Having grown up with two sisters and no brothers, I am well-versed in the “chick flick” movie genre. The term chick flick usually incites eye rolling and sarcastic comments from men, while prompting a guilty affection in many women, but I feel no guilt about my knowledge of the genre. And that’s because I know the empty shells of today’s chick flicks were not always the movies that defined the genre.
Flash back to Oct. 5, 1961 — the release date of possibly the most famous chick flick of all time, “Breakfast at Tiffany’s.” The effervescent yet troubled Holly Golightly, played by Audrey Hepburn, wooed audiences and critics alike, earning the film nominations for Best Actress and Best Screenplay at the 1962 Oscars.
It’s hard to imagine any chick flick today getting nods at the Academy Awards, and it’s partly because more recent films of the genre have taken the basic plotline of the chick flick — girl meets boy, drama ensues, girl ends up with boy — and eliminated the complexity of character and smartness of screenplay that filled it out.
Holly Golightly’s story wasn’t really about her happy romance at the movie’s end. It was about the “chick” herself who had deep-rooted problems that kept her from successful relationships, not just with men, but with people in general. Part of the film’s success should be credited to Truman Capote, whose book the movie was based off of, but the entire production of the film, as well as its acting and Oscar-winning musical score, contributed to the creation of a super-chick flick.
Today’s popular chick flicks, such as “27 Dresses” (2008) and “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days” (2003), might be thoroughly entertaining, but their protagonists, usually workaholics or cynical women who reluctantly “fall” in love, are not memorable.
Take Katherine Heigl’s character, Jane, in “27 Dresses” — a pathetic embodiment of the always-a-bridesmaid-never-a-bride cliché. The movie’s sole purpose is to advance the love story, which is why plain Jane becomes a one-dimensional character, and the movie becomes another stain on the chick flick label.
To avoid over-referencing my favorite Audrey Hepburn movie, I’ll move on to another great Hepburn of the chick flick genre, Katharine Hepburn.
“The Philadelphia Story” (1940) is another shining example of a chick flick propelled by a complex female lead, Tracy Lord (Hepburn). Tracy is a rich socialite with high standards and a low tolerance for imperfection, such as her ex-husband’s slight drinking problem. However, her ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven (Cary Grant) is charming and kind, something Tracy eventually steps off her pedestal to realize by the end of the movie. The story is not about their romance so much as the drunken blunders and realizations Tracy makes before accepting Dexter with his flaws.
The difference between Heigl’s simplistic character in “27 Dresses” and Hepburn’s haughty portrayal of Tracy in “The Philadelphia Story” is obvious: One character is bland and the other is actually interesting.
Chick flicks have become known as movies catered to the romantic fantasies of women but they originated as films that centered on well-developed female characters who also happened upon romantic endings. And that’s what made it possible for a chick flick like “The Philadelphia Story” to win the 1940 Oscar for Best Screenplay.
