I wrote a feminist rant the other day about the "reply all" button in e-mail. Specifically about it not being used when the person CC'd is a woman. Well, specifically when the person being CC'd is
me and the sender is my fiancé. It had to do with some professionals replying only to my fiancé when he sends wedding-planning-related e-mails on which I'm CC'd, but replying to
both of us when
I send wedding-related e-mails to the same person and CC my fiancé. After I let the unposted blog-post I wrote sit for a few days and revisited it, it looked like exactly what it was: an unfunny, angry feminist rant by someone who was personally offended. And it wasn't very good.
So instead of ranting about
that (well, for more than a paragraph), I'm going to feminist rant about HOW IN THE WORLD DID "RUNAWAY BRIDE" GET MADE?????!!!!!!
I don't mean that I hated this movie. In fact, I quite enjoyed laughing and yelling, "IS THIS FOR REAL?!" while throwing popcorn at my fiancé every time Richard Gere's character said something mind-bogglingly offensive. Which was a lot.
I saw the movie when it came out in '99. At least I think I did. I don't remember thinking it was awesomely offensive back then. I also don't remember thinking the setup makes no sense whatsoever and Gere's character should be thrown in jail for stalking and harassment and Julia Roberts's character should take out a restraining order against him, and some editor or screenwriter or script supervisor (or dare I say, director) should be fired for making nothing in the first act of the film make any sense. So did I change? Did times change? Was this actually acceptable back then?
Let me explain.
Gere's character, Ike, writes a column which, as far as I can tell, does nothing but insult women. And apparently women love this column. Even Roberts's character, who lives in some teeny tiny backwards small town somewhere and owns and runs her own hardware store, apparently likes to spend time reading misogynistic columns. And I don't throw around the word "misogynistic" loosely—he truly
hates women. He writes about how all women can be defined by several archetypes: "the cheerleader, the whore, the".... I'm sorry, I forgot what came after "whore."
Anyway, after hearing a story by a drunk guy at a bar about some girl in Nowhere, USA who leaves men at the altar, with zero research or finding any other sources, Ike writes about her
by name in his column. She's a new archetype of woman: "the man-eater." To zip along here (the movie plays like this first act originally took an hour and then they just chopped stuff out to shorten it—still too long, and yet still not enough explanation for why what's happening is happening), Roberts's character, Maggie, writes a letter to the editor about all the lies about her in the article; Ike gets fired; Ike's friend calls him and is all, "Hey, I'm a freelance photographer for GQ, so you know what you should do? Get vindication and go to her hometown and follow her around." (What does being a photographer for GQ have to do with any of this?? I'm so confused. How is harassment vindication? And most importantly, WHO IS READING HIS COLUMNS AND WHY DO THEY CARE ABOUT SOME WOMAN WHO'S LEFT THREE MEN AT THE ALTAR?)
So anyway, he goes and finds her (in a small town that apparently is still stuck in the 1950s, complete with fashion and hairdos, because, ya know, we small-town folk are so backwards and simple and clueless), stalks her, harasses her, humiliates her, is a total jerk to her, and then she makes a nonsensical bargain with him to let him follow her around for money, and the instant the deal is sealed, the music changes to love-story music, and she flashes a lot of that big Julia Roberts smile at him and her eyes get soft and we know she's falling in love with him. And all of a sudden he's a nice guy.
And then the movie completely forgets the setup, which on one hand is smart because it was a dumb setup, but on the other hand.... WHAT'S THIS MOVIE ABOUT? What happens to his column? Does it get written? Does he try to sell it? Did they forget that that was the whole setup? Does he even have a job? Is he forever unemployed because who would hire a man who just writes about how awful women are and then singles out individual women to make them feel horrible about themselves? Does he find something worthwhile to write about instead? Does he grow and learn to stop hating women or did he just become nice to Maggie because he wants to marry her (after a week)? Or does the movie not even think that there was anything wrong with him to begin with and that he needed to grow?
And the photographer from GQ.....
I don't... I can't... what?
So the take-aways here: Reply-all—Use it, whether the person CC'd is male or female. And don't stalk and harass women and write about how awful they are and expect them to fall in love with you. And I don't know what the heck was going on in 1999 that allowed this movie to be written as is, but I'm pretty sure you won't see it on TV these days.
Oh, and always make sure Act 1 makes sense. Julie Roberts can only fix a movie so much.
