I just finished watching "Licence to Wed" and my one word review is, "YUCK". It was sappy, more than predictable and barely funny at best. That's not the point of this entry, but it did get me thinking.
Is it so politically incorrect to have a strong man in a any kind of "couple" type scenario that they have been written off into extinction? Be it on the small screen or the large, men just seem to be portrayed as impotent pansys. They're indecisive, weak-willed putzes that are completely clueless until an ethereal woman graces him with her presence.
When he screws up, and he will screw up, she gets all indignant until he carries out the great romantic gesture that will win her back over. "Fine." One might say, "Fair enough." He screwed up, he should pay for it.
Conversely if she ever screws up or does something less than honourable, that is usually a mechanism for her to find out that he is screwing up, even unknowingly, (the bastard should have known better) and she gets all indignant until the great romantic gesture wins her back over.
It's a pathetic commentary on either the writers or the audiences or both that a needlessly weak character is required to highlight the strengths of the more stalwart one. Alana (my writing sounding board) rightfully points out, "movies would be a lot more engaging with two leads who could hold their own, not one pansy and one hero-type." Two strong leads or even two weak leads in the same film or television show should not need to be mutually exclusive.
The exceedingly sharp contrast in character types either illustrates how writers cannot write in nuance or that the audiences are just too stupid to understand nuance.
2 comments:
Hollywood writes whatever makes money, unfortunately.
I take some responsibility for this, after all, I'm the Mandy Moore fan. Plus, I like John Krasinski's work on The Office.
But I didn't not go to the theatre to see this, so my accountability must be indirect at best. ;-)
Hey... What ever helps you sleep at night, Nhi. ;)
Post a Comment