edited by Moisés Chiullan

The Third Man (Criterion Blu-ray)
This title in particular has been the subject of a good deal of controversy on Elsewhere (among other sites), message boards, and email lists across the web. No one seems to talk about much aside from the "Grain Issue." Since the grain (or overabundance thereof) is the obvious elephant in the room, I'm going to address it before getting on to the additional content on display here, of which there is much to see and thoroughly enjoy. (continued)

Upcoming

December 31

Defiance

Good

January 2

Cargo 200

January 7

Silent Light

January 9

After Dark Horrorfest 2009

Bride Wars

How About You

Not Easily Broken

The Unborn

Yonkers Joe

January 16

Chandni Chwok to China

Cherry Blossoms

Hotel for Dogs

My Bloody Valentine 3-D

Notorious

Paul Blart: Mall Cop

January 21

Of Time and the City

Deballed guy characters

email this story
read comments (26)
post a comment

Just as there are certain high-powered male directors (Michael Mann, Oliver Stone, Paul Verhoeven) who've been accused of not writing fleshed-out female characters -- objectifying women by portraying them as sassy hotties, madonna-whores or out-and-out vipers -- there are female directors and writers who also prefer opposite-gender fantasy characters, and so they write these sensitive-wimp males for women's-market movies like The Nanny Diaries, The Jane Austen Book Club, Friends with Money, The Holiday, etc.

I'm saying that "chick-movie guys" are romanticized bullshit projections of men that certain female filmmakers would like to meet and fall in love with in real life. Males who are the polar opposite of Vince Vaughn in The Wedding Crashers or The Break-Up or Thomas Haden Church in Sideways. Tenderness, perceptiveness and sensitivity are admirable traits in any person, but there's something almost other-wordly about those gentle, supersensitive guys in mature chick flicks. There's something deballed about them. They're just not "guys."

Walker vs. Gigolo<< previous | next >>Crime-scene cleaning movies

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 22, 2007 at 1:15 PM

comment #1

Caz3773 says ...

Even worse are the guys who have personality and edgeand sexuality, then reveal themselves to be these emasculated, hypersensitive men just putting on a front that only their true love can break down.

Posted by Caz3773 at August 22, 2007 1:44 PM

comment #2

jeffmcm says ...

So everyone's even then, right?

Posted by jeffmcm at August 22, 2007 1:48 PM

comment #3

JeffGP says ...

Wait, wait, wait, who on Earth has made such claims about Paul Verhoeven? Nobody has written more wonderfully fleshed out female characters than him (Katie Tippel, Spetters, Black Book, The 4th Man, Business is Business).

As for Stone and Mann, those claims are true. They have no idea what they're doing in that area. They still have made some of the best recent "man movies." And nobody likes Michael Mann more than the best critic (female or otherwise) in the country, Manohla Dargis.

Posted by JeffGP at August 22, 2007 1:50 PM

comment #4

nycfilmguy28 says ...

I wouldn't include Friends With Money in that grouping. It's a much more interesting film, and I like Nicole Holofcener as a director. Every character in that film is somehow compromised in an interesting way--male and female.

Posted by nycfilmguy28 at August 22, 2007 1:54 PM

comment #5

bmcintire says ...

I'd approximate them as not "human" over not "guys." And if they were truly de-balled, they wouldn't end up fucking the generally hot leading lady, which they always do. When it comes down to it, they're no less a fabrication of humanity than John McClane or James Bond.

Posted by bmcintire at August 22, 2007 1:54 PM

comment #6

erniesouchak says ...

A lot of chick flicks are shitty movies, period. I think some of the best women (and men) have been written by Richard LaGravenese and Jim Brooks.

Posted by erniesouchak at August 22, 2007 1:55 PM

comment #7

MAGGA says ...

Exactly right, Jeff! If you had seen Norwegian chick-flicks your eyes would have rolled out of your head. I am talking eighteen year old, good-looking guys who would love nothing more than to settle down with a middle-aged working class woman etc. But when men are presented in this way it is "balance" because women are often portrayed as stereotypes. Both types of projection are boring.

Posted by MAGGA at August 22, 2007 2:00 PM

comment #8

George Prager says ...

They appeal to the same kind of women who watch Frasier and dream about David Hyde Pierce being their boyfriend.

Posted by George Prager at August 22, 2007 2:03 PM

comment #9

krout says ...

I'd have to disagree with Jeff listing Paul Verhoevan. His "Black Book" had a very strong, will-full female leading role. Other than that, I completely agree.

Posted by krout at August 22, 2007 2:21 PM

comment #10

chicbn872 says ...

I hate that argument against Michael Mann. I think that Diane Venora's characters in "Heat" and "The Insider" are well written roles. Sure, she was all strung out in "Heat" but she eventually bowed up to Pacino's character in it.

You hit the bullseye regarding chick flicks. The example of this that I despise the most is Mark Ruffalo in "Just Like Heaven". It pains me to see him in that movie. Reese comes along and just sweeps this widower off his feet. His wife died bitch! Can't a guy get his life together in his own time?

Posted by chicbn872 at August 22, 2007 2:24 PM

comment #11

Josh Massey says ...

I think Ruffalo's best work was in 13 Going On 30.

Posted by Josh Massey at August 22, 2007 2:32 PM

comment #12

Abbey Normal says ...

C'mon...you gotta give us a list to argue over. Who are the worst offenders? Should Hugh Grant get a lifetime achievement award? Here are a few nominations:

* All the men in "Mystic Pizza"...a horrible batch of ball-free males. At one point, the guy dating Julia Roberts acually removes his own spine, gift wraps it, and whimperingly places it at her feet.

* Cusack in "Say Anything"...yeah, it's a great movie and all. But man, is that guy a pushover.

* "How Stella Got Her Groove Back" One of the worst titles for any book or movie in history also contains the studly, but testicularly challenged Taye Diggs.

There are more. Speak.

Posted by Abbey Normal at August 22, 2007 2:33 PM

comment #13

James Leer says ...

I assume you're talking about Hugh Dancy in "Jane Austen Book Club"? While the actor is too attractive for the character, I actually know a lot of guys like that (for those who don't know, Dancy works in tech support, loves Ursula LeGuin, and is unsure how to proceed around women). They're called nerds.

Posted by James Leer at August 22, 2007 2:48 PM

comment #14

christian says ...

oh, sorry. i didn't know this was for the room for tim allen stand-up riffs...

Posted by christian at August 22, 2007 2:49 PM

comment #15

Rob says ...

I've said it again and again, Friends with Money is a brilliant movie and doesn't really belong in this genre at all. For starters, it's mostly a downer, and some of the male characters come off better in the end than some of the women.

Posted by Rob at August 22, 2007 3:18 PM

comment #16

Monument says ...

I disagree about Cusack in "Say Anything." Sure he's a pushover, but he's also playing an 18 year old kid. I don't know any high school boys that are manly and mature, especially when girls are involved.

Posted by Monument at August 22, 2007 3:21 PM

comment #17

gunder says ...

Neil Labute does some pretty cool stuff with women...

Posted by gunder at August 22, 2007 3:29 PM

comment #18

Aladdin Sane says ...

Friends With Money was boring.

Posted by Aladdin Sane at August 22, 2007 3:38 PM

comment #19

T. Holly says ...

I most be well rounded, because I'm all this, "sassy hotty, madonna-whore or out-and-out viper."

Posted by T. Holly at August 22, 2007 3:55 PM

comment #20

christian says ...

i was going to copyedit until i got to the "sassy hotty, madonna-whore or out-and-out viper."

Posted by christian at August 22, 2007 5:03 PM

comment #21

Griff says ...

Let's call those films what they are: Porn.

Porn for chicks. Because what is a lot of porn but fantasy about what could happen...but isn't bloody likely (unless you're Jeff at a party with two chicks, so smolderingly manly that even Ray Winstone can't make time with his babes).

It's Porn whose name we dare not speak, because, you know, it's made by women, mostly, and they aren't like that.

Posted by Griff at August 22, 2007 6:54 PM

comment #22

Nate West says ...

No, it's not "porn for chicks." It's the very antithesis of porn. Fantasy does not equal debasement. Such movies are anti-porn.

And "guys" have their limitations: prone to hubris, arrogrance, land invasions.

Posted by Nate West at August 22, 2007 8:46 PM

comment #23

BurmaShave says ...

I think Mann knows women just fine, and likes them. Look at Madeline Stowe in MOHICANS. But if you feel the heat around the corner...

Posted by BurmaShave at August 22, 2007 9:15 PM

comment #24

RoyBatty says ...

FRIENDS WITH MONEY - yep, I too picked up on the slight anti-male trend with this film. Even if the female characters are flawed, the men come off much worse.

Surprised no one listed WHAT WOMEN WANT as one of the worst mainstream male-bashers of recent cinema. And if you are tempted to disagree, simply reverse all the genders and ask yourself would women raise a stink about the unflattering light they would then be presented in. You bet your ass they would.

Posted by RoyBatty at August 23, 2007 6:39 AM

comment #25