Like you, I enjoyed the show in it’s early seasons. Actually, I enjoyed the show through its entire run but I only liked the women in the early seasons. But that’s about TV - I liked the characters on “Cheers” a lot more before they became caricatures as the years rolled by (whew - I’m OLD!).

The sexism in the reviews pains me… but maybe because I’m male a lot of it doesn’t seem worse than a group of women sitting around panning “Rambo” because it (clumsily) addresses macho issues (disclaimer: I’m with the women on this, but it doesn’t change the point).

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe there are so few films made from the female point of view that they should all be discussed in hushed tones by men, that there should be some benefit of the doubt afforded them. This doesn’t mean the magazine stories that feature, for example, tape over the women’s mouths, aren’t total misogynist BS - they are. But I can’t find too much wrong with men not wanting to see the SATC movie and talking about why.

Are we permitted to just not care about stuff on TV?

“But I can’t find too much wrong with men not wanting to see the SATC movie and talking about why.”

If it’s the Countdown bit I saw, it’s not just “talking about why.” It’s focusing on a show that pretty much never gave “straight guys” as a target audience the time of day and ragging on it and the women who watch it in no uncertain terms.  As I recall, there really isn’t even a discussion of why men don’t want to see it.  It’s mostly devoted to how any woman who would try to make a guy see it is doing so for intensely unflattering reasons.  And, of course, I usually find comedians who take something ridiculously obvious (“SATC was written, filmed, and marketed while not giving a fuck what dudes think”) and then harp on it relentlessly like it’s a moral failing for four minutes on end kind of grating.

I can has editing.

“And, of course, I usually find comedians who take something ridiculously obvious (“SATC was written, filmed, and marketed while not giving a fuck what dudes think”) and then harp on it relentlessly like it’s a moral failing for four minutes on end kind of grating.” should have “, so that may be coloring my assessment” before the period.

I’m seeing this as a measure of how the backlash has grown over the last decade.  SATC was on HBO, and my husband and I started watching it because it was the show after The Sopranos.  I’d heard it was good, my husband wasn’t so sure, but settled in happily when he saw the Nudity warning label.  I know that among our friends the men liked it as much as the women.  It may not have had the same level of meaning, but they thought it was funny and sexy. 

Which makes it very strange to read all the “but your balls will fall off!!” reaction in the media.  Something happened in the late 90s - it was Guiliani’s New York/men being able to admit publicly that they went to strip clubs/Brazilian waxes/Sex and the City…. Something really changed in the culture.  I don’t know what the trigger was, but feeling it’s time to look.

Not having waded through the entire KO ragging on Sex and the City bit, and not wanting to really, I have a question for those that did:

It is terribly different from the usual ragging on the “opposite sex’s” genre? It seems men making survival guides for when your wife/gf/date wants to see a “Chick Flick” and women doing the same for tedious explosion/violence orgies are pretty much standard.

Stupid, repititive, certainly not original—but standard for any movie heavily marketed towards a female audience, just as other stupid, repititive and not original things are said about any marketed exclusively towards men.

Eh, but what do I know? I liked the latest Indiana Jones movie.

2 fucking hours of Cinderella plus product placement, a parade of furs, brand-name thousand-dollar handbags and shoes, minstrel-show broad stereotypes, and a 40-year-old woman learning the important lesson that her wedding shouldn’t be more important than her relationship. What’s to like? Maybe the tv show was fun (my excuse is no cable), but the film is insulting.

That said, I had a very uncomfortable conversation with my dentist, wherein we began by agreeing the movie was terrible, and then by the time he finished explaining why he didn’t like it, I decided I need a new dentist, because this one is a crazy misogynist.

But I don’t have to like it just because Dr. Crazy hated it.

I confess!  As libertarian and open-minded as I am, my y chromosome takes over when it comes to woman-oriented shows and movies.  Does this mean I have to stop calling them “chick flicks”?

I liked the show. I didn’t watch every episode, but I saw a bunch. The movie was alright… I did get the feeling at the end like Marriage saved the day, which was irritating. I thought it was interesting how Charlotte was the one that physically protected and yelled at Big when he broke the wedding. Little things like that offset my irritation over other stuff, like Carrie getting over her midlife crisis by decorating her apartment.

oops should be, ...physically protected Carrie and…

I was not a huge fan of the show despite my XX chromosomes, but there was some damn good stuff in there sometimes.  I remember a monologue that Charlotte had when she and her soon-to-be ex-husband posed for a spread in “House Beautiful.”  She remembered being a little girl and wearing her mother’s pearls while looking at the pictures in the magazine and dreaming about when she would be married and appear in a photo spread about her lovely home and handsome husband.  And now some other little girl would be doing the exact same thing, not realizing that it was all a lie and their divorce was going to be final in another couple of months, and she would end up buying into the same dream Charlotte had.  And the storyline where Miranda ended up having to care for the mother-in-law who always hated her because she came down with Alzheimer’s was very good, too.

I’m not really interested in the movie because, frankly, it wasn’t really necessary.  They ended the show on a good note—why bother with a strained sequel?  I know why the actors and writers bothered—because the studio backed big ol’ trucks of money up to their doors—but it really wasn’t necessary.

I gave the show a couple of chances, but i never could get into it.  All i remember about it were some bland sex scenes, that were made worse by my impression that the makers of the show thought they were being outrageous(i have to confess though that straight people talking about how uninhibited and kinky they are, irritate me.  Straights think they’re shocking you by talking about how they once did something naughty when you did that very thing 3 times last week with guys you met 10 minutes before. Face it. Straight sex is boring.), and when there wasn’t an outrageously bland sex scene the girls always seemed to be at a table talking about shopping.  I had a couple of boyfriends who watched the show and i would just find something else to do until it was over.

If there is anything that demonstrates just how childish the normative masculinities in our society are, it’s putting forth a film or tv show that doesn’t cater to the “men are the center of the universe” assumption. It’s like watching a six year old boy trying to get the attention of a girl who he likes but who doesn’t pay attention to him: all hair-pulling and name-calling and spit-balling.

I mean come on guys, how much of a man are you if you can’t handle watching a movie about four adult women whose friendship to each other means just as much if not more than than their relationships with men? Are you that self-centered and insecure that a story about strong and independent women will freak you out so much that you’ll need a “survival guide?”

Of course, I’m not talking about you. I’m talking about all those other guys out there.

Why would you want to see this movie with your husband or boyfriend anyway? I probably won’t see it in the theater cause I don’t get out much and I’m way cheap, but if I did, I’d go with a girlfriend. And I would enjoy myself. Without a man. And I suspect that’s what most women are doing. So it’s pretty telling that all these men are bemoaning being dragged to this movie when probably they aren’t being dragged anywhere. Not only does the show exist without them in mind as an audience, the women in their lives also could care less whether they go or not. They must feel pretty impotent without being the center of the universe for two hours. (Which is not to criticize anyone who actually is going with their husband or boyfriend cause said man actually watches and likes the show.)

(I didn’t watch it on HBO - out of the country, no cable - but I occassionally catch the safe for prime time version on my local all reruns all the time station - it comes on after Reno 911.)

Well, that’s cause we women are The Other, Alan B.  How could you possibly relate to us or become invested in our storylines?

Thank you for writing this, Amanda. 

One does not even have to like SATC to denounce the sexism in so much of the anti-SATC critiques.  There are a lot of things one might object to when it comes to SATC.  But somehow most reviews boil down to “Ack!  Women are scary and superficial!”  And no matter how often women explain that what draws them to the show is the friendship among the characters, the escapism, the silliness, etc., men ALWAYS lecture us on how the four women portrayed are “not empowered women like you think!”  Sorry, didn’t realize all stories about women had to depict The Model Woman.

Sounds to me like “oh noes, someone likes something that has no interest for me!” Really, guys: suck it up or just cheat and go into another theatre and meet up after the flick. Unless you’re the squirrley type that goes to movies just to have a dark place to make out.

Really, I’m a guy, and found the show…watchable. I liked seeing some of the old “Law and Order” guest stars and Chris Noth doing something happier in New York.

I mean come on guys, how much of a man are you if you can’t handle watching a movie about four adult women whose friendship to each other means just as much if not more than than their relationships with men?

I don’t want to handle it.  I don’t care if other people handle it.  Feel free to rail about the sexist backlash of criticism against it, but don’t assume I’m being sexist if I don’t want to go and see it - even if it’s because I’m assuming this women-orientated movie will *bore* me. I don’t have any desire to watch Ibsen plays, I fell asleep through Hamlet, and I never watched “The Little Mermaid” either.

I point out the greatest vindication you can use against the back-lashers - women spend. If it is “niche marketing” to target a group that makes up 51% of the population, these “niche marketers” are laughing all the way to the bank, and more power to them.  Let there be a dozen SATC movies, as long as they also do stuff about ThingsBlowingUp for me.

Good point Chingona!  The complaint about “having” to go see SATC with the wife/girlfriend rings false.  Uh, most women don’t want to see the movie with your bitter ass.  I know a bunch of women who made an event out of opening night, by getting dressed up, going out to dinner, seeing the movie, and getting drinks afterwards.  I suppose that’s wrong because their time could have been better spent making sammiches for their anti-SATC partners.

And p.s. - my friends who saw the movie can’t afford Jimmy Choo’s.  They don’t drink Cosmos very often.  They volunteer.  Most of them are in my book club for chrissakes.  And they don’t watch SATC because they need role models.

i really dont like that show.

Ha! I wanted to go see the film because I enjoyed the show. Mrs. F literally stuck her finger down her throat and made gagging noises when I suggested this, so I went with a couple of her girlfriends and one-half of a gay male couple. We had loads of fun mocking the stupid outfits. Mrs. F went to help out GF #2’s husband at work and got to drive a forklift. She now has a great photo of herself pregnant with a hard hat on a forklift. Fun was had by all.

The TV show was much better than the film because the film felt the need to make a big point whereas the show never did.

saw it. loved it. laughed my head off.  will see it again. 

women should not have to apologize for a little frivolity and sexy silliness now and then-

Something really changed in the culture.  I don’t know what the trigger was, but feeling it’s time to look.

9-11. Amanda (at least I think it was here) posted about the effects it had on feminism. No need to look further than the fire and police morans booing Hillary at the Concert for New York.

Amanda, I think one of the crucial differences between Seinfeld and SATC is that over time Seinfeld became broader and more satirical, and by the end of the show the main characters really weren’t likable, or meant to be.  Seinfeld was a sitcom that leaned toward satire, and made it virtually impossible to empathize with the characters—the point of the series finale, in fact, was that the main characters narcissism and selfishness was just asocial and unpleasant.  SATC was a sitcom that leaned towards melodrama, and really wanted the audience to care about the main characters.

The shows shared a kind of fantasy about a life of leisure in Manhattan, hanging out with your friends and chatting about your lives.  Even here, I think there was a big difference in the ways the shows dealt with work.  At first, Seinfeld was structured around Jerry’s work the way that SATC was structured around Carrie’s.  The life/standup stuff disappeared after a season or two, but at least 1/2 of Seinfeld’s plots centered on work and work issues, even if they were utterly ridiculous.  Jerry and his friends spent tons of time obsessing about and discussing work.  Seinfeld gives us much more information about, for instance, Elaine’s work and coworkers than SATC does about any of that show’s 4 main characters.

Here’s the thing that irritated me about SATC.  All 4 of the main characters had careers that must have demanded enormous talent, drive, energy, focus, and time.  And yet, I don’t remember very many plots revolving around work. Carrie’s voiceovers were her columns; Miranda had conflicts between her corporate law firm and motherhood.  Samantha met people as a consultant.  But who were their coworkers?  What were their workplaces like, the conflicts, the accomplishments, the frustrations?  I could never really get as connected to the characters as 3-D people because I kept wondering, for instance, how did Charlotte get to run a successful gallery?  That must be incredibly difficult and competitive.  Wouldn’t she talk with her closest friends about it?  What does Miranda like about the law?  I wanted to know about it.  And since that kind of information was presented so sparsely, I just didn’t connect to the characters.  And that made me care a lot less about Big or Charlotte’s marriage issues or Miranda’s family situations.

Meh. I liked the TV show at first, then it got annoying. It devolved into a lot of gross-out man-bashing.

Also, I never understood why the Charlotte character (whom I found the most appealing of the four) and her husband allowed his sexual dysfunction to destroy their marriage. They’re supposed to be so sexually sophisticated, but they didn’t know there’s therapy for that?

So do these folks know that the movie was written, produced and directed by a gay man, Michael Patrick King?
I didn’t think so.

Also, I never understood why the Charlotte character (whom I found the most appealing of the four) and her husband allowed his sexual dysfunction to destroy their marriage. They’re supposed to be so sexually sophisticated, but they didn’t know there’s therapy for that?

The characters went to therapy.  She did everything she could, but he was pretty much totally unreceptive.  And anyway, by then the writers had decided to make Charlotte The Virginal One (you know, not literally virginal, but the one who would screw up her nose at how slutty the others were being or not own a vibrator, notwithstanding that one first-season episode revolved around her doing just that).

I like the early seasons of SATC, but it started going to hell when the characters (Charlotte, and then Carrie) became “classy.”  Classy Carrie, in particular, was unbearable: whiny and boring and unfunny.  I was only really rooting for Miranda by the end of it, and the writers decided to punish her for being the smart, direct, still sometimes career-focused one by humiliating her in various ways (the pregnancy flatulence and weight gain, eating out of the trash and so on). 

Not to mention they live in the weirdest version of New York ever.  Never mind everyone being rich and white—these women supposedly know almost no Jews, Catholics, or uncircumcised men.  In 2003, Carrie had never had freaking espresso.  It’s so much a show about New York and fashion for people who don’t know anything about either but wish they did.  Maybe it’s just that I come from a city that wants to be the poor (wo)man’s New York and sucks at it, but I hate the condescension.

I kind of shuddered as the movie approached because that was what stood out to me the most from the later seasons—Carrie/SJP as Classy Romantic Fashion Goddess Irresistible To All Men (which the character was NOT in the earlier seasons) and the whole SATC setup as “Here, Look At The Expensive Shit You Can Buy In New York And Coincidentally Also Your Local Upscale Mall.”  I’m glad I went back and watched a few episodes of the show to remind myself that it wasn’t all like that.

We used to watch the show as a family (my mother, brother and his adult kids) so of course I took my mother to see the movie. We had a pretty good time, and the 75% XX audience applauded at the end. It dragged a little, here and there (I kept wanting to go out for a drink and a smoke), and it wasn’t quite as tight as the show, but then a 30-minute TV program and a 2+ hour movie are different genres. If you liked the show you’ll like the movie.

The amount of money the characters spend is a little mind-boggling, but forgiveable: it’s a movie about fantasies, like any action flick. It’s also immediately dated, because it shows real estate prices still rising.

The rampant consumerism is a real turn-off.

The Tranformers comparison is funny. Transformers was created to sell toys but it comes off as much less consumption-oriented than SATC.

What bothers me about the criticism to which Sex And The City is being subjected is that the movie deals with the lives of women who are intensely, even stereotypically, feminine.  They’re scrupulous about being everything the toy-manufacturers of this society expect them to be.  The diversions they desire are exactly the ones over which they’ve been instructed to yearn.  They’re perfervid about clothes and shoes and men and what they weigh.  They do everything they’re supposed to do, they care about everything they’re supposed to care about (which, as we all know, isn’t Romanesque architecture or astrophysics) and, on that basis, it seems hard that they should be scolded and dissed for pretty much behaving as required.  They dress, they wax, they pluck, they fuss, and they fixate on men.  So what’s the big gripe?  Aren’t girls supposed to be girly?  Aren’t dolls supposed to emphasize their unlikeness to guys?

I suspect that the problem might be that femininity, when correctly performed, carries with it a very real price tag, not an emotional or psychological price tag but a price tag of a solid monetary nature.  Virginia Woolf, in Orlando, has Orlando notice that while Orlando-the-man was accustomed to insist as a matter of course that women be at all times perfectly chaste, exquisitely groomed, and dressed with impeccable taste, Orlando-the-woman (after her unexplained change in sex) understands that these characteristics are not inherent in women the way the color is inherent in the rose, but rather are attained, and attained only through much painstaking attention to detail.  (Women, in other words, are obsessed with trivia.)  What Woolf fails to have Orlando notice, though, is that all this stuff (sexual pickiness, good grooming, nice clothes) costs money, and that women aren’t born with a femininity annuity which will provide them with the resources they need.  (It wasn’t that Woolf didn’t know this; she did, but she’d been trained to be ladylike and told that it’s not nice to nag.)

So here are Carrie and Company presented with a problem: they’re expected to chase the appropriate men, while decked out in the appropriate gear.  This is the price of their self-respect.  The difficulty is that entrance into the league in which they desire to play is not to be procured without lucre.  Since none of the crew are heiresses, they have to improvise and earn the money themselves (and even at that, they’re not permitted to keep their money or save it, since the quest to be The Date Of Whom No Man Need Be Ashamed eats up all they make).  Bur here in their error: by making the money which fuels their drive for desirability (among other things) they call attention to the financial underpinnings which underlie the whole scheme.  Terribly impolite, even if inadvertent.  When the financial burden incurred by femininity falls upon men it gets noticed: MRA’s and the like have developed a whole culture of complaint centered upon the hard lot of the man who has to cough up enough dough to buy a woman dinner—-let alone a seat at the movies.  But women themselves are expected to achieve femininity not only without effort, they’re expected to do it without (visible access to) money.  Carrie and her friends fail in this respect.  They’re too overtly concerned with cash.  It’s true that they have to be, but we’re talking about living up to social ideals here, and in that context, facts have never provided a plausible excuse.

How did they manage to have these huge Manhattan apartments and yet never seemed to work?

I didn’t really like the show.  Does that make me a sexist? And I didn’t enjoy the nude scenes.  Does that make me gay?

Its madness! No politic!

Straight sex is boring.

Not for me!

But sadly, sex is boring with boring people.

Avoid sex with boring people!

I just started the second season after devouring the first in two days.  I really like the dialog and the analysis is smart and interesting.  The characters (even minor ones) have more depth in some ways than I ever would have imagined.  Used to watching network TV, I like the undercurrent of titillation throughout the show, and that the characters say “fuck” like real people do.

On the other hand I find it odd that a show ostensibly about women barely passes the Moh Movie Measure.  I would be more interested if it explored more aspects of the women’s lives than just relationships.  We get a hint of that with Miranda—a life outside of men—but not much.  Surprisingly even the women’s friendship does not seem particularly deep or caring and serves mainly as a way to facilitate relationship discussion.

It may be a one dimensional show, but it does that dimension well enough that I’ll probably be interested for at least another season.

The show had some surprisingly good points for something that was largely fluff/comedy. I was surprised how much I started to enjoy it once I got past my “omg shallow women” assumption.

However. WTF is Carrie doing with Big at the end??! He was a complete ass to her for years, and yet somehow it’s a good thing that she can’t tear herself away from this emotionally-unavailable jerk? I suppose if she had settled down with Aidan there wouldn’t have been as much conflict and excitement, but good grief.

Interesting that you say that Carrie was only technically the focus of the show, because I did find myself far more interested in the other three characters’ lives than in hers, and always thought I was supposed to be focusing on hers. That’s a different take on it, then, if the point is that she was a bit of an idiot sometimes. I guess I never realized that we were supposed to be seeing an untrustworthy narrator. Huh.

Not to mention they live in the weirdest version of New York ever.  Never mind everyone being rich and white—these women supposedly know almost no Jews, Catholics, or uncircumcised men.  In 2003, Carrie had never had freaking espresso.  It’s so much a show about New York and fashion for people who don’t know anything about either but wish they did.  Maybe it’s just that I come from a city that wants to be the poor (wo)man’s New York and sucks at it, but I hate the condescension.

When I heard about SATC from co-workers when I moved back to NYC, it sounded like a show that I would not be interested in not only because of this lack of realistic portrayal of NYC, but also because the last thing I want to do on my TV downtime is to “windowshop” the lifestyle of the NYC “Jet set”. 

Why sit at home watching a pale imitation on TV when I could easily do it “live” by attending parties, academic/cultural events, and watching people go by in many upscale areas of NYC, especially ones in Manhattan.

Granted, I may be biased not only as a current NYC resident, but also as someone who grew up and roamed around the city alone and with friends before high school graduation…a product of moving around and having to travel a fair distance to attend schools.

bekabot:. They do everything they’re supposed to do, they care about everything they’re supposed to care about [...] So what’s the big gripe?

For me, this is the big gripe. I watch movies for fun and escapism, not because I want to despair about humanity. Which is why I avoid anything labeled as [het] “romantic comedy”.

I just hate this gendering of entertainment (men can’t like…., women can’t like….) So annoying.  A good story is a good story.

Exactly, MAJeff. And while people won’t always agree on what a good story is (you can keep SATC; I’ll watch your share of Doctor Who), being well rounded as a person suggests that if there’s a good reason for you to try something outside your regular genres, and you have time, you should. I don’t like sports, but I loved Men With Brooms and A League of Their Own, and the one about the Jamaican bobsledders—I rented them because they were outside the usual sports and therefore I was curious.

I saw a few episodes of the series, found it mildly tittilating, then lost interest.  The characters were funny, the stories were pretty good, but I just didn’t like the framing element of Bradshaw’s column which just didn’t work for me because I was never into those kinds of columns.  The clothing, bags, shoes, apartments, and the rest were a bit more over-the-top than other Big City shows, but not that much more absurd than the apartments on Friends or that all the movies about struggling bands and artists never showed them working ten or twelve-hour days washing dishes or installing tile.

The backlash is definitely sexist.  The show was attacked from the get-go: jealous screeds that didn’t ask why Ms. Bradshaw had twelve pairs of Manolos, but why some real reporter did not.  Then it got popular and was attacked as anti-woman, as if those elitist urbanites were sticking their asses in the face of real women with children and husbands and real jobs just so those elitists could show off their waxes.  Then the show ended, and there was a sort of “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead!” vibe for the criticism, as if never again will a real man have to push one additional remote button to see what else is on that might interest him.  Then the movie was announced, and there was an “Oh Shit!” moment from those who are still recovering from Beaches.  And that brings us to now.

I probably won’t make much of an effort to see it, but don’t wish it ill.  I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s in the theaters longer than Iron Man, if it’s a hit in Sweden, or if it becomes an underground sensation in Iran.  All I have to say—and someone mentioning Seinfeld above made me think of this—is that any sequel better have them stripping down to bra and panties and having a tickle fight.

The show was great, and I’m going to see the movie just to spite those that panned it.

I found Sex and the City to be the most visually appealing tv show toward the end of their run.  Gorgeous, gorgeous shots.  Not really talking about the costumes or makeup.  But the pictures themselves were such a thing to view. 

I also loved the friendship between the four.  Well played!

Shakesville had a great post about an asinine article Othering the audience of the movie.

I’m a straight man and liked the show. It was an amusing comedy with somewhat realistic situation, although it was set in that alternative Manhattan where people make less than $300,000 a year live in apartments larger than shoe boxes (the same Manhattan of Friends and many other shows).
I’ve found some of the recent spate of criticism of Carrie and the show in general strange. She was a bit ridiculous when it came to fashion and money, but the recent discussion seems to focus on her narcissism. I hadn’t ever found her especially narcissistic. She concentrated on herself and was sometimes insensitive (so was nearly every recurring character at one time or another), but rarely did she step on other people’s feelings or assume that their feelings didn’t matter. Her worst behavior was relatively early in the show (when she was cheating on Aidan with Big) and she never justified it.
Basically she’s single, she worried about relationships and herself. That’s how single people, male and female are. Stupid critics.

(On a slightly different note, I’m not interested in seeing the movie simply because I felt the series finale wrapped things up pretty well. I just feel that this is one more ride on the hobby horse.)

Interesting that you say that Carrie was only technically the focus of the show, because I did find myself far more interested in the other three characters’ lives than in hers, and always thought I was supposed to be focusing on hers. That’s a different take on it, then, if thepoint is that she was a bit of an idiot sometimes. I guess I never realized that we were supposed to be seeing an untrustworthy narrator. Huh.

I think that, especially in the later seasons, they really played with Carrie’s character and walked her right up to the edge of having viewers get completely exasperated with her.  Like the moment where she wants to buy her apartment and Miranda walks into Carrie’s closet, takes a look at all of her Manolos, and says, “Well, here’s where your down payment is.”

That’s the other thing that bugs me when people talk about the show—they seem to be under the impression that we’re supposed to love all the characters at all times and think that everything they do is wonderful when the show is very clearly showing us that these are imperfect people who do really stupid and cruel things sometimes.  Almost like they’re human instead of mere women.

Clue’s in the title, people. It’s a show about sex and (fashionable) city life. What do you think the characters are going to talk about?
I’d no more be surprised (or displeased) to find that most of the characters in “The Great Escape” tended to have conversations that were almost entirely about escaping from German POW camps.
And I certainly wouldn’t say “But real men have much more in their lives than escaping from POW camps! How dare Hollywood depict us all as shallow and escape-obsessed! It’s like they think we men define ourselves entirely by forging German railway workers’ identity cards and walking round with bags of sand hanging down our trouser legs!”

Okay, look, I’m not going to say that SATC is a terribly thought provoking show, but it had its good points. I think that the main one being that, hey, women over 30 or 35 have sex too! And their ovaries don’t shrink up and die if they’re not married by then. What a concept! And they were unabashedly open about the sex they were having.

How is the fantasy presented in SATC so much different from the beloved-by-intellectuals and also written by a man series Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Really?

And it wasn’t just fluff. Miranda had to deal with trouble becoming a partner at her law firm because she wasn’t a man. Carrie was ridiculed by other journalists because all she wrote about was sex. Samantha had to deal with ageism and watching younger women move up with half the talent and experience as her in her field. It was mostly about sex, but it dealt with real issues too. Buffy was mostly about killing demons with some stuff about growing up on the side.

Without spoiling the movie or the series finale, I think that the movie had to be made to redeem teh series. The finale was not true to the characters. The film does a better job at staying true to all of the characters and is a bit more realistic. Still problematic and lots of product placement, but better. I’m a fan, if you hadn’t noticed.

One more note: I’m kind of tired of all of the bashing of so-called “low culture/lowbrow” mediums. It’s all part of and a reflection of our culture whether you like it or not. Comedies are especially good at this because they ease into topics that a lot of people are uncomfortable with. Comics used to be lowbrow then Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore put out a few comics and everyone’s reading “graphic novels” all of a sudden.

I went to see it with my wife.  It was funny.  Most movies that aren’t action flicks focus on a male character who must undergo growth. Here it was women who were the focus, and it was their growth we followed.  Men were painted more symptathetically, I thought, than most of the women.  I liked it because it also wasn’t afraid to show that women don’t have a monopoly on virtue and aren’t morally superior beings, which is sexist.  They are just—people.

It’s shady, this widespread panning of the film. The review in the New Yorker is all about the crass materialism of the movie, and maps it onto the TV show, which i always find suspect. When you swap out class for any other term of analysis—like race, or age—it’s often because you’re trying to find a high-and-mighty or low-and-dirty way to say “Those girls,” or “Those negroes,” I know what their problem is. I have no interest in seeing the movie, but i wasn’t pulled in by the TV show (and i’m a gay dude, so go figure) either. I think it’s awesome to indulge in fantastic escapes and to use materialistic fantasies as a playground to laugh about the sad, sorry shit and sometimes joyful, ridiculous shit that passes for romance and consumption in real life. That’s why i love some BSG and Star Trek—and it’s also why everyone has a right to make fun of them, but when they hit below the belt, i know their criticism is really just thinly-veiled contempt, and it’s not smart or pretty to do that.

So it’s pretty telling that all these men are bemoaning being dragged to this movie when probably they aren’t being dragged anywhere.

I think this is a telling line.  That idiotic meme from the 80s that girls will play with toys and watch shows for boys but boys won’t play with toys or watch shows for girls is seriously challenged here.  That meme has been the driving force behind the rash of boy movies and even WB’s refusal to headline a movie with actresses anymore.  Because women will see men’s movies, but men won’t go to ‘chick flicks’.  And, of course, women won’t go to movies alone—they go on a date.  And there’s NEVER a tit-for-tat/you see something I like; I’ll see something you like process, b/c we can’t have reality intruding, especially not a reality where women are equals.

Here’s a movie that women probably are going to by themselves—manless—and having fun—manless.  What else are the patriarchal males supposed to do but ridicule the movie and the women seeing it?  Can’t have women out there thinking they can fun alone!  Cuz it’s all about teh menz.  And we don’t like movies that aren’t about us, so you shouldn’t go to them b/c you should only do stuff with us! 

Keith Olbermann disappoints me fairly often, even if his special comments do seem to drag him out of the gutter momentarily.

It’s not that I found the series threatening (I don’t), or too materialistic (I do), but it’s just obviously not for me.  I gave the show a more-than-fair chance, and never really found it funny, or found any way to identify with any of the male characters (except perhaps *very* briefly, Jack Berger), and never really came to like any of the characters (except on occasion, Miranda). Certainly, I appreciate the series for giving women roles models to live independently and pursue happiness in any way they see fit. But it’s a little weird to see a backlash against males who don’t want to see the movie.
Why would you want someone who didn’t enjoy the series to go with you and bring you down?  I don’t ask my wife to sit through “Miller’s Crossing” or “Fight Club” or the other very male-identity-centered films that I occasionally want to re-watch. It’s fine that a SATC movie exists, and I don’t disagree that a number of media reviews are sexist in nature, which I think is Amanda’s point.
I just don’t want to see it, and thankfully, noone’s making me.

I am glad Amanda wrote about how sexist the reviews are. I love the show, love the movie. You know why? I thought it was funny. But I think it points to the larger problem that everyone ever feels any need to get up in arms about the show at all.

There are so few shows just about women that aren’t on Lifetime or Oxygen that this one becomes a lightning rod for everything about being a woman, when no one ever said it was only about that. I don’t think anyone ever said it was only supposed to *only* be about women acting just like men, it was more something the characters were trying just as they try lots of things throughout the course of the show.

What works about it for me in the larger sense, is the dynamic between them. Most shows I see with female characters focus on the fight between them or the competition. This show is mainly about them being friends. And as friends they sometimes disagree or have fights but over all, they are supportive of one another.

That is the part that I think is actually worthy of being called groundbreaking. I explained it to my boyfriend like this: Almost everything we watch focuses on male characters and the women show up as an afterthought or a sexual object or both. While my boyfriend may not relate to every character he sees, he can usually relate to the dynamic of the male characters (boss & employee, responsible friend & slacker friend) to some degree. I rarely relate to any characters or dynamics I see. But at least with SATC, I do not sit around wondering which of the 4 I am, but I do relate to spending birthdays and Friday nighst with my friends, calling them to talk about a job or boyfriend, etc.

And seriously, has anyone ever seen a show set in NYC where the size of the apartments was realistic? Ever? Again, not a need to nit pick on SATC. I mean, whether you think it went on too long, or didn’t take a turn you like is a complaint one could have about any show, like I hear people complain about Lost or The Sopranos, but it doesn’t become the big social sexual issue over those shows that it is over SATC.

Many of the reviews I saw were horrendous. Just terribly mean and uninformed and clearly they only felt comfortable attacking it the way the did was because it was about women, and I think that is worth talking about.

Haven’t seen the movie so I don’t know what happened, but I loved the TV show. 

There aren’t enough well-written character studies on TV; SATC was one.  (Sopranos was another; it wasn’t about the Mafia, it was about Tony).  Good writing and 3-dimensional characters are always a pleasure to watch.

I will go see it with my wife (32 years, 1 month, and 5 days (actually 4 days and 22 hours)) because (a) I love her very much so (b) it’s very important to show the one you love just how much you love them in terms that are important to them and (c) it gives us something else we can discuss.

Many times it takes a movie (or TV show) to bring up situations that my primitive lizard brain won’t comprehend outside of my testosterone-saturated reality.  So I end up learning how to be a better human being because of experiences like this.

I’m glad someone commented on that Olbermann segment, it was very WTF-inducing.. at one Olberemann said any man who goes with a woman to see this ought to have himself stuffed and mounted on the wall like a deer, or something to that effect..

That meme has been the driving force behind the rash of boy movies and even WB’s refusal to headline a movie with actresses anymore.

I’d like to think that WB and the other studios are looking at the grosses for SaTC and thinking, “Oh, fuck, we screwed up,” but once again they’ll rationalize it as “just a fluke” and not actually try to exploit the fact that there’s clearly an audience that will go out and see movies if you give them a movie they actually want to see.

That’s pretty much the hallmark of marketing that’s stupid because of sexism/racism/whateverism—the marketers look at repeated examples that show that women/African-Americans/Latin@s/etc. will go see movies that interest them and dismiss every one of them as some weird fluke that proves that only 12-19 year old white males go to the movies.

<blockquote>I don’t ask my wife to sit through “Miller’s Crossing” or “Fight Club” or the other very male-identity-centered films that I occasionally want to re-watch.</blockquot>

Uh, what makes you think “Miller’s Crossing” is a such a manly man’s film that women wouldn’t be interested in?  It’s one of my favorite movies.

I didn’t bother with “Fight Club,” but that’s because I don’t like David Fincher.  Had nothing to do with it being too “male-identity-centered” and everything to do with Fincher being a pretentious idiot.  Not to mention that thousands of women went to go see it because Brad Pitt was half-naked through much of the film.

Mnemosyne,
Uh, what makes you think “Miller’s Crossing” is a such a manly man’s film that women wouldn’t be interested in?

It’s not that it’s a “manly-man’s film” so much as it- like Fight Club and so many other films- is a series of conversations between men, with one woman/love interest thrown in for good measure. There are no conversations between women in these films because there aren’t “women” in these films, just one woman each. Which makes them films my wife just isn’t interested in, or certainly not to the same degree I am, where repeat viewings are necessary. I don’t want to bore her with them.

I was just citing two of my favorite films, but that do not interest my wife, because she doesn’t connect with them in any way. I’m sure I could come up with films more crucial to the male identity if I thought about it long enough, but they would be less relevant personally.

I’m glad you like Miller’s Crossing (an exceptionally under-rated film), and Fight Club for me is all about Ed Norton, but I think you’ve got good reasons to stay away from it.

As for aginghippie’s reasons for going- I’ll concede that going with your S.O. to a movie that they want to see and have nobody else to go with is a good sacrifice.

I’m planning on seeing this over the weekend with my best male friend.

Who suggested that we go.  Suck on that, Olbermann…

BTW, regarding SATC and the analyze-ability or lack thereof.  I tend to try to sort SATC in the “mindless entertainment not to overthink” category, but then I’ve mainly seen later season episodes which are apparently not representative of the real quality of the show earlier on.  Looks like I’m going to have to do some Netflixing…

I was just citing two of my favorite films, but that do not interest my wife, because she doesn’t connect with them in any way.

Since when is your and your wife’s different tastes in films anything at all to do with your respective genders?

Maybe she doesn’t like Miller’s Crossing just because she happens to not like Miller’s Crossing that much. 

While I think it’s safe to assume that feminist women favor films where women actually get to do something other than be a sex object or window dressing (or, heck, an extra, in almost any old classic war movie!), that doesn’t mean women can’t relate to stories that primarily feature men.  If a guy told me he didn’t like SATC (or any “Chick Flick”, or Buffy, or whatever) because there were too many girls in it and the guys didn’t have a whole lot to do, I would fucking garrotte him.

Mnemosyne: That’s the other thing that bugs me when people talk about the show—they seem to be under the impression that we’re supposed to love all the characters at all times and think that everything they do is wonderful when the show is very clearly showing us that these are imperfect people who do really stupid and cruel things sometimes.  Almost like they’re human instead of mere women.

I see that in all my fandoms all of the time. Just because the author has the protagonist do something doesn’t mean s/he endorses it, for god’s sake! Especially not if the protagonist is a 15yo with issues, or a shady guy out of his depth, or, you know, human. I have given up on arguing about it, though. Not worth the flame wars.

If seeing a movie threatens your masculinity, that idea needs some serious overhauling.  I look forward to the day when enforcing your preferences on as many people as possible isn’t a litmus test for ‘being a real man’.

“But it’s a little weird to see a backlash against males who don’t want to see the movie. “

Where is this backlash of which you speak?  Because most of what I’m seeing is backlash against males who spend an entire article or segment talking about how Real Men Will Burst Into Flame If They Are Exposed To This Film and Not-Real Men Will Find Their Penises Spontaneously Inverting Due To The Vagina-Rays Being Beamed Straight From the Screen To Their Crotches.  Though it might not be a “backlash,” really—anxious-masculinity chest-thumping about how the speaker finds something awful because it’s so girly, and women like it, and it might as well just be a vagina already, and any man who’d let himself be involved with that should just hand in his testicles at the nearest Dude Service Center has never really been a particularly fetching exercise.

It’s not a sacrifice—and she has plenty of friends who’d see it with her. This is a *shared* experience between two people who love each other. It’s also important to set aside time for ourselves.  So it’s a DATE too.  We do stuff like that—still.

What we DON’T do is over-intellectualize the small things.  Love makes you stupid.  Why try to be rational about it?

Remember, half of all marriages end in divorce.  The other half end in death.  So lighten up.

inge: Not worth the flame wars.

amen.

aginghippie, you misunderstand. I do dates too, and try to find ways to have spousal interchanges, both intellectual and mere-time-set-aside. And I wasn’t considering sacrifice a bad thing. My point was, it’s better to do things you both want to do together. Remember, SATC is not something “new” for me to experience. I’m happy you still have dates with your wife, too.

Opoponax: Wtf? Do you think I don’t know why my wife doesn’t like my favorite films? I guess it’s my fault, I should’ve been clearer. The reasons I stated for her not liking them are exactly the reasons she’s given me, repeatedly. It has maybe not *everything*, but a lot to do with gender. Does that make her sexist? I don’t think so, I think it’s about relating to the characters.

Preying mantis:  I think you’re going off on Amanda’s main point, which I said was essentially correct. As for the feminist backlash, I guess the best example on this thread here was Peter’s Comment:
I mean come on guys, how much of a man are you if you can’t handle watching a movie about four adult women whose friendship to each other means just as much if not more than than their relationships with men? ...Of course, I’m not talking about you. I’m talking about all those other guys out there.

I think peter started off talking about movie critics, but seemed to include everyone by the end of his post.

Saw SATC with my girlfriend. Didn’t hate it, but I really didn’t like it.  No, it didn’t sap my He-Man strength or anything, it was just kind of…meh. 

I never watched the show (never watched the Sopranos either).  I was mostly turned off by the materialism.  It seemed to me to be like a female version of a James Bond film in that respect: Let’s show you tons of stuff that you’ll NEVER be able to afford.  Carrie’s shoes are the equivalent of Bond’s watch.  Also, I found a lot of the clothes and bags to be pretty hideous, but, what do I know. 

I also thought the Jennifer Hudson stuff was pretty suspect.

I’d love to see more gal-centric movies, but most of the movies that I find that are marketed to or aimed at women suck pretty much across the board.  I liked In Her Shoes, but that’s about the last one that I really enjoyed. 

But, I have to give the film some props.  For a second, Carrie and Big actually have a conversation wherein they discuss if getting married is the best thing for their relationship.  Although the movie takes some pretty generic turns, I loved that it entertained that possibility for a moment.

movies from another period in time when there was a Depression going on were filled with archetypes, fantasy & a LOT of materialism, too.

As for the feminist backlash…

Wait, where is this feminist backlash of which you speak?  Is this comment thread the extent of it?  Because this is one of the ONLY places where I’ve seen the troubling sexism of the reviews called out and discussed.

One comment thread does not a backlash make.

You can say a lot of things about the characters at SATC, but three dimensional is not one of them.  If anything, you can argue that each character is representative of a single dimension.  As a group they may be multidimensional, but as individuals, they are not.  Each of them, respectively, is about only one thing.  And the one character who had some dimensionality to her (by necessity by being a narrator)  winds up with no further ambition than to have a sugar daddy.

Yawnorama.

The first two seasons - I’d agree with this article completely.  After that, something just went flat like that diet Coke you’ve had in the frig too long - the taste is still there but the fizz is gone.

My point is that the backlash is artistic, not material.  It’s interesting that you attack a backlash against the feminine - but what feminine things are being supported?  Look at high heel shoes, for example What is your view on them?  Celebrated as feminine things, or deplored as foot-breaking tools of the patriarchy?

We don’t expect feminists to be serious all the time.  But this degree of inconsistency is confusing.

My point is that the backlash is artistic, not material.  It’s interesting that you attack a backlash against the feminine - but what feminine things are being supported?

It’s an “artistic” backlash when Keith Olbermann and Paul Thompkins don’t even bother to critique the actual movie, but instead spend the entire segment on a “survival guide” for men?  Because, after all, every person with an XY chromosome pairing will automatically find the film to be so deadly dull that he would rather kill himself than be forced to watch it.

In our society, “feminine” = “frivolous.”  Anything that is gendered female—shoes, relationships, crafting—is automatically a silly and frivolous waste of time.  However, an activity with the same level of uselessness that is gendered male—like watching sports, obsessing over cars, or drinking beer—is usually valorized, or at a bare minimum indulged with a wink and a nod.

Keith Olbermann, who started his career as a sportscaster, is complaining about how shallow and silly a movie about women shopping is.  You don’t see the hypocrisy there?

I think that people who haven’t seen a movie shouldn’t claim to be able to criticize it. BELIEVE me, having seen the show does not mean you know what the movie is like! I liked the show a lot, even with its excessive materialism, fetishized fashion and absurd beauty standards, because it also had smart social criticisms, clever observations about sex and relationships, appealing characters, and strong feminine friendships. It was hilarious, and watching it was a nice bonding experience for me and my girlfriends. In the movie, however, I felt alienated by constant assertions that spending power is the only true comfort in life.

I agree that much of the backlash against the film and the show is misogynist. Yet, so is the film itself.  Miranda (the only remotely realistic character, who has a demanding job and a child and yet is portrayed as a cold-hearted bitch for getting stressed out) is ridiculed for not getting a bikini-wax in the middle of winter, Samantha is likewise assumed to have “let herself go” when she gains 5 pounds, the auction scene early in the film indicates that women can only attain financial security through marriage, and Big’s ability to meet Carry’s needs is demonstrated by his buying a penthouse apartment and building an excessive shoe closet.

As a woman who moved to New York in search of neither Labels nor Love, I resent the implication that these are a woman’s only guarantors of happiness. Therefore, I don’t feel that an INFORMED review of the film casting it as shallow and frivolous (such as the reviews by Jezebel or the New Yorker) is an insult to my gender. Nor do I blame men or women that haven’t seen the show for their lack of interest in the movie. As threatening to some male egos as a good movie about strong, middle-aged women and their friendship might be, this is not that movie. It’s an exercise in meaningless materialistic fantasy which reinforces retro views of what women should do to be happy: look pretty and get married.

the only remotely realistic character, who has a demanding job and a child and yet is portrayed as a cold-hearted bitch for getting stressed out

Sounds pretty realistic to me.  One of my superiors at work, who has both a child and a demanding job, has been known to act like a “cold hearted bitch” when she gets really stressed out.  I try not to use that particular word, but just because I dance around it for feminist reasons doesn’t make her fun to be around.  Though I understand what she deals with and adore her, that doesn’t mean she’s not really hard to deal with when she gets stressed out.

All these attacks on “Sex and the City” in light of the movie that has come out—-mostly from people who probably never watched a minute of the show—-are sexist.

All these attacks are sexist?  Most of these sexist attacks are ignorant?

I get it, again.  If he doesn’t like your movie, he’s a sexist.

I’ve heard this a lot this season.  If he doesn’t like a candidate, he’s a racist.  If he doesn’t like another candidate, he’s a sexist again.

This game is tiresome and dishonest.  Please stop.  Defend your position without libeling your opponents or just go away.

Wait, aren’t you the same Amanda Marcotte who assumed that three innocent Duke students were rapists? 

Yeah, you know from sexism.  And you certainly know from ignorance.

Amanda:

I do not consider myself propely mocked.  Elitist, yes.  But smarter than y’all? ..maybe in some very narrow subjects that never come up here.  I am also rap-music-challenged and I’d actually have to watch some of this drek before I could support an argument that these shows are being invested with more significance than the writers intended or the advertisers paid for.

82 comments into this, it is clear many people do hold TV content or filmed versions of same up to the questioning and analysis you’d think more appropriate for a serious piece in a real print media like Vanity Fair. 

Oh, never mind, VF is all made up for a particular audience and no more real than TV. 

BTW, nice new hosting and it all works, congratulations.

Hey! Transformers was great! It had ROBOTS in it!