"Anyone who is middle aged (i.e., over thirty) and is going to see this film with their *girly* mates should be banished to the Isle Of Man to live their life in penury."
Betty on the Sex and the City movie.
Apart from the horrible realisation that I'm now middle aged, an observation about as welcome as Bad Sarah claiming that at age 36 I'm menopausal (an observation swiftly followed by a sharp poke in the eye and a smack round the chops) I feel moved to defend Sex and the City, one of my favourite programmes.
1.) Dialogue.
Sexy waiter: Amuse bouche?
Samantha: He can amuse my bouche any time.
2.) Lightness.
Despite its reputation as all cocktails and shoes, it dealt with stuff that matters to women in a really light, entertaining but truthful way. Work. Relationships. Family. Breast cancer. Alzheimers. But funny.
3.) Friendships.
Unlike many a programme, or any magazine or newspaper you care to mention, it didn't set women up against each other. (It's unfortunate that the actors all appear to hate each other in RL, but we'll pass swiftly over that).
4.) Clothes.
It's not really about fashion as such - real fashionistas would rather look edgy and frankly, mental, like they got dressed in the dark after a night's heavy drinking, than pretty. This was about real women who like clothes (until their budget got out of control in the last season - all I could think in the final programme when Carrie moved to Paris and wore enormous frou-frou couture gowns was 'How did she fit all that in her suitcase?') And like real women who like clothes, sometimes they got it very wrong. But that was all part of the fun.
I know men don't get it (with one honourable exception - I won't out him in case he's ashamed of his metrosexuality). One of our friend's boyfriend used to sneer 'Are you watching Horse-Face and She-Man again?' - but all the more for us.
(Men are simple creatures, who prefer linear plots and minimal character development. They prefer James Bond type visual entertainment along the lines of 'Car go fast. Car go bang.' Poor dears, they find multi-tasking - say, watching images and processing speech simultaneously - quite difficult.)
17 comments:
The Simpsons said it best "It's that show with the women that act like gay men" I thought it was the only person who thought that it was very blokey (okay gay men but still very male).
Also the constant materialism irritated me, why can't we have a show like that with normal poor women on? Damn it!
That said it was very nice to see an American TV show with lots of swears and sex.
I love it too.
Am bit worried after seeing movie-trailer though. Looks a bit rubbish. But that could just be the trailer.
I agree with Billy, it's the dumb adherence to consumerism that sticks in my throat. An equivalent show for blokes, where they witter on about their gadgets, cars, Paul Smith suits, etc, would be equally vile. Actually, that thing that Nigel Havers and Tony Head did a few years back was along those lines, and it was pish.
One could argue, in fact, that American Psycho satirised SATC's designer goods fetishism before SATC even happened. How po-mo is that? (I'm talking about the book, because the film wimped out and didn't use the brand names.)
And I call you on the men and linear plots thing. The Wire? The Sopranos? Yeah, real A>B stuff.
Friends was shite on a stick, too, btw.
Billy - *cough* They’re not acting like gay men, they’re acting like women...
Well, it is materialistic, and they could make a programme about normal poor women – have you seen Pulling? But then it is also TV, and fantasy – how does any single woman live in a beautiful brownstone in Manhattan and buy $600 shoes, purely supported by writing the odd article? Many a freelancer would love to know her secret.
I agree Annie, and was actually horrified that they were making a film at all, still it’s a good excuse to meet my *girly* mates and drink cocktails after.
Tim, you mean making sweeping statements that denigrate one gender is annoying sexist nonsense? You may well be right...
I guess it is materialistic, but no more than I am, or my friends are. I like buying clothes & going out, & wish I could do more of it. As someone who is on a constant treadmill of money worry, sometimes it’s nice to watch a programme where people aren’t worried about money. It’s vicarious, in the way that watching The Sopranos allows you to be a crime overlord vicariously.
PS: *whispers very quietly* I didn’t like the Sopranos. I must be the only person alive who didn’t get it. Haven’t seen the Wire yet.
No way is Sopranos vicarious. I would never in a million years want to be one of those people. Or those shitty capitalists in Mad Men. But I'm interested in their worlds, especially their interactions with their families, whether it be their home or work families.
I can't comment on Sex And The City because I've never seen it. Do you get to see the women's parents? Do you find out about how they grew up, why they are like they are? s it a comedy or a drama or both? Does it make you laugh and make you cry?
I like it. It's well-written and the characters are interesting. It gets an awful lot of unfair and unwarranted criticism about being shallow or neurotic but from what I've seen that's just from people who don't want to like the show.
I thought Friends and Sex & The City were both very well written and entertaining. But SATC always felt a bit like reading Cosmo, in that it *appeared* to be feminist but in fact turned out to be just the same old crap about how all women think about (or rather *should* think about) is men and how to get them, keep them, etc. And when we we're not doing that, we're to think about clothes and shoes and cocktails.
I honestly used to think that that was all women were supposed to think about, and felt like a freak whenever I thought about stuff like technology, and the Picts, and where different words come from.
I had no issue with the unrealisticness of Carrie's apartment, though. I can look at nice interiors till the cows come home.
I enjoyed it the few times I watched it. But I'm crap with continuing series, whatever the plotline.
I think a lot of the "feminist" criticism is a bit harsh. It just is what it is. It is, after all, just one show. The fact is that there should be more TV shows with female central characters. I mean, what else is there? The L Word, which was gay and post-SATC anyway, and Ally McfuckingBeel.
It's the same in the movie world. Great post here on the xkcd webcomic blog about the lack of female leads in movies:
http://blag.xkcd.com/2008/04/10/two-female-leads/
...And the whole "Men are simple creatures..." oooh cheap shot. We aren't all like that. Just like not all women care about Posh's new look and the truth about her feud with Jordan, etc etc...
SJP does look like a horse though.
I think the feminist jibes are justified with SATC because it set itself up as a feminist programme, and it started out as a feminist programme, but then, as Annie suggests, it descended into being all about clothes and Carrie's search for a romantic happy-ever-after with that utter twat Big.
Female leads in Buffy, Veronica Mars, Gossip Girl (which I am watching RIGHT NOW), Desperate Housewives from the US...and Ab Fab, Jam & Jerusalem, Rosemary & Thyme, Keeping Up Appearances, Prime Suspect over here. (Clearly you have to be knocking on a bit to get a leading role in the UK as a woman!)
That xkcd blog post is very interesting. I'm all for ruthless counting.
Geoff, it’s vicarious in the sense of ‘felt through imagined participation in the experience of others’. You might think ‘How I wish I was them’ or ‘so glad I’m not them’ but it gives you the experience. I wouldn’t want to be one of the women in Sex and the City either, but I enjoy it for an hour. I’d say it is a drama with funny moments. Interestingly, you don’t see their parents (though you do see the funeral of one of them) but you do see their partners’ parents and their relationships. You hear about their backgrounds and who they are, and yes, it does make you laugh and cry.
I’m still thinking about this charge of materialism. If for example, you buy a lot of books, or a lot of records, does this make you materialistic, or does it just mean you like reading, and music?
I think you have to draw a distinction between label snobs and clothes lovers. People don’t always buy clothes just to show off how much money they have or that they are buying a certain label (which would be materialistic) – clothes can be a form of self-expression. Some people like to draw, other people write, whilst other people can rock a fifties vintage dress and high heels. If you’ve got no interest in clothes this won’t mean much to you.
At the beginning of the series the wardrobe was drawn much more from secondhand shops (Carrie used to wear a ratty old fur coat, for example.) They also used to champion less well known designers such as Terry de Havilland. It was only when the designers saw the popularity of the show and started to flood them with their stuff that the labels started to take over, but even then they didn’t talk much about the labels.
I think so too Emordino, a lot of people seem to dislike it who haven’t seen it.
P, ‘it *appeared* to be feminist but in fact turned out to be just the same old crap about how all women think about (or rather *should* think about) is men and how to get them, keep them, etc.’
Well yes, it does focus on their relationships definitely – it is called Sex and the City, so that should come as no surprise – but I still think it is feminist, in that within that narrow frame they are shown to be trying to balance the demands of careers and of self-determination with equal partnerships.
Charlotte’s storyline is a warning, for example –she dreams of a traditional, fairytale wedding and marriage, and works towards that, and then finds a rich, handsome, blue-blooded doctor to marry, and it all goes horribly wrong when he turns out to be impotent and won’t address the problem. I think that was quite well done, (again, quite funny and light but with a serious sub-text) that women shouldn’t have this ridiculous romantic ideal in their head and should not pin their entire lives and dreams on some myth. (I also like it that she ends up falling instead for the short, bald, hairy-backed, uncouth Jewish divorce lawyer and living happily ever after…)
Del, I agree. (It was a cheap shot, but it wasn’t aimed at you.) They do try to make it universal when it’s mainstream. I leave it to other programmes (like Spaced, for example) to reflect my experience. I can’t criticise it for not having spaceships, say, when it’s not science fiction. For what it is, it’s pretty good.
Annie: Yes, I think I may have been confusing what's actually *in* the show (which I haven't seen for years, so my memories are a bit hazy) with all the media guff and marketing rubbish surrounding the film.
I was amazed at the level of hoo-ha surrounding the SATC film generally, but then I thought 'what if something like Three Kings was the only film in the last ten years with multiple male leads?' Blokes would be falling all over themselves going on about it, regardless of its actual merits.
True - that's kind of a sobering thought. I do like it, but making a film was probably a step too far.
I hate hearing SJP getting a bashing for her looks. She's so pretty, just not in a regular Hollywood way. It's sick that we're so used to being presented with doll-faces that as soon as an actress looks a little different she gets pounced on for "looking like a horse". Gah.
I like her because she's a Jewish gal with a big conk and frizzy hair - to me she's a PARAGON OF BEAUTY. The only disturbing thing is when you see her next to normal sized people and realise she's the size of a malnourished 7 year old.
I'm so excited by Sex and the City the movie! Here's an interview with Sarah Jessica Parker:
http://bigpicture.fancast.com/2008/05/news_sarah_speaks_on_sex_and_t.html
I just re-watched the first series and loved the versimilitude: the ratty coat (I really want it), the less than perfect hair.
And I, too, hate it when yet another person feels the need to say SJP looks like a horse, as though no one ever said that. She doesn't have eyes on the side of her head, ears on top of it or nostrils in her upper lip. Ergo she. Does. Not. Look. Like. A. Horse.
I also get annoyed when people think she's too muscley. She works out! She seems happy! Who cares?
Anyhoo...
The original book was startlingly cynical, and I always wondered if TV Carrie would have made more sense if they'd given her the same raging coke habit as Book Carrie. A lot of the Mr Big stuff makes more sense with Book Carrie, I have to say.
Yes, the book was v harsh, the opposite of feel-good. Nobody was friends, everyone was competing. Interesting that the straight woman novelist came up with such a harsh picture of New Yorkers, they had to leave it to the gay male scriptwriters to humanise the female characters...
Post a Comment