Jennifer Weiner wonders on her blog why audiences didn’t embrace the movie version of her book, IN HER SHOES.
It wasn’t enough to make a well-crafted, beautifully written,
wonderfully acted, heartwarming, uplifting drama. If that was true,
CINDERELLA MAN would have made a hundred million dollars, and IN HER
SHOES, although cursed with a surplus of estrogen and all of the
built-in dismissiveness that comes free with the label “chick flick”
along with it, might not have been far behind.
But these days,
to actually get butts in seats, you need sex or violence, or violent
sex (or violent, furtive gay sex, a la BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN). You need
raunchy humor, a shocking surprise ending, a real-life singer’s
addiction portrayed by an actor who developed a real-life addiction.
You need a whiff of scandal – Jessica Simpson, pre-divorce; Tom Cruise,
post-couch, Brangelina. You at least need romance. Or, barring that, an
animated chicken, or a pubescent wizard (believe me, I spent a lot of
time kicking myself for not having included either in the novel).
film about relationships between women, not women and men, that
featured not much sex, very little violence, no drug use, no
dismemberment and not much to slap the clammy flab, didn’t have much of
For the record, I enjoyed the movie. I think it failed because it was soft and, with movie-going as expensive and hassle-filled as it is, it didn’t offer anything you couldn’t see for free at home. I bet a lot of folks stuck it on their "wait for the DVD" list.