You are a Strong, Confident, Target Audience: Have the ‘chick flicks’ of this decade suffered in quality?

By Jack Huang

Have you noticed a peculiar line that has popped up in recent films, whether main stream or independent, that sounds something like, “You are a strong, confident, beautiful, independent woman”? It’s usually uttered by the female protagonist’s best friend before the climax. You know, the line that’s been shallowly used in every recent female-centric romantic movie and TV show as often and contrived as “All Out of Love” or Sarah McLachlan’s “Angel?”

At least three recent movies proudly show this line in their previews (“Sunshine Cleaning,” “The Women” and “Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2.”). Does anyone else agree that our recent romantic movies have suffered in quality?

Ladies, I am not being guy-cynical (yeah, I have body hair, and I’m sorry I will never ever experience the brink-of-passing-out “joy” of bringing a life into this world), but I am by no means a testosterone-leaking Yeti who snorts “babe” jokes, always forgetting about lifting up ringlets. I am not a Lifetime stereotype.

I am just a guy, a very concerned guy, who has witnessed the signs of decline within the genre commonly referred to as “chick flicks” or “girl shows,” and I would like to share my observations with you, Expressionist style. I hope you will share your opinions about this phenomenon, as well.

First off, of course “The Notebook,” “The Devil Wears Prada” and “Atonement” were great. Now, please think of another five original, high-quality romantic movies released in this decade.

Maybe “Failure to Launch” or “How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days.” Sure, they were good, and (breaking from the reality that I am 1,000 percent man) McConaughey does have … well, build … (Yes! I still have it). So these two are effortlessly filled with Southern charm. But after these, I believe we’ll have a problem naming movies.

I don’t think Hollywood has offered anything original or daring in the romantic genre this decade. I mean, after all, the three “great” romantic blockbusters listed above are all based on popular and original books.

They are still good, but they don’t have too many surprising points to give you a satisfying dose of serendipity, awe or inspiration, like “Pretty Woman,” “As Good as It Gets,” “When Harry Met Sally,” or “Notting Hill.” Yes, MacConaughey movies also definitely suffered in quality this year.

Sadly, in this decade, we merely see many screenwriters desperately trying to reuse the tried formulas of older popular titles to guarantee a safer financial success. Heck, Jack Nicholson nearly reprised the same grouchy character from “As Good as It Gets” in “Somebody Gotta Give.” The only difference is measured in wrinkles.

Now, all is predictable. There’s always the bet or the lie on the first date that break up the relationship. Why we always choose macho, insensitive morons as the male protagonist is beyond anybody’s reason.

There’s usually a relationship “break,” until either the female protagonist’s confidante persuades her to be brave and independent and choose the right man in her life. Sometimes the two unmemorable protagonists get together out of public sympathy. Anyone can see it all from a mile away. In terms of taking liberties with the plot and the established characters, romantic movies simply aren’t as daring as superhero movies.

TV shows are suffering nearly the same problems, with the exception of a few.

Hooray for those of you who watches “Grey’s Anatomy.” The first two seasons are a true testament of genuine acting and writing, especially the masterfully paced second season, in which the Mc-Relationship triangle falters and an unforgettable guest star disappears in a pink mist (don’t even get me started with Danny). The entire ensemble shined and the fast paced plot delivered effortlessly.

But from the third season on, I hope you became as frustrated as I did when repetitive, serious dialogue sank in and many of the previously loveable doctors lost their charm. Izzy slept with George because of public demand, and the lovely Dr. Montgomery-Sheppard moved to a hospital where the word “sex” was spoken more than “the.” This marked the end of an amazing run of a daring show; only the template remains. Maybe “The Hills” is your next choice, but I am almost sure you only vaguely identified with the OC-like, Hiltonesque girls of the show, and of course it’s scripted.

I am pointing out these problems because I deeply believe this trend has mellowed the performance potential of some of the most talented starlets of Hollywood, including Amy Adams, Emily Blunt, Ann Hathaway and Ellen Page.

More importantly, the ruinous nature of this clichéd patter affects you, ladies. To have to identify with one-dimensional characters and routinely subject yourselves to unstimulating entertainment only lowers the standard of quality Hollywood will present to you.

Just because women are the primary target audience does not mean women have to give in to Hollywood’s formulas. In fact, their shallow teen dramas shouldn’t represent you in the eyes of others and the world. You are artists with your own discoveries, neat collections and moral bearings — and far too amazing to be type-casted as an underrepresented soulless clone. Reinvigorate this genre and make them listen to you.

I look forward to hearing your opinions.