MovieChat Forums > The Perfect Man (2005) Discussion > This Film is Strangely Offensive

This Film is Strangely Offensive


I first want to clarify that I have no issue with light entertainment for the sake of light entertainment--and I can appreciate how a more "insubstantial" film could appeal to those looking for a pleasant two hours at the movies. However, I recently saw "The Perfect Man" and was at amazed at how while the movie tries superficially to be as sweet as possible (the mother is even an expert cake-maker), it's really unintentionally dark, mean-spirited, and unusually offensive.

First of all, the fictionalized man Duff's character creates for her mother is a remarkably cruel lie (and just because it's "well-intentioned" doesn't make it less nasty). The scene where Duff sets off a sprinkler system just to perpetuate that lie by preventing the mother from meeting "Ben" is uncalled for. Obviously, it was a sloppy plot device to make sure the two characters didn't meet; however, the film attempts to present such destructive behavior as acceptable and not stepping way over the boundaries--it's handled like some perfectly inconsequential and necessary action. Why doesn't anything come of this--surely major charges would be brought against the girl? And there would most certainly be thousands of dollars in water damage to the restaurant.

Secondly (and even more offensive) was the terribly cliché gay character (played flamboyantly by the most notable of the "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" cast). It's disturbing how offensively one-dimensional and superficial he is (the character isn't presented as a realistic relatable gay male, but instead exists solely for the audience to laugh at his flamboyantly gay tendencies--he's purely an object to mock). His dialogue is terribly cliché:

"Wait, what could be more important than the perfect man? Oh, duh--the perfect shoes."

His character is so marginalized that he's treated like a commodity--popping in when necessary with his superficially witty gay humor. It gets even worse when he attempts to woo the construction workers from across the street as the movie assumes that just because they're a group of sweaty men, the gay guy must immediately be attracted to them (and don't forget the "Jets" "West Side Story" joke because this guy, since apparently gays have no pop culture knowledge of sports, must immediately draw upon his love for musicals). And finally the last scene at the football game where the macho straight guys stand up with their beers and the gay character pulls out a glass of red wine (and then comments that he hopes the Jets make it to the World Series) is absurdly offensive.

What bothered me the most (and, considering this is aimed directly at Duff's young audience, one must consider the "message" the film presents) is that these very nasty actions and offensive clichés are completely sugarcoated under the guise of a cutesy Hilary Duff romantic comedy. I have to think the hilariously contrived "happy ending" (Duff gets guy, Locklear gets guy, they stay in NYC, younger sister wins spelling bee, Locklear wins cake contest, and gay guy gets straight football friends) was just the writers' consolation for such a narrow and mean-spirited film--as though putting a big gaudy bow on at the end would cancel out the rest of the movie.

Not a single moment in this film felt authentic and, for such a PG family film, it presents a very muddled message.

Michael

reply

You really need to lighten up...this movie is not even worthy of such an in depth analysis. If you want to analyze films in such detail, why don't you pick a film that is worthy of your time and thought?

reply

Michaels analysis of the film was not done with an intent to give the film a deeper meaning. In fact, I wouldn't even consider his post an analyzation. It was more of a stating of the obvious. The undertones weren't undertones at all; they were blatant acts of immoral behavior. What most of you people don't seem to understand here is that most media is done with entertainment in mind. Pornography is entertainment. Horror violence and gore (generally) is done for entertainment. However, these films weren't made with a family audience in mind. Not many would cite these films as children friendly, simply because they're made for entertainment purposes.

That’s the problem with films like "The Perfect Man". The film creates an illusion of a family film, yet promotes such vile and appalling behavior merely because no one is expected to think about anything that's occurring. Worse than anything, all of this behavior is climaxed into a fabricated ending where all of this nihilistic and selfish behavior is met with no consequences. Everything is wrapped up in a big bundle of euphoria.

I don't want to ban the making of Duff-esque films. I honestly could care less how many poorly made films are created, or how many are watched. It has no effect on me. I'm just tired of people excusing low quality, corrupt films wrapped up in a ball of fluff simply because they're made for "entertainment purposes", then criticizing and censoring much better films that have similar themes that are portrayed differently, but with the same, or very often much better intentions in mind.

___________________
Myspace classic cinema group:
http://groups.myspace.com/cinema101

reply

Whatever. It was a good movie, I liked it. Stop going into detail about every little thing that you don't like cuz no one cares! Whether it's the truth, or whatever, I really don't care. Everyone's entitled to think/beleive what they want.

If Practice Makes Perfect and Nobody's Perfect,Why Practice?

reply

First of all, this movies' message was "take responsibility for your actions". She created the mess, and now she has to fix it. What more of a lesson do you want? Yes,she broke her moms' heart, but in the end, it was all okay. This movie taught that no matter how bad things get, there's an extreme possibility that it will get better. And they all had a happy ending because it left people, or if not, me, feeling good about a abd situation. And second of all SEE A COUNSELOR. My god, get a life.

reply

Michael I totally agree with you, this girl made a total fool of her mother and really hurt her feelings. I watched this movie with my 2 friends both girls too and we were all appalled that this was billed a romantic comedy. I didnt find anything funny about it. Especially the part where she ruined the restaurant just so she wouldnt get into trouble with her mother. Also the wedding, if she ran into my wedding like that and ruined it I would kill her!!!!

reply

I couldn't agree more Michael. Hilary Duff's character was incredibley unlikeable. All the monaing about her mom being selfish, when in reality she was selfishness personified. I also found the homosexual jokes a bit hard to swallow. Especially when the 2 girls first walked into the restaurant and Hilary's character seemed appalled that Carson's character might actually have been the brunette girls uncle. Like having a gay uncle would be, like, the worst thing EVER! I found it offensive and i'm glad you highlighted the points.

reply

[deleted]

I don't think that Holly's reaction to her friends uncle being gay was that it was a bad thing--however would you go to a doctor for advise on the mechanics of building a house? NO, you would go to a contractor or an architect. Most of my guy friends are gay, but I would NEVER go to them for advise on how to whoo a woman, they'd be more lost than I would be.

reply

Has anybody remarked upon the very sick basis of the film's plot, to wit, A woman has so fragile a psyche that each time she gets her heart broken she moves her entire family to another town? Huh? Wait a minute. What Locklear's character needs is a shrink. Imagine, for a moment, how often that can happen to a woman with her problem? Why do men treat her this way in the first place? How is it that she "gets her heart broken" over and over again, that's one issue; then, each time that happens she runs away from the entire region. This is some sick ***t, peeps. The cruelty Locklear's character perpetrates against her children is incalculable, and all because she can't handle her problems, and yet it is never suggested that she is truly sick emotionally and needs professional help. It's not that Jean is a perfectionist, because if that were her problem then it would be her doing the breaking up, but the men find a way to undermine and sabotage the relationship. In a subtler way, Locklear is subconsciously picking men who will disappoint her, not because they aren't perfect, but because they are bounders of one sort or another, fly-by-nights, heartbreakers. It can be argued that perfectionists find ways to undermine their own happiness by behaving in just this way, however, I believe Jean isn't that character. Furthermore, everyone knows - or should know - one doesn't need a "perfect man" to conquer this addiction, one needs to have the inner strength to tell this kind of man to take a hike and to be more aware and observant of the guys who aren't that way. I have found that therapy is the only way to go for someone like Jean who is as broken as they come.

Then, the way it is handled here is just clumsy, not funny, and so unlikely that the suspension of disbelief requires the help of the same architects who designed the Golden Gate Bridge. Movies based upon mix-ups and misunderstandings are common, of course, as this trope has been used in books and plays for centuries, sometimes quite successfully. Here it looks threadbare. But the cruelty against the kids here is played for laughs, and that is because the screenwriters clearly don't think that there is an underlying, fundamentally sick quality to it. They think it's just always the case: women get screwed over by bad men, not that the women to whom this happens are not dealing with the fundamental problem of sabotaging themselves. Wait, I'm not through...

A secret admirer who claims he is in love with a woman he has never spoken to and who knows nothing of him is called a stalker. This isn't the 1800's when women took a more innocent look at love, and trying to play Jean off as someone from another century doesn't work. Caroline Rhea enters a few lines from the real world about just this situation, not that it does any good.

OK, I'm done. And Locklear as a baker of fancy cakes? All right, all right, I'm through.

reply

A woman has so fragile a psyche that each time she gets her heart broken she moves her entire family to another town?

As I was reading this post again, it just dawned on me that this character and story are very similar to the movie MERMAIDS with Cher and Winona Ryder. Anyone else catch the similarities between the two films?

reply


I am somewhat surprised at the intelligent remarks that are being made here!

'Oh goody'

reply

Dude get a life seriously
why waste so much time writing so much crap and trying to look at the movie as if it were something so dark and harsh. Also why are you sooo affected by the gay guy in the movie? I think you are taking it wayyyy too personal, i mean maybe you are gay. but whatever just stop writing such lame reviews and like i said before GET A LIFE

reply

Couldn't have said it better myself.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

That is how gay men are portrayed in comedy movies. If they didn't act like that, how would we know he was gay? Personally, I don't care, but I guess the "gay community" must have been complaining that they're not being represented in movies - so I hope they're happy now.

_
Every person that served can be called a veteran, but not every veteran can be called a Marine.

reply

[deleted]

I know you made this post years ago... but I found the gay character funny... and I didn't know that gays would find it offensive... some of them do act like that that does not mean that all do, and I don't think that this movie gives off the idea that all of them do...

I used to have a gay manager and he actually acted like that and very ditsy... I think it is just a simple character used for comic relief not really an offense, but hey I'm not gay so who am I to judge

reply

Ha, I'm just amazed that this rant of mine from 2005 is still active and creating discussion!

Michael

reply

I'm amazed too. I just read the whole thing.

I like the movie. It teaches you to not to run away from your problems and to be yourself. That you can find the right guy or girl for you out there, if you are looking for love. I don't take offense to the Lance character. He is who he is and he plays his lines well. I realize that some may see it as stereotypical of gays, but I don't. Some gay guys are like that. Some aren't. He's just being himself (or rather his character's self). Personally, I found his lines funny. I saw them for what they were.

I don't think Holly (Hillary Duff)was being bratty or rude. She wanted her mom to be happy finally and not keep running from her problems (that stemmed from her bad relationships). She did go about it the wrong way by making up a fake admirer, but in the end she told her mom the truth. And the Ben character realized after reading the emails and IMs that he might actually like Holly's mom. So he went to check her out and asked her out. I see nothing wrong with that. It was a good movie.

I also didn't really care about the sprinklers going off in the restaurant. Obviously I think that would cause a lot of damage, and I don't really know why the writers and director decided to play that off and not mention the consequences. Sure, that was a problem that could have been dealt with on camera, but they decided not to feature it. It was just another big problem/mess created by the lies the girls came up with. It spiraled out of control, until finally Holly had to tell her mom the truth. I was glad Ben didn't show up to meet her after Amber's wedding fiasco. Holly got herself into a lot of trouble. Ben wasn't there to get her out of it.

reply

Ten years later (and ten years older and wiser) and I now see what the OP was talking about and can fully agree with him. Aha. :)

I've never fooled anyone. I've let people fool themselves.

reply

Ah... I've been waiting 10 years to *finally* have closure on this!! :-P

(Ha, but seriously... I'm always amazed when I get an e-mail and realize this thread from 10 years ago is still active! It's not that I disagree with anything my 19-year-old self wrote here, but it does make me a little sad to think that my 29-year-old self would almost definitely have been way too lazy to have even taken the time/effort to have posted my thoughts here... But it also makes me happy that this time capsule into my more loudly idealistic self still exists at all :-D )

reply