Bridesmaids (2011)

[igenlode]

I watched the "Bridesmaids" film, as it was so well reviewed at the time. I knew about the 'gross-out' stuff in advance (it was what most of the reviews talked about...), so I wasn't surprised by that, although of course I didn't find it any funnier than I'd expected. But I'm afraid I disliked the film for largely different reasons -- basically, it's using the humiliation of the protagonist to get laughs, and I don't find that amusing at all. I find it cringe-making. When Annie makes a complete fool of herself in public and a mess of her private life, it doesn't make me laugh; it makes me want to stop watching.

Possibly in consequence, I felt that a lot of the scenes went on far too long, presumably in the idea that repetition would gain increasing laughs from the audience. The endless one-up-manship between the rival best friends at the engagement party, for example -- we get the idea quite quickly. After that it's just excruciating to sit through. The drunken antics on the aeroplane (not to mention the antics of the members of the cast who don't even have the excuse of being drunk) drag on and on. And I felt that there were too many bridesmaids with too little to do -- I really couldn't remember most of them. (Just how many bridesmaids do you get at an American wedding, anyway?)

I can see why the film was heralded as Melissa McCarthy's breakout role, and Chris O'Dowd was also memorable as Officer Rhodes. I suspect this may also have something to do with the fact that they were about the only two likeable characters in the film, however :-(

Comments

[betweensunandmoon]

(Just how many bridesmaids do you get at an American wedding, anyway?)

According to my mother, it depends on the bride.

My one experience of being a bridesmaid involved us and the matron of honor all huddling together, blue with cold, in our tiny dresses and bare feet. Just because it's a beach doesn't mean it's still warm when the sun starts setting. (Which, judging from your review, sounds more comical than anything in this movie.)

[igenlode]

The last wedding I attended, I gave the bride a shawl. She ended up wearing it over her wedding dress :-P

[pedanther]

it's using the humiliation of the protagonist to get laughs, and I don't find that amusing at all. I find it cringe-making

Same here, so this is one I can definitely cross off the "maybe watch?" list. Thanks for the warning.

[cosette_giry]

The director of the film is Paul Feig - and I don't understand for the life of me why that guy is considered someone to look up to when it comes to female-led comedies. His films are painfully unfunny, and the only one I'm looking forward to is Last Christmas simply because Emma Thompson and Greg Wise are writing the script and probably won't let him do any more fart jokes.

He's the last director I'd want directing an all female Ghostbusters film and I'm 100% convinced to this day the film was poorly received because he can't direct a comedy for shyte.

*salt switch off*

[igenlode]

I didn't even realise there was a special technique used for directing female-led films...

[cosette_giry]

The "female gaze" as it is called is really something that is taught in academia, and if you want a really short, crude summary of it, it's "female directors are less likely to have an awkwardly long shot of a female character's butt". And, well... it has a better track record than the Bechdel test XD

So yeah. That's the secret technique. Less close-up on the butt and chest. It's harder than it looks, apparently. XD

But yeah, the whole point is that his films tend to turn around the principle of "ladies have problems because they have ovaries", and when it's paraded after that as being "feminist", you can't help but passively-agressively smile. Yeah, all of my problems and all of the events in my life have something to do with me being a lady. Thanks for your deep insight, Mr. Feig. Garry Mitchell, Rob Reiner or frigging Frank Capra do a better job than you and somehow you're the go-to reference.

[igenlode]

Frank Capra is an interesting comparison -- of course, in his day, women were the primary target audience for Hollywood output (hence the prevalence of 'the weepie', and films like "Stella Dallas" or "Imitation of Life" or "Mildred Pierce" that are all about the relationships between women).

But to be fair, I think "ladies have problems because they have ovaries" is one accusation that doesn't feature in "Bridesmaids"; apart from the whole question of only women being able to be bridesmaids, it's all about jealousy and letting your ego get in the way of a friend's marriage, which isn't really all that different from the theme of "The Front Page", say...

[cosette_giry]

I did read an article once about how female characters were better represented in the 30s-40s-50s than later on - but I'd have to find it.

But yeah, I think the main thing is that it's sad he gets hailed as a reference of sorts while there are so many more talented directors out there. The basic idea of Bridesmaids isn't bad, but the execution is poor and unfunny. Heck, the jealousy and ego theme has been done ad nauseam and better - The Favourite did it better.

[igenlode]

It's not so much that female characters were better represented -- it's that the female audience were the ones making the economic decisions, and if women didn't like your film then you'd have a hard job breaking even. (Back in the 1920s, it was estimated that three-quarters of cinema tickets were bought by women, and even when men were the ones paying, they would usually be doing so in order to escort a girl. No-one in his senses would try to court his sweetheart by taking her to a film that didn't appeal to her.)

You can see the point in the 1970s/80s when Hollywood started going after the young male audience with spare cash in their jeans pockets, rather than an older audience of disenchanted housewives looking for emotional thrills. You start getting less dialogue, and lots of explosions and quick jump-cuts to suit a shorter attention span :-p