MovieChat Forums > Kate & Leopold (2001) Discussion > I don't understand why women like this m...

I don't understand why women like this movie

posted 18 years ago by jdlund
52 replies | jump to latest

To clarify the subject line, I am not criticizing sappy romance comedies. There are certainly a number of films in that genre I actually like. There is just something I have never understood about the popularity of this movie. Why weren't women offended by the film? I understand the enjoyment of romantic movies, but this was so blatantly misogynistic that I have always been confused at the fact that women I know as well as the ones that comment on this discussion board seem to really like the movie. We have the central character Kate, an ambitious, successful business woman. She, through mystical powers and the like, comes into contact with a man from 1876. He treats her with the chivalrous customs indicative of his culture. She, finding his displays of 'respect' and 'courtesy' flattering, falls in love with him and so forth and so on.

Yet chivalry was never about respect or courtesy. It was a code of behavior that rose from a society that treated women as though they were helpless infants. Chivalry was based in the mentality that women were incapable of taking care of themselves and thus needed a man to take care of them. The whole idea of what it meant to be a 'lady' in the Nineteenth Century rooted the image of femininity in notions of weakness, inferiority, fragility, and purity by the definitions of male society. Basically, being a 'lady' meant being pretty, submissive and silent. At one point in the film Kate declares that she "wants there to be more 1876." In the Nineteenth Century women had absolutely no rights whatsoever, were the legal property of their husbands (or fathers), and were bound by extraordinarily oppressive societal limitations.

So, essentially the film is making the argument that ambitious, driven women deep down want to be the submissive, dominated property of men who treat them like helpless children and would prefer to have the type of love that implicitly conveys ownership rather than having social, legal or personal rights. After all 1876 was a time when a husband could not be legally charged with raping his wife (she was his to do with as he pleased) and a husband could legally abuse his wife viscously without punishment. The film negates everything women have managed to accomplish in the fight for equal rights, equal pay, fair treatment and the ability to express themselves openly and have an identity that is separate from what male society told them to be. The argument of the film is rather cemented when the audience comes to find out that she is really from that society all along. The film's argument is clear: women who are driven to succeed in a man's world and want to make something of themselves without relying on anyone are actually, by nature, everything that the Nineteenth Century told us women are suppose to be. They weren't oppressed; they were naturally meant to be the submissive, weak, childlike, pretty creatures who are owned by their fathers and then given as a piece of property to their husbands.

The movie's gender issues aren't simply problematic, it is truly socially irresponsible and just plain awful. It is not surprising that it was directed and writen by men based on a story by another man. It is the large audience that went to see the movie and rent the movie that has me baffled. I apologize for rambling on as long as I have, and I am not sure if anyone will ever read all of this, but I felt like getting all of that off my chest. In the end, if anyone actually sits through my tyrade, I really want to know why on earth it is that women not only watch this, but actually enjoy the film? By all means, I'll accept people who disagree with me, but it is simply something I have never understood. To me it is like large crowds of African Americans going to see a minstrel show and then praising the humor. I find a woman enjoying this film to be just as puzzling.

[–] Amelie38 16 years ago

You make good arguments about why women should not like this film; your error is assuming that women do. I didn't like this movie. I watched it because I like time travel movies. This one was too long and slow,and I didn't find the characters interesting or likeable. Possibly you could have said "I don't understand why anyone likes this movie," instead of assuming that women like it, and are you also assuming, consequently, that men don't?
I find that people cannot be pigeonholed by sex. There are too many other variables that affect the way people behave.

[–] Adler-99 16 years ago

Well, this woman didn't like this movie! Kate was irritating, rude, dull, and selfish, and I can't imagine why any man would want to marry her.

[–] raymj777 16 years ago

This is a stupid argument. By your reasoning, women shouldn't watch films or TV shows whose plots were set prior to the 1970's when the sexual revolution took place. I suppose you would ask the same question of black people on the "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" board (How could black people like this movie?) because blacks were treated so horribly during that time. Perhaps you should encourage them to avoid seeing films set prior to the mid-60's. Judging 18th century peoples based upon your 21st century sensibilities is hypocritical and stupid. It's sad that we've come to the point where I have to wonder if opening a door or giving up my seat for a lady will make me the object of ridicule or contempt.

[–] Lady_Pearl 14 years ago

It's sad that we've come to the point where I have to wonder if opening a door or giving up my seat for a lady will make me the object of ridicule or contempt.

The women who are petty enough to object to such a display of respect, from someone who is considerate enough to put the needs of others before their own, are the only ones deserving of ridicule and contempt.

This must be where pies go when they die.

[–] cosmo7 10 years ago

On the topic of holding the door open, I just want to say I don't mind (as a woman). Hold the door open for me - thanks, and if I get there first, I'll hold the door open for you.

But please, if you're going to hold the door open, don't do it halfway. People hold the door open for my uncle, making him feel obligated to rush to it, and just before he gets there, they let go, practically making him sprain his thumb against the moving door.

Regarding the movie, I gave it 5/10. I didn't like it, but I'd be willing to watch scenes of it again. I agree with other posters that the 1800s were a crappy time for women, and that you could find bad manners just as easily back then as now (there were some good manners in the wealthier classes). Kate said something that annoyed me at the dinner table on the roof, something about being inadequate alone. That's fine for her, but from the way she said it, I think she was generalizing about all women/people, not just her. I deducted at least a point from my score just for her obnoxious comment.

[–] freefall79 15 years ago

personally i can't stand this film, Ryan's acting was insepid, the script woeful...but Hugh Jackman...do i really need to continue!

Thunderbirds Aren't Slow

[–] ewanfan-1 15 years ago

I think the point of this film was that the character Kate wanted an equal, not to be taken care of. Her brother and Stewart constantly needed her assistance and never gave enough back. Though, in their own way eventually they did. They just grew up a lot slower.

Leopold needed to learn compromise from Kate and she needed to learn not to compromise too much.
Did the story really need to be a time travel tale for these two characters? Probably not.
It's a little scary for a woman to give up the right to vote and rock music as others have pointed out but this movie was about Kate.
The script did a good job of why Leopold was a good match for HER.

Her brother's romance was set in realism and it was a good one.

Fans of steampunk can embrace this movie. :)

[–] imperishable_stars 15 years ago

I came here to launch a tirade myself but you've done it far better than I could. As a female, I'd find this tripe incredibly insulting if it weren't so laughably trite.

---
There'll be no butter in hell!

[–] strayedclimaca 15 years ago

My first post in IMDB ever.
I absolutely love comments like the OP, so well founded and full of explanations which are based on history or science. Opposite to people who write "Worst movie ever" or "stupid", never giving arguments to justify their opinions. I've been reading this board for years and I just wanted to start saying that.
ps: I must tell you I liked the movie because I was in the mood to see something light-hearted and silly at the time. But I agree with your views.
Also, I think Meg Ryan's character was insufferable and impolite and selfish. A character like Leopold would have never fell in love with such a disagreable woman. ))and I also believe Meg Ryan had a collagen implant on her lips. She looked artificial.((

[–] onepotato2 15 years ago

Why DO women like this cr^p? and buy into it.
This movie proposes that even a deeply unlikeable shrew like Meg Ryan deserves someone as fine, cultured and poised as Hugh Jackman. Yeah ladies, your flaws are adorable, and men owe you a lifetime of telling you rainbows shoot of your a55.

And Meg Ryan? ugh. I hate Romantic Comedies.
Even weepy chickflicks are better than Romantic Comedies.

[–] Kareiyasu 15 years ago

Mainly because most women now a days are Kate personified. Crude, vindictive, selfish, etc. And they want the "cake" and eat it aswell. They enjoy the kindness and the chilvary aspect from Leopold. Women exclude the "property" and all around problems with living in that time. So most just enjoy the idea of a man being like Leopold.

On one hand, there are many intelligent, polite, shy, etc, women. Who just prefer a change of character from men. Change being the operative word here. Of course most if not all women have had the chance to stay with the "nice guy" but never do. It's the bad boys that get all the attention.

"One gay beer for my friend, because he's gay, and one normal beer for me, because I'm normal."

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] livestreamok 15 years ago

Of course because there is Hugh Jackman in this movie ha ha :)

[–] MrsFarhanAkhtar 14 years ago

Yeah...Hugh Jackman AND Breckin Meyer TOGETHER.
What's not to like?

[–] livestreamok 14 years ago

I don't understand why he/she makes this thread lol,i mean of course woman would love this movie,the actors was good and charm

[–] Lady_Pearl 14 years ago

Why weren't women offended by the film?

Should I be? The idea that women should take offence to a fictional representation of their gender is ITSELF offensive to women. Besides, I take more offence to its uninspired writing and logical problems regarding the time travel aspect than I do any of its gender politics.

By all means cry "Don't patronise me!" if a man is considerate enough to help you in this day and age, whether it be with some heavy luggage less troublesome for him to carry or if your spiked heel gets stuck in some grating and, uninterested in any kind of reward, he offers his services to you. Just don't be surprised if the poor fellow responds with the utmost disgust at your ingratitude and paranoid notion that he is in any way insinuating you are "infantile".

This must be where pies go when they die.

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 9 years ago

Exactly. These feminists are inspiring more and more men to be sh!tty, inconsiderate people... toward women or whomever. We will naturally treat other men like sh!t. It's natural. They're competition. BUT, we don't like ourselves when we feel forced to treat women (our beloveds) just as crappy. BUT, what else can we do? We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. It's less of a risk to not do something than to do something.

Great job, feminism.