Is Feminism Outdated? : An Examination of the Societal Roles of Women as Portrayed in

Popular Films

By

Emma Cullen

Thesis

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Arts with

Honours in Political Science

Acadia University

April, 2010

©Copyright by Emma Cullen, 2010

This thesis by Emma Cullen is accepted in its present form by the Department of Political Science

as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Arts with Honours

Approved by the Thesis Supervisor

______

(Greg Pyrcz) Date

Approved by the Head of the Department

______

(MalcolmGrieve ) Date

Approved by the Honours Committee

______

() Date

ii

I, Emma Cullen, grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia

University to reproduce, loan or distribute copies of my thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats on a non-profit basis. I however, retain the copyright in my thesis.

______

Signature of Author

______

Date

iii

Table of contents

Abstract vi

Chapter 1 1

Chapter 2 8

Chapter 3 22

Chapter 4 33

Conclusion 46

Works Cited 51

v

Abstract

This thesis examines the role that feminism can occupy in modern popular culture. I argue that within pop culture, specifically films directed towards women, feminism is presented as being outdated. This idea is called post-feminism. The purpose of this is to assert that the goals of feminism are outdated and no longer necessary in modern society. I assert that, within contemporary culture, the ideals of feminism are being subverted in order to further the idea that women should embrace traditional desires, such as marriage and families, over other personal or career desires. This thesis argues that this message is sent to the masses through films. Films are an important medium within culture, as in order to be successful and resonate with the audience, they must contain a relevant message about society.

This thesis examines the post-feminism movement within films that are specifically directed towards women, referred to as chick flicks. The two films examined within this thesis are Sex and the City: the Movie (2008) and The Proposal (2009). These films are ones with a female protagonist in an overtly emotional storyline. I argue that the presence of post-feminism within these films ultimately encourages women to abandon the ideals of feminism.

vi

Chapter 1

In our increasingly media-centric society, it would be surprising for someone to be oblivious to films, especially those that are earning large sums of money at the box office. It would be safe to assume that the average person has been exposed to hundreds, if not thousands, of popular films over the course of their lifetime. Most viewers see films as a way to pass a few hours of the day, or perhaps as a two-hour form of escapism.

The average viewer does not expect films, especially box office hits, to be sending a subtle message to them; films are not expected to be filled with political, social or cultural meaning. Because of this common belief, films are a great way in which filmmakers, and the film industry, can construct a story about the society in which the film is set and presented. Films are viewed, by the majority of people, solely as facets of entertainment and they are consumed by mass portions of society. Therefore, they are an effective way through which a societal message can be passed in a relatively covert manner.

Within the last few decades, there has been a barrage of film theorists discussing the role that films play within society, and more specifically, the role that films play in telling “the story” of society at a particular time. According to Dan Nimmo and James

Combs, movies are a means through which something important is said about, and to, society. Few will see a movie where they do not, on some level, relate to what is being said about them as members of society. Films need to be relevant in order for the masses to flock to see them: “the cultural messages imbedded in those movies also tell us something about America because they flesh out what‟s in, and on, the minds of the

1

American Mass public.”1 The most successful films are those that relate to the socio- political values of the movie-going populace.

Messages embedded within movies tend to provide some sort of fantasy that is prevalent at the time, in which the masses participate as consumers. The fantasies presented in films are often of an implicit political nature. Movies do not tend to explicitly portray political and societal fantasies, but as Nimmo and Combs go on to state, films “offer a rough calculus of the political fantasies of people at a particular time period…representative popular movies from that period depict the mass consciousness of that political age.”2 Films rarely make overt political statements or arguments but most do have a story to tell and a fantasy to convey. In doing this, popular films align their stories with the political stories of the age, and thus make statements on the political values of the time period in which they are popular.

The political message of popular films is not studied within a vacuum, or one pressed upon the populace from on high, from elite culture. Filmmakers do present a fantasy to the masses, and this fantasy is one of political value. But this fantasy, or this story from the filmmakers, means nothing if people do not go and see the film, and if they do not relate to it. “The success of a movie depends on the meshing of the fantasy of a small group of people (movie makers) with the fantasies of sometimes hundreds of thousands of people (the audience). In that sense the movies really are a democratic act, dependent on acceptance by mass audiences.”3 The story presented within a film by the filmmakers means nothing if it is not accepted. In order for a film to be considered successful, in this climate, it must make money (at least it must make more money than it cost to produce). Therefore, filmmakers focus their efforts on telling a story that will have

2

an impact on the audience, partly by providing a fantasy to which the masses will be able to relate. The stories and fantasies presented in Hollywood movies arguably represent the society of the time, and as such, what is depicted within the films is what many will see to be their reality (in one form or another).

In the past two decades, Hollywood has been producing an increasingly large number of films directed at a primarily female audience, known colloquially, and hereafter, as chick flicks. These films almost universally include a romantic story line, centered on a female protagonist, who is supposedly representative of average women; the average (female) viewer will be able to use this image, portrayed within the film, as a fantasy. In recent years, these films have also garnered a fairly high standing at the box office. This supports the contention that the storylines presented within chick flicks effectively relate to the populace that sees such movies. Furthermore, based on the previous observations that popular movies contain a democratically determined political fantasy regarding the time period in which the film is released, it can also be argued that these chick flicks contain a message of political value, one that resonates with those that consume them.

The political message contained within chick flicks, given the nature of said films, is not one that is likely to be overtly presented to the movie going audience. These films are meant to be forms of entertainment, with many viewers not concerned with an implicit message, merely with the happy ending of the main characters. These films are also not viewed as „important‟ films, merely as entertaining ones, and for this reason, the message contained within these films would be implicit, not overtly expressed. Because the images and story lines presented are not treated directly within chick flicks, like in

3

most Hollywood films, the audience is most likely unaware that the films are doing anything but entertaining them. The question relating to chick flicks is: what exactly is this implicit political message, and what is it reflecting of, and in, society?

In the latter half of the 20th century, there were multiple mobilizations of the feminist movement. Beginning in the 1960s, and carrying on until the end of the century, there was widespread discourse relating to the empowerment of women. The discourse was not dominated simply by academics, but it reached a point where young girls were being empowered through media images that were directed towards them. As an example, the mantra of the popular „90s British pop group, The Spice Girls, was “Girl power.” Feminist discourse was everywhere. However over the course of the last decade, the prominence and mass acceptability of feminist discussion has diminished.

Arguably, society has replaced it with subtle forms of backlash that serve to diminish the role that feminism could play within society.

One way in which there has been a backlash against some of the ideals of feminism is through the increased number of anti-choice movements that currently exist within society. In the United States, for example, there are currently debates within the

Congress regarding the question of universal health care. The debate regarding health care seemed to be going nowhere, as there existed a large disparity between the

Democrats and the Republicans concerning what they could support. In order to bridge this gap, some amendments were proposed, the most notorious of which was Stupak

Amendment, named after its originator Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak. This amendment stated that abortion is not to be covered by the American health care program, except in case of rape or incest. The legalization of abortion, as well as the

4

continued fight to keep it legal, has been one of the staples of the feminist movement since the 1960s. The passage of this amendment clarifies that a struggle, for which generations of feminists have fought, is really of little importance, and can, in fact, be tossed to the wayside. This seems to indicate that backlash against feminist advancement has now hit the policy makers, at multiple levels of the government. This may seem to be a small concession (loss of abortion coverage) in order to gain a larger prize (health care), but, if it is taken into account that a large victory of the second wave of feminism was the

Roe vs. Wade case, then this can be viewed as a way of shrugging off feminism, or a large, public attempt to undermine the advancements that had been made by the feminist movement.

There is also overt backlash within aspects of civil society. In an editorial in the

National Post, Women‟s Studies programs are being posited as programs that brainwash those students who are naïve enough to want to undertake such courses. The author of the editorial argues that the “radical feminism” with which the courses are being taught

“has done untold damage to families, our court systems, labour laws, constitutional freedoms and even the ordinary relations between men and women.”4 The National Post has the fifth highest circulation of any newspaper in Canada, with a daily circulation of more than 200,000 people (and more when the online readership is taken into account).

The fifth largest newspaper in Canada is saying that feminism, and women studies, is effectively altering our society in a way that is detrimental to most aspects of our life.

Possibly the worst form of backlash that is hitting the feminist movement is located within the idea of the discourse of feminism itself. There has been a trend, as of late, for the rejection of the use of the word itself. The idea of gender equality, or

5

equality between the sexes, is an idea with which most seem to agree. However, the population at large is, increasingly, rejecting the term feminism, or defining oneself as a feminist. In the early 1990s, author Wendy Kaminer, in her article entitled “Feminism‟s

Identity Crisis” wrote that in “general, polls conducted over the past three years indicate a strong majority support feminist ideals. But the same polls suggest that a majority of women hesitate to associate themselves with the movement5.” The idea of being a feminist is rejected by large portions of society, including women. Because of this rejection, society has begun to turn its back on from supporting the ideals of feminism, as well as some of the major turning points of the feminist movement.

This backlash against feminism is found widely in society. As suggested above, one of the largest newspapers in Canada has begun to voice its discontent with feminism; and the United States government is beginning to enact policies that have the potential to undo a major victory of the feminist movement. On top of all this, our society is beginning to teach the younger generations, especially young women, that labeling oneself as a feminist, and participating in the feminist discourse beyond simple equality, is a political faux pas to be avoided. Even after decades (some could argue centuries) of struggling for their rights, and against the patriarchal standards within the world, our modern society seems to have turned its nose up to feminism. It is no longer in fashion, and within the mainstream; it is being denigrated.

Having stated the decline of support for feminism as a theme of our current society, and advanced the argument that films (subtly) portray reflections and political fantasies relating to a specific point in time, this thesis will focus on the reflection of the feminist backlash portrayed within Hollywood box office hit films that are specifically

6

directed towards a female audience.

In order to examine the presence and reinforcing of the societal backlash within the culture of film, I examine two popular films from the past two years that are reflective examples of the political fantasy of our time. The first film examined is The

Proposal(2009); the second film with be Sex and the City: The Movie (2008). Both of these films were directed and promoted towards a predominately female audience, and both films were very popular at the box office, with both earning more than $150 million at the American box office.

These are popular recent chick flick of the age, both box office hits. As they were popular, these films arguably resonate with some of the values of the society of the time.

This essay argues that the movie-going masses saw something in the films with which they felt connected, and that the political story being told within the films is one that resonates within contemporary society. These films are highly reflective of the discourse of the popular culture of the time, and I argue are reflective of, and contribute to, an anti- feminist backlash that exists presently.

The main purpose in this thesis will be to examine the subtle political messages that are contained within these two popular films of recent years, treating these as more broadly indicative of, and as contributing to, values in political culture. As these films are directed towards a female audience, one of the main focuses of the examination of these films will be to explore the way in which women are portrayed in the film.

Ultimately, this thesis will argue that these films, directed towards women, undermine the goals and ideals of feminism, and encourage women to adhere to more conventional desires.

7

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework

This thesis rests on the argument that popular films present moviegoers with an interpretation of the current societal climate, or at least a subsection of it. The impression focused upon here is the subtle backlash to the feminist movement found within wide sections of modern society. This backlash encourages people to regard feminism, and those who identify themselves as feminists, as obsolete. The main focus of discourse within this thesis is the idea that films that are directed towards a female audience, chick flicks, are highly conducive to this form of storytelling. Using various theorists, mainly film theorists (most specifically feminist film theorists), I analyze two recent, popular chick flicks, and illustrate that they embody the subtle, societal anti-feminism that is increasingly common.

In order to analyze these films, it is necessary to create a framework through which these films can be interpreted. In order to create this framework, I draw on the works of various theorists. The first two of these set the groundwork for a main section of my argument. Dan Nimmo and James Combs argue, in Mediated Political Realities, for the significance of film in the generation of shared meaning regarding society.

Building from their work, I examine the work of feminist film critic Laura Mulvey. Her work uses psychoanalysis in order to examine gender roles as portrayed in film, and more specifically argues that women are sexualized on screen. The main film theorist I use is

Molly Haskell, author of From Reverence to Rape. Haskell discusses the idea of a woman‟s film, which were films directed towards women, which are essentially precursors to chick flicks. The final theorist used is Angela McRobbie, who advances the theory of post-feminism. By combining women‟s films, chick flicks and post-feminism,

8

while keeping in mind the theoretical basis provided by Nimmo and Combs and Mulvey,

I establish a framework that serves as a basis for analyzing two films in light of an increasingly anti-feminist society.

The idea that films promote a prominent view of society is succinctly argued by

Nimmo and Combs. They argue that films carry important political stories and arguments, and that on the screens in movie theatres is where they find resonance among the common people: “as the drama of politics is acted out in this and future decades, it will appear in subtle and covert forms, in the flickering images we shall watch in the dark at the movies.”6 They contend that movies have become a stage on which political and social battles are subtly displayed. This feature has been seen over the course of the movie industry. In nearly every decade, the main themes found within society have been portrayed in popular films. This not only reinforces the mainstream thoughts that are found within society, but also ensures that movies will become profitable. As an example, Nimmo and Combs cite the box office hits of the 1950s. During this decade, in which anti-Communism was running rampant throughout the Western world, specifically in the United States, the most popular films focused on the science fiction ideas regarding an invasion from outer space. This represented an invasion from the outside; one threatens everyday life by exposing it to the unknown and the unwanted. The film that they discuss in relation to this is the 1956 blockbuster Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

The political fantasy of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers is complex and has been variously interpreted. It can be viewed as a parable on the communist menace…And certainly the movie is amenable to another politically relevant interpretation—the larger theme of the conformity and alienation emergent in the America of the 1950s, attitudes that dehumanized by annihilating individuality. In that sense the external communist menace is simply a political projection of what was happening domestically, the destruction of individuality and diversity by the demand for group conformity.7

9

This is drawn as an allusion: the invaders threaten from outer space and the heroes stop the invasion and manage to return society to its rightful order. This is reflective of societal anxiety and overwhelming fears regarding communism, common at the time in which this film was popular.

The idea that films are reflective of the socio-political values of the time persists, albeit in different forms. One of the more popular story lines within Hollywood in present times is the formulaic story that is contained within popular chick flicks, especially those that focus on a romantic relationship. Within the last decade, a large number of chick flicks have been made, with many being very successful at the box office. With the large number of these films being not only produced and released, but doing well at the box office, it is important to look for messages about political society depicted therein.

This interest in the subtle messages of film is echoed in the writing of Brenda

Austin-Smith who argues along a similar vein of Nimmo and Combs, although her focus is of a more distinctly feminist nature. She asserts that films offer a powerful vehicle through which one can convey a message either overtly or covertly. She further notes that “more subtly, film communicates to its spectators by offering them visions of the world and human relationships that tend to reinforces so-called „common sense‟ views of gender…”8 This line of argument is especially helpful for this thesis. Films are a powerful way through which filmmakers communicate with the masses. In this form of communication, society (or a subsection therein) is represented in a story line to be consumed by the masses in a short time frame (roughly two hours). In this representation, a message is often conveyed regarding political society. As Austin-Smith

10

writes, this message has implications for the way we understand and value gender. This communication is especially relevant when examining or viewing chick flicks, as they are mainstream films that feature women in prominent roles, and are prominently directed toward a female audience. If there was a societal message regarding the roles of women and gender that is prevalent enough, then chick flicks would be a good avenue for dissemination.

Within the majority of Hollywood films, female characters are not generally given leading roles; typically, and especially historically, the roles of the females were subordinate to the roles played by men. In most mainstream Hollywood films, women were characterized in relation to men. They were girlfriends, wives, mothers, sisters, and so on, and their entire existence, on screen, was predicated by their relation to a man. In her text “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” Laura Mulvey writes that “film reflects, reveals and plays on the straight, socially established interpretation of sexual difference which control images, erotic ways of looking and spectacle.”9 Within most prominent films, women are often there simply to be looked at, with very little time taken to create a more complete character. The hero of the story is a man, and the female character is there to play off of him. “Woman then stands in patriarchal culture as a signifier for the male other, bound by a symbolic order in which man can live out his fantasies and obsessions through linguistic command by imposing them on the silent image of women still tied to her place as bearer, not maker, of meaning.”10 The role that is traditionally given to women is one through which their position indicates meaning regarding gender, and women‟s roles in society. The roles that women play within films are in direct opposition to the male roles, or as Mulvey puts it, they are the male‟s other. As such,

11

their roles in films reflect and support the cultural and societal limits that are seen to affect women.

Mulvey first wrote this theory in regard to mainstream films, with men as both the main character and main viewer. She has written an addition to this piece entitled

“Afterthoughts on „Visual Pleasure.‟” In this piece, not only does Mulvey assume that the viewer will be a woman, but that the main character will be a woman. Mulvey turns her discussion of film appearance to the film genre of melodrama. Mulvey derives the majority of her criticisms from the work of Sigmund Freud, who has discussed the evolution of sexuality within both men and women. The main piece of Freud‟s argument that Mulvey takes into account is his idea regarding female sexuality. Freud states,

“female sexuality is an oscillation between „passive‟ femininity and regressive

„masculinity.‟”11 Mulvey continues this argument stating that when a female is at the centre of a film, as is the case with melodrama and chick flicks, then the story will centre around sexuality, overtly.12

When sexuality is placed at the forefront of the films, as in the case with melodramas and chick flicks, the films tend to revolve around an aspect of choice for the female lead. Mulvey does not see this choice as being all-encompassing, but sees such choice as still centered on gender-specific roles that are designated to women. The question is asked “what does she want?”13 And yet this question of choice is still related to marriage and the typical roles played by women. But in an attempt to appeal to a female audience, the woman is given a choice to determine what she wants, and what follows; the issue of marriage is opened up just enough, in Mulvey‟s opinion, in order to allow for a melodrama to develop at the heart of the narrative. The prevalence of female

12

sexuality, predicating a life choice, presented within films directed towards women sets the stage for films to focus on emotional aspects of a woman‟s life; more specifically, these melodramatic films, within which a woman has a grand choice to make, ultimately revolve around love and relationships.

Of all the feminist film critics, one of the earliest and most prominent is Molly

Haskell. In 1974, she published From Rape to Reverence: the Treatment of Women in the Movies. This book goes through the history of films and looks specifically at the ways in which women are treated in films. The role of women in films was, she found, to complement a man, and to fulfill the goal of finding love. “A movie heroine could act on the same power and career drives (as a man) only if, at the climax, they took second place to the sacred love of man.”14 Women were not given much opportunity for advancement beyond the quest for love; any sort of personal goals were curbed in favor of finding love.

“The film industry maneuvered to keep women in their place.”15 This sentiment is one that explicitly concurs with the contention forwarded by Nimmo and Combs. Films reflect and support images and norms of society. Stories that are portraying women as creatures who must seek out love above all else serves to ensure that women are aware of where their position within the society should be, in light of the film‟s reading of society.

Films reflect what society is like and the presentation of women within films mirrors women‟s position within society. The idea of keeping women in their place is the main theme of Haskell‟s examination of the Hollywood system, and she contends that the way that women are kept in their place is by ensuring that they are inundated with images that place romance, and everything that is entailed therein, as high on the list of women‟s values. At the beginning of her book, Haskell states: “the anomaly that women are the

13

majority of the human race, half of its brains, half of its procreative power, most of its nurturing power, and yet are its servants and romantic slaves was brought home with peculiar force in the Hollywood film.”16 The message portrayed within popular films is that women are to be subordinate to males, particularly within their private lives. More than 50% of the population is dismissed as being inferior, and films mirror, and sustain, this.

It was rare for a female to be a main character within popular films. The issues of women, and even their characters, were not given prominence within the mainstream section of Hollywood films. Women were routinely given a subordinate position within

Hollywood films and their plights were not given attention in these films. This lack of recognition, the constant action of overlooking female emotions and character development within major movies, left a gap to be filled within Hollywood films. In order to fill this gap, a new genre of film was created: the woman‟s film. These films were not intended to be watched by everyone; they were intended to be directed towards a female audience. This new form of films was intended to tip the balance in the woman‟s favor “so that she can gain a sense of importance denied her in most films.”17

The woman‟s film was created, in essence, because it was recognized that there was a deficit of female-oriented movies in Hollywood. This deficit of films that are centered on a female character and her issues indicates that in the mainstream, women and their emotions, and issues, were unimportant.

The concept behind woman‟s films is fairly simple: women are placed at the centre of the universe, and the entire film will revolve around them. The central themes of these films are love and other emotions; these films portray topics that are generally

14

ignored, or deemed unimportant, by other mainstream Hollywood films. This draws attention to the implied societal ideas regarding women. In the majority of Hollywood films, as has been stated, women fill a role in relation to a male. They are wife, mother, daughter, lover, and so on, but they are rarely developed as individual characters in their own right. Virginia Woolf wrote that “women have served all these centuries as looking glasses possessing the magic and delicious power of reflecting the figure of a man to twice its natural size.”18 Within films, and generally throughout society, women were not accorded value relating to themselves as persons; instead they were valued based on their relation to a man. It was their job to ensure that they defer to their male counterpart to the best of their ability, and to put their own desires and emotions on the backburner, to realize that they are not of serious importance. This is how women are constructed within mainstream Hollywood films. If women are not portrayed prominently within mainstream films, and have to have their own genre in which their lives (and everything contained within) can be explored, it indicates that society deems women (or at least aspects of their lives) to be of little importance, beyond their roles as mothers and wives.

The creation of films for women finally allowed a female character to take on a different role. The main difference between mainstream films and woman‟s films is the latter a woman would be the central character and the film would place her in the role of hero. Despite the leading lady status obtained within a woman‟s film, Haskell contends the role of woman is still ultimately defined in relation to men.

Central to the woman‟s film is the notion of middle-classness, not just economic status, but as a state of mind and a relatively rigid moral code. The circumscribed world of the housewife corresponds to the state of women in general, confronted by a range of options so limited she might as well inhabit a cell. The persistent irony is that she is dependent for her well-being and “fulfillment” on institutions—marriage, motherhood—that

15

by translating the word “woman” into “wife” and “mother”, end her independent identity.19

The images of the housewife and mother, portrayed within the films produced by

Hollywood, put women at a severe disadvantage. They are confined to roles that society has deemed proper for them, and the choices available to them are very limited. Haskell indicates that while women, in theory, have many options for their lives, in actuality, they remain confined in their abilities to advance within society beyond the roles relating to marriage and motherhood.

Early films oriented to a female audience were intended to simply reflect the everyday lives of women. Within society, women were subjugated by their sex, and this is reflected in their positions within such films. Woman‟s films, however, served to reflect this in a way that was appealing to a female audience. Later films were formulaic in their storylines, but attempted to gain the sympathies of women in order to become profitable; “Like any routine genre, it was subject to its highs and lows and ranged from films that adhered safely to the formulae of escapist fantasy, films that were subversive only „between the lines‟ and, in retrospect, the rare few that used the conventions to undermine them. At the lowest level, as soap opera, „woman‟s films‟ fill a masturbatory need; they are soft core emotional porn for the frustrated housewife.”20 Woman‟s films are intended to allow women, confined within the positions that society has mandated for them, to have an outlet through which they can fantasize about an idealized life. These films are about romance, and love, and nearly always have a happy ending. The films allow an escape for the average women, through the portrayal of emotions, and a

16

woman‟s life, on the screen. They fulfill a need that is not realized in mainstream films.

This need is to see something to which they can relate in films.

While these women‟s films are not the exact same as chick flicks (as their heyday was in the 1950s), they were precursors to chick flicks. Both genres are formulaic and over-run with idealized romantic storylines, with a female in the lead role. In both genres a happy ending is paramount. As well, both provide the (primarily female) audience with an avenue to fantasize. The aspect of fantasy in woman‟s films and chick flicks, adds a level of appeal to the stories portrayed in these films. As Nimmo and Combs noted, in order for a film to be successful, it must contain a fantasy that is relatable to the masses that consume it. They write

…with movies, we have a complex fantasy process at work. In the context of culture and time, movie creators fantasize a story they believe both will be interesting to and will sell tickets to mass audiences. The fantasy takes shape as a dramatic popular story made into a movie and distributed to theaters. If the fantasy is shared by the movie going mass, it can become a hit.21

One of the main functions of the movie industry is to produce a relatable fantasy for the public to consume. In the case of chick flicks, the public the fantasy addresses is the female population. One of the primary functions of chick flicks is to present a female- centered story that is relatable to the fantasies of the movie-going female masses.

The majority of the defining aspects of a chick flick and a woman‟s film are the same, although the time periods in which they are set and produced differ greatly. But to differentiate between the two, a chick flick is a film that, like a woman‟s film, deals with a female protagonist. These films are heavily constituted by emotion and tend to focus on protagonist‟s personal relationships. The majority of these relationships tend to be of the romantic nature (although there are some films, Sex and the City being one of them,

17

that deal with relationships of a non-romantic, although highly congenial, nature, on top of the romantic relationships contained within). Molly Haskell acknowledges that woman‟s films and chick flicks are not identical, although they are not vastly disparate either. Woman‟s films reached their zenith in the 1940s and 1950s. In recent decades, chick flicks have risen to prominence and now occupy the void left with the decline of woman‟s films. As well, given that the time periods in which the two genres of films exist, there are obvious differences in relation to opportunities. Woman‟s films, occupying the time frame from the 1930s to the 1950s, lack equal opportunities for their leading women. Chick flicks, existing in the modern era, and following the feminist movements of the 1960s and 1970s, occupy a time frame in which women do have equal rights and greater opportunities. However, they also contain an overtly post-feminist attitude, because of the time frame in which they exist.

Angela McRobbie examines the idea of post-feminism within the scope of pop culture. Post-feminism is the “active process by which feminist gains of the 1970s and

1980s are undermined.”22 These processes can be both covert and overt, and one effective way through which these gains are undermined is within the sphere of popular film. Pop culture of film is an effective way through which messages can be sent, and in an increasingly post-feminist world, it is becoming a way through which feminism is undermined. McRobbie borrows from Judith Butler to identify why pop culture is a powerful tool to use for such effects: it is the site where “power…is remade at various junctions within everyday life (constituting) our tenuous sense of common sense.”23 This statement places pop culture in a very important position within society: the position to help alter positions of power as well as ideas governing common sense, which

18

subsequently determines actions based on judgment. The power of pop culture is precisely the reason why McRobbie (and others) examine the role that it can play in disseminating constructive messages regarding gender.

In post-feminism, pop culture is held to undermine feminism by making it appear to be redundant. Within pop culture, feminism has been rendered dated, to the point where it is not fashionable for young women to claim some identity linkage with it.24

Within younger generations of women, denouncing feminism is becoming ritualistic,25 and it is especially hated amongst young women, according to Wendy Kaminer. In

“Feminism‟s Identity Crisis,” Kaminer addresses the ever growing distance between young women and the work of feminism.

One of the greatest problems, writes McRobbie, is that feminism has become so canonized within academia. There is a large disparity between academia and popular belief, which is why feminism is more easily countered in pop culture. The space between academia and popular belief is where post-feminism works.26 It serves to fill the gap between academic feminism and popular versions of feminism.

The main contention of the post-feminist argument is that feminism is no longer necessary. On the surface, feminism has already done what it intended to: equality has been achieved, according to those who are proponents of post-feminism.27 It is derided as unnecessary, a thing of the past; discussions regarding feminism in popular culture dismiss feminism and its activities as irrelevant within modern society.28

McRobbie adds another layer to this discussion of post-feminism by discussing the role of choice within the lives of modern women. McRobbie borrows this topic from sociologist Anthony Giddens, who had discussed the idea of “female individualism.”29

19

This discussion draws from the principles of the modernity movement. Essentially, as

Giddens sees it, an increasing number of societal structures (relating to class) dropped away; it became more appropriate for individuals to start inventing one‟s own structures.

This, in turn, led to increased choice on behalf of the individual:

“Individuals must now choose the kind of life they want to live. Girls must have a life plan. They must become more reflexive in regard to every aspect of their lives, from making the right choice in marriage, to taking responsibility for their own working lives, and not being dependent on a job for life or on the stable and reliable operations of a large-scale bureaucracy which in the past would have allocated its employees specific, and possibly unchanging, roles Beck and Giddens each place a different inflection on their accounts of reflexive modernization, and these arguments appear to fit very directly with the kinds of scenarios and dilemmas facing the young women characters in the narratives of contemporary popular culture (especially so-called chick lit).”30

Women, in a post-feminist world, are given the opportunities to choose a direction for their lives that they were unable to have prior to feminism, and these women are provided more opportunities, though increased modernity, and therefore more education.

However, these discussions on the expansion of choice do not acknowledge the full scope of feminist issues, nor the recognition of any existing gender-based differences.

McRobbie further argues that feminism is invoked within pop culture as a way of looking at the past. Feminism served to provide women with more choices, and in that way, constrained the conventional desires of women, such as marriage and motherhood.31

Within these modern pop culture examples, many women seem to relish the idea of pursuing love and relationships as a way of making feminism irrelevant.32 Popular chick flicks are not portrayed as being ardently antifeminist; instead, these instances, where films portray women happily embracing aspects of society that feminism seemed to turn

20

their backs to, present a subtle backlash against feminism that is also found within society.

Modern chick flicks utilize the terms of feminism in order to turn away from the force of feminism and feminist criticism. These chick flicks, while focusing on a female protagonist, and directed to a female audience, present modern women in such a way as to draw the implication that feminism has done its job, and that women are equal beings, no longer in need of liberation. In actuality, these films, while focusing on emotion and relationships, seem to turn to and embrace those aspects of society which feminism had previously deemed conventional. Chick flicks portray a female protagonist in a role that appears on the surface to be modern and egalitarian, and yet, these characters embrace desires that feminism had thought crucial to constrain.

Chick flicks were born out of the desire to ensure that women had films that were relatable to them, and in order to fill a gap left by their portrayals within mainstream

Hollywood films. In order to ensure that these films are accessible to women, chick flicks focus on a central female character, around which the story and all other characters revolve. The emotions of the female character are explored extensively, given that in the majority of films, they are largely ignored. Furthermore, these films focus on personal relationships of the main character. These films fulfill a desire to portray women more accurately and are representative on screen. However, they still ensure that women are constrained by societal values, as these films have the heavy undertones of post- feminism.

21

Chapter 3: Sex and the City

Chick flicks are films that are principally directed towards a female audience.

Such films have a female lead, with an aim to ensure the inclusion of women within an industry that historically marginalized and narrowed their characterization within mainstream and male-oriented films. As Molly Haskell has argued, woman‟s films (and their successors, chick flicks) suggest that women, their emotions and relationships, are not central to society, portraying women in ways that trivialize them on topics or subjects that are ignored or considered relatively unimportant in society33. Woman‟s films focus on what they take to be female emotions and especially on their romantic relationships; these two foci are at the centre of most, if not all, chick flicks.

Recent chick flicks follow this pattern, but they also include appeals to the audience, in order for the films to be thought relevant and resonate with the audience.

The most recent chick flick includes aspects that are “post-feminist.” These serve to undermine the feminist movement, utilizing the language of the feminist movement while subtly indicating that feminism has done its job, and that it is largely obsolete within contemporary society. This function of chick flicks operates in a subtle way, but it is there to be found. The following chapters analyze two (very) recent Hollywood chick flicks that have both earned substantial rewards at the box office (indicating that the subsection of society to which they appeal relate to the message presented). The films will be analyzed in order to substantiate the claim that they are, in fact, chick flicks, based on the previously established definition. Then they will be examined for their post-

22

feminist aspects by exemplifying the subtler message being presented in the film (and being bought by society).

In the past decade one of the most watched and celebrated television shows, directed towards women was Sex and the City (HBO: 1998-2004). The show followed the lives of four New York women as they tried to balance friends, work and relationships. This series was immensely popular, earning massive ratings as well as multiple awards for those involved. It was a unique series, as it portrayed the day-to-day lives of (relatively) average thirty-to-forty-something women, and it presented everything from their points of view. The main characters were four women, and the males within the series always took a backseat to them and their issues.

The film picks up the narrative four years after the end of the HBO series. At the beginning of the movie, Carrie Bradshaw (the main character in both the series and the movie) is happily dating Mr. Big (her on-off love interest throughout the entire six year run of the original series). The three other main characters—Charlotte, Miranda, and

Samantha—also all begin the film in committed relationships, with two of them

(Charlotte and Miranda) being married, with children. Set over the period of one year, the movie follows the women through a multitude of life changing experiences, from broken engagements to a dissolving marriage, to the birth of a child, with the film ultimately ending happily for all concerned. At the centre of the film is Carrie, an early forties freelance writer, whose job depends on her being able to analyze (and then write about) relationships. After nearly ten years, she is now in a calm, committed relationship with John James Preston, aka Mr. Big. Their relationship exists as a central fixture of the film, with both characters being defined by it. At the outset, everything seems to be fine

23

within their lives; they have even decided to move in together. After the ups and downs of their relationship (all of which is captured in great detail in the original series) the two seem to be at a stage in their relationship where cohabitation is the obvious next step.

Carrie gets spooked, however, after hearing of another woman in a similar situation being left in the cold when the man decided to end their relationship. Upon hearing her concerns, Mr. Big proposes to Carrie. As the central couple are planning their nuptials, one of Carrie‟s three of best friends, Miranda, begins to see her marriage crumble around her, with the announcement that her husband has partaken in an extramarital affair. This affair results in her promptly leaving her husband and her moving back into the core of

Manhattan from her suburban life in Brooklyn. The other two main characters are also dealing with domestic dramas, albeit on extreme ends of the spectrum. Charlotte, happily married to a lawyer with an adopted Chinese daughter, unexpectedly discovers that she is pregnant. Samantha, having moved to Los Angeles to manage the career of her actor boyfriend, begins to doubt the direction that her life has taken, mainly the fact that a man has taken over her life.

The main turning point in the development of the characters, especially Carrie, is when Mr. Big leaves her at the alter in a moment of uncertainty. Following this, Carrie breaks down and tries to escape from the world she had known; this being easily done, as she still has her honeymoon tickets and her friends decide to accompany her. The film then follows the characters as they deal with the various unexpected turns that their lives have taken, with the majority of the film focusing on Carrie and her response to the end of her relationship.

24

Sex and the City contains the majority of the characteristics one would associate with a chick flick, the most obvious of which is the fact that the film centers on four female characters. Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda dominate the screen with their presence. In fact, there is never a scene in which a male is the dominant character, and nearly every appearance by one of the male characters is in relation to a female counterpart. There is, in actuality, only one scene in which any of the main males appear on their own, and this is during a New Year‟s Eve montage, in which there is no dialogue. Manohla Dargis wrote, in the New York Times, of the role of the men in this film: “Unlike the show, which allowed the men to emerge occasionally from the sidelines with lines of actual dialogue, the male characters in the movie stand idly by, either smiling or stripping, reduced to playing sock puppets in a Punch-free Judy and Judy

(times two) show.”34 The men are, more or less, treated as plot devices and props. The fact that the females in this film dominate instantly differentiates this film from the typical mainstream movie. Molly Haskell wrote that woman‟s films were created to give women a sense of importance denied to them in the plotlines of most Hollywood films.35

In the case of this film, the scales have clearly been tipped in favour of the centralized women characters. Sex and the City clearly places the female characters in a position of high importance within a fictionalized New York.

Sex and the City is not characteristic of a chick flick simply because of the predominance of female characters. Despite their centrality to the narrative, the plotlines of the story are such that, as Haskell had noted in regards to the woman‟s film, they would be nonetheless considered relatively unimportant by the measure of mainstream films. Moreover, the film focuses on the emotional wellbeing of the main characters and

25

the majority of the conversations throughout the film centre not on action or events that move the plot forward, but on the feelings of the characters and in the vast over-analyzing of the emotions that occurs following every event.

Samantha, after living with Smith for four years in Los Angeles, away from the city and people she loves, has come to the slow realization that she is no longer happy in her relationship. During an event that all four women attend, they sit down together and over a piece of cake analyze the relationship between Samantha and Smith. Prompted by

Carrie‟s asking the question “are you happy” Samantha responds: “relationships aren‟t always about being happy…if Smith can stay with me through chemo, then I should be able to stay with him through this.”36 At another point in the movie, during a Valentine‟s

Day dinner, Miranda and Carrie painstakingly go over the details of the infamous wedding photo shoot and interview with Vogue magazine that Carrie partook in, prior to her planned wedding date. The conversation agonizes over every little detail of the interview, to the point where Carrie states: “I didn‟t mention „we‟ once…I let the wedding getting bigger than Big.”37 In dealing with the emotions of the characters instead of action or plot points, the film differentiates itself from mainstream Hollywood films.

The movie functions as a chick flick on one other level as well. The movie revolves entirely around relationships. There is the saga of Carrie and Big, around which most of the film seems to revolve, and in which the main romantic relationship is found.

There are also the romantic relationships that the other women have, all with their individual story lines. However, even with these romantic relationships, the real relationship of note within the film (and the one that is at the heart of the film) is the

26

relationship, the friendship, that exists between the four main characters. This relationship is the one that endures throughout everything, and is the one into which the women put the majority of their effort. It is also the one that is meant most to appeal to the average female viewer. This is important as these chick flicks offer a form of escapism for women and provide a forum through which they can fantasize a sense of solidarity. The film ends with a birthday celebration for Samantha, her fiftieth. It is the quintessential Sex and the City moment. There are no men, no extra people invading; it is only the original four girlfriends, all dressed up to celebrate a milestone in their friend‟s life, after surviving the past year together. Carrie raises her drink and toasts: “to us, and the next fifty.”38 The film starts, and ends, with a celebration of relationships.

This film is very much archetypal of a modern chick flick. It involves itself with aspects of society that are deemed relatively unimportant within mainstream films; it centers the story on four women, with the majority of screen time being devoted to them.

There is a large amount of discussions related to the emotions of the main characters, and their relationships are paramount to the film.

Sex and the City also offers a backhanded insult, of sorts, to the feminist movement. It does so, not in an overt show of anti-feminism, but by subtly rejecting terms associated with feminism and by embracing aspects of society that feminism worked to deem as conventional and limiting.

One aspect of post-feminism portrayed within the film deals with the careers of the four women. Three of the four of them are employed, and successful within their respective careers. Samantha is a high-powered public relations executive, who deals exclusively with one client, her actor-boyfriend, Smith Jared. Miranda is a partner at her

27

male-dominated law firm, and Carrie is the author of a long-running column, as well as three successful books of non-fiction. Charlotte was once the director of an art gallery, but she had stopped working in order to be a homemaker, and a mother. Charlotte is the most glaring example of one of the main characters embracing the conventional desires of womanhood, forgoing her successful career in favour of becoming a stay-at-home wife and mother.

The film is not concerned with the employment status of the women; in fact, it is hardly ever mentioned that the women are employed. It is assumed, as the average viewer of the film would have seen the television series, but their careers are never explored in any detail, and seem to carry insignificant weight in their lives. Anthony

Lane, of the New Yorker, noted this when writing his review of the film:

At least, you could argue, Miranda has a job, as a lawyer. But the film pays it zero attention, and the other women expect her to drop it and fly to Mexico without demur. (And she does.) Worse still is the sneering cut as the scene shifts from Carrie, carefree and childless in the New York Public Library, to the face of Miranda‟s young son, smeared with spaghetti sauce. In short, to anyone facing the quandaries of being a working mother, the movie sends a vicious memo: Don‟t be a mother. And don‟t work. Is this really where we have ended up—with this superannuated fantasy posing as a slice of modern life?39

The film indicates that careers for these women are unimportant. But should they choose a career, it is suggested they had better prioritize that and not try to balance their work life with a personal life. The film presents these options as a dichotomy. The one character, Miranda, who at the outset seems to successfully be able to balance professional life with her personal life, sees her marriage fall apart, for which she seems to take the blame. She spent too much time working, instead of working on her marriage.

There are even points in the film where the other women seem to blame her for her

28

marriage falling apart, whether it be subtle hints (while in Mexico, Samantha implies that

Miranda “let the sex go out of her marriage”) or overt discussion of her decision to leave

Steve (“anyone can have one slip”). The film argues that careers should take second place to conventional female roles, such as wife and mother. It is alright for the women to have a career, but it should not take priority over love. In this vein, the film shows Charlotte‟s relationship as the most stable and happiest. Near the end of the film, Samantha asks

Charlotte “how often are you happy in your relationship.” Charlotte replies: “everyday.

Not all day every day, but every day.”40 Her relationship, her life, is the one that is portrayed in the film in the most positive light. She has done what she is supposed to do with her life: she had the career, while she was single, but once she found her husband, she left it behind in order to be the perfect Park Avenue wife and mother. And she is rewarded for living this way. Her romantic relationship does not suffer, as the others‟ do; she is able to have the perfect apartment, the perfect daughter and the perfect marriage, because she does not try to have it all. She conforms to the traditional expectations of her gender, and she is rewarded with happiness, while the other characters, who try to assert their independence and equality within the society (ideals associate with feminism) are punished with unstable relationships and unhappiness

The romantic relationships in this film are privileged more than independence.

The values that had once been forwarded by feminist movements, specifically the idea that it is acceptable for women to forgo traditional desires such as marriage in favour of their own desires for a career, are overlooked within Sex and the City. Carrie acknowledges this at dinner with her friends in Mexico: “After everything I know, after twenty years of everything we‟ve learned, I threw it all away for the thrill of putting his

29

name on the honeymoon suite.”41 Their independent dreams and desires can be thrown to the wind once their goal of finding a romantic partner is met.

Owen Gleiberman, in his review of the film for Entertainment Weekly, wrote that the four main characters “all took the fruits of feminism for granted: independence, equality, the right to sleep around, and the like. Yet what they found was a new kind of liberation. High on their pink drinks and showpiece handbags, literally high on their designer heels (and on the prospect of turning the search for a mate into another form of shopping), they embraced the holy right to be cosmetic, acquisitive, and — yes! — superficial.”42 The characters do not concern themselves with aspects of society, such as careers; instead they focus on men and fashion. They have subverted the ideal of feminism, and have created new ideals for women watching this film. It is no longer an admirable goal to be independent and successful. Equality is good, until they realize that they are alone. The women, at some level, clearly have accepted certain aspects of feminism, mainly the ideals of independence and equality. However, these have been subverted within the film, and the women, instead of coming off as paradigms of feminism, are portrayed as superficial, more than willing to compromise their supposed ideals in favour of the happily ever after. The film begins with a voice over, provided by

Carrie (who narrates the film). She notes that New York has always been a haven for young women, mainly for two reasons: “Year after year, twenty-something women come to New York in search of the two "L"s: labels & love…Twenty years ago, I was one of them. Having got the knack for labels early...I concentrated on my search for love.”43

This narration sets the tone of the film. Women are thus portrayed as having superficial ideals for their lives. They seek fashion and love as the ideals for women in the Sex and

30

the City universe. They come to New York as independent, and nearly all will search for some sort of career, but independence and jobs are not the final ideals for these women: they want love, and the superficial happiness provided to them by fashion.

Sex and the City takes into account the work that feminism has done in the past, especially when forwarding women‟s interests and rights to independence and equality.

However, the film does really consider these to be the most important goals of women in modern society. It uses these ideals in order to make the women seem modern, and feisty

(this so as to appeal to the audience) but ultimately the film turns its back on these ideals.

Feminism has done its job, and now it is time to move past it. It is acceptable, even desirable, to re-embrace traditional expectations for women. The film places Charlotte‟s perfect, and traditional, marriage and life on a pedestal, one of which the other women are clearly jealous, and wish to obtain for themselves. The main characters are concerned with their romantic (and fashionable) lives, not their independence, and this message appears to resonate with the audience that views it:

Look at the beam in your own eye, sister. Mr. Big not only buys her a penthouse apartment (“I got it”), he offers to customize the space for her shoes and other fetishes. “I can build you a better closet,” he says, as if that were a binding condition of their sexual harmony: if he builds it, she will come. The creepiest aspect of this sequence was the sound that rose from the audience as he displayed the finished closet: gasps, fluttering moans, and, beside me, two women applauding. The tactic here is basically pornographic—arouse the viewer with image upon image of what lies just beyond her reach—and the film makes feeble attempts to rein it in.44

The film portrays the lives of the leading women, especially Carrie, to be idealistic and enviable to those who view the film. Molly Haskell wrote that woman‟s films (and this can be extrapolated to include chick flicks) are used to conjure up a fantasy life in the eyes of women: “the term, woman‟s film, is used to conjure up the image of (a woman)

31

spilling out her secret longing in wish fulfillment…and transmitting these fantasies to the frustrated housewife… “Woman‟s film” fills a masturbatory need; it is soft core emotional porn for the frustrated housewife.”45 Although Haskell was discussing woman‟s films of the 1940 and 1950s, it is clear that this is still the case with modern chick flicks, and in particular, in Sex and the City. The film idealizes the lives of the female leads, so much so that women watching it appear to employ the film as their fantasy. It becomes “emotional porn”. This film intimates that the idealized woman will have a great sense of fashion and will always choose love (and a continuing relationship) over her other goals. When Carrie and Mr. Big are reunited after nearly a year apart, the voice-over narration states: “It wasn‟t logic, it was love” as Carrie races to return to Mr.

Big. The film purports that love is the end-all, be all and that the characters, and therefore the women who use these women as their idealized fantasy life, should be prepared to surrender their independence, and the ideals of feminism, in order to embrace the happily-ever-after.

32

Chapter 4: The Proposal

In a year that was dominated by mainstream actions films—Avatar, Transformers and Harry Potter—The Proposal offered a different sort of entertainment to the masses.

The Proposal was the highest grossing chick flick from the year 2009, appealing primarily to women viewers. This film differs from Sex and the City in the form that it takes. But both are solid examples of modern chick flicks; where Sex and the City is a dramedy focused on the lives of four women, The Proposal is a traditional romantic comedy, with the focus of the film on the romantic relationship between the two leads.

At the outset of the Proposal, Andrew Paxton is the executive assistant to the

Editor-in-Chief of Colden Books, Margaret Tate. It is quickly shown that Margaret is a no-nonsense boss, who constantly undermines and devalues her employees, to the point that nearly everyone in the office fears a run-in with her; Andrew typically orders two identical coffees in the morning on the slight chance that her coffee may spill. Margaret, on top of being a domineering boss, is also a Canadian citizen, whose work visa has just expired. She is set to be deported, and will consequently be unable to continue her work for the company. This revelation is a shock to her, as she has spent the majority of her adult life working to forward her career. The thought of her career ending is what motivates Margaret to take a drastic measure, bribing Andrew into marrying her so that she can remain in the country. Andrew is willing to go through with the sham marriage, despite his disdain for Margaret and the threat of jail time, in order to receive a promotion and to publish a book in which he believes.

33

With both willing to go through with this marriage of convenience, they must convince the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) that their relationship is real, and to do so, Margaret and Andrew decide to visit his parents in Alaska. The movie follows a predictable pattern for chick flicks; Molly Haskell noted that woman‟s films were a routine genre that followed a formula.46 In Alaska, Margaret (known as Maggie to

Andrew‟s highly informal family) learns about Andrew‟s past and family. Andrew also begins to see another side of Maggie and the two begin to form an intense emotional bond. The two begin romantically to warm to one another, which leads to a softening of

Margaret‟s demeanor.

Although the two lead actors shared top billing in this film, the main character is clearly Margaret. The movie starts and ends with a focus on her, and her character. The male lead exists in this film as both a romantic interest and as a device through which

Margaret‟s character is developed emotionally. In this way, the movie is revolving around the female character, with some (but not nearly equal) focus placed on the male lead; he is there to support the needs of the female lead. The presence of the female lead predicts that the film will revolve around emotional aspects, which are not central to the mainstream Hollywood film, and this proves to be the case in The Proposal as there is an emphasis on the emotional development of the main character of Margaret. As noted, in the beginning of the film Margaret is portrayed as cold, unfeeling. Within ten minutes of her arrival to work, she fires an employee, who is, in fact, the second in command. She does not bat an eye at this action, nor indeed show any emotion. This lack of emotion serves to suggest that Margaret is less of a woman, presenting her with values and emotional qualities typically associated with men. However, over the course of the film

34

the audience becomes privy to more of her inner (more conventionally female) emotions.

Her defensive wall begins to break down as she begins to fall for Andrew. Following an embarrassing nude run-in, the two begin to share secrets with one another. More accurately, it should be said that Margaret shares her secrets with Andrew, secrets and feelings that she never shares with others, as these, she thinks, serve to weaken her persona: “I read Wuthering Heights every Christmas, it‟s my favorite book….and I went back to my office and cried after Bob (the aforementioned fired employee) called me a heartless bitch.”47 This small confession suggests that Margaret is beginning to become more emotionally self-aware, and is more able to share herself with another human being, which was made possible by Andrew. The course of this emotional development highlighted throughout the film culminates during Andrew and Margaret‟s wedding. As the marriage service is commencing, and after it has become apparent to the audience that the two leads have fallen in love, Margaret calls the whole thing off, with an impassioned monologue (complete with the required musical accompaniment that signifies emotion):

I am a Canadian, with an expired visa, who was about to be deported. And because I didn‟t want to leave this wonderful country of yours, I forced Andrew here to marry me… For three years I watched him work harder than everyone else at our company. And I knew that if I threatened to destroy his career he would do just about anything. So I blackmailed him to come up here and lie to you. And I thought it would be easy to watch him do it. But it wasn‟t. And it‟s not easy to ruin someone‟s life once you see how wonderful it is.48

This speech signifies that Margaret is reaching a turning point, a transformation in her life. Where at first she was cold (some calling her “a heartless bitch”), she is now someone who is in love, and unabashedly revealing her emotions and developing morally as well. In a typical Hollywood film, this instance might not signify anything of

35

importance, but in a chick flick, where the emotional aspect of characters is focused on,

Margaret‟s emotional development is an underlying, theme.

The Proposal, despite exploring the female lead, primarily functions as a romantic comedy, a subsection of chick flicks. This type of film follows the paradigm of such films, with the added element of overwhelming romance, portrayed comedically.

Romantic comedy chick flicks follow the follies and foibles of a couple (or a pair of individuals who are destined to become a couple by the end). They typically end in the manner of Shakespearian comedies: with a happy ending (not necessarily a wedding, but with a happy couple nonetheless). This particular film centers entirely on the relationship between the two leads and it is their budding romance that carries the plot forward, as the narrative focuses on its development.

Angela McRobbie wrote that post-feminism is the active process by which feminist gains of the 1970s and 1980s are undermined.49 This is achieved in a variety of ways, covertly, within pop culture. It is especially at work within chick flicks aimed at women consumers of films. Most of these films, while centering on a female lead, cast women in a (supposed) position of power. However, the film then works to undermine the lead in this aspect. Without actually stating that she is in the wrong, or that she should have chosen a different life path, the film intimates a social role for the female that is more acceptable than feminist critiques of mainstream culture allow. Said films have become more frequent in recent years, as our society has trended towards a backlash to the feminist movement, and it steers women further to a return to more traditional and conventional values and roles. The Proposal serves as a prime example of a post-feminist backlash tactic.

36

Margaret Tate, it should be recalled, is the editor-in-chief of a large and prominent publishing company. She is immensely successful in her professional life, and she makes a substantial amount of money. For example, when on the plane to Alaska, while going over the questionnaire that the INS will be asking the couple, the question arises: “whose place do we stay at: yours or mine? Margaret responds: “That‟s easy: mine.” And why wouldn‟t we stay at mine” “ahh because I live at Central Park west.”50

Her address clearly indicates her status in her own mind, as does her general attitude.

She is proud of her achievements, and has worked hard to get to her high level career position. However, because of her professional drive, she has had to forgo those life experiences that are customary for women, mainly marriage and a family. Margaret is also demeaned by those who work with her, for her choice to focus on her career, and it is clear by the reactions of those around her that a women in her position of power is not necessarily revered, but is rather disdained and derided. Molly Haskell wrote that in the films of the early 20th century: the basest of a man‟s ambitions (crime, espionage) are often viewed with more respect than the highest (executive power, literary ambition) of a woman‟s…when a man “goes too far”—becomes a criminal—as a result of the ambition society has encouraged in him, he becomes heroic; when a woman pursues to extreme the prerogatives of the beauty for which society crowns her, she becomes a figure of contempt, a laughingstock.51

Women were not respected in films of the past for following their own career ambitions instead of those that society has deemed acceptable for them. Haskell argues that even highly regarded female ambitions were lower than a male‟s basest ambitions. When watching The Proposal, it is clear that there are many misgivings about a women achieving power, success, and standing more than a man.

37

Margaret is characterized, as I have said, as heartless and cold. She has been forced to put her emotions aside in order to achieve greatness in her chosen profession.

There are scenes where she is discussing her impending deportation with her superiors, and it is clear that she is simply behaving in the way that a male in her position would.

She does not try to distinguish herself as a woman, just as an executive. However, by taking on the characteristics that would be commonly found within her male colleagues

(the exact same characteristics that no one would blink an eye at were they present in a male), she is berated by her colleagues. As she walks through the main work area in her office, there is suddenly a flurry of „instant messages‟ being sent computer to computer, all saying the same thing: “It‟s here.” A few minutes later, a second IM, this time sent by Andrew himself, is sent around the office: “the witch is on her broom.”52 These sentiments are common among Margaret‟s co-workers. In order for her to achieve and maintain her position of power she had to give up some of her emotions; in other words, as suggested above, she had to act more masculine in order to be taken seriously in the profession. However, in doing this, she alienates those who work with and for her. She is not specifically viewed as being woman, despite her outward appearance, because she does not act feminine. Her ambitions are panned by her colleagues, as it has forced her to become “a heartless bitch.” Her ambitions are not respected by her colleagues; in order for her to gain her position of power in the work place she has to suppress some of her femininity. Despite the strength of feminist movements between the early years of

Hollywood and 2009, there is still evidence here that women‟s highest ambitions are not to be portrayed as respected.

38

Margaret is highly successful in her career; Andrew is her direct subordinate within the film, her executive assistant. In creating the characters in this way, typical gender roles are reversed. Whereas typically it would be the man with the more prestigious and high paying career, in the case of this film it is the woman, with the man taking on what is typically thought of to be a female role. This reversal of traditional gender roles, at first, appears empowering. In traditional films, the main female character always seems to be subordinate to the male; this film subverts what is conventionally expected. By doing this, the film utilizes the advancements made by the feminist movement, in regards to female equality in the workforce, to render a female in a position of power. However, such supposed feminist indications are overpowered by the overwhelming disdain held for Margaret and her successful career in the eyes of others with whom the film invites the audience to identify.

When Margaret and Andrew arrive at his parents‟ house in Alaska, a party awaits them. During this party, two guests strike up a conversation with the couple. They intend to extract information in order to better understand what exactly a book editor does, “besides taking writers out to lunch and getting bombed.” The female guest talking to the couple directs her questions to Andrew, assuming that he is the one with the high- powered career. Andrew‟s father interrupts the conversation, by informing the couple of the real identity of the editor: “no, no, Andrew‟s not the editor, he‟s the editor‟s assistant.

Maggie here‟s the editor.”53 Andrew looks embarrassed as his father emasculates him, while Margaret appears uncomfortable to be so obviously placed above Andrew. The couple with whom they are speaking amusedly state that Margaret is Andrew‟s boss, smirking. On the surface, this seems to allow for the female character to be seen

39

comfortably in a position of power. But underneath the surface there is a clear uncomfortable feeling suggested surrounding the idea of a female boss, as well as a female in the typical male role.

It is not just Margaret who is derided for this alteration of the accepted order.

Andrew is similarly disrespected for his involvement in this gender role reversal. He is often called a secretary, specifically by the chairman of the company. In his attempts to reaffirm his traditional masculinity, he continually informs others that his position is that of Executive Assistant, as if added the word executive will make him more masculine.

This role reversal serves to make the film seem empowering to women viewing it; it serves as a form of fantasy for those viewers. However, within the structure and representation of the film itself, it is evident that some discomfort with the idea of

Margaret being more successful than Andrew is intended.

Margaret does not take part in this uncomfortable dance around the gender roles, as she is the one that is benefiting. However, as the film develops, she begins to accept some of the more conventional desires that are attributed to women. In her attempt to climb the corporate ladder, she has had to forgo traditional milestones in a woman‟s life, such as marriage and children. She does not initially seemed concerned with not having these, as she has succeeded in her career. However, as it becomes apparent that she will not have her successful career for much longer (as she will be deported), she turns to a conventional desire in order to save herself. McRobbie notes that, following the years of feminist movements, women have more choices for their lives: they can choose to work, and focus on a career; they no longer have to settle on becoming a housewife. Despite the increase in opportunities, women within popular culture are represented as tending to

40

embrace the conventional desires and goals that feminism had attempted to eclipse.54

Margaret has chosen to focus on her career, instead of traditional desires. However, she is derided for her choices and she quickly accepts the idea that she will have to turn to convention in order to save that for which she has worked. She does not hesitate to turn to marriage once she realizes that her career needs it; this again privileges a relationship as an object of women‟s lives.

While the relationship begins as one of convenience, ultimately Margaret is all too willing to embrace certain associated conventional aspects relating to women in married life. Following a night filled with confessions and sharing of secrets, Margaret, clearly already falling for Andrew, jokingly says: “I guess this little missus better learn how to cook, keep my man happy.”55 While she says this in a facetious manner, it is clear to the audience, with Margaret‟s body language, that she is falling in love with

Andrew and is willing to conform to certain societal expectations in order to make him happy. After spending the first portion of the film celebrating her independence, as well as stating that she has been alone since the age of sixteen, Margaret seems simultaneously happy and confused with her decision to embrace convention and marry Andrew.

In “Post-feminism and Popular Culture,” Angela McRobbie argues that for women, after being given an expansive freedom of choice in recent years, thanks to feminism, being able to conform to conventional desire is subversively satisfying, a relief. This is the reaction that Margaret has after she begins to fall for Andrew. She is confused by her feelings, but ultimately, once she realizes that she is in love with

Andrew, seems to begin conforming to the traditional societal standards of a life expected of women.

41

The final subversion of feminism within this movie occurs with the mention of the term itself. As Margaret presents herself as an independent woman, she seems to ally herself with the feminist movement, or at least with some ideals of the feminist movement, although she never overtly labels herself as a feminist. The term is used once in the film, however, and it is used in such a way that further subverts the positive connotations that the term can have and not long ago did have. As the couple arrives in

Alaska, they are required to take a boat in order to get to the Paxton family home.

Andrew unloads the truck of the luggage, having visible difficulty lifting Margaret‟s bag

(as she is a consummate over-packer). Instead of helping her with her bag, Andrew walks ahead, onto the boat. His grandmother protests, insisting that he help her, to that

Andrew responds: “I‟d love to, but she won‟t let me do anything. She insists on doing it all herself. She‟s one of those…she‟s a feminist.”56 His family sees this as a positive example of empowerment; Andrew, however, uses this characterization as a punishment.

He is upset with the circumstances he is in and to punish Margaret for putting him in this situation, he makes her deal with her bags. It is not that this is a severe punishment though it is symbolically significant; what is severe is the fact that he uses the phrase:

“she‟s a feminist” to justify a punishment for her. In a film that seemingly supports an independent, successful female—one that seems to have broken through the glass ceiling in her industry, and by all accounts could be used as an example of what feminism has allowed women to achieve—the fact that being called a feminist is seen to justify even a moderate, or symbolic, punishment, clearly serves to disparage the feminist movement in the eyes of the audience.

42

The film uses the conventions of a chick flick as part of an effort to subvert the values of the feminist movement, even as it appears to be recognizing it. Margaret in the beginning of the film is represented as a strong, confident, independent woman, who has succeeded in her field. However, the film takes a decidedly anti-feminist turn. In her review of the film, New York Times critic Manohla Dargis sums up the action of the movie thusly:

After nestling in the bountiful bosom of family and some unexpected naked slapstick with Andrew, Margaret melts. He mans the ramparts, she lowers her defenses. He thrusts, she parries. He chops wood and loses his shirt. She loses her cellphone and ditches the heels. He rescues her, scooping her out of the water after she falls from a boat. She shivers and smiles and tears up as she talks about her tragic past, revealing the sad little girl who‟s long been hidden behind the cruel disguise of a sensationally successful professional adult. Ding-dong the witch is soon dead and in her place, well, here comes the bride.57

The movie, which starts with a female lead who could originally be seen as a role model for women who want to follow their career goals, eventually sees the independent woman succumbing to the desires of convention. Within the film, such a woman is viewed as a witch, according to Dargis, or in the case of this film, as a “cold-hearted bitch.” But her representation softens as she begins to fall in love.

Love is viewed as Margaret‟s redeeming quality. “Ding-dong the witch is dead”58

Dargis writes. She is a witch until she is in love. The film portrays independence and a successful career as things that de-feminize Margaret. In order to save her from a lonely existence (and to literally save her from deportation), she has to have a man. Moreover, the film contains a gender role reversal, but it is short-lived. Margaret is a bitch, and

Andrew is emasculated. What saves the characters within the film is the power of the relationship. It re-feminizes Margaret; she begins to show real emotions, instead of

43

hiding behind her tough outer shell. It gives Andrew the chance to show his masculine side; he is allowed to take on the conventional role of a man. The film ends with Andrew proposing to Margaret. By this point, the two are in love, and the proposal, while needed to keep her in the country, is desired by both of them. It also gives Andrew the opportunity to play the man‟s role fully for the first time in the film. He is the one who calls the shots (telling her not to interrupt and to listen to him); he is the one who gets to propose (fulfilling the man‟s role in this ritual—the role that he was not able to perform during the first proposal of marriage in the film, as Margaret proposed), and the role reversal is re-reversed. This final act in the film seems to bring a sense of sanity to the characters. They both end up finding their “true roles”: Margaret becomes feminized, while Andrew is allowed to govern the relationship.

The film intimates that women can achieve greatly in their careers, and that they should be given the opportunity to try. However, as was argued by Molly Haskell when discussing the Hollywood films of the early twentieth century, the heroine of the film can act on her ambitions and desires for her career only if they took second place to the love of a man.59 Margaret had the opportunity to succeed in her career, and had succeeded in fooling everyone into believing that she and Andrew were happily in love, therefore succeeding in keeping her work visa and her career. However, at the last moment, she recants, realizing that her feelings for Andrew trump any career goals she may have held at one point. Her ambitions have taken a backseat to her love for Andrew, and she has realized that he is the most important thing to her. Out of this love she is willing to return to Canada instead of forcing him into a marriage of convenience. The film ultimately argues that relationships, at least for the female, should take priority, therefore subverting

44

the ideals of a feminist movement that advocated that women should have equal opportunities and lives not dependent upon relationships with men. The opportunities women are given are equal here, but what we are lead to expect of them is not. This is evidenced throughout the film, from the treatment of Margaret by her colleagues, the obvious embarrassment on Andrew‟s part in regards to him being Margaret‟s assistant, to the (final idea) that love of a man, for women, is the act of sanity. The film undermines the feminist movement by embracing conventional desires from which feminism fought so long and hard to break free

45

Chapter 5: Conclusion

It wasn‟t that I didn‟t want to do comedy. It‟s just that I would only get offered girlfriend parts in guy comedies, which aren‟t exciting to me, or those offensive roles in romantic comedies where the woman has to have a job in fashion so that she can have nice clothes, and her goal is always marriage. Natalie Portman

Chick flicks fulfill a much-valued role within the pop culture environment. They provide an outlet through which women have an opportunity to see a story that relates to them portrayed on the silver screen. Within films, women have not historically been given roles of inherent importance; they have been placed in positions defined in relation to men and almost never placed as equals to them. Chick flicks allow women to have a leading role and allow them to be portrayed in a way that was previously not allowed.

On the surface, these films seem to be an improvement. Women are given a position of prominence in a historically phallic-centric industry.

However, these films do little to advance the cause of women. True, the stories portrayed within chick flicks revolve around a central female character and, more importantly, these films allow an examination of some of the emotions and values of this female character previously disallowed by an uninterested audience. In spite of this, chick flicks inherently work against the cause of feminism, and ultimately, against advancing the interests of female gender.

This genre of film makes use of feminist terminology and representations, and superficially embraces the values and ideals of feminism. Ultimately, however, these films work against the feminist movement. They embrace instead the ideas of post- feminism. They embrace the idea that feminism is out of date. There have been successes and equality has been achieved; it is now time to move on. By

46

acknowledging the feminist movement, and even at times seeming to embracing it, chick flicks are able to subvert these ideals, and inevitably argue in favour of embracing duties and values deemed conventional by the feminist movement.

As the quotation at the beginning of this chapter indicates, within mainstream

Hollywood films there are very limited choices for a female character. One can be a significant other or one can play the lead in a chick flick, which is just as insulting. Both types of roles indicate that a woman should strive to have success in their personal relationships above all else. Historically, this is how Hollywood has portrayed women.

They can strive to succeed professionally, but should always prioritize a romantic relationship above everything else; a successful career should always take “second place to the sacred love of a man.”60

Women are very limited in their portrayal within films. A recent study conducted by the University of Southern California‟s journalism school noted that, in 2007, less than 30% of all speaking roles within films were given to a female. More than 50% of the world‟s population is female, and yet less than 30% of all speaking roles are given to women.61 This itself confines the options for the portrayal of women significantly.

This lack of female speaking roles makes the portrayal of women within chick flicks all the more significant. Given that chick flicks are, predominantly, the only films with female leads, it is more likely that a female audience will see these films, and identify more fully with them. Women will increasingly relate to these films, especially those that are successful at the box office. Nimmo and Combs argue that for films to be successful, they must be significant for the audience. For films to be relatable, the must reflect the society of the time.

47

Chick flicks, especially the two analyzed within this thesis, are successful at the box office, showing that the audience that has consumed the film, find it compelling.

This is a concern as filmmakers have advanced a post-feminist reading of society in the stories of chick flicks. These stories, these fantasies, relate to the society of the time, which is also turning away from feminism.

Hollywood has been producing films for mass consumption for nearly a century.

Within this time, there have been few significant genres directed towards women, with female leads. The most successful of these genres, especially in modern society, is the chick flick. It is disconcerting that these films are being consumed by the masses. The films embrace the language of the feminist movement, while subverting its ideals, and ultimately encouraging women to succumb to traditional desires, mainly marriage and children. These films are watched by women of all ages, and the stories told within (the successful ones) are bought and believed by the consumers. Society has begun to deem feminism unnecessary, as this is being portrayed within popular chick flicks. Chick flicks on the surface seem harmless, as they are consumed by the masses as pure entertainment, and as an avenue for fantasy. However, the danger arises as the popularity of this genre, and the stories contained therein, rises. The message is being bought by those that consume them. This message is ultimately detrimental to society as a whole, and women specifically. Our contemporary society has already begun to deem feminism irrelevant; it will only become more so as more and more women buy into the themes within chick flicks, and begin to construct the fantasies contained therein.

1 Dan Nimmo and James E. Combs, Mediated Political Realities(New York: Longman Inc, 1983), 105 2 Ibid, 107 3 Ibid, 105 4 National Post. “Women‟s Studies is Still with Us.”January 26, 2010.

48

5 Wendy Kaminer. “Feminism‟s Identity Crisis.” Atlantic Monthly (Oct 1993): 51-52 6 Nimmo and Combs, Mediated, 122 7 Ibid, 106 8 Brenda Austin-Smith, “Feeling Framed: Emotion and the Hollywood Woman‟s Film,” in Power and Resistance:Critical Thinking about Canadian Social Issues, Edited by Les Samuelson, Wayne Antony(Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing, 2003):65 9 Laura Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” in Feminist Film Theory edited by Sue Thornham(New York: New York University Press, 1999): 58 10 Ibid, 59 11 Laura Mulvey, “Afterthoughts on „Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” inspired by King Vidor‟s Duel in the Sun(1946),” in Feminist Film Theory edited by Sue Thornham(New York: New York University Press, 1999):127 12 Ibid, 127 13 Ibid, 127 14 Molly Haskell, From Reverence to Rape (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973), 4 15 Ibid, 3 16 Ibid, 3 17 Ibid, 28-29 18 Ibid, 1 19 Ibid, 159 20 Ibid, 154-155 21 NImmo and Combs, Mediated, 105 22 Angela McRobbie. “Post-Feminism and Popular Culture.” Feminist Media Studies, no.4, vol 3(2004):255 23 Ibid, 256 24 Ibid, 255 25 Ibid, 258 26 Ibid, 257 27 Ibid. 257 28 Ibid, 258 29 Ibid, 260 30 Ibid. 261 31 Ibid, 262 32 Ibid, 262 33 Haskell, From, 154-156 34 Manhola Dargis, “The Girls are Back in Town,” New York Times, May 30, 2008 35 Haskell, From, 28-29 36 “Goodbye Girls,” Sex and the City, DVD, directed by Michael Patrick King (USA, New Line Home Entertainment, 2008) 37 Ibid, “Valentine Confession.” 38 “Dressed in Love,” Sex and the City 39 Anthony Lane, “Carrie,” The New Yorker, June 9, 2008, http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2008/06/09/080609crci_cinema_lane?currentPage=all 40 “Goodbye Girls,” Sex and the City 41 “I wouldn‟t Know Me,” Sex and the City 42 Owen Glieberman, “Sex and the City,” Entertainment Weekly, June 6, 2008, http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20202617,00.html 43 “Two Ls, Four Girls,” Sex and the City 44 Lane, “Carrie.” 45 Haskell, From, 154-155 46 Ibid, 154-155 47 The Proposal, DVD, Directed by Anne Fletcher (USA: Touchstone Pictures, 2009) 48 Ibid 49 McRobbie, “Feminism,” 255 50 The Proposal 51 Haskell, From, 29 49

52 The Proposal 53 Ibid 54 McRobbie, “Feminism,” 262 55 The Proposal 56 Ibid 57 Manhola Dargis, “From the Corporate Jungle to Wild Alaska: Taming the Savage Beast.” New York Times, June 19, 2009, http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/movies/19proposal.html 58 Ibid 59 Haskell, From, 4 60 Ibid. 4 61 Johnny Dee, “Our Survey Says: Women Don‟t Count In Hollywood.” Moviephone. http://www.moviefone.ca/2010/02/25/our-survey-says-women-dont-count-in-hollywood/

50

Works cited

Austin-Smith, Brenda. “Feeling Framed: Emotion and the Hollywood Woman‟s Film,” in nnnnnnnPower and Resistance: Critical Thinking about Canadian Social Issues, Edited nnnnnnnby Les Samuelson, Wayne Antony. Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing, 2003.

Dargis, Manhola. “From the Corporate Jungle to Wild Alaska: Taming the Savage nnnnnnnBeast.” New York Times, June 19, 2009, nnnnnnnhttp://movies.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/movies/19proposal.html

Dee, Johnny. “Our Survey Says: Women Don‟t Count In Hollywood.” Moviephone. nnnnnnnnhttp://www.moviefone.ca/2010/02/25/our-survey-says-women-dont-count-in- nnnnnnnnnhollywood/

Glieberman, Owen. “Sex and the City,” Entertainment Weekly, June 6, 2008, nnnnnnnhttp://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20202617,00.html

Haskell, Molly. From Reverence to Rape. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973.

Kaminer, Wendy. “Feminism‟s Identity Crisis.” Atlantic Monthly (Oct 1993)

Lane, Anthony. “Carrie,” The New Yorker, June 9, 2008, nnnnnnnhttp://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2008/06/09/080609crci_cinema_l ane?currentPage=all

McRobbie, Angela. “Post-Feminism and Popular Culture.” Feminist Media Studies, no.4, nnnnnnvol 3(2004):255-266

Mulvey, Laura “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” in Feminist Film Theory edited nnnnnnby Sue Thornham,58-69. New York: New York University Press, 1999.

51

Mulvey, Laura .“Afterthoughts on „Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” inspired by nnnnnnKing Vidor‟s Duel in the Sun(1946),” in Feminist Film Theory edited by Sue nnnnnnThornham. 122-130. New York: New York University Press, 1999.

National Post. “Women‟s Studies is Still with Us.”January 26, 2010

Nimmo, Dan and Combs, James E. Mediated Political Realities. New York: Longman nnnnnnInc, 1983

Sex and the City, DVD, directed by Michael Patrick King. USA: New Line Home nnnnnnEntertainment, 2008.

The Proposal, DVD, Directed by Anne Fletcher. USA: Touchstone Pictures, 2009.

52