and am i imagining it, or has Nia Vardalos now tried to become the size 2 stereotype? she looks gaunt and drawn, instead of juicy and alive like she did in MBFGW!

She's probably just trying to look younger by being super thin, which is what a lot of over-40 actresses are doing now. Someone gave them the idea that by looking skeletal and haggard they'll look younger. For an extreme example, see Meg Ryan (shudder).

Not to fault her being in this movie, though - she has to pay the bills.

I didn't really like My Big Fat Greek Wedding, either.

Vardalos recently made some industry headlines for dropping 40 pounds. She said it was on her doctor's advice, to combat health problems including high blood sugar and dizzy spells, and not because of the typical Hollywood image consciousness.

"She said it was on her doctor's advice, to combat health problems ...and not because of the typical Hollywood image consciousness."

i have noticed that's pretty much the textbook response by any actress who loses weight and then gets a new part or new project.

I really thought My Big Fat Greek Wedding was a terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE movie, though I found myself liking Vardalos. I think she's still got potential, but boy, does she have bad instincts.

More BFGW side chat on size 2+ women and related:
I was slightly miffed, back in the day, that her husband in real life was this dumpy, regular looking guy who could pass for Greek himself, while his film counterpart was the "dreamy" "swooneriffic" Chris from Northern Exposure. But I guess turnabout is fair play.

"...any woman who’s dissatisfied with her life must simply need to get laid. Because all other problems disappear if you are getting properly fucked on a regular basis."

It's easy to see how people make that mistake, becaus it's true for guys. Maybe for women it should be modified to getting laid "with real emotional connection".

And take it easy on Miss Congeniality, it was the story about a woman opening her mind and accepting other people's choices. Not maintaining a closed, judgemental mindset.

I recommend a repeat viewing.

God this movie was bad. I knew it wouldn't be good but I never imagined it'd be so bad I'd be offended by how bad this movie was. I want my two hours back.

MaryAnn: You're dreaming if you don’t believe that a MOST people (men and women alike) think that finding a life mate (crudely referred to as "getting properly fucked on a regular basis") isn't the lynch pin to a happier life.

Convincing women otherwise ought not be the goal of feminism. That will be about as effective as preaching abstinence as a solution to accidental pregnancy.

One person's "brainless Barbie dolls" are another person's "using what they've got to get what they want" (including finding a life mate and increased happiness). It's elitist to suggest that intellectual development is all that should be pursued.

And what's so demeaning about working on and displaying one's body (not that bodies are all that matter in a scholarship pageant)? That's a pretty Puritanical perspective. How is it any different than body builders, or athletes for that matter? Are they demeaning themselves? Are men demeaning themselves when they try to make themselves more attractive to women (physically or otherwise)?

Lighten up and let other women live their lives and learn from the consequences.

Do you tell all women that as your definition of a meaningful and lasting relationship? Smooth...

I think that you meant the "isn't" to be an "is" in that first sentence, A Guy. But, who are these "most people" you speak of, and how do you know what they think?

You don't need to "convince" women that their entire existence doesn't hang on how exactly they should look and act to find their dream man. The healthy ones already know that's not the case because they are three-dimensional, flesh and blood humans and not poorly-written, two-dimensional movie characters.

No one thinks that people should be completely unconcerned with attracting a partner or improving their physical appearance or even just getting a good rogering now and then. The issues are with who sets the standards for beauty, and the assumption that, unlike men, women think of absolutely nothing other than attracting a romantic partner because that is all that is required for them to be happy and fulfilled.

Anyone who knows any woman, any girl, any person, knows that no matter how many girly magazines they buy, no matter how many soaps they watch, no matter how many romance novels they read, (and of course, many, many women consume none those things), no matter how girly and foo-foo they are, they've got dreams and passions that don't vanish in a poof of smoke when Mr. Right comes along to give them mindblowing orgasms, a shiny ring, and a gaggle of younguns. Their relationship (or quest for one) is just one important piece in a larger puzzle.

Does this make any sense A Guy?

Amanohyo:

1) “no matter how girly and foo-foo they are, they've got dreams and passions that don't vanish in a poof of smoke when Mr. Right comes along…[it’s] just one important piece in a larger puzzle” --- I said it was a perceived as a lynch pin, not the only issue. Do you disagree that a lot of people put a very, very high priority on finding a relationship?

2) “The issues are with who sets the standards for beauty” --- Extremes exist (too thin, too much cosmetic surgery, child pageants) and are damaging and should be criticized.

But I don’t think most beauty pageants cross that line (and I don’t think a movie with a female character who doesn’t adhere to your ideal of a feminist should be rejected out-of-hand, since there are a lot of real live women who don’t).

Take for example that contestant who got in the media for her answer about gay marriage (I forget her name). Is she an unrealistic standard of beauty? She’s certainly elite in terms of beauty, just as Arnold Schwarzenegger was elite in terms of body building, and Judge Sotomayor is elite in terms of jurisprudence.

It’s inappropriately judgmental to criticize these contestants for something they chose to do. Maybe they will regret participating in it later in life, maybe not. (The current governor of MI was a beauty queen. I doubt she regrets it and it’s hard to say how it hurt or demeaned her.)

From where do you and MaryAnn draw the authority to make that decision for women? Is it your duty to protect them from making mistakes? (I’d be curious what proportion of contestants wish they had never participated, 20 years later. I’d put the over-under at about 10%.)

I repeat: lighten up and let people live their lives without scolding them.

Does this make any sense Amanohyo?

1) Being told (rightly or wrongly) that they need to get a relationship/laid is not unique to women. You may think it is. But single men hear it all the time too (in real life and in the movies).

Women may or may not get that unsolicited advice more often than men, and if there is a difference, it may reflect a modest difference in the proportion of women believing it to be true. It’s very common for women to hear it from well-meaning women. But again, single men and women both hear it a lot.

2) It's not demeaning, it's just not accurate sometimes. Many people ARE unhappy because they don't have a significant other. Go ask a few therapists what the most common thing single clients want in their life---it's a relationship. Not always, but often.

The real issue is that, in most cases, it's not necessary to tell a single person that; it just picks a scab. People who are disappointed that they don't have a significant other are typically all too aware of it. It rarely comes as a revelation. But the comment is really more irritating than demeaning (and should not be elevated to some sort of cultural/gender-relations issue).

3) A relationship is clearly not a cure-all. People will always find something to be unsatisfied about. That's the nature of things.

But saying that a character in a movie who is deeply concerned about getting a relationship is unrealistic and insulting to women is, itself, unrealistic. Again, many people report that it is a very high priority for them. Do you think "falling in love" is such a popular movie ending because audiences can't relate to it?

It's also not unrealistic for a single movie character to be told they need to get "laid". It happens all the time in real life. Sometimes it's true and sometimes it's not.

4) "...serving as a receptacle for male sexuality." Jesus. Don't go all Andrea Dworkin on us. Straight men engaging in casual sex aren’t fucking each other.

"I don’t think a movie with a female character who doesn’t adhere to your ideal of a feminist should be rejected out-of-hand..."

This points to the heart of the confusion. It's not female characters that don't adhere to some feminist ideal that bug me, it's characters that don't adhere to the basic understanding I have of human beings. I would suggest that a very small percentage of women are as obsessed with personal appearance and relationships as the majority of the women in movies seem to be.

Name the last three movies you've seen where a man is facing challenges in many different areas of his life and everyone he knows assumes it's because he isn't married. He may agree or briefly try to deny it, but sure enough, he wears the right clothes, falls in love with the right girl, and the moment he gets married, all of his problems are neatly solved or ignored and the movie just ends. Now imagine that 90% of all movies starring a man have some variation of this plot (Sleeplesss in Seattle + more clothes and hair, basically). Multiply the experience by a few hundred times and it would go from ridiculous to insulting pretty fast.

We clearly all agree that romance is an important element in most (not all) people's lives. Can't we also agree that every single person we've ever met has had hopes, dreams, passions, and challenges that were bigger and more complicated than a penis, a pretty face, and/or a white dress? After all, as you stated above, "a relationship is not a cure all," and a penis is not a panacea.

Yeah, in 'guy' movies it's the other way around. Resolving the action plot repairs the romantic relationship, especially in Bruce Willis movies. In his Die Hard movies and Last Boy Scout there's nothing that says "I love you, come back to me" like beating up the bad guy. But at least in the Die Hard movies they didn't pretend violence actually fixed the marriage; it just blew some heat back into the old fire.

MaryAnn wrote:

I think the reason it feels like I'm banging my head on the desk here is that many men simply do not understand the problem I'm trying to highlight because they do not regularly encounter the idea that all the many things that concern them -- from the relatively small and personal (related to career, finances, etc) to the relatively large-scale (world peace) -- would disappear entirely if only they were having sex regularly.

That being said, it's certainly true that men don't quite "get" what the gripe is... but the reasons for this are more black and white than you suggest. For a lot of men, sex does fix everything, and if it works for us, why shouldn't it work for you (is the argument).

You've said it much better over here:

Most men have never, ever encountered the attitude that the only fulfillment they should expect to get out of life — that they will need to get out of life — will come from taking care of a woman.

This is a little bit of a straw man, MaryAnn, especially if you put it into the context of movies. Half the "guy" movies out there are about how life would be better if the protagonist could just get laid.

Yes but the difference is that in every such movie I can think of, not getting laid is the guy's problem. As in the guy wants to get laid (or get a girlfriend or even a wife), their failure to do so is the source of their doldrums, so having that be the solution is actually reasonable.

Now there's a whole 'nother discussion we could have about societal expectations of men and how that would make them feel that failing to get laid is a big problem. But I totally see MaryAnn's point here about movies where a woman's problem is her career or family life or whatever, but hey here comes a Deep Dicking that makes the other problem go away somehow.

In the other half of guy movies, where the problem is something other than lack-of-sex, they fix their career or whatever and if in the process they get laid or fall in love that's just an added benefit, not the solution unto itself.

I know this is an old post, but boy, what a classic example of how a troll can completely derail and overtake a discussion thread.
Trolls are best ignored.

Since this here gets a resurrection: Did you know that this movie has been released in the UK as "Driving Aphrodite"? And will get released in Germany as "My Big Fat Greek Summer"? (yeah, in Germany, we sometimes give English movies another English title instead of, like, a German one.)

My guess: The people behind this movie hope foreign audiences who read the negative reviews about this movie won't recognize it under another name ...