The 1990s were arguably the best time for Romantic Comedies and also the birth era of the popular “chick-flick.” The ‘90s brought us directors like Gary Marshall and Nora Ephron whose feel good films left our hearts warm and stars like Julia Roberts with her clumsy relatability and Richard Grere with his suave demeanor. The ‘90s also brought Kathy Maio, feminist film critic. Maio’s 1991 book Popcorn and Sexual Politics is a collection of analysis of popular ‘90s films—especially Romantic Comedies. Popcorn and Sexual Politics aims to examine the role and portrayal of women on screen. Maio dissects her chosen films to the bone and trys to expose meanings and cultural undertones and how they underscore or accurately portray women. Maio’s purpose
…show more content…
In theory this should work, however, Maio often relies too heavily on other films and forgets the one which she is supposed to be reviewing in the first place. Maio’s review of Steel Magnolias is more about the movie that she uses as a comparison: The Women. Maio places unnatural weight on The Women and it detracts from her main topic in a big way. For example, Maio dedicates one and a half pages to description of the plot and meaning of The Women, yet she only uses two paragraphs to do the same with her review topic: Steel Magnolias. Additionally, Maio often goes off on tangents which also detract from her main points. In Maio’s review of Immediate Family she rants about the state of America’s adoption systems. This does make sense, given that Immediate Family is about a family who wishes to adopt a child, however, a two to three sentence sidetone would have sufficed. Instead, Maio dedicates several paragraphs nail her opinion into the heads of her readers. At one point, Maio writes “It would be nice if every child had a talking Teddie bear, but the way to make that happen is not to take children from their poor mothers in Ohio or Honduras or Korea and sell them to Americans who own Saabs (and view each child as an accessory of equal value)” (157). This quote displays nothing of value about Immediate Family, or Maio’s opinion of it. It only serves as a rambling and out of place rebuke that borders on …show more content…
Maio includes a valid argument at the beginning of her review of Another Woman in which she states “If male filmmakers cared what I and other feminists thought about there work, I’d almost pity their predicament. They face what amounts to a no-win situation” this adds levity to her point but it does not stand for a resolution between Maio and Hollywood (174). At the end of the paragraph, Maio goes on to state that “It seems as though it matter little wether it’s a wether it’s a bimbo bit part or a dramatic lead, male filmmakers can’t seem to keep themselves from saying nasty things about women. While I understand where Maio is coming from, it would be nice if she could note just what she considers “nasty” and what the majority of people consider “nasty.” Maio considers Diane Keaton in Baby Boom to be an example of Hollywood’s terrible portrayal of a women “And what a nasty, reactionary statement that is: that a woman’s life is so utterly maternal-obsessive that not living every year with her child is enough to render her entire existence meaningless” (115). What Maio means is understandable—that Hollywood labels women as having no identity outside of their children. However, It is not likely that most parents would agree with Maio’s statemnt. Many parents view their children as the center of their lives, and most parents would be heartbroken to be restricted from
In theory this should work, however, Maio often relies too heavily on other films and forgets the one which she is supposed to be reviewing in the first place. Maio’s review of Steel Magnolias is more about the movie that she uses as a comparison: The Women. Maio places unnatural weight on The Women and it detracts from her main topic in a big way. For example, Maio dedicates one and a half pages to description of the plot and meaning of The Women, yet she only uses two paragraphs to do the same with her review topic: Steel Magnolias. Additionally, Maio often goes off on tangents which also detract from her main points. In Maio’s review of Immediate Family she rants about the state of America’s adoption systems. This does make sense, given that Immediate Family is about a family who wishes to adopt a child, however, a two to three sentence sidetone would have sufficed. Instead, Maio dedicates several paragraphs nail her opinion into the heads of her readers. At one point, Maio writes “It would be nice if every child had a talking Teddie bear, but the way to make that happen is not to take children from their poor mothers in Ohio or Honduras or Korea and sell them to Americans who own Saabs (and view each child as an accessory of equal value)” (157). This quote displays nothing of value about Immediate Family, or Maio’s opinion of it. It only serves as a rambling and out of place rebuke that borders on …show more content…
Maio includes a valid argument at the beginning of her review of Another Woman in which she states “If male filmmakers cared what I and other feminists thought about there work, I’d almost pity their predicament. They face what amounts to a no-win situation” this adds levity to her point but it does not stand for a resolution between Maio and Hollywood (174). At the end of the paragraph, Maio goes on to state that “It seems as though it matter little wether it’s a wether it’s a bimbo bit part or a dramatic lead, male filmmakers can’t seem to keep themselves from saying nasty things about women. While I understand where Maio is coming from, it would be nice if she could note just what she considers “nasty” and what the majority of people consider “nasty.” Maio considers Diane Keaton in Baby Boom to be an example of Hollywood’s terrible portrayal of a women “And what a nasty, reactionary statement that is: that a woman’s life is so utterly maternal-obsessive that not living every year with her child is enough to render her entire existence meaningless” (115). What Maio means is understandable—that Hollywood labels women as having no identity outside of their children. However, It is not likely that most parents would agree with Maio’s statemnt. Many parents view their children as the center of their lives, and most parents would be heartbroken to be restricted from