criterionforum.org

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Grown Ups. I would much rather watch this than Grown Ups or anything featuring Adam Sandler and his hangers on. Though to call it a comedy would be a bit of a misnomer. A movie featuring him married to Salma Hayek and Kevin James married to Maria Bello should be considered science fiction.

Indeed. What's with this current Hollywood obsession of pairing hot chicks with oafish man-children? :-s The only genuinely funny movie Sandler's ever been in was "Punch-Drunk Love."

Moonlitknight wrote:Indeed. What's with this current Hollywood obsession of pairing hot chicks with oafish man-children?

It's actually very simple: attractive women appeal to the prime demographic for these kind of films more than unnattractive ones. Plus it makes for a kind of comic "odd-couple" deal.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:A movie featuring him married to Salma Hayek and Kevin James married to Maria Bello should be considered science fiction.

In real life, Kevin James is married to a model and Adam Sandler's wife is quite good looking. But even if we ignored this, could you tell me why it must be science fiction to find attractive women who aren't shallow and who value things in a person beyond their looks?

I suppose you're right. Actually, Adam's not a bad-looking guy (when he's not making the goofy faces and whatnot) and I can probably name a few other films of his that I actually liked other than Punch-Drunk Love which I adore. Kevin is funny as hell, and it doesn't surprise me he would attract a good-looking woman. I had a discussion with someone once about how comedians get more women and female adoration than other performers (excluding musicians, of course).

I probably should have picked on the Wayans Bros. instead.

Artie Lange has a great bit abouty his girlfriend saying he's her type, and proceeding to ask why she doesn't have posters of Kevin James and old pinups of Jackie Gleason on her wall.

flyonthewall wrote:I had a discussion with someone once about how comedians get more women and female adoration than other performers (excluding musicians, of course).

Depends on the material, tho'. I doubt Jim Norton's routine ever got him much action.

Mr_sausage wrote:It's actually very simple: attractive women appeal to the prime demographic for these kind of films more than unnattractive ones. Plus it makes for a kind of comic "odd-couple" deal.

And the prime demographic better relates to the oafish man-child because they are oafish man-children. Total wish fulfillment. Also, beer commercials latched onto this formula long before Hollywood took note.

flyonthewall wrote:I had a discussion with someone once about how comedians get more women and female adoration than other performers (excluding musicians, of course).

I wish someone had mentioned this when I was in high school. I remember our gym teacher telling us if you join the football team or play in a band you automatically get girls; no looks, brains or talent required. I couldn't do either of those but I bet I could have thrown together a stand-up routine. Fathers, have this talk with your sons.

DoctorSunshine wrote:And the prime demographic better relates to the oafish man-child because they are oafish man-children. Total wish fulfillment. Also, beer commercials latched onto this formula long before Hollywood took note.

If it's such wish fulfillment, how come the guy doesn't get to remain an oafish, childish dick to the end and get the girl because of it? How come he always has to grow up or learn a life lesson or go through a crisis out of which he becomes a better person in order to get her/keep her? Unlike the opposite gendered version, the Cinderella story and its variants, where the girl doesn't have to go through any moral or ethical change, she just gets to magically become beautiful when she puts on an expensive dress and then is swept off her feet by prince charming into totally unearned luxery and happiness, the male-version insists its character has to grow and earn his happiness by some (admittedly often trite) life lesson. So if we want to talk about insulting and empty wish fulfillment, why is no one complaining about the clearly worse example?

Mr_sausage wrote:

DoctorSunshine wrote:And the prime demographic better relates to the oafish man-child because they are oafish man-children. Total wish fulfillment. Also, beer commercials latched onto this formula long before Hollywood took note.

If it's such wish fulfillment, how come the guy doesn't get to remain an oafish, childish dick to the end and get the girl because of it? How come he always has to grow up or learn a life lesson or go through a crisis out of which he becomes a better person in order to get her/keep her? Unlike the opposite gendered version, the Cinderella story and its variants, where the girl doesn't have to go through any moral or ethical change, she just gets to magically become beautiful when she puts on an expensive dress and then is swept off her feet by prince charming into totally unearned luxery and happiness, the male-version insists its character has to grow and earn his happiness by some (admittedly often trite) life lesson. So if we want to talk about insulting and empty wish fulfillment, why is no one complaining about the clearly worse example?

Well, but wait a minute -

1 - the whole stepmother thing didn't count for anything?

2 - you're comparing a pop-culture movie genre with one fairytale? Why not compare it to The Wizard of Oz, for example, which is just as popular today (and in the original version *wasn't* a dream)? Or Hansel & Gretel, where the little girl pushes the witch into the oven? In both the kid learns how to take care of herself.

3 - you're comparing a slapstick-ish comedy movie genre that's got maybe a couple of decades to it with a (noncomedic) fairytale that may date back to ancient Greece? When social expectations were drastically different, plus the point of the fairytale was, to a certain degree, emphasize (a) the rewards for purity and (b) the triumph of "good" over "evil"? Symbolism might be playing a bigger role than you're giving it credit for. Cinderella is more an aspiration than who one currently is.

I mean, if it's a matter of the characterization being a touch of a stereotype, okay; I agree that the genre tries to at least come up with some sort of life lesson (although I think DoctorSunshine's not far off and the movies sometimes insult the demographic). But I don't agree that the comparison's valid (see Apples and Oranges, above).

But then I don't get the general dislike for Burn After Reading, either. I went in with no expectations (my b-in-law and I were figuring out what to watch, and we picked that), and I thought it was fun.

Mr_sausage wrote:

DoctorSunshine wrote:And the prime demographic better relates to the oafish man-child because they are oafish man-children. Total wish fulfillment. Also, beer commercials latched onto this formula long before Hollywood took note.

If it's such wish fulfillment, how come the guy doesn't get to remain an oafish, childish dick to the end and get the girl because of it? How come he always has to grow up or learn a life lesson or go through a crisis out of which he becomes a better person in order to get her/keep her? [...]

The joke I've always heard is that women get married in the mistaken belief that they can get their husbands to change, while men get married in the mistaken belief that their wives will never change. Sausage, are you saying that these films are actually wish fulfillment for the female demographic? :-k

To get back on-topic, it is true that just about every oafish man-child movie I can recall inevitably requires the protagonist to grow up, usually leaving his layabout friends (Norm McDonald?) behind. And I'm wondering if my dislike of Burn... results from the fact that this just doesn't happen. All of the characters not only refuse to grow up/face their issues (such as alcoholism), but they're all well past the stage in their lives where such intellectual/emotional growth could happen. Again, even if that's the point of the movie, that doesn't make it good, but at least on that level it might be read as a subversion of the typical comedy trope of required personal growth to which sausage alluded.

lady wakasa wrote:2 - you're comparing a pop-culture movie genre with one fairytale?

No, what I am comparing are two differently gendered approaches to the same archetype.

lady wakasa wrote:you're comparing a slapstick-ish comedy movie genre that's got maybe a couple of decades to it with a (noncomedic) fairytale that may date back to ancient Greece? When social expectations were drastically different, plus the point of the fairytale was, to a certain degree, emphasize (a) the rewards for purity and (b) the triumph of "good" over "evil"? Symbolism might be playing a bigger role than you're giving it credit for. Cinderella is more an aspiration than who one currently is.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I'm comparing these movies to the actual text of Cinderella. I'm not. As I said above, I'm comparing two approaches to an old archetype. Romantic comedies have been using the Cinderella archetype for the long time, the most egregious example being Pretty Woman.

lady wasaka wrote:I don't agree that the comparison's valid (see Apples and Oranges, above).

On what grounds could you claim it is invalid to compare movies that use the same archetype of the unequal relationship?

I'm convinced the whole backlash against the pretty-girl-marrying-the-ugly-guy motif has its roots in the old sexist belief that a man is permitted to marry a woman from a lower station than his own because by marrying her he raises her station, while a woman cannot marry a man below her station because by marrying him she lowers her own.

jbeal wrote:The joke I've always heard is that women get married in the mistaken belief that they can get their husbands to change, while men get married in the mistaken belief that their wives will never change. Sausage, are you saying that these films are actually wish fulfillment for the female demographic?

Hah! Who knows.

Mr_sausage wrote:If it's such wish fulfillment, how come the guy doesn't get to remain an oafish, childish dick to the end and get the girl because of it? How come he always has to grow up or learn a life lesson or go through a crisis out of which he becomes a better person in order to get her/keep her? Unlike the opposite gendered version, the Cinderella story and its variants, where the girl doesn't have to go through any moral or ethical change, she just gets to magically become beautiful when she puts on an expensive dress and then is swept off her feet by prince charming into totally unearned luxery and happiness, the male-version insists its character has to grow and earn his happiness by some (admittedly often trite) life lesson. So if we want to talk about insulting and empty wish fulfillment, why is no one complaining about the clearly worse example?

The character arc and plot are only perfunctory in most of these types of films. They'll maybe keep the audience in their seats for the hour and a half--as well as diffusing or distracting from any, say, moral or feminist criticism, because, hey, it's got a positive message, right?--but I'd wager the core audience is less interested in any life lesson than the idea that a schlub can, potentially, maybe, someday, score a bombshell.

I'd agree that the female counterpart's just as insipid but I wouldn't say they're any worse. In the Pretty Woman variant, she suffers and suffers and then, finally, everyone realizes that she was a beautiful princess all along. The arc is as much society coming around as the main character but the--still trite--lesson is self-worth and confidence. Likewise, the core audience has a good cry but it's unlikely anyone's going to walk out of the theatre a better person. Also, perhaps a better comparison might be to the panderous action flick, a superman kicks ass for an hour an a half and then wins. Did Rambo ever learn anything or grow as a person? (I don't know how to bring this back around to Burn After Reading.)

Of course, I also don't doubt that there are some females out there who want to ensure they're the intellectual superior in their relationship. :-"

Rambo is a bad example of what you're trying to say, Commando works much better. This actually reminds me of when the remake of Funny Games came around. A discussion I had with one of my sisters centered around the fact that much of Haneke's criticisms for horror films more strongly apply to action films.

Doctor Sunshine wrote:I'd wager the core audience is less interested in any life lesson than the idea that a schlub can, potentially, maybe, someday, score a bombshell.

My own wager would be that neither of these things are particularly interesting to the "core audience" over the promise of finding much laughter in the odd comic situation. Let's not talk down about people: very few if anyone are going to these movies for the purpose of vicarious wish-fulfillment or to feel better about their own chances at dating. This is neither the pull nor the appeal. People go because they think the situation will provide good material for jokes.

Doctor Sunshine wrote:I'd agree that the female counterpart's just as insipid but I wouldn't say they're any worse.

Well of course it's worse. However trite you want to think them (and I'd say the Apatow movies are just this side of that line), the male version at least forces its characters to acknowledge the consequences of their bad behaviour and change as human beings. This cannot be insipid; I don't see how you could manage the argument.

Now, you say about the female counterpart: "The arc is as much society coming around as the main character but the--still trite--lesson is self-worth and confidence." If this meant the self-worth and confidence that comes with having genuinely achieved something in life despite whatever negative elements the plot tosses your way, fantastic. But it's never that. At best, such a movie says that you can get all of your self-worth and your confidence and the respect of your society if you can just manage to get yourself swept away by some rich and handsome man through no merit of your own besides your ability to look smashing in an expensive dress. It's the Job story robbed of the theological and ethical weight that makes it interesting and not an ancient version of Saw.

What we're comparing is this:

A. so long as you're pretty, forget everything else and work on that and someone else who is pretty will find you and fix everything wrong with your life.
B. you may not be terribly good looking, but so long as you have some positive character attributes like a great sense of humour and are willing to work on your less positive ones, you can get a pretty good girlfriend and manage a rather satisfactory middle-class life.

Now, aside from the fact that we can all think up real life instances of B. but not a single one for A., can you honestly say that they have equal merit? On what basis? They may both be fantastical to a certain degree, but what idea is more insipid, that if you work at something you will reap a reward, or that if you're superficially appealing expect life to shower you with every happiness and fullfilment thinkable? I'm sorry, I just cannot accept that there is anything comparable between the two. At worst, B. is innocuous. At best, A. is mildly insulting.

Doctor Sunshine wrote:Did Rambo ever learn anything or grow as a person?

Yes, actually. He has a pretty well sustained arc through all four movies. Indeed, I was rather pleased to find by the final movie he'd realized that he never truly does violence for noble aims, always for selfish ones: because he just wants to, for his own reasons.

My bad.

Mr_sausage wrote:My own wager would be that neither of these things are particularly interesting to the "core audience" over the promise of finding much laughter in the odd comic situation. Let's not talk down about people: very few if anyone are going to these movies for the purpose of vicarious wish-fulfillment or to feel better about their own chances at dating. This is neither the pull nor the appeal. People go because they think the situation will provide good material for jokes.

The jokes and names are, of course, the main draw. I'm not saying anyone's more likely to pay to see a pretty girl with schlub than they are to learn how Hollywood thinks they can become better people but I do think the former has connected to enough test audiences that it'll stay almost as well entrenched as the latter. I also think the former will earn more good will for the names involved than the latter and thus word of mouth and then revenue. As far as an odd couple dynamic, I see these relationships being presented rather matter-of-factly. I'm sure there are exceptions but most jokes centre around the guy doing idiotic stuff and the gal almost playing the straight man. This random beer commercial boils down the dynamic I see succinctly: link.

Mr_sausage wrote:A. so long as you're pretty, forget everything else and work on that and someone else who is pretty will find you and fix everything wrong with your life.
B. you may not be terribly good looking, but so long as you have some positive character attributes like a great sense of humour and are willing to work on your less positive ones, you can get a pretty good girlfriend and manage a rather satisfactory middle-class life.

On type A, I agree that there's often not a lot of character growth, the woman pretty much starts perfect except for her nerd glasses and non-glamous clothing. The Prince Charming may be the catalyst but the moral is generally that she was beautiful all along but she need the confidence boost that Dolce and Gabbana and a man provide. Hurr... that does sound bad, doesn't it? Well, I'll say that it's more a "believe in yourself and you can overcome anything" type of message. I don't think that's any more or less trite than type Bs grow the fuck up already message. The idea that all women are princesses is another example of fantasy fulfillment. It's somewhat limiting in terms of an arc but when you're pandering you can no less abandon that than you can kleenex box moments (A) or fart jokes (B).

I'll counter propose: A. Women endure and are rewarded. B. Men work and are rewarded. Still cliche but that wouldn't raise my hackles. Full disclosure, I haven't actually seen Rambo. Commando either. But there is no lack of stupid action movies out there.

Doctor Sunshine wrote:Well, I'll say that it's more a "believe in yourself and you can overcome anything" type of message.

Except that is not the message at all. Let's be clear, my good doctor: Prince Charming does not ride in because the woman believes in herself, that always happens after; and by the time she does, who cares? Her problems have already been solved and anyway it's not an impressive feat to gain confidence in yourself when you have a rich, dashing, handsome man making you feel as tho' you really were better than other people. It is not enough to ask only whether or not a character gains self-confidence; you must also consider the origin of that confidence, and in the case of the Cinderella archetype the source is neither comendable nor enlightening.

I think, if I can remember right, the biggest obstacle for the woman is overcoming the suspicion that she doesn't deserve the happiness showered on her. Since she invariably doesn't, I'm not much in sympathy; but even if she did, why is it happiness always comes in the form of wealthy men? Surely I cannot be the only one to find it rebarbative that earning superficial rewards from superficial sufferings is what women are told they ought to wish for. Indeed, these kinds of films are invariably wish-fulfillment in a way that the guy version almost never is.

Reminds me of how good a book Pride and Prejudice is: tho' D'arcy is rich beyond imagining, it's perfectly clear his riches and station mean nothing either to him or Liz, whereas in most Cinderella-story type Rom Coms, the wealth is the whole appeal. Not to mention how much of the book revolves around the dangers of making bad decisions when one's lot in life is hard, and that Liz earns her rewards because of her high intelligence and uncommon presence of mind, not because she is the prettiest of the bunch (her elder sister is). I like to think the book--and the excellent movie released a few years ago--is a satire that reveals all the fatuity within the Cinderella archetype.

Doctor Sunshine wrote:I'll counter propose: A. Women endure and are rewarded.

So long as they're good looking. The dowdy single mother raising three kids on a shitty salary isn't getting swept off her feet. In a comedy, at best she's the sassy best friend, worst, the object of ridicule for her mean personality. So you'll forgive me for not being much impressed with the trials of a pretty house-maid if those trials all revolve around how awful it must be for pretty people to live among the ugly.

Mr_sausage wrote:. . . how awful it must be for pretty people to live among the ugly.

It's actually not as bad as you'd think. Just keep your eyes down.

zedz wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:. . . how awful it must be for pretty people to live among the ugly.

It's actually not as bad as you'd think. Just keep your eyes down.

And you'll end up running into enough walls to fix your problem...

Mr_sausage wrote:

zedz wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:. . . how awful it must be for pretty people to live among the ugly.

It's actually not as bad as you'd think. Just keep your eyes down.

And you'll end up running into enough walls to fix your problem...

Oh, I've got my Prince Charming and sassy gal pal to look out for things like walls. And if they're busy with their own subplots there's always the servants.

Mr_sausage wrote:Except that is not the message at all. Let's be clear, my good doctor: Prince Charming does not ride in because the woman believes in herself, that always happens after; and by the time she does, who cares? Her problems have already been solved and anyway it's not an impressive feat to gain confidence in yourself when you have a rich, dashing, handsome man making you feel as tho' you really were better than other people. It is not enough to ask only whether or not a character gains self-confidence; you must also consider the origin of that confidence, and in the case of the Cinderella archetype the source is neither comendable nor enlightening.

Perhaps this would have gone smoother if we'd stuck to concrete examples rather than broad generalizations. I must have seen Pretty Woman almost the full 20 years ago but let's go with that. I said she's almost perfect at the beginning. Roberts is beaten down by uppity clothing store employees, maybe there was a pimp in the movie... George Castanza? Any confidence and self-worth is shaken or not present in the beginning. Gere sees that's she's not just your ordinary, everyday, run-of-the-mill prostitute and takes a liking to her, gives her a credit card, she gets her groove back. Sure, she enjoys shopping spree and Prince/architect(?)--both panderous wish-fulfillment in the highest degree--but the idea is that she gains confidence and the happy ending by way of those old standbys, "believing in herself" and having at least one other person do the same. The money is really just gravy, as the producers and audience like a big finish--it could just as easily be a princess and a stable boy. Or two poor people but they strike it rich on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. The Cinderella dynamic is just the default go to.

I actually would like for you to be right, your theory's more fun and interesting that my simple "they're both pedestrian" but it's too cynical, even by Hollywood standards, to think that they're saying beauty and money is everything. And even if one of us is definitively correct, I'd place the general perception (not here but overall) as being that Cinderellas are more sophisticated than Beauty and the Beasts. Same thing in real life, teenage and twenty-something guys are patiently louder than age equivalent girls and are perceived as being less mature but if you've been privy enough of these girls' conversations you'll find they're at about the same level. I'd say that carries over.

Mr_sausage wrote:The dowdy single mother raising three kids on a shitty salary isn't getting swept off her feet.

Dowdy single moms find husbands all the time. If you absolutely need an example with loads of flush cash, off the top of my head I can only give you Susan Boyle and Simon Cowell.

Doctor Sunshine wrote:I'd place the general perception (not here but overall) as being that Cinderellas are more sophisticated than Beauty and the Beasts.

The whole point of the Cinderella archetype is that the woman is not sophisticated, but gets to fulfill the dream of dating a man who is. Again, the achievement is the status that comes from marrying or dating a rich, handsome, wordly guy. All benefits are gained through that proxy, not earned through individual achievement. You have to admit that this is true: the woman only gains things through the man.

Doctor Sunshine wrote:Roberts is beaten down by uppity clothing store employees,

Too bad you've glossed over this because it's the most important point: she walks into a high end store by herself, looking like a street walker, and is snubbed. She comes back with Richard Gere who agrees to buy her whatever she wants. The key moment is when she's revealed wearing her first classy, high-end dress and realizes with new-found modesty what a becoming woman she is as Richard Gere understands for the first time that he genuinely loves her. I'll requote myself:

"At best, such a movie says that you can get all of your self-worth and your confidence and the respect of your society if you can just manage to get yourself swept away by some rich and handsome man through no merit of your own besides your ability to look smashing in an expensive dress."
"the Cinderella story and its variants, where the girl doesn't have to go through any moral or ethical change, she just gets to magically become beautiful when she puts on an expensive dress and then is swept off her feet by prince charming into totally unearned luxery and happiness"

This is how the archetype works, this is the core of its meaning, the value of a pretty dress, the value of an external status signifier, the way self-esteem and social esteem and love all bloom atop external symbols of value like a great dress and an attractive rich guy. Nevermind life-choices, a good expensive dress clears it all away. It's not just superficial in the vulgar sense; it's directly concerned with the positive value of the superficial. I am not being deliberately perverse, here: this point is presented very openly and clearly. The woman gains love and wealth and happiness when she puts on the dress. She does not get it through self-confidence; on the contrary, she gets self-confidence from those things.

You keep emphasizing this "believe in yourself" motif, but you never answer what exactly this person believes about herself, nor how, nor why this is important. You haven't said it, I think, because you know the damning answers: what she believes about herself is that she was better than other people all along and truly should be in higher social circle. At least in the actual text of Cinderella, the title character is a good, self-sacrificing person from the start; in Pretty Woman and other Rom Coms using the archetype, the lead female is never defined by any good action. It is taken for granted that, because she is played by an attractive actress, she must be a higher being; and to emphasize this fact the movie parades her about at some crucial point in a spellbinding dress, whereupon the male lead finally confronts the extent of his affections. Rom Coms about a woman who performs saintly actions from the start invariably make the guy clueless in some manner so that he may grow to be worthy of her, making him the one who's saved (like that Hugh Grant/Sandra Bullock movie, Two Weeks Notice).

Now, as to "how" she believes in herself, I'll repeat: from the value of an affluent male. Note that it could never be from the love of a non-affluent male. He must have some sort of high social status for his judgements to mean anything to the woman (or so these movies would have it). Why is any of this 'believe in yourself' stuff important? It's not. There is no dramatic fulfillment here. Fulfillment rests solely on whether or not the couple are together at the end, not whether one of them has enough self-esteem to admit she deserves unearned luxery. Tho' it's a moot point considering her gains in self-esteem are one more happy by-product of her new rich boyfriend and not the thing by which he was finally snagged.

Doctor Sunshine wrote:it's too cynical, even by Hollywood standards, to think that they're saying beauty and money is everything.

If it is so cynical, explain the ubiquitous "dress scene." Why does the hero always realize the extent of his affections at the precise the moment he sees her in the most stunning apparel wardrobe could dig up? Why is the hero always very, very rich, and why is his richness always over-emphasized with limo drives and helicopter flights and things that'll overwhelm the woman into surrender? Why is there usually a scene where catty women of a higher social sphere get shown up by nothing more than a display of the heroine's new-found status symbols?

Not every Rom Com takes this archetype. As I said above, Two Weeks Notice has the woman be a more working-class character with granite, altruistic values and requires the man to give up something of his money and status in order to be with her (tho' the movie does have a dress scene, despite having no dramatic need for one, just to point out how conventional it's become). This, like the B&B type, I find innocuous and pedestrian, not the other one.

Doctor Sunshine wrote:Dowdy single moms find husbands all the time

I was talking about in the movies.

Fair enough, I suppose I was being dismissive and imprecise in characterizing the genre conventions. I hope you'll forgive me for not tracking down a copy of Pretty Woman in order to provide a more solid argument, but, I'll tell you what I'm going to do: I'm going to read the Wikipedia plot description... There, done. You're welcome.

First, what I was saying with "the general perception ... being that Cinderellas are more sophisticated than Beauty and the Beasts" is that chick flicks are generally perceived as being superior to guy movies. That was sort of a tangent at the end of my post.

So, agreed, Roberts (and the archetype) is unsophisticated, this is her proverbial nerd glasses. Wealth and status are achievements, yes, but the main ones are love and marriage. Is she undeserving of love and marriage? Hooker, heart of gold, I'm going to give it to her. Wealth and status? Well, there's a case to be made that she's the woman behind the man, she keeps him honest, motivated and she doesn't surrender when social divides rear their ugly head. Persevering over social mores is nothing to be sneezed at. (I don't detect any superiority on her part. In fact, the store clerks do display snobbishness and get their comeuppance for it.) She doesn't prostitute herself emotionally, she's willing to give up Gere and that lavish lifestyle when she gets uncomfortable with some of the shadier goings on--that's got to be worth something. That's what I would file under the "being true to herself" and "believing in herself" maxims. The former's probably more accurate here. Honestly, though, maybe that's not enough to warrant her cash rewards. Also damningly, the idea can be taken that every girl deserves--and will get--her prince. That can be a harmful notion. However, as much as we all love our stuff, I'm sure more tears were shed over the love angle than the bank account.

Sure, the transformation is magical, the man is deus ex machina, but it's fantasy. You come home from a hard day of work. You walk the dog and feed the kids. Hey, it's date night and it's your turn to pick the movie. Would you rather watch a woman go though several days, months or years of hard work and then bust through the glass ceiling, or see some rich stud woo a hooker? And why aren't you helping the turtle? On the dress scene, yes physically beauty important but I believe the subtext is that he's seeing her for the first time and, hopefully, inner beauty is implied. I mean, say what you will about Robert's but she has a winning smile and her eyes are of the non-vacant variety. I know that's not a perfect argument but, like you say, it's Hollywood shorthand. Why does the man have to be rich? Why does the woman have to be beautiful? Demographic research. Why do they overemphasize either of these traits? Sloppy filmmaking.

Again, rather than bromances, I would equate this to the male escapist, superhuman killing machines films. The equally negative "violence is cool" message can be taken but for most I'd hope it's temporary, cathartic fun. Bromances I would equate with typical squabbling romantic comedies of the Did You Hear About the Morgans? variety. Both of which I would categorize as even more harmless. I realize that in indicating that these may be less harmful it may appear that I almost agree with you but I assure you this is not the case. Sometimes cool shit falls into people's laps. If I don't wear my shirt, shoes or killer dress I may not get served. It happens to a more extreme degree in Pretty Woman than it normally does in life but that's the nature of storytelling. This mildly offends me not in the least. And I don't see any evidence that it was all about the money for her. If Gere renounces his wealth sometime after the end credits, I don't see them separating.

at least in the actual text of Cinderella, the title character is a good, self-sacrificing person from the start

For some reason I seem to recall Cinderella killing her first stepmother before the evil one complete with stepsisters turned up. So her character arc was bad > punished > forgiven by pretty dress and prince.

Sanjuro wrote:

at least in the actual text of Cinderella, the title character is a good, self-sacrificing person from the start

For some reason I seem to recall Cinderella killing her first stepmother before the evil one complete with stepsisters turned up. So her character arc was bad > punished > forgiven by pretty dress and prince.

Haha! I love how morally ambiguous and capricious these tales can be. Anyway, I'd probably conflated the tale with the Disney movie.

Doctor Sunshine wrote:Sure, the transformation is magical, the man is deus ex machina, but it's fantasy.

Well, no one's denying that. My concern was that, compared with the new guy trend, it's both more fantastical and less moral. These kind of movies don't actively earn my ire; what does is the ignorant misconception that the guy version is a terrible new sexist trend. When I hear that I feel compelled to point out the older one and ask: is this preferable?

Doctor Sunshine wrote:On the dress scene, yes physically beauty important but I believe the subtext is that he's seeing her for the first time and, hopefully, inner beauty is implied.

I think if that were the case the movie would go out of its way to have the male accept the female as she is, in spite of the crones in the wings, and have him learn that trite lesson. Since it doesn't I'm not inclined to credit any such implication: these kinds of movies go for broad effects, and if what you say is true of the film's intent, one would expect it to have a dedicated scene rather than lie buried under a scene that seems to reinforce the importance of attire in getting positive appraisals of your character.

Doctor Sunshine wrote:Again, rather than bromances, I would equate this to the male escapist, superhuman killing machines films.

I've never been comfortable discussing this as a movie phenomenon. Sigurd the Volsung was slaying men and monsters and acting like something more than human (but less than a god) in texts near 800 years old. There are different things informing these movies than just escapism. But point taken.

Anyway, since this has run its course, I'll offer a digital handshake for the interesting discussion and for putting up an excellent, well-considered counter-argument.