Letter to Gay Guy: What ?"Iron Man 2" Not a Possibility?

Straight Guy,

Hope you had a good holiday weekend.

I had a social weekend, including two movie outings, each with a female friend. Both movies were "chick flicks." Letters to Juliet and, of course, Sex and the City 2.

I didn't campaign for seeing either of these movies. Okay, do you hear my defensive tone? I can just imagine you smirking at me already. I'm smirking at myself. Even as a gay man, I make seeing these movies conditional. I am a victim: "Oh, it wasn't me. Wasn't my choice. I just went along." In this case, it's true; I wasn't eager to see either movie.

Like my friends, I just wanted to see something light and breezy. No thinking. There wasn't a new Bourne Identity with Matt Damon (or, "Porn Identity), so we went with what we had.

Alert: CLS and TP: I am not complaining about seeing either movie. I had a fine time and enjoyed seeing you. I was not miserable. I am not complaining. TP: I especially loved those pre-movie cocktails that put us in the Sex and the City mood. But, even gay guys are wary of seeing a "chick flick." Especially not very good ones.

"Chick Flick." "Chick Lit." The expressions are pretty self-explanatory. But not all that well defined. I've never asked any of my female friends if they find either of those terms offensive. I would understand if they did.

So why are some love stories fine for guys to watch and some not? Or to make it more personal to me, why do I think that Forster's "A Room With a View" or Waugh "Brideshead Revisited" are fine books that made fine movies, but "Letters to Juliet" somehow rates my criticism? At heart, they are all part of a long line of movies about English people who have to travel to Italy to get their romantic mojo working. I don't think of the Austen cannon as being chick lit, so why is "The Jane Austen Book Club" chick lit? I will have to think more about this.

Sex and the City does however deserve any disdain I give it. It is just dumb. I'll narrow my criticism to one of the early scenes, the gay wedding. Over the top, over decorated, expensive, men's chorus, Liza Minnelli officiating. You get the picture. It's a gay wedding cartoon as drawn by straight people. Or by a gay man who knows gay people that I don't know.

Not a great post. But seems like there is something to think about here. I am tired. I will think and write more about this topic. But now it's off to bed. Work tomorrow. Not happy about that.

--Gay Guy


Tinkerschnitzel said...

I tend to abhor chick flicks. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Jane Austen fan, but at least her stuff has some weight to it. I think that's it. "Chick flicks" don't have any substance. I'll still take Rene Zelweger as Bridget Jones over J-Lo any day.

Angel said...

I also saw SATC2 over the weekend for my bday. i saw it for similar reason, to watch a non-sensical, non-committal, chic flick. I am a huge fan of the SATC series, but have not been a fan of the movies. the series itself has "moments" that define hardships of singlehood in the city, growing pains of womanhood, etc. the movies, however, are that stereotypical "chic flick" with the negative connotations attached. I also hated the marriage scene in the beginning; not only was it ridiculous (hello? Liza Minnelli? at a private wedding?), but the marriage itself didn't add to the SATC story. if anything, i always enjoyed the rivalry between Stanford and Anthony! grrr!

The Expatresse said...

I LOVED Iron Man 2. Loved, loved, loved it.

Oddyoddyo13 said...

I've always thought of those movies as harmless, rather than true joys or blunders.

Gay Guy said...

Tinkerschnitzel: Glad to know another Austen fan. Her observations of life are still fresh and realistic 200 years later. Bridget Jones has some universal truths about being single.

Angel: Happy Belated Birthday! Hello? Liza Minnelli as an officiator? Well, at least she must have the vows memorized by now.

Expatresse: Tell me more about Iron Man. Give me a review. Uhmm . . . Is that the Robert Downy Jr one?

Oddyoddyo: Harmless, yes. $11 and three hours I will never get back? Yes to that as well.

Straight in Upstate said...

Okay, GG, where is the line between romantic comedy and chick flick? Is a rom-com just a chick flick with better production values? I'm a big fan of When Harry Met Sally and Sleepless in Seattle - both slightly sappy and unrealistic tales of finding true love, A)under one's nose or B)across the country. But I don't think of them as chick flicks, maybe because I think the dialogue and acting are really good, not things I associate with the others. Thoughts?

Straight Guy said...


I would say the line between rom com and chick flick is in the vicinity of Matthew McConaughey... and Kate Hudson. When they intersect, 100% chick flick probability.

Readers, 500 Days of Summer has be looming in my NetFlix cue, will I regret it?

JN said...


Let's hope there will be a good "hat movie" this summer.

Gay Guy said...


I really liked 500 Days. Lots of moments of universal truth. Let me know what you think.

Straight in Upstate said...

Haven't seen 500 Days but probably would because of Joseph Gordon-Levitt (or is it the other way around?) and Zooey DesChanel. I'm with SG - the actors go a long way in determining chick-flickness.

Gay Guy said...


To explain JN's comment, she and I are huge fans and thus ready companions for period costume dramas. Think Glen Close in Dangerous Liaisons. Think women in corsets, men in boaters. (See, hat movies, get it?)

Alas, I see no hat movies in our near-time future, JN.

Gay Guy / Straight Guy Archive