Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Mike Huckabee: ‘definitely not pro-sodomy’ Previous entry: Bamboo Review: Yes Means Yes

The Bridezilla thing has ceased to be funny, not that it ever really was

WTF:

I believe the genesis of this movie is that someone read Susan Faludi’s book Backlash, and instead of taking away the intended message (that misogynist Hollywood entertainment is for assholes and suckers, and therefore is wrong), came away with a closely related but absolutely wrong message (that misogynist Hollywood entertainment is for assholes and suckers, of which there are many, so it’s a wildly profitable enterprise to be indulged at every turn).  I can just see it.  Some Hollywood executive reads Backlash (or has an assistant read it and summarize each chapter as a one pager), and thinks, hey, this Faludi lady is right.  Sexist audiences lap up movies that posit that women are bimbos, movies that posit that women are literally obsessed with babies-and-weddings, and movies that posit that women are psychotic.  How about a movie that combines “Fatal Attraction” and “Baby Boom”, with lots of tulle thrown in to catch that big time bridal demographic?

But it is not enough to insult women with these horrible stereotypes about women being too stupid to breathe and too shallow to realize that weddings are about marriage and not dresses.  Oh no.  They have to add insult to injury by putting the actresses out there to tell us how empowering it is to have movies that reduce women to brainless shrews who are so invested in being princesses that we’ll happily throw that rare thing—-a good friendship—-out the door.  (And that we have such shrunken hearts that our husbands are nothing but props in a pageant.)  Tammy Oler documents the atrocities.  Anne Hathaway relinquishes the respect I had for her by pulling the “girl power” excuse to explain why clawing out your best friend’s eyes over a fucking “perfect” wedding is so empowering.

But what it actually does is that it brings you to a new place of freedom where she’s admitting to herself that she wants more for herself. She wants better for herself and that leads her to make an incredibly difficult, but ultimately wonderful decision to take control of her life and to be more present in it and to be more demanding and to set boundaries with people, be stronger and more confident.

This is when I wish I was Twisty Faster, because I could dispense with this empowerfulment crap with brisk ease.  If there are in fact self-confidence boundaries put up between women and being screeching twits whose limited imaginations allow only to think of weddings and how they represent the patriarchal stamp of approval delivered to your virgin-white chiffon ass, I don’t see them.  It’s not self-confidence to just own that misogynist stereotype.  The Bridezilla trope exists in our culture precisely because it reinforces our belief that women want nothing more (or should want nothing more) than to grab that brass ring of male approval that comes with the diamond ring and the white dress.  Until you’re inducted into the club, you’re nobody.  Considering that the wedding is your official entrance into the human race, we snicker indulgently at women who go too far.  Goodness, nothing more can be expected of them, right?  They’re mere women, who are mental children and whose acceptance in society in contingent on their ability to lure a man into marriage.  No wonder they act out, we think.  The Bridezilla isn’t, and can never be, an image of a strong, empowered woman taking what she wants.  It’s the image of a child going crazy because she’s being overindulged and given responsibilities too big for her child brain to handle.  It’s not a coincidence that the first shot we see of the women in this preview is of them as children.  The fantasy hasn’t changed since childhood, because women don’t change or grow from their childish state.  They just get big enough to legally fuck.

Kate Hudson’s remarks made me sad:

We are a little guilty of going a little crazy sometimes and getting stressed out. I think that at least for me women are great at being self-deprecating and making fun of themselves and we don’t get the opportunities as actors, as a female comedienne, to do that that often because there aren’t really that many female driven comedies.

It’s true that there’s few roles for female comedians, and therefore many feel compelled to take on roles that demean women and really aren’t that funny, because they don’t relate back to real life in any honest way.  But that doesn’t make these roles good ones, and having the actresses out there defending the crumbs they’re getting and calling it a meal is just adding more insult to injury. 

Rubbing salt into the wounds of sexism doesn’t make it funny.  It’s really kind of sadistic.  Like this bit of dialogue, culled from the WaPo denunciation of this crap:

Those who will nod along with Candice Bergen, as wedding planner Marion St. Claire, when she tells the newly engaged Emma during their first planning session, “You have been dead until now.”

Emma whispers in reply, “I understand.”

We are supposed to think that women have all the power in these situations, because they do all the planning and men are mere props in the game.  But really, that’s not how it goes in this narrative, not really.  After all, men carry with them that all-important power, to whip out the ring and rescue a woman from the horrible non-life of the spinster and grant her entrance into the land of the living.  The reason men don’t really have personalities in these stories is not because they’re of secondary importance at all. It’s because they fill the role of the gods in this story, and as gods, they must seem slightly distant and above it all.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 08:44 PM • (90) Comments

I just have to point out the massively inappropriate google ads on this page.
Arab Women - Hot! - Arab beauties single and available!
Utah Women - Meet tons of utah singles!
Republican Party - Free to join. 1000s of pictures of beautiful republican singles.

Comment #1: Dance Commander  on  01/12  at  09:00 PM

It’s the image of a child going crazy because she’s being overindulged and given responsibilities too big for her child brain to handle.

THANK YOU.

That’s why I can’t stand shows like Bridezilla, or even MTV’s My Super Sweet 16. The only thing that people seem to take away is that behaving like vicious fiends is somehow etched in women’s DNA and the wedding (and lavish birthday) bring it out.

What’s also sad are the women who will usually try to justify the behavior by saying that everything has to be perfect because the wedding is is the only one really “all” about the woman. To which I reply, “How fucking sad is that? Women only get one day in their ENTIRE LIVES dedicated to them and it’s typically the day when they become someone else i.e, Mrs. John Smith.”

Another sad fact: The film was co-written by a woman.

Comment #2: UltraMagnus  on  01/12  at  09:07 PM

Well, someone must want to watch these movies, it grossed $21.1 million this past weekend.

Comment #3: James  on  01/12  at  09:09 PM

The wedding-industrial complex must be destroyed.  It is evil.

Comment #4: MAJeff, God of Biscuits  on  01/12  at  09:13 PM

“How about a movie that combines “Fatal Attraction” and “Baby Boom”. . .”

Well, if they’d actually made “Fetal Attraction”, that would have been considerably more entertaining.

Comment #5: Ledasmom  on  01/12  at  09:19 PM

Thanks for independently coming up with my theory that right-wingers reverse-engineer leftist academic scholarship. Foreign-policy right-wingers would, for example, read Noam Chomsky and Edward Said and formulate Middle East foreign policies and propaganda that do everything Chomsky and Said denounce. Right-wing economists seem to have reverse-engineered the American economy from the Communist Manifesto, merely updating the mode of production from heavy industrial to post-industrial. They have no shame. Somewhere in the basement of the Heritage Foundation, interns are busy decoding reams of turgid academic prose with terms such as “hegemonic.”

Comment #6: sara  on  01/12  at  09:19 PM

“Well, someone must want to watch these movies, it grossed $21.1 million this past weekend.”

What did it open against, though?  A lot of movies that aren’t really what you want to see, or which bill themselves as something better than what they are, wind up getting your money anyway.  Going to the movies is one of the more affordable escapist weekend moments the majority of people still have access to.

Comment #7: preying mantis  on  01/12  at  09:27 PM

BUNNIES!!!!

Comment #8: MAJeff, God of Biscuits  on  01/12  at  09:27 PM

Lets not forget, mantis, that this is January. Hollywood dumps all it’s shit films in January/February and, for some reason, Hollywood likes to release these “romantic comedy”/women films around the same time every year (27 Dresses came out around this time last year). So it’s not so surprising that the movie actually did make money because, as you pointed out, there’s nothing else out and everyone who’s wanted to see the holiday fare have already. This time next week My Bloody Valentine 3D may very well be at the top of the box office and this crap would’ve fallen.

Comment #9: UltraMagnus  on  01/12  at  09:38 PM

So two million out of nearly four hundred million people watched the movie.  That’s not really astounding numbers for a release.

Over three thousand theaters were showing Bridge Wars, more than the #1 movie, Gran Torino, which was also in its first week of wide release.  The only movies in more theaters than Bride Wars were ‘family’ movies in their third weeks.

So yeah, soft market (only three movies wide release last weekend), not really that big of an opening weekend (20 million?), and a huge number of theaters…

Comment #10: Crissa  on  01/12  at  09:47 PM

I have no interest in seeing this movie or any movie with either of the “stars” (nothing personal against them, I just don’t think their that great as actors). I do have an interesting story along these lines though. Recently my eldest niece got married and her wedding was huge. 7 bridesmaids & groomsmen, but it she wasn’t the one that wanted the big wedding. It was her fiance. She was trying to talk him into a JOP wedding w/just her sister & his brother. I know one story does not a trend make, I just thought it seemed so “against the norm” that it made me laugh.

Comment #11: Mark  on  01/12  at  09:48 PM

Thanks for independently coming up with my theory that right-wingers reverse-engineer leftist academic scholarship. Foreign-policy right-wingers would, for example, read Noam Chomsky and Edward Said and formulate Middle East foreign policies and propaganda that do everything Chomsky and Said denounce. Right-wing economists seem to have reverse-engineered the American economy from the Communist Manifesto, merely updating the mode of production from heavy industrial to post-industrial. They have no shame. Somewhere in the basement of the Heritage Foundation, interns are busy decoding reams of turgid academic prose with terms such as “hegemonic.”

I’ve long thought that if you were in any kind of position/temperament to do so, the best way to get ahead in the power elite hierarchy of douchebaggery would be to read the fuck out of all the left-wing critics who, in order to criticize that power structure, become the only people who will lay out for you in clear, unambiguous language exactly how the game is played.

Comment #12: dan  on  01/12  at  09:49 PM

‘The Unborn’ made 19.8 million at 2357 theaters vs Bridge Wars’ 21mil at 3226 theaters.

Last year no movie this weekend broke 20mil (one came close); this year two did with anther coming close.  That’s literally $50million more dollars being spent at theaters that wasn’t last year.  Easy pickens.

I’d gone to see the Dungeon Siege movie, personally.  No such movies playing this year.

Comment #13: Crissa  on  01/12  at  09:52 PM

I’ve long thought (er, well, at least since I saw the movie) that 300 was reverse engineered from Orientalism.

Comment #14: oudemia  on  01/12  at  09:58 PM

Heh. Anne Hathaway on girl powah!

What’s the name of that movie where Thelma and Louise drive off the cliff?

Comment #15: It's Romo Lamkin's Cat  on  01/12  at  10:00 PM

The reason men don’t really have personalities in these stories is not because they’re of secondary importance at all. It’s because they fill the role of the gods in this story, and as gods, they must seem slightly distant and above it all.

Yep.  As Mark said above, I can’t tell you how many stories I’ve heard of grooms who were officially indifferent to the wedding—as in, refused to do any work—but had very specific requirements about how it was all supposed to happen that the bride was, of course, supposed to fulfill.  It’s some of the worst passive-aggressive shit I’ve ever heard.

Hint to the ladies:  if your groom insists on having something very specific (location, flowers, etc.) but refuses to actually do anything towards getting it, that will be the rest of your married life.  He will stand over you like a supervisor making sure they house is clean without ever lifting a finger himself to get things up to his standard.  He’ll just whine and complain until you break down and do it yourself.

Comment #16: Mnemosyne  on  01/12  at  10:00 PM

What’s the name of that movie where Thelma and Louise drive off the cliff?

Lawrence of Arabia?

Comment #17: Mnemosyne  on  01/12  at  10:14 PM

I’m glad you tackled this, b/c it just depresses the hell out of me.  I’ve just seen the slightest of blurbs about it, and it looks like pure misogyny.  These are supposed to be good friends?

I figure Anne Hathaway made this b/c she’s trying to follow in Katharine Hepburn’s footsteps: make a challenging film, make a predictable blockbuster.  She’s probably up for an Oscar for “Rachel Getting Married”.  She did this as a toss away to her “Princess Diary” fans, although that movie was far less hateful than this looks like.

As for Kate Hudson, she makes me sad.  The only roles I was offered were shit roles, so I took one?  Fuck it, Kate, your mom has enough money to produce a movie for you; you don’t have to take this shit.

The only good thing I’ve heard was Mr. Movie Phone’s review.  He said that while it looks like a cute “rom-com”, it’s a TERRIBLE “rom-com” filled with nothing but fighting, but since his new year’s resolution is to be more positive, he will say that the leads have fantastic teeth.

Comment #18: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  01/12  at  10:37 PM

I always assume that my wedding, should I have one, will take place in the dead of night with just me, the groom, the priest, and the number of witnesses required by law. The whole idea of a big spectacle requiring months of planning sounds just awful.

Comment #19: Liz  on  01/12  at  10:38 PM

I wrote about this in my own blog and said there: “These are both educated and accomplished women, too. Emma is a grade school teacher and Liv, before the age of 30, is poised to become partner with a top flight New York City law firm. And yet, according to the movie, they can’t help but have some sort of wedding-centric worldview. Whether this is caused by some sort of genetic defect that stems from having ovaries or maybe their IQ drops because they wear bras the movie does not say.” This is an absolutely horrible film.

Comment #20: Michael  on  01/12  at  10:40 PM

Ladies and gentlemen please, in order to avoid being ripped off by evildoers of Hollywood, go see some live entertainment.  Support your local actors, musicians, dancers.
</public service announcement>

Comment #21: raspberryjamba  on  01/12  at  10:42 PM

Here’s my book that fights back.

http://www.lulu.com/content/5487684

Comment #22: jennifer cascadia  on  01/12  at  10:44 PM

This is why I think it is a mistake to fight over gay marriage, why not let the church have the screwed up institution of marriage and take all sane people out of it gay and straight.

Comment #23: John Hussein Rove  on  01/12  at  10:50 PM

What bugs me about this movie is that at no point do they ever consider they could share the location - either by time swapping or sharing the ceremony.

At that point, all the arguing would make sense; it’s tough to agree on everything, and it is a stressful thing to plan a huge get-together, let alone one which has such social stigma attached to it.

Comment #24: Crissa  on  01/12  at  10:56 PM

I think it helps that so many executives in our entertainment corporations are misogynist assholes who really believe this shit.

Comment #25: DrDick  on  01/12  at  10:58 PM

Well, someone must want to watch these movies, it grossed $21.1 million this past weekend

Those numbers occur in the context UltraMagnus described: the January dead zone. By 1 January, all of the holiday season blockbusters have been seen, the last of the Oscar bait has come in under the wire, but there’s a small inventory of stinkers still remaining to be released. The studios and distributors are focused on opening weekend numbers in general, so this is an opportunity to give movies like this a bump that they wouldn’t otherwise get the rest of the year from desperate moviegoers (mostly teenagers) who’ll see anything to get out of the house—mainly horror and low grade sf/fantasy for the guys, and empty rom-com fairy tales for the girls.

But it is not enough to insult women with these horrible stereotypes about women being too stupid to breathe and too shallow to realize that weddings are about marriage and not dresses.  Oh no.  They have to add insult to injury by putting the actresses out there to tell us how empowering it is

That’s the showbiz. And to be fair to Hathaway and Hudson, actors don’t stop acting when it’s junket time—if anything, they go into overdrive when they have to push empty schlock like this. The studio publicists give the actors their talking points, and they repeat them ad nauseum to the arse-licking entertainment “journalists” in a far more convincing way than JoeDuhPlumbah delivered PJ Media’s bullet points.

I read two reviews of this movie—both bad, both noting how contrived and hackneyed it is. One said it was a bad move on Hathaway’s part because it soured the memory of her likely to be Oscar-nominated performance in Rachel Getting Married (she made this movie afterward), while the other said doing another light comedy was a smart move because a talented actor with range wouldn’t be typecast in serious roles like Rachel. I tend to agree with the second assessment, but it’s a shame she chose a vehicle like this with which to exhibit her versatility.

Comment #26: Gracchus  on  01/12  at  10:59 PM

I think Mnemosyne has it, only the context is larger. The whole point of Modern Patriarchy is to have women enforcing all the rules and doing the heavy lifting. It gives the patriarchs plausible deniability, and gives the actual men time to get in touch with their feminine sides so no one can accuse them of being macho assholes. The men don’t exist in these stories because that would raise unpleasant questions. (Oh, and as all antifeminists know, it’s funny to depict men as completely powerless and out of touch with everything that’s going on around them . Whereas in practice it’s just the ugly-guy-in-porn-movies trope.)

Comment #27: paul  on  01/12  at  11:00 PM

This is why I think it is a mistake to fight over gay marriage, why not let the church have the screwed up institution of marriage and take all sane people out of it gay and straight.

That’s been one of the things that’s really stood out in my dissertation work.  The couples that were represented in the news media tended to be more economically privileged than the married heterosexual population in Massachusetts, and than the rest of the gay population. So wedding expos with Vera Wang trying to get the lesbian audience became big deals, and matching Armani suits…and somehow the misguided notion that designing same-sex wedding ceremonies is the “next frontier,” instead of trying to extend family recognition, support, and protection beyond the licensed conjugal pair.  The latter fight seems dead now, though.  Bridezilla can be a lesbian, a gay man, or either member of a het couple.  Just blech!

I always assume that my wedding, should I have one, will take place in the dead of night with just me, the groom, the priest, and the number of witnesses required by law. The whole idea of a big spectacle requiring months of planning sounds just awful.

If I ever did, we’d leave town to get hitched. Come back—still living in our separate apartments—and say, “We’re hitched, let’s have a party.”

Comment #28: MAJeff, God of Biscuits  on  01/12  at  11:01 PM

I always assume that my wedding, should I have one, will take place in the dead of night with just me, the groom, the priest, and the number of witnesses required by law. The whole idea of a big spectacle requiring months of planning sounds just awful.

If I ever did, we’d leave town to get hitched. Come back—still living in our separate apartments—and say, “We’re hitched, let’s have a party.”

In our neck of the woods, there may be required witnesses for the license (clerks will do) but all you need for the ceremony is the JP. One of our cats was watching, but he died. That’s the thing: it’s a great excuse for one or more parties, but it’s been coopted in such a way that the partiesare bound to suck.

Comment #29: paul  on  01/12  at  11:11 PM

Then again, since I won’t be getting hitched, with the potential move this summer for a job *fingers crossed* I’m thinking about an “I’m 40, single-and-not-the-least-bit-bitter, and staring a new career registry at Williams-Sonoma, Bed Bath and Beyond, IKEA, And Penzey’s Spices.  I won’t do it, of course, but it’s tempting as hell.

Comment #30: MAJeff, God of Biscuits  on  01/12  at  11:15 PM

But even if you don’t want the big deal wedding, most likely your family will want it, and you’ll have to indulge (since it’s really not the hill to die on)...
Since my mom wanted the big wedding, and I didn’t, I let her do everything.  She even picked the dress, the shoes, the flowers, the location.  I took the honeymoon before the wedding, then arrived the day before.  I had 20 guests, she had 300.  We all had a ball.  She was really a great mother-of-the-bride.  The only fight we had was when she got pissed I didn’t loose 20 lbs for the special day.

Comment #31: raspberryjamba  on  01/12  at  11:17 PM

So I’m currently engaged.  We’re having a party, but a pretty chill one.  I can’t bring myself to care about all the little details like the OMG perfect centerpieces or whatever.  We both just want to share it with the friends and family who are genuinely important to us—not throw a big high-society bash to impress people or whatever.

(Sometimes how non-tradtional your wedding is can become just as much of a pissing contest, though.  See how edgy and youneek I am!  We’re both too chill to play that game either.  This possibly just makes us lazy.)

I still think it has to do with the idea that marriage = prize bestowed by the man.  Getting excited/neurotic about the wedding is shameful because she’s “too greedy for the prize.”  You have to act like you don’t care and it’s totally effortless (but of course, you have to really care underneath). Just like you have to be perfectly thin and gorgeous, but never visibly watch what you eat or work out or ever talk about it.

(Yeah, marriage is kinda problematic.  Clearly I subscribe to the view that it’s what we’ve got right now legally and socially to make a relationship officially recognized, and clearly I think there’s some value in the social function of making the commitment publicly.)

Comment #32: Caroline  on  01/12  at  11:31 PM

I loved “Baby Boom” When I was ten. I haven’t really evaluated its sexual politics as an adult but I have the uneasy suspicion that they were horrible.

Re-evaluating…

OH MY GOD!

Comment #33: Lamenter  on  01/12  at  11:36 PM

Has anyone else noticed there seems to be an inverse relationship between the lavishness of the wedding event and the length of the marriage?

I have been to some weddings that rivaled the D-day invasion in terms of number of participants and complexity.  Most of these folks are filing for divorce while they’re still trying to pay off their credit card charges for the wedding.

Comment #34: CParis  on  01/12  at  11:40 PM

I think Amanda coined the term the “marriage fairy” and shows like bridezillas and perhaps thie movie seem to be based on people who believe that marriage will malke their lives great. Chances are if you are a loser before marriage you will probably be a loser after you get married as well.

Comment #35: karl  on  01/12  at  11:44 PM

I think Amanda coined the term the “marriage fairy” and shows like bridezillas and perhaps thie movie seem to be based on people who believe that marriage will malke their lives great. Chances are if you are a loser before marriage you will probably be a loser after you get married as well.

I think it’s about the wedding.  A great wedding will lead to a great marriage, the thinking seems to go.  I’m just one of those weirdos who thinks the relationship matters more than any ceremony, I guess.

Comment #36: MAJeff, God of Biscuits  on  01/12  at  11:50 PM

I’ll admit it: I’m completely intimidated by the idea of a traditional wedding.

I have a huge family, in which my cousins (both older and younger) have had the big to-do ceremony with a bigger to-do reception, and I, as the attached but unmarred second-oldest grandchild am expected to perform at least to their standards, if not outdo their shindigs altogether.

It’s strange because I love attending weddings, but the idea of being the center of attention, where all eyes are on me, and it’s “my” day where I’m somehow taking a bigger piece of the social hierarchy pie makes me kind of scared.  I don’t want to dress in a poofy white gown that I can’t dance in, or do the walk down the aisle, or have my father hand me off to a man.  And since my boyfriend is kind of effeminate, in that he comes nowhere close to my Italian family machismo norm, it feels even more uncomfortable.  My mother’s side of the family is very talkative and outgoing and my boyfriend is very subdued around large groups - even after knowing the clan for over four years of constant gatherings - and I just know the whole thing would be awkward.  I’d spend my wedding day worried that my new husband was overwhelmed by my large family, and worried that my large family thought my new husband too much of a milksop to make a decent husband.  And then I think of the exorbitant amounts of money spent on ONE party that occurs on ONE day, when I’ve been with my boyfriend, living together, for years. . . . It’s overwhelming and totally unaffordable, especially since I’d like to buy a house some time this century.  Really, I’d just be having the ceremony to give my family the emotional milestone of going through the wedding, so that they’d be slightly more apt to welcome my non-macho boyfriend into la famiglia.

And then I think about having to explain to people that I’m not having a church ceremony because I’m an atheist, and then trying to explain that despite my cousins having less money than us, we didn’t want to spend it on a big ceremony, and that I didn’t want to deal with my existing body image woes of having to look perfectly slim, fitting into the wedding dress that my mother and stepmother would be fighting over to make . . . .

No.  Hell no.  Fuck no. 

If I get married, it’ll be in a private ceremony with my brother and my boyfriend’s sister, and then I’ll throw a four-hour booze cruise or maybe appetizers at a botanical garden somewhere.  That’s it.  Game ovaaahh . . . .

Comment #37: deep6  on  01/12  at  11:56 PM

RaspberryJamba- Unfortunately, you have a good point there.  I was suffering against a $3000 budget, daily fights with mom about getting married in a church (husband gets heebie-jeebies from churches), and a guest list swelling into the hundreds because I had to invite second cousins I had never heard of!  Finally, my husband and I said “ENOUGH!” and eloped in Vegas.  We invited immediate family members only and held a wonderful reception in the pub we originally met in.

We’ve been married 7 years now, and mom and I still have screaming fights about the heathen wedding I embarrassed her with.  I imagine many people have the big bridezilla-inducing wedding because they’re almost being forced to with the weight of tradition on their shoulders.  Drives me nucking futs!

Comment #38: Mrs. W's class  on  01/13  at  12:10 AM

Has anyone else noticed there seems to be an inverse relationship between the lavishness of the wedding event and the length of the marriage?

I don’t think it correlates directly; often the people driving (and happily paying for) the lavishness of the event are the bride or groom’s parents. If the bride or groom are more focused on the relationship than magical thinking regarding the event and the ceremony, it usually works I’ve seen big and small weddings and lavish and simple ones where the couple stayed together happily, where they stayed together miserably, where the couple divorced after less than 2 years and where they divorced after 10 years.

Best wedding I’ve seen: justice of the peace, immediate family (parents siblings) in a lovely bucolic outdoor setting. Then, on the first anniversary, a big country club reception with all of the fun parts (food, drink music, dancing, prezzies, family, friends) and none of the hassles (no bridal dresses, no dinner jackets and bow ties, no formal photo sessions, no priestly mumbo-jumbo, no bridesmaids and groomsmen, no drama). I credit the success of the events in no small part to the attitude of the couple. And that couple is still together, with great kids. A real pleasure to see, even for a marriage skeptic like myself.

Comment #39: Gracchus  on  01/13  at  12:13 AM

But even if you don’t want the big deal wedding, most likely your family will want it, and you’ll have to indulge

No.  No, you really won’t.  As grown-assed women, we have the right to say “NO”, and I think it does us all a disservice to suggest that we lose that right when it comes to how we begin our marriages.

When my husband and I announced our engagement, the families immediately started fighting over orchestrating some oversized sugar-coated nightmare that I was not about to be a part of.  We said “NO”.

The family?  Got over it.  All the dire predictions of a fast divorce because we didn’t have a “Real Wedding(TM)” fell by the wayside as the years flew by.  It will be 18 years next month since our very tiny, very secular wedding at home, and we do not for an instant regret taking OUR day firmly in our own hands and telling the fam “This is not about you.”

Comment #40: Maggie  on  01/13  at  12:13 AM

I don’t exactly see how it’s “empowering” to steamroll your friends to get what you want, but whatever you say, Anne Hathaway.  Hopefully this was just a fluke and she’ll continue choosing better film roles.  Sadly, I think Kate Hudson is a lost cause.

And if you think Bride Wars is bad, you should see the trailer for Confessions of a Shopaholic.

Comment #41: Gena  on  01/13  at  12:27 AM

All four marriages in my immediate family(my own, Professor and Mother Avenger,  their parents), were all elopements, and we’ve been able to integrate into society anyway.

This movie is disturbing in all of the ways listed above. To hear that the actresses involved are calling it “empowering” makes me thing either that they’re off their rockers or trying terribly hard to convince themselves that all is not lost.

I would like a medium-size wedding, with my family, his family, our close friends and a good JoP. Good food and music are also welcome. I don’t want an opulent dress; something in good fabric with a bit of color to it will make me plenty happy without spending $18,000.

However, I do want a completely over the top cake. I cannot help myself, I want Duff Goldman or another very talented cake artist to bake me a cake that spins or lights up or has World of Warcraft figurines on it as the bride and groom.

Comment #43: Ariane  on  01/13  at  12:39 AM

I really, really thought that the premise of this movie was going to be something like the Michael Douglas-Kathleen Turner _War of the Roses_ black comedy, only about friends and weddings rather than a straight married couple and divorce.  I was sure the point was going to be along the lines of, “Taken to extremes, this is how the contemporary idea of weddings and marriage is leading us to behave.  Awful, ain’t it?”  It’s actually _not_ self-aware of its own rankness?  Yikes.

Comment #44: FlipYrWhig  on  01/13  at  12:47 AM

“I want Duff Goldman or another very talented cake artist to bake me a cake that spins or lights up or has World of Warcraft figurines on it as the bride and groom.”

LOL! Oh hell yeah!

Comment #45: Mark  on  01/13  at  12:48 AM

Since my mom wanted the big wedding, and I didn’t, I let her do everything.

Since my parents and I live in different states, and my now-husband’s family lives in the same state as my parents, we actually had two separate weddings.  We had a small 40-person one here in California with close friends and family and I had all the trimmings:  white dress, (Unitarian) church wedding, men in tuxes, top-flight photographer.  Except, because it was only 40 people, everything could be downsized.  Wedding party of three:  matron of honor, best man, and flower girl.  Lunch reception instead of dinner.  No band, just my iPod playing in the background.  Everyone had a great time AFAIK (though I haven’t watched the video yet, so something could have gone horribly wrong and I didn’t know). 

Then my mom got to plan her whole reception in Illinois—the only thing she didn’t get to do was pick my dress, but she did everything else.  Pretty much all we had to do was show up.  So I had my wedding my way, she had her wedding her way, no problem.  She did the whole nine yards—dinner reception, DJ, 100 guests—but it made her happy and I didn’t have to plan it, so it was fine.

Of course, my mom is not religious at all (was even puzzled that we were married by a minister at all and not a judge) so the conflicts were over things like who was going to send out the invitations, not who was going to go to hell if they didn’t have the right words said at the ceremony.

Comment #46: Mnemosyne  on  01/13  at  12:49 AM

Ariane, I’m with you on the cake.

I’m getting married this year (for immigration purposes, really. I mean—not that I don’t love the guy and we are committed to the relationship, but if I didn’t have to jump through legal hoops just to live in the same country—we’d be totally happy as unmarried partners). Anyway, we are doing it outside at a state park ($3 per car), a unitarian universalist minister jewish lesbian minister friend is presiding, and guests are my man of honor, his best friend, our parents, and our children. Nice dinner at nice restaurant for everyone after, and that’s it. Budget is $1000.

But I want the cake. It doesn’t have to be big, but I want some kind of ace of cakes fantasy.

Comment #47: Lexie  on  01/13  at  12:49 AM

Honestly, elope…or do what we did, which was to do the premarital counseling and wedding planning before telling anyone we were engaged.  Then the wedding was a fait accompli - family could come or not come, but they couldn’t change a damn thing.  (Yes, this is what happens when control freaks get married.)

Comment #48: RP  on  01/13  at  12:51 AM

RP,
I love that!

Comment #49: redwards  on  01/13  at  01:56 AM

Hey raspberryjamba:

DO you know aout localharvest.org?  a way to find local foods?  YOu just gave me an idea - what we need is a localentertainment.org. or a localsports.org for those non big league events in your local area.  What say you?

Comment #50: phylosopher  on  01/13  at  02:56 AM

I actually had a pretty large wedding (70 guests), married in church, etc.  I organised it with my partner (we wrote our own vows), and the only painful bit was that my beloved rabbit died in horrific convulsions in my arms a couple of weeks prior, and as a result I wasn’t able to cope with organising things for a week or so due to being just emotionally devastated.  So my fiance stepped in to take over the last bit totally.

We did, however, stipulate, that guests must wear ‘formal dress of any era’.  And that gothic was fine, as was victorian or medieval or modern or whatever.  Because of legal stupidities in our local area, we couldn’t BOTH change our names simultaneously at the wedding to our chosen new one, so he changed his but refused to open the letter (the breaking of the seal of which was the official changeover) until the moment we both signed the legal doco.  The priest officially and happily married us under our new name, technically illegally, prior to the signing.

One uncle (his), turned up as a knight.  In full plate mail.  With a real sword.

On a motorbike.

It was awesome.

We did ask that people remove weapons prior to entering the church (lots of sword canes, etc), and the priest was delighted to be ‘not the only one in medieval clothes for once, thank God’.  One gent turned up in a bearskin, which was a little much, because it looked like real fur, but he had formal visigoth clothing on and he’d not heard of, er, the Cure-listening style goths and done his best, bless him.  I did get my dress made so that it would be suitable for medieval costumes as a hunting dress later.  I suppose we did support the wedding industry, but we had so much fun.

The only thing that tanked mildly was my aunt was incredibly, personally upset that we had chosen chocolate cake for our wedding cake instead of fruit cake.  I have no idea why.  I loathe fruit cake, and wanted chocolate, damnit.  Yet despite being surrounded by small kids dressed in cheong-sams, adults in armour, and the bridal party as goths, it was the fruit cake she threw a fit over and considered to be a personal attack…to this day I am bewildered by it.

Comment #51: SP  on  01/13  at  03:01 AM

@Mr. W’s
Haha, you married a guy you met in Vegas… lol

Comment #52: raspberryjamba  on  01/13  at  03:09 AM

My favorite story from my wedding planning:

Dad: You, uh, didn’t want me to walk you down the aisle, did you?
Me: Oh God! No!
Dad: Oh good. That’s a relief. I mean, if it was important to you, I’d do it, but I think that’s a really creepy custom.
Me: Yeah, me too.

Mr. Chingona and I walked out together to face the music. My dad did get to have a proper “dad” moment, though. We had our ceremony in a public park, and this guy pulled off the bike path and came over to watch the ceremony, which was fine, but then he pulled out his cell phone and started yakking to somebody while standing about 10 feet away from where we were trying to say our vows and my dad nearly got in a fist fight with the guy because he got all defensive and then belligerent when my dad told him to show some common fucking courtesy.

After the reception, we and our good friends ended up at a dive bar on Division Street (back when Division Street had dive bars), all in our wedding-wear, and a homeless guy from the neighborhood who was friendly with my brother-in-law bought us a gin and juice from the corner store because he felt bad that he hadn’t gotten us anything.

It was a blast. Anything that’s not a blast isn’t worth it.

Comment #53: chingona  on  01/13  at  03:18 AM

@Maggie,
I agree with what you say, but every situation is different.  I felt sad for my mom, she REALLY wanted this party, and, to her credit, she planned in and paid for it all on her own.  I do see what you’re saying.  If I was genuinely opposed to partying or weddings (like I am opposed to changing my name), I would have stood my ground.

Comment #54: raspberryjamba  on  01/13  at  03:20 AM

Mnem,
That’s awesome!
Yeah, I think the problem with the wedding industrial complex is that it puts the spotlight on the bride and groom, when in real life, weddings are parties parents throw that functions as milestones in their lives and the life of the community.  That is why it was so important for my mom to invite every single old lady second cousin of my grandma to the reception. Because every one of those ladies came to her wedding, and knows who I am, and cares.  This is also another (albeit not as crucial) reason why it is cruel to not accept gay marriage into the mainstream.

Comment #55: raspberryjamba  on  01/13  at  03:29 AM

phyl,
TOTALLY.  There is always so much live entertainment going on everywhere!!!  Lots of times entrance is free, or students can get rush tickets… that’s a great idea!  And really, going to the movies is SO expensive anyway.  $28 for tickets, another $12 for popcorn and soda, $5 for parking, that’s $45.  You can go to see live jazz (or other music) for $7x2=$14, get a couple of drinks=$16, parking=$5, that’s $35.  Or you can go to a no cover open-mic at a coffeehouse, no cover, coffee=$6. 
I like your idea!!!  It fits with the local food thing great too, you can use a lot of the same arguments.

Comment #56: raspberryjamba  on  01/13  at  03:36 AM

Chin,
You got a gin and juice (a.k.a. a “snoop dogg”) from a homeless guy for your wedding??

Awesome!!!!

A day in the life of a feminist…

Comment #57: raspberryjamba  on  01/13  at  03:44 AM

Here’s my theory:

Kate Hudson : acting :: George W. Bush : politics

She can’t act for shit, but her mom is a famous actor, so there you go. I don’t feel sorry for her or her career at all, because this is her career. And I’m almost personally offended at her referring to herself as a “comedienne [sic].” She’s not a comedian. She’s an actor who is typecast in toss-off committee comedies. There’s a difference.

Anne Hathaway, on the other hand, is much better than this garbage.

Comment #58: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  01/13  at  05:16 AM

A wedding without an Elvis impersonater is doomed from the start, says I.

Comment #59: MonkeyShines  on  01/13  at  06:36 AM

The awful thing is that for every person who elopes, or has a simple wedding, or says “no” to the wedding/industrial complex, there are a dozen who walk down the aisle with a second mortgage or their parents’ life savings on their train.  I attended one of those weddings, and I was not surprised when the bride left after six months.  She literally never once thought about what happened after the ceremony, and when her groom asked the local diocese for an annulment, he got it in record time.

For more stories of real bridezillas, check out the sad, funny, and often horrifying tales at www.etiquettehell.com.  It’s not just something Hollywood makes up, unfortunately.

Comment #60: Ellid  on  01/13  at  09:06 AM

a cake that spins or lights up or has World of Warcraft figurines on it as the bride and groom.

World of Warcraft weddings cakes are an idea that, of course, has been done already.
Like this one:

http://www.internetvibes.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/7.jpg

Or this one:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/168/403813215_399dceac3e.jpg

Mario wedding cakes seem to be more common, though . . .

Comment #61: rea  on  01/13  at  09:27 AM

@Maggie,
I agree with what you say, but every situation is different.  I felt sad for my mom, she REALLY wanted this party, and, to her credit, she planned in and paid for it all on her own.  I do see what you’re saying.  If I was genuinely opposed to partying or weddings (like I am opposed to changing my name), I would have stood my ground.

So, in actuality, you didn’t HAVE to indulge your family, lest you “die on that hill”.  You WANTED to, to make your Mother happy.  Which is completely fine, but entirely different from “I had to”.

I’m not at all opposed to the big sugar-coated nightmare for people who want it.  It’s when one perpetuates the idea that one MUST do this, with no regard for what the marrying couple actually want, that really gets my back up.  Claiming that you “had to” is really disingenuous.

It’s fine if one wants the big wedding.  But for crying out loud, own it instead of hiding behind “the family said I had to”.  There’s no shame in wanting a big party.

Comment #62: Maggie  on  01/13  at  09:40 AM

But for crying out loud, own it instead of hiding behind “the family said I had to”.  There’s no shame in wanting a big party.

No, you’re missing the sequence of events. It has nothing to do with “wanting” a big wedding. It had to do with making her mother happy and not being willing to have some big, foot-stomping stubborn “I shall not be moved!” stand on the principle of having a small wedding. I suppose plenty of people have the story where they put their foot down and, over principle, took it out of everyone’s hands and had a small wedding, but few people care so much that they’re willing to do that…because, really, why pick a fight over it? It doesn’t mean you “want” a big wedding, it means someone else wants it and that you’re willing to give them what they want.

For the record, in all likelihood I’ll have a large wedding. I have a big family, and I can see myself marrying someone who also had a big family, and we’ll all want to invite them for a big celebration. But I wouldn’t confuse my attitude with someone who’s against the idea or someone who just doesn’t care enough to push back. Sometimes, Maggie, the wedding (as opposed to the marriage) isn’t about you. Your mileage may vary, depending on familial dynamics.

Comment #63: Tyro  on  01/13  at  10:26 AM

Our whole wedding cost $310. That was seven years ago, and now we have a kid and everything’s cool. My mom even paid for it because she didn’t want to have to deal w/a big wedding. But all of our friends who had had big weddings were *pissed*.

Comment #64: felagund  on  01/13  at  10:40 AM

SP - I think your wedding is my favorite ever.

But before I heard about SP’s wedding, my favorite ever was my dad’s second.

After my mother died, my Dad moved back to Florida from San Diego.  About a year later, I heard vague rumblings of a very pretty lady at the local real estate office.  And then one day he called and said, “Hey, we’re coming out for a visit.”

“We?” I said.

“Yeah,” he said.

Well, I had a hunch, so I asked him.

“Dad,” I said, “Are you married?”

“Yeah,” he said.

“Oh,” I said.  “Well, then, let me talk to your wife, okay?”

She got on the phone and introduced herself—very nice lady—and I congratulated her.  Then I asked, “When did you guys get married?”

“Well,” she said, “about a week ago we were out running errands.  We had to go to Wal-Mart, and we wanted to go look at a new mini-van, and in between we stopped off at City Hall and got married.”

That, to me, is the perfect wedding.  I told my partner about it, and she got them a bouquet of cookies, with cookies shaped like a bride teddy bear and a groom teddy bear, with a Wal-mart cookie and a minivan shaped cookie on either side.

Comment #65: elmo  on  01/13  at  12:00 PM

Thanks for independently coming up with my theory that right-wingers reverse-engineer leftist academic scholarship. Foreign-policy right-wingers would, for example, read Noam Chomsky and Edward Said and formulate Middle East foreign policies and propaganda that do everything Chomsky and Said denounce…

You may or may not have meant this seriously, but it actually happened on one occasion - “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” has lots of stuff in it where the (fictional) Jewish elders talk about how they will set up a secret police force, how they will encourage children to inform on their parents and so on. Hitler read this in the early 20s or so and thought “Hmm, good idea. I’d better do that too and do it first.”

Comment #66: ajay  on  01/13  at  12:11 PM

Weddings are really so meaningless….I just celebrated my 20th anniversary, and I was 5 months pregnant when I got married in a bar. Most of my friends who had the whole fancy schmancy wedding are divorced. What matters is the compatibility of the bride and groom, the rest is just dressing.

Comment #67: maurinsky  on  01/13  at  12:37 PM

Well, someone needs to invite us to a big wedding after May 19th, so this time when they have the married couples’ dance we can stay up even after the DJ says, “Everyone married for less than thirty years, sit down.”  Of course, at the last one, that still wouldn’t have been tops, because there was one couple in attendance who had been married for 64 years!

I just don’t see this as a big deal.  There has been a Bridezillas “reality” show on Bravo or some other such cable network for a few years now.  This seems to me to be less some important social commentary than it is just enmtertainment.  Considering all of the other strange things that are on for entertainment, I don’t see how we can really consider any of it important social commentary.

Comment #68: Dana  on  01/13  at  12:54 PM

raspberryjamba, my best friend did what you did (Except the reverse honeymoon, it is great!). Since her mother really, really wanted a traditional wedding, she asked her to do all the work, except thedress. The week before everyone was asking her “Are you nervous about the wedding?” and she always said “I´m not that interested in the wedding, but I´m very excited because I´m marrying A.”

Comment #69: Maria  on  01/13  at  12:58 PM

The movie was co-written by 2 women, based on a story by a guy, which makes more sense now. One of the writers is Casey Wilson who is new on SNL.

I wish we had more comedies with women and I wish they didn’t revolve around weddings. I also like that if you look at this movie and the next few months, they have some movies with women coming out that all seem to have gotten the OK after the success of “Sex and the City: The Movie.”

Whatever you think about “Sex and the City” and I know everyone has an opinion and I have ZERO interest in thread jacking, but that show had a huge following before the movie. I don’t need them to take parts of that movie and make more movies. Unless you take the friendship part.

Forget it, I’ll just go watch “Friends With Money” again.

Comment #70: SuperD  on  01/13  at  01:16 PM

My first thought while watching this was “oh, wow! It’s about lesbians getting married? Who have been best friends since childhood? This sounds really interesting!” and then I couldn’t help but wonder, if they’re such BFFs, why they didn’t just have a double wedding so they could both have the space and also go halfsies on decorations, flowers, etc.

And then the trailer just kept going and going and getting more and more stupid.

Comment #71: Brigid Keely  on  01/13  at  01:33 PM

When one of my girlfriends (who I’d been out of touch with for a while) recently asked me about the “big day” and “my day” (gah!  I hate it when people say that) I had to restrain myself.  For me, it was all about the guy!  The wedding was pretty low key (immediate family and close friends, a couple days bumming around as a group beforehand) the reception was large b/c of the size of my family, but to me, the most important thing was (and is) the marriage.

I did think it was funny I had to fight the bakery to have my white cake layer frosted with vanilla frosting, and my chocolate cake layers frosted in chocolate.  They just did not want to make a cake that wasn’t all matchy.  The best part was probably when my then four-year-old niece asked “has it started yet?” right when I got to the front of the room.  She had asked “is it done yet” at my sister’s wedding before a justice of the peace one and a half years prior, so we’re starting to think it is no accident.

But why all the Kate Hudson trashing?  Has no one seen almost famous?  Lady can act.

Comment #72: Ismone  on  01/13  at  01:47 PM

For the record, in all likelihood I’ll have a large wedding. I have a big family, and I can see myself marrying someone who also had a big family, and we’ll all want to invite them for a big celebration. But I wouldn’t confuse my attitude with someone who’s against the idea or someone who just doesn’t care enough to push back. Sometimes, Maggie, the wedding (as opposed to the marriage) isn’t about you. Your mileage may vary, depending on familial dynamics.

I completely agree, Tyro.  I had the typical white dress, bridesmaids, church wedding with nice reception after for over 100 people.  And I’ll cop to the fact that I wanted to have a nice wedding with most of the trimmings (I was 21 when I got hitched), but the reason it was so big is that the husband and I both have huge families.  And as far as I’m concerned, the whole wedding thing is more about the families involved than about the particular bride and groom.  The marriage is about us, but the wedding was not.

That said, we had our 10th anniversary last summer and what I really, really wanted was to go to Vegas and get married by Elvis.  Unfortunately, we couldn’t really afford it and the Mr. doesn’t like Vegas anyway (says it’s too touristy and too tacky, I say that’s entirely the point).  Instead we spent our anniversary in Ann Arbor at a gay dance club while my mom watched the kids and the next week we dropped them off with his family in Toronto so we could go camping for a few days on the Bruce Peninsula all by ourselves.  It was a good time.

But I still want to get married by Elvis.  Maybe for the 15th.

Comment #73: ks  on  01/13  at  02:05 PM

Haven’t seen it and don’t plan to (although Anne Hathaway’s great in everything).  But knowing how formula comedies go, I expect that by the third act the two brides will realize the error of their ways and forsake the whole mega wedding.  (I predict—one of them gets married on a beach somewhere.)  Not that this is a complete excuse, but the bit of dialogue with Hudson and Bergen—that seems to be making the same point that Amanda is in the post generally.  Does the movie get no points for knowing the behavior it portrays is clownish?

Comment #74: Cliffy  on  01/13  at  02:11 PM

“What’s the name of that movie where Thelma and Louise drive off the cliff?”

“Thelma And Louise Drive Off A Cliff”!

Comment #75: John D.  on  01/13  at  03:39 PM

I had a big wedding last August, but we wanted to throw a big party and have all our friends and family there. We skipped the parts we didn’t care about (flowers, cake, poofy white dress) and kept the ones we wanted (friends and family, public declaration of commitment, yummy food with dancing late into the night) and we had a fabulous time. I think everyone should have the wedding they want (or no wedding at all), whether that’s a JOP in a park or a formal church ceremony followed by high tea. It’s too bad that so many people, both women and men, get pushed into throwing thousands of dollars at a party they don’t enjoy.

Comment #76: cantabridgian poet  on  01/13  at  04:12 PM

I prefer to think that Bergen, Hathaway and Hudson read the script, thought it would be a comedic cautionary tale about wedding hysteria, wanted to work with each other and it turned out to be different than they thought it would.  Being troopers, they promote it and excuse it the best they can in the promo tours.  Even Diane Keaton of “Baby Boom” was also in “First Wives Club” with Goldie Hawn and Bette Midler.  Compromising principles is part of the business.  Not many actresses have succeeded without it.  OK, Kate Winslet, but she’s remarkable for her exceptional career choices.

Comment #77: MiddleageLiberal  on  01/13  at  04:52 PM

I thought Kate Hudson couldn’t sink any lower after being in “Raising Helen” The title of that movie clinched it for me. Apparently a woman who is successful in her career, fulfilled in her social life and enjoys her family without being financially or emotionally dependent on them is not an adult until she completely changes her life for some children. And they don’t even have to be her own children!  The children of a deceased and obviously misguided relative will do. But I was wrong. There seems to be no shortage of the barrel bottoms they scrape to come up with these movies.

Comment #78: shakahi  on  01/13  at  05:42 PM

Regarding “Thelma and Louise”: I heard somewhere that it originally had the two of them (spoiler alert, if anyone cares by now) reaching the bottom of the Grand Canyon safely and escaping, but test audiences hooted so much at the sheer impossibility that it got changed to the double suicide.

I don’t know if that’s true. Sounds like Hollywood apocrypha, actually.

As for this movie, I don’t plan to see it. It’s too bad about Anne Hathaway, who seems to have considerably more brains than a lot of actresses, but anybody can make a bad choice.

Comment #79: Bitter Scribe  on  01/13  at  06:55 PM

Unless you live in Canada, South Africa or one of a few European countries, what are you even doing getting married anyway, until all of your neighbors who want to, are able to.

Comment #80: Luke  on  01/13  at  08:04 PM

I wouldn’t be too hard on Anne and Kate.  They work in a backwards world that is extremely small and extremely conservative.  Even if the entertainment community likes to believe it is “liberal”, they really are not.

Hence this movie that Kate and Anne are forced to take part in if they want careers.  An actor can only be an actor if he/she works.  Sure they could pass, but I don’t see anyone knocking down their doors.  The industry is set up so it can mothball any actress over 25.

Comment #81: Melponeme_k  on  01/13  at  09:10 PM

MiddleageLiberal:  I prefer to think that Bergen, Hathaway and Hudson read the script, thought it would be a comedic cautionary tale about wedding hysteria, wanted to work with each other and it turned out to be different than they thought it would.

Is it beyond a shadow of a doubt that the movie _isn’t_ a cautionary tale?  I haven’t paid to watch a movie in the theater for multiple years now, and this ain’t gonna be the one to break the streak, so I’ll never know for sure.  But it just seems like it would be _more_ conventional and _more_ formulaic—as Cliffy pointed out—to have the story arc result in the two leads realizing how foolish they’ve been.

Comment #82: FlipYrWhig  on  01/13  at  09:57 PM

We need another Muriel’s Wedding; something that pokes fun at the whole “weddings are big magical events that will solve all of your problems and turn your life around, regardless of who you’re getting married to” bullshit.

Comment #83: Jayunderscorezero  on  01/13  at  11:41 PM

What bugs me about this movie is that at no point do they ever consider they could share the location - either by time swapping or sharing the ceremony.

At that point, all the arguing would make sense; it’s tough to agree on everything, and it is a stressful thing to plan a huge get-together, let alone one which has such social stigma attached to it.

As I watched the preview, I thought that this was exactly what was going to happen: “Oh, they planned their whole lives to have a double wedding and now they’re going to find out that they have totally different unspoken expectations for it?” Then: “Oh, they accidentally got booked on the same day so they somehow have to work out a double wedding?” But nope.

As bad as it would have been to see two women portrayed as being reduced to eye-clawing instead of rational negotiation in the stress of working out double wedding plans, it’s much much worse seeing them bicker like kindergarteners over a fucking date and location.

Comment #84: Kristin  on  01/14  at  01:39 AM

I’m late to this thread but I thought I’d chime in since I actually saw it this weekend (went to see The Curious Case of Benjamin Button with “mommy” friends, the times were wrong and it was the only movie we had time to see).

It was both better and worse than the trailer would lead you to believe. Not that anybody here cares, but major spoilers ahead.

<u>Better</u>

- Hathaway’s character starts off as a pushover, people-pleasing woman who looked forward to her wedding as the one day that would be about her. Facing the possibility of losing that moment to be the one in charge and whose desires actually matter above those of everyone else for ONE day, she realizes that she needs to make her voice heard EVERY day.  Her fiance comes off as a douche who wants a well-behaved milquetoast with no real feelings (or at least, no feelings that make him uncomfortable).  There actually was a great scene where she confronted the trope of the irrational woman (i.e. a woman who exhibits any strong emotion, especially anger), which is probably why Hathaway talked about this as empowering. The lesson: women need to assert themselves, even if it means sacrificing the “big wedding”.  This arc of the story was actually the most interesting part of the movie.

- Hudson’s character was the cold, bitchy lawyer basically divorced from her emotions—fitting the mold of the masculinized career woman that anti-feminists love to promote—who comes to realize that she doesn’t have to have it together all the time and that it’s okay to show that you feel and allow yourself to feel. Her fiance actually comes off pretty good (with what little presence he had) because he realizes that as much as she loves him, she needs her best friend and he’s not threatened by it.

- the take away message at the end is that these two women were each other’s soulmates and that getting married wasn’t going to make them “new” or “better” or necessarily provide them with all they needed; they still needed each other to be whole.

<u>Worse</u>

- Why did they have to go about trying to ruin each other’s big day and humiliate each other?  Conceptually, the movie would have worked better if, in planning their weddings without each other and realizing that their intended spouse could not quite fill the void, they realized that weddings/marriage isn’t a magic bullet to a beautiful life and that a woman’s friends are a critical part of her life.  No catfighting necessary and then the unraveling of Hathaway’s relationship and her hookup with Hudson’s brother would actually make sense.

It could have also worked by making the setup the double wedding and having Hathaway and Hudson conflict over wedding details. Hathaway could still come to the realization that she needed to stand up for herself more by not allowing her friend to steamroll over her in decisions; Hudson (whose character is orphaned) could have dealt with jealousy issues regarding Hathaway’s loving, involved parents and thus learned that she doesn’t have to be emotionally closed off and appear invincible all the time.

- The girlfriends of Hathaway/Hudson’s characters were awful.  You couldn’t have stuffed more woman-hating cliches into those characters.

- The “dance off”. Really?  WTF?

- it bears repeating that the bulk of the movie focused on Hathaway/Hudson inflicting as much humiliation and pain on each other as possible.  I wanted to gouge my eyes out with a dull object. It reveled in the catfighting.  It’s like the script made an almost feminist critique of the wedding industry and the studio heads said “This movie needs less story and more catfights.  Can we add more scenes and cut out this talky stuff?”

Comment #85: history_mom  on  01/14  at  02:55 AM

@Maggie,
No, I had to.  I didn’t want the party, I didn’t want the dress, or the make-up, or the presents, or to wear my mom’s engagement ring so it looked like I had one (we didn’t) but I wanted to make my mother happy, and she was willing to do all the work, so I endured the dress and enjoyed the party. 
I don’t understand what you are saying.  There are much bigger fights to fight—at least for me, I’ve had to have many bitter disagreements with my family, including my choice of career, my choice of husband, my choice to live together before getting married, my choice of politics, my choice of non-religion, my choice of public dress and behavior.  If I can ever let them have something, I do.

Comment #86: raspberryjamba  on  01/14  at  07:00 AM

See, if I had taken the time to read Tyro’s post I wouldn’t have had to say nothing.

Comment #87: raspberryjamba  on  01/14  at  07:02 AM

history_mom:  the bulk of the movie focused on Hathaway/Hudson inflicting as much humiliation and pain on each other as possible.

I get this—and as I recall this was also key to Melissa McEwan’s discussion of the trailer/film.  But it still seems like the movie shows Big Wedding driving women apart, pitting them against each other, and having little or nothing to do with heterosexually married nuclear-family bliss.  You ask “Why did they have to go about trying to ruin each other’s big day and humiliate each other?”  It seems like that could be crucial to showing just how badly women’s psyches get damaged by bride propaganda:  “look what it does even to successful women who seem like they have their shit together!”

Yet along the way there are these spectacles that make it seem like any possible political message is just a pretext for showing terrible things happening to beautiful women.  And those moments are what drive the reception of this movie as blatantly anti-feminist and even repugnant.

If you don’t mind my asking, what was it that caused you to find the humiliation element to be leading the audience towards a creepy kind of voyeurism, as opposed to feeling (political) blame towards patriarchal notions of ideal womanhood and/or sympathy for those who have internalized them?  At what point can the movie be no longer salvaged as a critique of the wedding-industrial complex?

I bring this up in these terms not to defend the movie, which I haven’t seen, but because I’m kind of obsessed with how audiences view suffering and violence in order to draw ethical/moral conclusions.

Comment #88: FlipYrWhig  on  01/14  at  03:32 PM

FlipYrWhig: Honestly, the creepy voyeurism of the catfight is nothing new (see: Dynasty). I think it’s that as these two women are doing awful things to each other, literally nobody tells them that it’s wrong or suggests that Hathaway/Hudson’s reaction the the situation is completely overboard (except the choad fiance, who only does it in an attempt to put Hathaway back in her repressed little box).  Everyone is facilitating or actively participating in the “bride wars” as if it’s normal and acceptable.  That’s why I say the film reveled in the woman hate and really demonstrates how much of wedding madness is driven by misogyny: women hating each other and wanting to best each other with the ultimate prize (ugh!) by any means necessary, the men patting themselves on the back about how rational and reasonable they are about weddings compared to those hysterical females, and everyone else sitting back for the show and getting to feel morally superior to those stupid bitches.

But what really clinched it for me that this was no longer a critique of the wedding industry and gender expectations was the reps from the studio asking the audience to fill out surveys as they left; they bypassed the adult women and wanted to hear from the teenage girls in the audience.  This movie wasn’t a critique, it was indoctrination.

Comment #89: history_mom  on  01/14  at  04:27 PM

Interesting, thanks… 

This movie may miss the mark, but I still think I can imagine a very similar dark-comic or otherwise pointed movie aiming for critique and perhaps even pulling it off.  That’s what I think is afoot in the Douglas/Turner/DeVito _War of the Roses_ and the first half of _Mr. and Mrs. Smith_… though those are about marriages and property and independence, not the wedding phase. 

Something like the Steve Martin _Father of the Bride_ makes fancy weddings a bit ridiculous without calling into question any of the assumptions behind them, and it seems like _Bride Wars_ at least avoids sentimentalizing patriarchy and paternalism, which is a sad staple of other comic wedding plots.

I do think that a lot of the (supposed) effect of watching Bridezillas or My Super Sweet 16 or Real Housewives et al. derives from the show in itself being largely uncritical of the behaviors it shows—but relying quite heavily on the viewer’s shock and/or shaming and/or sadism.  We get to feel superior to these obnoxious people.

OK, now I’m just rambling.  Thanks for the dialogue.

Comment #90: FlipYrWhig  on  01/14  at  05:24 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.