Tres Chick

“Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason” has just hit movie theaters, resurrecting with its arrival the debate about the nature of “chick flicks.” What, exactly, makes a chick flick — a cast composed primarily of chicks? Subject matter aimed primarily at chicks? Or a bit of both?

Because the subject matter in question is almost always love and romance — chicks kissing frogs, then finding princes, as Bridget Jones did in both of Helen Fielding’s books; as Renée Zellweger did in the movie, which also starred dueling cuties Hugh Grant and Colin Firth; and as Julia Roberts seems to do in at least half of her oeuvre.

The romance formula is reliable, but it’s one that female moviegoers sometimes seem embarrassed to enjoy — as if the movies are too silly and not really any good. Any admission of watching “Dying Young,” and crying every time it’s on cable is accompanied by a flurry of mortified shrugging and protesting that it’s because Campbell Scott is so tragically crush-on-able in it.

Should we take chick flicks more seriously — starting, perhaps, by not calling them “chick flicks” anymore? Is the chick flick a legitimate film genre, or a shameful guilty pleasure?

Sarah D. Bunting

FREE VIDEO Renee Zellweger Oscar-winning actor Renee Zellweger talks about her role in her latest movie, "Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason," with "Today" host Katie Couric. Today show

On a not unrelated note, I think we’d go a long way towards taking women in film in general more seriously if we could all get off the damn subject of Renée Zellweger gaining weight to play the Bridget Jones role. The flapdoodle over how “fat” she got is sexist and annoying.

With that said, I loved the first “Bridget Jones.” I liked Zellweger in it, and Colin Firth is awfully handsome, but I enjoyed it mostly because the movie is more funny than treacly; it makes fun of itself, sort of, and the main character is relatable.

But stuff like “The Wedding Planner”? Pass. J.Lo isn’t sympathetic, and the whole “Oh, boo hoo, I’m a single woman and therefore unfulfilled and sad” attitude these movies tend to espouse gets on my nerves. If you need Matthew McConaughey to cheat on his fiancée to make your life complete, you’ve got bigger problems than dating can solve.

Tara Ariano
I don’t have a problem with calling chick flicks “chick flicks.” I don’t think that a romantic comedy of interest to women and of virtually no interest to men has any illusions of being Oscar bait. And hell, there are certainly enough dumb movies marketed to men that most women don’t care to watch — let’s call them “The Nicolas Cage Filmography” — so it’s only fair that the romantic comedy should be targeted toward our underserved community.

Columbia Pictures If you went to see "Mona Lisa Smile" in the theater, you probably dig "chick flicks."

However, as in every kind of film genre, some chick flicks are good enough to cross over and reach a broad audience of people who appreciate entertaining pictures regardless of which sex they’re trying to reach. I happen to be married to a person of the opposite sex, and we tend to agree on good movies. He liked “Bring It On” and “Bridget Jones’s Diary” (which both skew kind of girly).

But that doesn’t mean I would expect him to see “Drive Me Crazy” or “Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights” with me; there is a whole chick-flick sub-basement — movies I know are going to be predictable and bad, but that I am still powerless to resist. I read and hated “Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood,” but where was I the weekend it opened? Sitting in the cinema with a bag of M&Ms and a female friend who had also hated the book but ended up at the movie because Sandra Bullock is the whistle only girls can hear?

Is the appeal of a chick flick the ditch my spouse for 90 minutes and hang with my female friends? Or is the desire to consume a wish-fulfillment fantasy hard-coded into female DNA?

Sarah
I guess that would explain why I saw “While You Were Sleeping” in the theater. I must secretly want to pretend I’m engaged to a guy I don’t even know who fell in front of a train, fall in love with the guy’s brother while he’s in a coma (the guy, not the brother), and get engaged to him (the brother, not the guy) while working my drudgy job in public transit.

That would not, however, explain why I saw it in the theater twice. Or why my mother and I watched “Love Potion No. 9” together on cable. Twice. In one day.

Top that, sucka.

Tara
“Playing By Heart.”

Sarah
“Bring It On.”

Tara
“A League of Their Own.”

Sarah
“Cruel Intentions.”

Tara
“Win A Date With Tad Hamilton!”

Sarah
“Never Been Kissed.”

Tara
“Mona Lisa Smile.”

Sarah
“Charlie’s Angels 1 and 2.”

Tara
“Runaway Bride.”

Sarah
“Mystic Pizza.”

Tara
“10 Things I Hate About You.”

Sarah
“HERE ON EARTH,” ARGH.

Tara
“Hanging Up.”

Sarah
“Addicted to Love,” AND “IQ,” AND “French Kiss.”

Tara
I’ll see your Meg Ryan trifecta and raise you “You’ve Got Mail,” “Sleepless In Seattle,” and that one movie where Juliette Lewis and Giovanni Ribisi play mentally challenged adults.

Sarah
I would go on, but I must go kill myself.

Tara
Yeah, I haven’t exactly covered myself with glory here either.

TARA VS. SARAH Our columnists debate: Jennifer Garner Steven Soderburgh Chick Flicks Ben Affleck Reese Witherspoon Matt Damon Jude Law Johnny Depp Gwyneth Paltrow M. Night Shyamalan Ben Stiller

I had thought that the “Bridget Jones” sequel would fall into the category of superior chick flick with extensive rewatchability. But nay. It’s bad. It’s baaaaad. It’s like they strung the script together by copying all the greatest moments everyone remembers from the first movie. Bridget — wearing huge, concealing undergarments — embarrasses herself at a hoity-toity function! Bridget tells off Daniel Cleaver, immediately followed by an Aretha Franklin music cue! Daniel and Mark fight! Bridget thinks she’s fat and totally lacks self-confidence! …Oh, wait. That part wasn’t great in the first movie. It was annoying. And this time around, it’s even worse.

Sarah
I had thought the same thing, and I also agree that it’s a waste of two hours I could have spent…I don’t know. Getting sucked into “Fried Green Tomatoes” on the Lifetime channel for the umpteenth time.

I think the sequel is so blah because it’s a sequel, not because it’s a chick flick — Bridget’s insecurity isn’t charming or relatable this time around. It’s one-note and dull, and it plays into a stereotype of women as obsessing about only two subjects: getting married and our weight. I don’t need to spend $10 to see that trope reinforced; it’s boring. The first “Bridget Jones” movie understood that, and tried to make fun of it, but the second one is way too in love with its own weak slapstick.

And if Bridget is that obsessed with how she looks, what’s with the parade of dowdy hairstyles?

Tara
Well, yes, and maybe she’d feel better about herself if she actually picked up her feet when she walked instead of shuffling around like a bag lady. (No offense to bag ladies.)

I agree with you: the best of chick flicks present a portrait of womanhood that is exaggerated but still basically recognizable. The first “Bridget” movie belongs in this category; the sequel most emphatically doesn’t.

Tara Ariano and Sarah D. Bunting are co-creators and co-editors of Television Without Pity

MORE FROM TARA VS SARAH

Cameron Diaz: America’s spaz-heart

Cameron Diaz: America’s spaz-heart Kate Hudson: Still ‘almost famous’ John Cusack hasn’t outgrown Lloyd Dobler Will the real Natalie Portman please stand up? Drew Barrymore: Real or fembot? Sandra Bullock: The perfect girl next door Keanu Reeves: Wooden wonder boy Jennifer Garner: Not quite A-list ready Chick Flicks: Embarrassment or pleasure?   Add Tara vs Sarah headlines to your news reader: