Like most men, I've had a hell of a time understanding "what women want." So I'd hoped Nancy Meyers' movie of that title would clarify the matter somewhat, for myself, and for Mankind! We never seem to make them happy; we desperately need some way to understand why. I've often thought, what we really need is to be able to read their minds... then... maybe ...
Well, in this movie, Nick (Mel Gibson) acquires this crucial ability accidentally. Before the accident, Nick is a macho "man's man," a divorced, prosperous ad exec who enjoys his freewheeling urban bachelorhood to the hilt. But he's oblivious to the female wreckage he leaves in his wake, and he's failing in every kind of relationship with women: his teenage daughter who feels he's a "chauvinist" creep, potential lovers he can't connect with, and numerous women at the ad agency. And at work, he's skating on thin ice, because the company is losing business to firms with better insight into female buyers' needs; and Nick, whose specialty is "tits and ass" marketing, loses the promotion he was expecting.
Instead, the company hires a woman with a reputation for brilliance and aggressiveness (a lady Darth-Vader) -- Darcy (Helen Hunt). She immediately challenges the company to transform or die -- insisting that everyone, including Nick, start to address womens' psyche (in order to sell them things, of course). Nick goes home distraught, and in a drunken, overly-literal attempt to put himself into a "woman's shoes," falls and bangs his head. When he wakes up, the morning after, he's acquired that core ability we all desperately need -- to read womens' thoughts.
It does indeed help Nick at work. But at first he is frantic, in shock from hearing the (unspoken) negative opinions most women have of him. Then he realizes that he can turn his new found ESP to his advantage; and he begins to manipulate all sorts of situations to get what HE wants for himself. But, gradually he is transformed by the insights he gains; underneath his macho veneer he's a decent guy, you see. Now that he's privy to womens' thoughts, he sees the pain and alienation he is causing. He realizes that he CAN make the women around him happy, actually meet their needs, build real relationships, and in some cases rescue them from disaster.
But if the view we get of natural Mankind through Nick, before his fabulous transformation, is grim, the glimpses we are given into Womankind are equally discomfiting. The inner female psyche we spy upon here is every man's nightmare -- a chaotic mish-mosh of catty banter, petty criticism, wandering irrationality, and genuine confusion. Nick is surrounded by women NOT getting what they want, because they can't SAY, even to themselves, what that is. We see women suppressing what they want so they can "get along," please others, be nice. Even aggressive Darcy is presented as a "team player," a creator of consensus; at the job, she lets Nick undermine her leadership role with nary a whimper. None of the women we see in this film are clear about what they want and they certainly don't exert any effort to get it, whatever it is! The implication is that women these days really don't know what they want; and that many would really love for a man to come along who can read their mind, sort out all the confusion, and then help get what they want for them. Is this true?
Remember though, this is a comedy, deliberately hyperbolic; it's designed for mass-entertainment, an evening's amusement; perhaps we shouldn't take its caricatures of males and females as deep social or psychological commentary. However, even at a superficial level it may be saying something useful about men's and women's needs and wants. It may be illuminating, for some young people at least, to see that beneath Nick's selfish, macho persona is a compassionate, good man; or that beneath Darcy's all-business toughness is an injured, lonely woman who wants to love and be loved for who she is. More sophisticated viewers (salon.com reviewer S. Zacharek, for instance) could see these characters as "tiresome stereotypes" and the storyline as psychologically superficial fluff. But maybe Ms. Z. (read her full review below) finds the film so "aggressively offensive" precisely because it has struck a sore nerve -- these caricatures of women could just be uncomfortably accurate.
The story has some subtle messages winding beneath its surface too: for instance, the resonances between Nick and Darcy's personal and work lives; it's no accident that they both are in the advertising business, which is all about finding out, pandering to, shaping, and profiting by "what people want." Early in the story we see the two working together, conceptualizing an ad campaign for Nike (the shoe manufacturer, also Greek goddess of victory); and we (and Nick) are "listening in" as Darcy imaginatively free-associates to reach the unspoken, inner longings of women runners. In this way they "collaboratively" invent a catch-phrase, "no games, just sport," that ironically belies the activity they themselves are engaged in (at work and later personally too). In fact, the advertising "game," like Nick initially, uses the psychological "back door" to peep into peoples' psyche, listen in to their unconscious, for its own selfish purposes -- to sell people products by appealing to their weaknesses and fears -- profiteering from the fact that "what they want" is malleable in the hands of the sophisticated image manipulators.
Nick learns to use his psychological insight to benefit others and make himself a better man. We don't have any such hope for the morally corrupt advertising game. The sleaze and hypocrisy of the image industry are perfectly personified in the stab-you-in-the-back-as-he-smiles-at-you head of the ad agency (Alan Alda).
If you don't want to think about these more serious subtexts beneath the surface you don't have to; you can enjoy What Women Want as an entertaining, well-crafted, romantic comedy. It's thoroughly fun to watch; the acting and direction are solid; the sets are visually stunning and perfectly complementary to the action. It could be a great "date" film, because it raises so many core male/female issues for a couple to discuss. What more could you want?
A.M., Jan. 2001
More reviews:
Roger Ebert liked it: Sun Times review
Stephanie Zacharek didn't, but her testy comments are fun to read anyway: Salon review. If that doesn't work out, try this: text of Salon review.
Email comments to vamead@well.com