The Heart Wants What It Can Get

While He's Just Not That Into You may be an ensemble, the story with the most screen time -- and the one that triggers a number of other plots -- is the romance between Ginnifer Goodwin and Justin Long. Ginnifer's the over-analyser; the girl who waits for the guy who's not going to call to call. Justin's the cynic -- the brutal truthteller who delivers dating lessons to our naif, including the titular one.

Ginnifer toughens up, develops a thick skin, learns to spot a blowoff... and then mistakes many of Justin's actions for romantic attention. He lashes out at her -- hasn't she learned anything? Stop looking for signs! Ginnifer's defense: she'd rather be overly analytical as she searches for true love, than cold-hearted like he is. Cue the reversal... he's about to realize he does, in fact, love her. This time, she's going to get her man!

But here's the thing.

Not once. Not ONCE. Does Ginnifer ever ask herself (nor does anyone ask her) if she's into him. The assumption the storyline makes is that Ginnifer is into whatever guy is into her. Her dream seems to be that someone -- anyone -- will want her.

So the person we've been led to believe is our hero -- the one that needs to grow and change -- isn't Ginnifer. It's Justin. It's the dude. Oh thank God, a DUDE is here to provide character depth! 'Cause Ginnifer in all her damaged mania is adorable just as she is. Let's reward her for all those charming neuroses!

I understand that, thematically, and for the sake of romance, it must be very tempting to turn the lesson of the title on its head, and make the big reversal about that. I just don't think Ginnifer's character needed to be sacrificed to make that happen. How about, she starts to fall for him because he's so unlike the other guys... and then starts seeing signs where there are none?

Then the big moment, when he discovers she has feelings for him, might actually have been heartbreakingly romantic rather than painfully awkward.

You're Not My Real Mom

I'm baaaa-aaaack! Hmm, this should be a post about Poltergeist. It isn't. One day, one day.

Many apologies to the 6 of you who check in regularly -- you know how it is: sometimes the time you have for writing has to be spent, well, writing!

Today's post is about Enchanted. A movie that -- come on -- is pretty darn sweet. (Too sweet for some, maybe but I've got a wickedly tolerant sweet tooth.)

The film does a lot of things right. Its just over-the-top old-school Disney opening. Its musical numbers that border on satire ("Happy Working Song" sees rats and roaches helping Giselle tidy up the apartment). And the arcs are, for the most part, solid: Patrick Dempsey's divorce lawyer figures out what pure, un-cynical love is... the little chipmunk-lackey has his change of heart, as he witnesses the power of love...

My one real issue? This movie sends up fairy tales and princes and earnestness and even 'true love's kisses'. But it does nothing with the idea of the stepmother.

The evil stepmother's one of the most iconic villain archetypes ever. And this movie does absolutely nothing to turn that notion on its head. Evil Queen Narissa doesn't want her stepson to marry, so she'll remain queen. She's an evil stepmother who stays evil. Fine.

But there's also Nancy, Patrick Dempsey's fiancee -- and his daughter's soon-to-be-stepmother. The woman's clearly not comfortable with children, but nor is she evil. She's just apparently not the right woman for Prince Patrick. Nancy deserves true love, and in the end, finds it, becoming Edward's queen. Great, all great. But not once in there could we explore the notion that one can become a stepmother without being a child-hating bitch? The movie could spare no time for the plight of the beleaguered stepmother?

What an opportunity that was. Did they feel that other Susan Sarandon movie had said all there was to say?