comment #1

Breedlove says ...

God, I find these Sex and the City deconstructions incredibly boring. I could barely make it through two paragraphs of that. Who. Gives. A. Shit.

comment #2

calraigh says ...

Which parts do you agree with in this article Jeff?Or do you agree with ll of it, just as a matter of interest because the observations on Samantha's character are spot on.

I really don't understand how there can be this much vitriol directed at this film.Sure I watched the show and hell I even enjoyed it but it sure as hell didn't reflect my life, or even my fantasy life. However the amount of invective spewed forth by journalists in articles about the film is frightening.In a world where 99% of the movies are made by men, about men and for men, is it really all that surprising that women will flock to this?It may be a lame movie but you take what you get.You never, ever, ever see a movie about women who aren't i n their 20's and aren't 'SUFFERING' in some worthy, dramatic manner.To see your own sex represented in a big, Hollywood film, be living in a grandiose manner and not be punished for it is like a giant exhale.

Yes the movie is lame.Yes Carrie Bradshaw is materialistic and selfish and insensitive but no, these are not qualities I cherish in myself or anyone else for that matter.It's just a giant cream bun of a movie and for once, it's nice to see the inanities in a box-office hit come out of a woman's mouth, rather than a man's.

comment #3

ROTC says ...

I haven't seen the movie, but...

"At the end of the series, each woman has settled down with wealthy or handsome men." Total bullshit. Cynthia Nixon's Miranda married a shlubby bartender. And Kristin Davis's Charlotte married a bald, hairy-backed lawyer who, while successful, was probably worth less than her.

As for Samantha, I don't think she "settled down" in the way Noah is arguing. She battled cancer and, in the process, unexpectedly found someone who appeared to be her true love and potential life partner (and who also happened to be a studly male model). I think Noah is all too conveniently conflating "settling down" to a rewarding, blissful life with "settling" for something beneath one's avowed standards. Huge difference.

comment #4

calraigh says ...

Precisely, ROTC.
THIS is well-said.

comment #5

dp4m says ...

I would also like to point out that, as a New Yorker, these women were around looooooong before the cariactures in the show and now the film. The whole point was that there were five, composite stereotypical characters in the show: the four women and New York City. None of it was false.

comment #6

erniesouchak says ...

Samantha always struck me as the "guy" of the group -- in every situation, she voiced what a guy would say. She's probably the only reason any guy found the show palatable. If the show put forth a dangerous fantasy, it was that women could safely parade around Manhattan in little more than a negligee and high heels.

comment #7

MikeSchaeferSF says ...

Ah, but Mick LaSalle, ever the contrarian, says:

"the best American movie about women so far this year, and probably the best that will be made this year. Indeed, at the rate Hollywood has been going, it may stand as the best women's movie until Sex and the City II, if that ever comes along..."

comment #8

Jay T. says ...

"I would also like to point out that, as a New Yorker, these women were around looooooong before the cariactures in the show and now the film. The whole point was that there were five, composite stereotypical characters in the show: the four women and New York City. None of it was false."

I'm glad someone pointed this out. Very, very, very true... people are acting as though this film created female materialism and women didn't love to buy lots of shoes before it. Did it reinforce those values? Sure, but they would've been reinforced one way or another no matter what...

comment #9

Noah says ...

ROTC, Smith might be Samantha's one true love, but what does he really get out of their relationship besides sex and her helping him out with his career? She cheats on him in front of him and repeatedly keeps him at arm's length, so while this might be great for Samantha to have this perfect (in every conceivable way) guy around, what's in it for him? The point being that it stops being about the fantasy of "being Samantha" and becomes about the fantasy of having a boyfriend like Samantha's.

comment #10

Rich S. says ...

"show about thirty-something women"

Not to put too fine a point on it, but, um, how long ago was this piece written?

And in all that vitriol, no "love" for Candace Bushnell?

comment #11

Noah says ...

Rich, I wrote the piece last week so I don't really see what you're getting at. It was a show about thirty-something women, now it's a movie about forty-something women.

And I never intended to be vitriolic, was just detailing my quibbles with the show as well as some of the things I admired about it.

comment #12

ROTC says ...

Noah wrote: "The point being that it stops being about the fantasy of 'being Samantha' and becomes about the fantasy of having a boyfriend like Samantha's."

Utter gibberish. How on earth is being Samantha separable from the ability to have a boyfriend like Samantha's? As for why he stands by her, it's because he loves, understands and forgives her despite the difficult challenges of her lifestyle and personality. When you reach a certain age, perhaps you'll have a better understanding of how that is possible.

All due respect, Noah, but your youth, inexperience and immaturity are being laid out for everyone to see here. And there's a real misogyny on display when you can can pronounce Sarah Jessica Parker's Carrie as "the worst human being ever" simply because of the show's admirable willingness to show her weaknesses and all-too-common human failings. It is precisely those kinds of touches that you selectively condemn which ground the series in a reality that fans appreciate.

And the whole repeatedly overstated notion that Sex in the City is some kind of preposterous New York City fantasy is also insulting to those of us who have known many women like these and the lives they live. Yes, unlike you, there are plenty of women in New York - not all of them bad - who devote an enormous amount of time, energy and chit-chat to fashion, getting into the ever-changing NYC hot spots, other trends, and their personal/sexual relationships. How that is inherently less acceptable than guys who yearn for a life that revolves around courtside seats, backstage passes, private advance screenings, hot sports cars, rare liquors, banned cigars, bragging about women they've banged, or obsessing over their BluRay collections escapes me.

As I alluded to on another thread, why don't I ever hear the SATC bashers going after the flashy, trashy lifestyles of the narcissistic boys on Entourage? Because we live in a society where the depiction of women's commonly held desires can be freely condemned as insipid, while the flipside display of "boys will be boys" - in the same timeslot on the same television network - can be unabashedly embraced as great popular art.

comment #13

Noah says ...

First of all, when Entourage is made into a feature-length film, you can be sure I'll write about the materialism inherent in that show. For you to throw the misogyny card at me because I chose to look at the characters as people, not just as women, and point out their flaws does not make me a misogynist (at least from the Camille Paglia perspective).

And I don't need your ageist remarks either about how my age has something to do with my ability to hone in on the fact that Carrie is a materialist who never listens to what her friends have to say (unless it is beneficial to her column) or the fact that Miranda is the only strong independent woman on the show.

Guess what, ROTC? I like the freaking show and if you bothered to read the whole column, you'd see that. I wrote this from a fan's perspective, having seen every single episode more than once and as a fan, I have a right to figure out what I like and don't like about the characters on the show. Of course Carrie is flawed and it doesn't stop me from watching it, but it also shouldn't stop me from expressing my concern over people who use her as an ideal when she is so obviously flawed.

I have plenty of friends that work in fashion and food in NYC (and I actually have worked in these fields myself) so it's not like I'm coming from a ignorant place, but of course because of my age you assume as much. You want to disagree with my assessment of these girls, that's your prerogative, but don't throw around words like "misogyny" or "immaturity."

comment #14

Noah says ...

Oh, another thing: Steve is not a shlubby bartender...he OWNS his own bar. Plus, Harry is definitely worth more than Charlotte...don't you remember the pre-nup she signed with Trey? She only gets five hundred thousand and the house; considering Harry has a place in Bridgehampton, I think he's doing pretty well.

comment #15

ROTC says ...

Noah, what is most certainly misogynistic and immature about your column (and, yes, I read the whole thing before posting) is the way you repeatedly address what these four women in the end should have wanted. Instead of taking them at face value, warts and all, you talk about how the evolution of their lives betrayed what the show, in your opinion, really ought to have been about. So, for example, because Carrie didn't live up to your notion of her as the world's most perfect friend or an ideal female role model, she was ""the worst human being ever." You clearly feel free to casually spew that kind of flat-out hateful hyperbole because the character you are describing to your overwhelmingly male audience is a relatively defenseless woman. Misogyny, thy name is Noah.

And, yes, Steve is most certainly a shlubby co-owner of a middling neighborhood bar, not someone who at all meets your description of "sure were wealthy or sure were good looking." And I already acknowledged that Harry was well off, but the fact that Charlotte owned free-and-clear what was unquestionably a multi-million dollar apartment in Manhattan meant she certainly didn't need him to get by. (Don't you remember how blown away Harry was when he first saw her apartment?)

You wrote, "I have a right to figure out what I like and don't like about the characters on the show." Of course you do. It's just questionable whether you should be working it out so publicly and carelessly.

comment #16

Noah says ...

First off, Charlotte didn't need Harry to get by? How was she going to feed herself if she didn't sell that apartment? By having Harry (and not working) she keeps her apartment. And I think you're confusing Harry's reaction to Charlotte's apartment with the guy who leaves because he realizes she's way more well off than he is.

I don't think there was anything careless about the way I worked out my issues with the show. I admitted that I was being hyperbolic in calling Carrie the worst person ever, but that's how angry she makes me with her decision making. And it's not an opinion that the show was about SINGLE thirty-something women and how empowering it is to be that age and single; so when the show has all of them settling down with their partners, it ceases to be a show about SINGLE women.

And Carrie is far from a defenseless woman. She has a column where she outs people when they are at their most vulnerable (i.e. in bed) including a NYC politician. She has a lot of power, sir. And it's not only that she isn't the world's most perfect friend, she is in fact a bad friend who doesn't listen to her friends' problems. And he is remarkably immature when Samantha gets cancer and Petrovsky dares to mention that death is a possibility. This is a nearly forty year old woman who doesn't understand that cancer can possibly lead to death and who makes her friend's cancer scare all about her and how it affects HER.

When I look at these women, I'm not looking at them as women, I look at them as people. I had a minor in feminism, so your repeated use of the word "misogyny" makes me believe that you don't know the meaning of the word. I put these women on an equal playing field and I have opinions about what kind of people they are. To me, Miranda is a good person and a good friend. The rest have a lot of flaws that would make me question whether I'd want to hang out with them. But that doesn't make me a misogynist, sir.

comment #17

Noah says ...

And the rent on that "neighborhood" bar on Grove Street would be so insane that Steve would have to quite a bit of money to stay there.

comment #18

ROTC says ...

Noah, your response is thin-skinned, childish and, frankly, increasingly idiotic. In no particular order:

1. It's true: Charlotte wanted a husband. She always, from Episode 1 throughout the rest of the entire series, wanted a husband. But that doesn't mean she was ever unable to support herself. She worked in an art gallery for most of the show's run, then quit when she was able to support herself with the half-million-dollar settlement she got from Trey. "Feeding herself" would not be a problem with that kind of bank account.

2. Just because someone co-owns a bar in a high-rent district doesn't mean he/she is not struggling to make ends meet. Your presumption that Steve's bar was some great success was never borne out by the show. For you to suggest otherwise is a particularly flopsweat-drenched stretch.

3. Yes, the show was about thirty-something single career women. But you have strongly argued that the message of the show was that they didn't need significant others (i.e., men) and could have remained single to be content with their lives. With the very limited exception of Samantha, that is utter horseshit, a flagrant misreading of the show and its characters.

4. I very clearly didn't mean that Carrie was a defenseless woman within the context of the show. I meant that she was defenseless before your overwhelmingly male readership.

5. Some may disagree with me, but I never believed that all of the voiceover stuff we saw Carrie type into her computer always wound up in her newspaper columns. It was just a narrative-forwarding device (like Doogie Howser's computer diary) that you have blown way out of proportion.

5. Golly gee, I wish I lived your life. Because apparently all of your friends are just so picture perfect. And then I could judge anybody else's friends who didn't respond to every single situation and crisis to my own exacting standards as "the worst human being(s) ever."

6. You may have somehow graduated with a minor in Feminism, but you clearly are clueless as to the paternalistic-male implications and tone of what you have written and continue to so foolishly defend.

comment #19

Noah says ...

You have called me several names, including childish and immature. You will see that I have not done the same. So I'm going to stop arguing with you. You tell me that making huge leaps of logic by suggesting that Steve's bar is a success while you tell me that the voiceover stuff doesn't end up in the newspaper (so then who is her voiceover too) which seems like a leap as well. You seem to be really caught up in one sentence that I wrote which I admitted right after was hyperbolic.

I will humbly agree to disagree with you. I saw the show differently, I'm sorry. I wish you the best.

comment #20

ROTC says ...

Noah, you're right that in my haste to respond to you I engaged in some unnecessary name-calling. I regret and sincerely apologize for that. But please understand that I (and probably others here) took offense at some of the substance and tone of your article.

Best wishes to you as well.

comment #21

karina says ...

Wow. Am I the only only person who always thought that Steve was obviously a great looking guy being coded as "schlubby" or a nerd strictly by virtue of the fact that he wears unfashionable glasses––ie: the oldest costuming device in the book to make someone movie star good-looking temporarily look "undesirable"?

And I actually agree with Noah that the show's major failing towards the end is that it suddenly threw characters who had previously been happy as independent, single women (ie: Miranda and Samantha) into a panic about dying alone (very literally with Samantha's cancer subplot). I haven't seen the film yet, but I think Noah is spot on to say that the idea of Samantha succumbing to monogamy for the long haul is a cheapening of what that character was always supposed to represent.

comment #22

ROTC says ...

Karina, you and Noah both seem to define independent as "undependently alone" rather than "independent-minded." I think it's fair to say that most people - female or male - reach a point in their lives where they come to realize they absolutely do not want to get old and die alone, no matter how untethered their lifestyles have been up until that point. This is not remotely a gender or even a marriage issue, and to say that it is some kind of important statement for women to show they can live out their lives by themselves is in my opinion both naive and cruel.

"...the idea of Samantha succumbing to monogamy for the long haul is a cheapening of what that character was always supposed to represent." Which is what? To me, Samantha represented that women have the exact same right to sleep around and brag about it as any man, and the right to control her own sexuality as she saw fit. But just like virtually all promiscuous men, she inevitably came to recognize that almost no one can live out their lives like Hugh Hefner, that there is no long-term comfort or security in sleeping around, and that the sexual thrills won't last (or even be available) forever.

And, sorry, but Steve was definitely a shlubby guy. OK, a lovable shlub. But unquestionably a shlub. And it had nothing to do with his glasses.

comment #23

Heleno says ...

There have been articles in the press recently, and here on HE, criticising the likes of Knocked Up for portraying a beautiful, moderately succesful woman getting together with a schlubby, less stereotypically attractive man. This, apparently, is unrealistic, no matter how intelligent, funny or good-hearted he might be. And now here's one criticising SatC for portraying beautiful, successful women for getting together with men who are either beautiful or successful, or both, and who appear intelligent, funny and / or good-hearted to boot. Am I the only one detecting some double-standards here? What sort of man, exactly, would it be OK for beautiful, successful women to like in order for the media to stop calling them - let's stop beating around the bush - golddigging whores?