Hitch is one of those movies that shows some glimmers of potential at the beginning to be something good, and then quickly spirals into...well...something that isn’t. This is one of those cases of a film bowing completely to idiotic, politically-correct, expectation in a way that is both infuriating and hypocritical.

I suppose the movie painted itself into a corner before contracts were ever offered to Will Smith, or cameras were pulled out of their Styrofoam wrapping. The film runs into problems at its very heart, not because its premise is bad, quite the contrary in fact, but because its presence is controversial.

Is it just me, or has anybody else noticed how ridiculous the rules regarding gender representation and gender interaction have become? In the old days, there used to be a list of what must happen in a movie to satisfy an outdated moral agenda. It was thought that if a character was shown to do something evil, that character must be punished before the film ended. At first, I suppose, that doesn’t sound like a particularly ignoble regulation considering the fact that movies are, to a large extent, taken as a model for personal behavior. Every movie essentially wants you to emulate and admire their main characters, so it really doesn’t do civilization much good to paint a picture of a serial killer, for example, as a great guy who suffers no consequences for what he does.

However, when artists are limited to silly, formulaic rules, a huge number of potential philosophical issues are, for lack of a better word, decapitated. The fact is that there are many people who do evil and who are never punished by it at all. Refusing to deal with that unfortunate reality in our arts creates a erroneous perception of reality in the hearts and minds of the people. Embracing something that simply isn’t true could be argued to be as bad for civilization as the glorification of evil; especially because it is so much more subtle and pervasive in its perpetuation.

I don’t think the rules for the modern representation of gender interaction have ever been written down ( I wish they had, I’d love to read them), and I think this is mainly because these rules are so absurd people would chortle in disgust at the sight of them in printed text. However, these rules disguised and injected as harmless comedy (like putting sugar on gasoline to hide the taste) are swallowed up in happy, smiling portions.

Hitch starts out declaring a bunch of general principals regarding male/female interaction. Anybody who watches this movie will agree that these principals are right on the money. However, by the time the movie is done, Hitch will himself declare (in not so many words) that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and who can understand the palpitations of the human heart, and love is a mystery, and all kinds of other cliche bullshit that people, for some inexplicable reason, insist on believing.

The necessity for this flip-flop comes from the inherent danger in the film’s initial assertions. Hitch’s job is to hook up “good” men (AKA, awkward men who are the opposite of James Bond, who are not players and who will, thus, actually love a woman forever and unconditionally) with women who would not otherwise even give these men the time of day (in favor of the “players“ who will then treat them like garbage and give them something to complain and bemoan about).

At first glance, this premise is funny, and you laugh and accept it because, well, it’s true. That’s the way male/female interaction works in this world. However, once some know-it-all PhD candidate starts looking at it and starts getting all pompous and clever about over-interpreting a simple text, you get the conclusion that this premise is sexist because it implies that women are shallow and too dumb to see something good even when it is right in front of them.

There are two responses to this ridiculous assertion: 1. All people are too dumb to see something good even when it is right in front of them men and women included. 2. Anytime a society shies violently away from a honest assessment of itself, you’re in big trouble.

So “Hitch” in true Will Smith I-can’t-offend-anybody fashion, avoids this whole argument by revealing Hitch to be a fool by the end of the film. Now the movie can’t be taken for an endorsement of Hitch’s ideals because it demonstrates them to be wrong. Thus, you leave the theatre believing that beautiful women fall in love with ugly, fat guys who can’t dance and don’t have any money. That beautiful women only need to be taught how to whistle to fall in love with you. That they find the use of an asthmatic inhaler, and spilling mustard on yourself to be “adorable.” You don’t have to be “smooth” to pick somebody up, you just have to be yourself.

Bullshit!

How many times have you seen a truly staggeringly beautiful woman with some little toad of a man for a partner? Yes, the answer is sometimes, but now go and check that dude’s bank account and that woman’s moral persuasion. There is this ridiculous assumption in our society that women are capable of looking past external flaws to see the good beneath to a larger extent than men are, and this really isn’t true. Both sexes need to feel a physical attraction to their partner, so both sexes endeavor to find attractive people. There is nothing evil or offensive in saying that, it’s simply reality. Believing anything else will get you into problems.

Hitch continually gives the statistic that “8 out of 10” women place a huge importance on the first kiss. Well, 8 out of 10 is a pretty good estimation of how many women Hitch’s dating tactics would probably work on. If you want to believe you stand a better chance by spilling mustard on yourself, be my guest.

But apart from all that nonsense, lets take a closer examination of Hitch’s love interest. Again, “Hitch” follows the same Hollywood formula in which the man has to jump through an unreasonable number of hoops and beg forgiveness of a woman to whom he has committed no wrong (this is justified by the unwritten assumption that all men are simply evil...an assumption that, for whatever reason, there are no groups to take offense at and complain about in the media).

The problem comes when Hitch’s girlfriend gets the inaccurate idea into her head that Hitch has done something to hurt a friend of hers. Does she do the responsible, mature thing and go up to Hitch and simply ASK HIM ABOUT IT? No, and why doesn’t she do this? Because women in movies know that all men are just liars and he wouldn’t tell her the truth anyway (again, isn’t an assumption like this rather nasty?). Her tactic (I’ve blocked the woman’s name from my memory by the way) is to go over to Hitch’s house and behave...horribly. The scene of her supposedly “justified” vengeance is one of the most uncomfortable moments I’ve had to sit through in a movie for a long time. It was uncomfortable to me because the movie seemed to be suggesting that even though this woman was wrong in her assumptions, she was still justified in acting out on them based on the inherent evil character of men.

In the theatre I was at, there was hardly a peep of laughter as Hitch’s girlfriend stomped about the room in a righteous anger and threw broccoli and cauliflower at him. The true nastiness of her behavior is contained in her demeanor which is condescending and rude. Hitch handles it well, at first trying to calm her down and see past the exterior to help her with whatever the true problem is. He asks her if she had a bad day and tries to make her feel better. She has none of it however, and continues on her childish temper-tantrum.

The thing about this that is baffling to me is why aren’t feminists upset by a portrayal like this? Our society seems to be conditioned to believe that there are certain situations in which women can act like unreasonable, rude, horrible people with complete disregard to how many lives they damage when all they have to do is hold their anger in check for five minutes in order to understand the reality of what is going on. Don’t you think society would be better served if the unwritten rules of our movies demanded that women were only justified in vengeful acts when they were absolutely sure of the guilt of the other party? Wouldn’t an attitude like that help them in the work force and assist them in erasing the gap in male/female wages?

Instead, what we get is a film in which the only truly evil, malicious act is done by the girlfriend, and yet it is Hitch that has to go to her and apologize and try to win her back. My first question is: why would he even want a woman like that? My second question is: isn’t this a case where a character who has done evil goes without being punished, is even rewarded for her actions?

I’m of the opinion that “Hitch” is a film that only makes sense in terms of the ridiculous set of rules and regulations that determine male/female behavior in American society. These rules are so wrought with contradiction and hypocrisy, that they are impossible to sort out on their own terms. I mentioned that in the theatre I went to, the scene of the girlfriend’s vengeance was met with hardly a peep of laughter. What I neglected to mention was that I saw the film in a theatre in Lima, Peru with a non-American audience. It used to offend me slightly when the people from Lima would come up to me and ask me why American society was so crazy, but after living here for several years without the intense brainwashing of its constant influence, I’m starting to become inclined to agree with them.

The End