Trite reviews hurt 'Chicks'

Chicks on Film

Anne Reifenberg and

Cynthia Thomas

Avon

H

Here's a hint: When trying to get the world to respect you and treat you as an equal, stupidity is generally not the best route to pursue. This would seem obvious, and yet, the new video guide, "Chicks on Film: Video Picks for Women and Other Intelligent Forms of Life," by Gabrielle Cosgriff, Ann Reifenberg and Cynthia Thomas, shows that not everyone has figured this out. This book, written under the aegis of feminism, is just a slap in the face to the women's movement, and its 250 reviews do little for the intelligent video shopper.

The book, loosely based on a cable TV show hosted by the authors, is a response to the phenomenon that, as the women say, "it's mostly guys who critique movies on TV, not to mention in newspapers and magazines." Let us not quibble over the fact that Pauline Kael - a woman - is widely regarded as one of the best film critics of all time, or that Janet Maslin and Lisa Schwarzbaum - both of whom are female - are also well respected in the industry.

The authors go on to write that "women are more complex than guys, who require only noise, cars, large firearms, and naked floozies on the screen." But we soon find that these three women are not necessarily more highly evolved than men and that they enjoy the same superficial effects.

"Chicks on Film" is divided into arbitrary sections - apparently based on a higher form of logic than most are capable. "Chicks in Charge," "Ueber-Chicks," "Sisterhood" and "Men in Uniform" are just a few of the politically correct and broad chapter categories. In each section, films relating to the category get a small review from one of the women, followed by a short response and opinion from the other two. Most of the time the three do not agree on what is worth watching.

The format works well - notwithstanding the terse nature of the reviews - but the organization seems random and, at times, misled.

In one section, "Nun but the Brave," a review for "Dead Man Walking" immediately precedes a critique for "The Sound of Music." Aside from the nun factor - and perhaps the Nazi/capital punishment link - these films have little in common.

And when was the last time we really wanted to see a nun movie, anyway?

In review after review, the triad defeats the purpose of its work, by continually criticizing films based on their inherent "male" elements, instead of simply looking at whether a movie is well-made or not and why. Furthermore, the three use stereotypically "female" elements - such as cute animals, good butts and great kisses - to judge.

In a review of "Terminator 2: Judgment Day," Cynthia Thomas writes, "you'd have to be a T-800 with no human parts to enjoy this movie." According to Thomas, if a movie does not move the viewer to tears and is full of "male" elements, it is not worth the time it takes to watch it. She writes, in response to a review of "The Secret of Roan Inish," "Give me a movie with cute animals and I'm happy." But she, of course, does not buy into stereotypes.

The selection of films reviewed is also a bit haphazard. Most of the films mentioned are already considered classics. The writers' platitudes about why "Now Voyager" is a great "ueber-chick" movie, or why Olivia De Haviland really deserved her Oscar for "The Heiress" seem insulting to these already well-respected titles.

Some films that would otherwise fit well in a video guide - "Citizen Kane," "On the Waterfront," "Carrie," to name a few - are not included seemingly because they do not fit squarely into one of the pre-determined categories.

"Chicks on Film," which claims to be a feminist retort to a sexist and male-dominated corner of the world, simply gives men more reasons to dismiss "chick-films" and "chick reviewers."

The three writers make their own opinions seem laughable and trite, and then they do not tell you why to watch or not watch a movie - just whether the lead actor has a good butt or not. Gloria Steinem should be very upset by this work.

- Aaron Rich

10-14-98