric films?

The Hollywood films that are mass-marketed have heroes, not heroines. So, yeah.

The New York media is out of synch with the rest of the country on this one acting as though frivolity is unseemly after 9/11. Me thinks New Yorkers are peeved that SATC premiered in London rather then Manhattan. Even Mayor Bloomberg has been peevish about being cut from the film. The personal attacks on Sarah Jessica Parker’s not being conventionally beautiful are creepy. Why is it OK to be unconventional if you’re a guy (Bruce Willis, Harrison Ford, Will Smith) but not a gal?

Carrie Rickey, Philadelphia Inquirer film critic, Flickgrrl


As for my thoughts on the film - it's just like the show. If you liked the show, you'll like the movie. I really don't get the fashion stuff (most of the clothes and especially the shoes seem so uncomfortable) but underneath all the superficiality the issues the film addresses especially about how women still need to be married to feel safe and the many difficulties in sustaining different kinds of relationships are right on the money. I happen to like and respect Sarah Jessica Parker and this film is a also a celebration of a hard working woman's career. I remember her from Annie and Square Pegs, how she endured the Robert Downey, Jr. drug years and of course my favorite, Footloose.

The film goes far to show that you can be glamorous and sexual at at 50 - one of my favorite moments was Samantha's 50th birthday dinner. I'm not going to pretend that the film is for everyone and it's not an overtly feminist film. But I can't help but think that the girl power this film is engendering will go a lot further than a feminist film that doesn't get seen by the masses.

The Double Standard

Sex and the City finally opens on Friday.

Honestly, I really can't wait for this to be over. We need for the movie to make at least $30 million (that's the prediction for the weekend) on opening weekend so that Hollywood will (maybe) finally (again) view women as a legit audience. Yet even as women are making their viewing plans for the weekend and beyond, leave it to the media to do its best to diminish any gains we might make by actually scaring off any guys by saying, in essence, that no guys are going to be caught dead in the theatres interested in seeing this (except of course, for all the gay guys.)

This is such a sexist double standard.

It makes me angry that it is all on women to make SATC a hit. No other film has that burden. As Philadelphia Inquirer Flickgrrl Carrie Rickey and said on her site last week: "Remember when movies -- and books -- were mass-marketed? When studios assumed that moviegoers were equally interested in Working Girl as Superman?"

No movie about men or starring men has ever had to deal with a headline like yesterday's AP story- Can Women Alone Make Sex and the City a Hit? or today's Variety story Sex sells, but will men see 'City?

Think about last year's hit film Wild Hogs. It was about four guys (including Tim Allen and John Travolta) on a middle age road trip. The film opened in March to $40 million, with over 53% of the audience male, and 65% over 25. Even though this was not a film targeted at women, women went to see it because the point is that no one gives you the impression that seeing a movie about four guys going through a mid-life crisis is not worthy of your time and your money.

Even though Sex and the City is going to be a hit what the media and the marketing has done here is to really divide the sexes. I don't blame New Line/Warner Brother for marketing the film this way. They need to make it big and they know that guys would rather not see the "so-called chick flick" so they are eliminating the guilt that women feel when dragging the guys to see these types of films by saying essentially, don't bother bringing him this time, leave him home with his friends and the kids. Give yourself the night out.

I just worry that this has clearly become more than just a movie -- it's an event -- and these types of events are very, very hard to replicate. And also, maybe because it's become such an event (and looking at the pipeline there are not too many others coming down the pike) it will be another excuse for Hollywood not to take women seriously.

But, then, on the other hand, I was heartened to read yesterday on Hollywood Wiretap that someone else has put in writing what I say consistently- that this film (and other films about women) might have some serious legs beyond opening weekend (I really hope someone will keep track)

Because Females 25 Plus are generally not the crowd that always rushes out to see a movie on opening weekend, "Sex and the City" is more likely to open very well and then hold even better in coming weeks. I am looking for at least $30 million on opening weekend, and with nothing particularly adult-skewing until Fox's "The Happening" on June 13, this movie, starring decidedly grown-up women, has a chance to join "The Devil Wears Prada" and "Hairspray" in the very exclusive $100 million Summer Chick Flick Blockbuster club.

Flickgrrl
Hollywood Wiretap

Shootout discusses "Chick Flicks" and Interviews Sarah Jessica Parkers

The weekly Hollywood insider show Shootout (show airs Sunday mornings at 11am EST on AMC) , hosted by "The Peters" (Peter Bart, Editor in Chief of Variety, and Peter Guber, big time producer) focused this weekend on women's films (AKA "chick flicks"), Sex and the City and Sarah Jessica Parker.

Peter Bart started out by showing how out of touch he is by saying that he didn't think that "chick flick" was a pejorative and that it is a good way to target women (I am paraphrasing.)

Peter Guber then talked about how "chick flicks" don't travel well overseas because they are dialogue driven, and then to contradict himself listed a bunch of them that have performed extremely well both here and overseas. He also talked about how they are a stable, successful part of the film business.

The problem was that they lumped a film like Juno in together with the Judd Apatow movies as examples of successful films targeted at women. While Juno was a great woman-centric film, lumping Judd Apatow flicks in here just goes to show how little women matter now in a film world where as Lisa Schwarzbaum in EW says: Guys are the New Girls.

These men behaving softly (but still manfully) are no accidents of nature or of the seasonal movie release calendar. They're diplomats of unisex appeal in the latest Hollywood campaign to keep romantic comedies viable- and profitable.

The bad news is that — as with any experiment involving gender, Hollywood, and the mutable factors that go into taste — finding the perfect recipe for a successful heterosexual romantic-comedy hero is subject to operator error. And, pssst, those operators are mostly male.

Because women go and see the Apatow movies in large numbers, and they are relatively cheap to make, we can guarantee that the masculinization of films targeted at women will continue.

I want to make it clear that there is a difference between a woman-centric film and a film targeted at women. Hollywood is trying to think about how to get men to go see films that used to be targeted at women to punch up the numbers. I want more films with women as leads, women as directors and writers and stories about women. I really don't want to see more stories where the guys play the so-called girls parts (ala Made of Honor) that are demeaning to both men and women.

The one thing that I agree with Peter Bart on is that it's a myth that these films don't travel well. The numbers below prove that. The numbers also show that Nancy Meyers is the smartest, most successful woman director/writer in Hollywood. Three of her films are on the list below (What Women Want, Somethings Gotta Give and The Holiday which was written off as a failure.) Whoops. $200 million gross is no failure. She knows how to make films that are interesting to both men and women, have strong female characters and don't demean either the male or female characters.

Successful women targeted films
Enchanted - $340 million worldwide gross
The Runaway Bride- $309 million
What Women Want- $374 million
Somethings Gotta Give- $265 million
The Devil Wears Prada- $327 million
The Holiday- $205 million

Bart went on to say that the chick flicks that don't work are the issue pictures like Mona Lisa Smile. He said if it's about feminism it will have a limited audience. Why are films about young women's lives in the 50s about feminism, when films about young men's lives are just about life?

They then greeted Sarah Jessica Parker and I thought the interview was extremely boring. The closest thing to interesting that SJP said is that she hates the term chick flicks, and that Sex and the City is a movie for men and women.

Some other quotes:
Why they created the Carrie Bradshaw assistant role Louise (played by Jennifer Hudson):

(Director) Michael (Patrick King) had a real instinct that first of all we needed to have a 20-year-old in this movie. We have to remember that there is a significant audience now because of syndication that has hooked into this show that are very, very young and it's a great way of reminding people of who Carrie was when she first came to New York. What was New York? What did it mean to her? What did it symbolize? What are the hopes and potential of this city that we all cling to when we come to this city and how is it different for a 20-year-old today and how is it the same?

On casting Jennifer Hudson:

African-American women and women of color have been a big part of the (SATC) audience for a long time. We really haven't been responsible to them in a way and we haven't given a woman of color an important and significant role and she is especially lovely in this movie.

This last quote did not make it onto the show but is exactly why we need more women-centric movies. The pressure on Sex and the City is just enormous. I see it everywhere. I think that women will go and see this film, but if there were other women's movies opening on a regular basis we wouldn't have to pin our hopes and future films onto only a couple of films.

"I was saying to someone the other day. I know this better than anything. I know this better than being a mother, a wife. This is kind of part of my DNA and I feel there is a lot at stake."

There is a lot at stake. Women even if you hate the crowds on the opening weekend, you must go. There is a lot at stake. I don't say this lightly. Get your tickets now!

The shootout with SJP re-airs Thursday, May 22nd at 6:15am ET & PT/5:15C and Sunday, June 1st at 5:30am ET & PT/4:30C. You can also see highlights from the show at www.amctv.com. Set those DVRs.

Sex and the City Part 2: Feminism and Backlash

As the opening of Sex and the City gets closer I've noticed a bunch of articles asking whether you can be a feminist and still like Sex and the City. Give me a break. Of course you can be a feminist and like Sex and the City.

While some feminists may now want me to turn in my feminist card (and yes, we do have a card...it's called a brain) I just want to take a step back. I understand that many feminists have trouble with the show's obsession with clothes, shoes, skinniness and men. I, too, couldn't understand how those women wore those shoes without falling over.

But honestly, I am so happy that we are even having this conversation. When was the last time a fictional film (and remember this is FICTION and FAKE) caused such a stir and encouraged a debate about feminism? Just the fact that people put the words Sex and the City and feminism in the same sentence makes me excited.

But the point is Sex and the City wouldn't exist without feminism. Sarah Jessica Parker herself sees Carrie on the same continuum with Erica (played by Jill Clayburgh) in the classic feminist flick An Unmarried Woman (a must-see); and to me, she also couldn't exist without Erica Jong's Isadora Wing of Fear of Flying.

The Guardian had some good points about the feminist messages in Sex and the City Can a Feminist Really Love Sex and the City?

And to dismiss the programme entirely on the basis of its shortcomings as a feminist text would also be to lose out on what it does deliver. Just to take the most headline-grabbing example, that includes some pretty frank discussion of sex, in which female sexual pleasure and agency is obviously considered a fundamental right, rather than a privilege. McCabe says, "The way they spoke, and the things they talked about, were revolutionary. And it was also a great study of female friendship.

And I think the relationship between the women and all the questions women have about how we fit into the culture is what sold the show and what makes women excited about seeing the film. (Remember it is the top requested film on Fandango)

From the NY Magazine cover story on Sarah Jessica Parker:

And despite the gobbling consumerism of its characters, the show has unsettling insights into women and money: the way bodies function as currency; the degree to which a woman alone can truly be autonomous of free; the marriage hunt as negotiation disguised as romance.

The Backlash
But since we are talking about women, sex, feminism and movies it was only a matter of time before the backlash started. For some reason (which I don't understand) the film premiered in London. But overexposure has set in and the knives are now out with still two weeks to go. The press made fun of the Sarah Jessica Parker's hat at the premiere, and then I did a double take when I saw the cover of Time Out NY (to the left) which had duct tape over the four women's mouths with the headline: No Sex! Enough Already- we love 'em, but it's just too much.

I'm sorry, isn't doing press a requirement for all movies these days? Is it these women's fault that there is such overwhelming and unprecedented interest in their film? The culture demands that they appear everywhere yet it criticizes them for being everywhere. Robert Downey Jr. was everywhere promoting Iron Man and there was never a picture on a cover of a magazine with his mouth covered in duct tape? That picture is beyond unacceptable and blatantly sexist.

And now the LA Times has a story this morning entitled Sex and the City movie may lack wide appeal which talks about whether there are enough women in this county over 30 interested in seeing this movie to make it a hit. (News flash to the studios- there are a lot of women in this country over 30, we have money and we go to the movies.)

Some box office prognosticators are predicting that it could make as much as $40 million on its opening weekend, others see it more in the $20 million range. Let's keep in mind that only one film starring a woman made more than $40 million on its opening weekend -- Angelina Jolie in the first Tomb Raider movie. That was an action movie (that appealed to boys more than women). Next is Charlie's Angels, another action flick that grossed $40 million. The Reese Witherspoon starrer Sweet Home Alabama has the highest grossing numbers at $35 million for a romantic comedy.

Let's not let this growing backlash put this film in a no win situation. It's not going to make as much money as an action film because it's not an action film. I also would love for Hollywood to take a pause and look at the numbers for this film beyond the first three days to see if women are coming out during the first week in larger numbers than usual.

We started off the movie season two weeks ago with the NY Times discussing the lack of films coming out this summer that have any women in significant roles. I find it very easy to be reconcile my feminism my love for movies on this one. This film needs all of our support. This feminist for one will be there supporting Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda. Hope you join me.

Hollywood Feminist of the Day: Kristin Davis

At the premiere of the Sex and the City movie in London, Davis responded to the continued gossip that the four costars don't get along by saying:

"It's a sexist thing really," she told Reuters, complaining that magazines "don't talk about how the Sopranos all fought or whatever."

"We've got a woman running for president, we need to get with the times. Not all women are bitchy to each other," (Reuters)

Photo: Wireimage

Sex and the City - Will it be the Biggest Women's Movie Ever?

Building on this thread over at cinematical Will 'Sex and the City' Quietly Become Summer's Biggest Hit?, I must respectful disagree about the word quiet. There is nothing quiet about this movie. People are going nuts. (Update- heard from the folks at Fandango and Sex is the top selling film, selling more tickets than Indiana Jones -- which comes out earlier -- and is the most visited page on the site.) In fact, they've been going nuts since the film was shot, where people were lining the streets during the shoot.

The only thing that's been quiet is the fact that none of the plot details have been revealed. I'm on the internet all day long and I have found nothing. I've never seen anything like it for a film about women. It's like people actually want this film to succeed. Writers like ones in the NY Post and the NY Daily News have written reviews without revealing anything; bloggers and who are usually so keen on breaking news about plots are not writing anything either. I bet that part of it is that the guy bloggers who are usually the news breakers really don't care much about the film film because it is well, about women.

The film is ironically being released by New Line which is going out of business and will be subsumed (after the requisite job losses) by Warner Brothers run by Hollywood's resident admitted sexist, Jeff Robinov (see my earlier posts on him: Do Women Matter to Hollywood?)

So I'm thinking, can this be the biggest women's film ever?

What's interesting to note is that in the summer one really big film opens on each weekend. Women's films are never considered really big, but this film is, because there is no real competition opening on its weekend. Granted, Indiana Jones opens the week before and there will be many people still wanting to see that film, but Sex and the City has its own weekend. That is a story in itself.

I've looked at the numbers of how other women's films have opened and I really think this movie can break the records. I think that the film (depending on how many screens it opens on) can open with 50 m.

The top grossing opening weekends of movies starring women are:

• Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - 47 m (Angelina Jolie)
• Charlie's Angels- 40 m (Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, Lucy Lui)
• Sweet Home Alabama- 35 m (Reese Witherspoon)
• Panic Room- 30 m (Jodie Foster)
• The Devil Wears Prada- 27 m (Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway)
• Erin Brockovich- 28 m (Julia Roberts)
• V for Vendetta- 25 m (Natalie Portman)
• Flightplan - 24 m (Jodie Foster)
• Mean Girls- 24 m (Lindsay Lohan)
• Double Jeopardy- 23 m (Ashley Judd)
• 27 Dresses- 23m (Katherine Heigl)
  
• Princess Diaries- 22 m (Anne Hathaway)
• Freaky Friday- 22 m (Lindsay Lohan, Jamie Lee Curtis)
  

So, as Oprah said on her lovefest for the film last week, (and she also said that she has never not shown the ending of the film to the audience) take your girlfriends and head to the theatres on May 30th.

Women will make or break this film. Because of the big buzz and hype this film can be a changemaker. We have the added bonus in that the film is supposedly really good.

I am psyched, a movie about women, the celebrates women, that's actually a good movie. Can't wait.


Stay tuned for part 2 - a discussion of Sex and the City and feminism

Will it be a Good Summer or Bad Summer for Women at the Movies?

One of my favorite issues of my favorite magazines arrived in my mailbox this weekend -- the Summer Movie Preview from Entertainment Weekly. Summer is the time where Hollywood makes most of its money, where we see all the tent-pole (boy) action-adventure (boy) films. I love going to the movies in the summer and I am usually less stringent about what I see, cause hey, it's summer. Here are some movies to put on your list to look forward to.

Sex and the City- loved the show, can't wait for the movie. I know that some people have feminist issues with the show, I don't - May 30

Brick Lane- A young Bangladeshi woman in London. Based on the best-selling novel- June 20

Wanted- can't really tell enough about this except that it looks like Angelina Jolie is back to her ass-kicking Tomb Raider days.- June 27

Kit Kitteridge: An American Girl- for the girl in your life. Those gigantic dolls come to life in the shape of Abigail Breslin- July 2

Mamma Mia!- Meryl sings along with Christine Baranski, Julie Walters, Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, and the daughter with the big eyes from Big Love Amanda Seyfried gets her big break playing Streep's daughter. Can't wait. July 18

Streep was asked this question by EW: This is a female-centered movie, written, directed and produced by women. How did that feel?

Meryl Streep: Very different. And the story celebrates all the good female stuff. So much of what we see now about girls feels retrograde. It's all backniting. But this is right smack back to the sisterhood of the '70s. That made me happy.

Hounddog- Deborah Kampmier's coming of age story starring Dakota Fanning. July 18

American Teen- Nanette Burstein's Sundance winning documentary which looks at teens in Indiana- July 25

Frozen River- Courtney Hunt's Sundance winning dramtic effort tells the story of two women who smuggle illegal immigrants. - August 1

The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2- for the tweeners. The film reunites the four actresses who are now in college and navigating young adulthood.- August 8

Towelhead- tells the coming of age story of a 13-year-old girl who is sexually abused by a neighbor. Based on a true story. - August 15


What Else I'll Be Seeing
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull- can't wait, especially to see the return of Karen Allen as Marion Ravenwood and Cate Blanchett as a page boy haired KGB agent.
Iron Man- the thinking man's action film
The X-Files- I Want to Believe
Batman, The Dark Knight