They are not sequel or prequel to each other, they are not directed by the same director, and they are not copying each other. No, they just happen to have some similar elements. I call them "movie siblings".
Note: This article also serves as a movie review for The Other Woman
To quote the tagline of Cameron Diaz's previous film Bad Teacher: She doesn't give an "F" (by the way, that is one brilliant tagline that uses pun smartly). It's true, she doesn't. That's why she keeps picking projects that smell critically panned even before pre-production starts. It's not to say Ms. Diaz's filmography has not been impressive, because at times she picked ambitious projects that almost landed her an Academy Award nomination (alas, she's still waiting for her first nom to-date) and some failures weren't really her fault (looking at you, The Counselor). But half of that filmography consists of obvious bad choices like the aforementioned Bad Teacher, What Happened in Vegas and What's To Expect When You're Expecting. You think she didn't know when she accepted the offer that The Other Woman serves no purpose at all except bringing in lots of cash for her? You think she cared about any "perceived message" of girl-power feminism this film supposedly sends (and by extension, does any of us really care when we watch it or do we just want a good laugh?)?
What I'm trying to say is, in a world that needs yin/yang balance not every movie will be deemed Oscar-worthy. There will always be bad movies in the mix, and unfortunately chick flick is an easy target for the critics to bash. It seems to me that filmmakers have three default rotated choices when making bad chick flicks / rom-coms: Jennifer Aniston, Katherine Heigl and Cameron Diaz. But I really don't think any of them mind, as they consciously pick such projects one after another. And in every one of the films, they employ the same method in acting complete with the same facial expressions and body languages.
And this brings us back to The Other Woman, a girl-power comedy in which Cameron Diaz receives top billing on the poster and all other promotion materials though it is in fact a three-lead movie (if we are being accurate here it is actually a two-lead-and-one-supporting, Kate Upton's character does not appear until late in the movie). It is an understandable decision, she is the A-list movie star after-all. But the problem is, this also renders the film vulnerable to the unmerciful negative reviews from the critics. It's like they go "oh, here's another Cameron Diaz comedy, let's give it a bad review" before they even have a chance to see it.
Truth is, half the time the movies really did turn out to be not so glorious. But I always try to look for good things to appreciate in the movies. There must be some, right? In The Other Woman's case that would be Leslie Mann, the other lead in the movie. I would even argue she is the actual lead judging from the screen time and story arc, though the movie begins from the perspective of Cameron's character. Cameron Diaz plays Carly, a successful lawyer who discovers her boyfriend Jaime Lannister is a married man, and Leslie Mann plays his wife Kate. The two women eventually become good friend over the mutual feeling of getting cheated by the same guy. Enters Kate Upton's Amber, yet another woman on Jaime Lannister's babe list. The three of them plot revenge against the man when they realize he has many other affairs and embezzle money using Kate's name. They win the war, and every one of them gets a happy ending of their own. The end.
Yes, that is cliché. You'll see in the second part of this article how the same formula had been used before. Right from the start Leslie Mann steals the show with her comedic timing. She is slightly annoying but totally funny, and it's rare to see her venture out to take lead in a comedy not related to her husband Judd Apatow. In comparison Cameron Diaz does the same-old trick she's using in every of her comedies; speaks in the same tone, same manner and same accent. I feel like she's doing The Holiday all over again. But it is not a nitpicking session and even Julia Roberts and Sandra Bullock had the same issue back in the 90s, and I can accept her "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" method. As for Kate Upton... well, she's Kate Upton so enough said.
The movie quite often struggles with pace. It takes too long to establish the story (and add Amber into the trinity), but it takes no time to conclude the movie. But you laugh at the exact moments the movie wants you to, and the ladies walk out of the cinema feeling happy because the bad guy gets what he deserves. What more do you want? Originality, you say? Come on, 90% of Hollywood's productions are not original. The movie does its job in providing us what it was created to do, and for that reason I award it a B rating.
Structure-wise, both movies adopt the "three's a crowd" formula. In The First Wives Club, three divorced women (played by Diane Keaton, Bette Midler and Goldie Hawn) seek revenge on their ex-husbands who left them for younger women. It is common to have a triplets or a quartets of women at the center of an ensemble chick flick. But three is a more manageable number than four and that is also usually the minimum number of women the writers need to combine into becoming a "complete and perfect woman". You see, if you are running a TV show you can have four ladies and still have enough time to juggle all their story lines without forsaken any of them (see Sex and the City and Desperate Housewives), but when you have only 90-120 minutes on your hand, you need to keep it as simple as possible. Here's what you need: A brain (the successful professional who usually is the key character who pulls everything together and keeps everyone on their feet), the bimbo (the beautiful one depends heavily on her look and is responsible for all the silly one-liners), the Plain-Jane (the one neither of the above and is very plain in every way, usually a homemaker who lacks self-confidence). So here's how it breaks down:
Diane Keaton = Cameron Diaz
Goldie Hawn = Kate Upton
Bette Midler = Leslie Mann
Obviously they have to make the men devious and evil, committing the same few crimes that make them easy to be hated. They are usually selfish, insensitive and shallow. They chase after pretty young things and abandon their spouses, they commit to money laundering fraud (which is the true crime that the ladies usually use against them, since infidelity is not something a man can be sent to jail for). In The Other Woman, the three husbands from The First Wives Club are combined into one body of Jaime Lannister, but you still see the same pattern in both films: infidelity and embezzlement.
And the progress of the story in both films are taking the same route too. At some point in the middle of the film, the three ladies will have a fall out internally that drives them apart, but very soon within five minutes time they will once again patch thing up and appear stronger than ever (you know what they say, a fight will only strengthen your relationship) before they eventually take down the evil. And to make the ladies everywhere feel good about themselves, the heroines usually take the high road in resolving issue instead of stooping to the same level as their evil men. They either forgive their men, or do the noble act of turning the evil deed of their men into something good like returning the money they stole or building some charity fund with it, and they walk away like a victor with the attitude of "I am the one leaving you, not you me". Ya right, after all the crazy stunts they pull earlier in the films they suddenly clear up their mind and become sane again? I believe in reality the more frequent scenario would be "I shall not rest until you pay the ultimate price".
But what's chick flick if it doesn't provide comfort to ladies everywhere, giving the reassurance that they can be the one in control of their own life and not revolve around some stupid men. All these are done in the name of feminism and gender equality, but the truth is: when they do it like that, how about gender equality for the men in the film?
No comments:
Post a Comment