On Wednesday afternoon, New York Post critic Kyle Smith made a bold claim. He wrote that women can't understand the film Goodfellas because it's "more of a male fantasy picture" rather than a crime drama. His argument is flimsy and rooted in outdated gender norms. "Women sense that they are irrelevant to this fantasy, and it bothers them," he wrote. Smith claims that because the movie has a lot of "ball-busting," women will never fully appreciate what the film truly has done. "Women (except silent floozies) cannot be present for ball-busting because women are the sensitivity police," Smith wrote. "They get offended, protest that someone’s not being fair, refuse to laugh at vicious put-downs." It gets better. "To a woman, the 'GoodFellas' are lowlifes," he writes, while guys consider them "heroes." Then, he makes a weird comparison about Sex and the City and brunch. But, at this point, I already dislike this analysis so much that, even if his comparison made sense, I've dismissed it as ignorant. Smith even goes so far as to write a plot summary of the movie if it were by a woman. Obviously a lot of people are offended by Smith. Just take a look.
And, my personal favorite:
I can't believe I'm even writing this, but here's the problem with Smith's essay. It boils down basically everything on the planet into two camps: what women like, and what men like. And, if we allow bullshit arguments like this one about Goodfellas to exist unaddressed, then what results is a domino effect. The next thing you know, women aren't capable of understanding the nuances of a good scotch. That being said, I do not look forward to the inevitable hot takes that will undoubtedly roll in over the next 48 hours.
Like this post? There's more. Get tons of celeb goodness, insider intel, movie and TV news, and more on the Refinery29 Entertainment Facebook page!