Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: It’s Time To Stop Saying It’s Time To Move On Previous entry: Just why would we get the idea that he’s McSame?

Bamboo Reviews: Sex and the City

Warning: I spoil.  Get used to it. 

I love Jesse’s idea of doing “Bamboo Reviews”, so I thought I’d review Sex and the City, which I did end up seeing after all.  I think I have a taste of what the people who voted for Hillary Clinton because of the sexist backlash were feeling, because I probably would have blown off seeing this except that it was clear that much (most? all?) of the rabid antipathy that developed against this movie was rooted in sexism.  Oh noes!  Four women who make their own money and can actually take or leave men!  That all four happily took men—-that the show went out of its way to calm fears that straight women who have a choice might not choose to be tied to one man—-seems to make no difference.  After reading (I forget where and can’t find it on Google) that female critics generally liked the movie, and male critics generally disliked it, meaning that the Metacritic rating was permanently fouled by prejudice, I grabbed a girlfriend of mine who also remembers the show as I did, which is that it was a show with actual characters who were interesting instead of, as critics seem to remember it, a non-stop montage of shopping and giggling.  And that remembered that the reason women liked the show so much was that it dispensed with so many of the romantic cliches that usually make “women’s” entertainment so hard to watch. 

In fact, decrying the double standard between this movie and the fluff made for boys that doesn’t get near how misleading the SATC backlash is, because this movie was much smarter than the boy fluff.  The writing is consistent and sharp, and they actually have subtle, interesting things to say.  This isn’t a strict clothes-for-girls, boom-for-boys thing, because SATC actually tries to be smart.  My concerns about seeing it—-that it would betray me the way the end of the show did, by forcing everyone to hook up, even if it was out of character—-were pretty much corrected.  The show got a do-over and really did-over.*

I will say this first: The one thing that was really off-putting was how much they bought into the hype about how the show was “about” designer labels and clothes.  The amount of label name-dropping, ridiculous clothing idolizing, and squealing over purses was exponentially higher than on the show.  I hope to god that Louis Vitton paid through the nose for the amount of product endorsement they got.  Some of it was funny, like it was on the show.  Don’t discount how much the fashion parade was a great way for the audience to have some fun at Carrie’s expense.  In the movie, the best example is the montage of Carrie in wedding gowns, each more hideous than the last, with an alarming nod to Christian Lacroix, who I hold singularly responsible for how bad the 80s were.  It’s no wonder he’s making some big comeback, as the 80s are coming back whether we like it or not.  Dramatic gagging noises at the atrocious couture is part of the fun. 

The other thing that made me upset was tacking Jennifer Hudson’s character into the movie.  Hudson was game and did a good job with a shitty role.  But she served exactly no purpose whatsoever.  She was there to remind viewers of what our beloved characters were like 20 years prior, fresh off the bus from one of the flyover states, eager to be fashionable, professional, and sophisticated.  She’s obviously clever, both in her work and her strategies at appearing more sophisticated than she has the money for.  And then she says dumb shit like, “I came to New York to fall in love,” which is jarring and actually contrary to most of the show, which is about women who came for the work or the chance to be the urbane sophisticate, and who don’t get married until well in their 30s because they have better things to do than spend all their time husband-hunting.  I didn’t see the point of hustling her character into the story at the last minute and then yanking her out not too much later.  Make her a real character or don’t, but this half-assing it was jarring.  Had she been lifted bodily out of the film, then 95% of the corny crap that characterizes other, less fun romantic comedies would have been gone.  Her lines were a nod to people who actually like the cookie cutter movies like, um, “28 Dresses”, which is the one with a big poster I keep walking by whenever I walk by Blockbuster.

Outside of those two concerns, and a few bad transitions that show how much the writers and directors are stuck in TVLand, though, I was impressed at how they brought the A game.  It would have been easy to write a meaningless fluff of a movie that avoided the sticky subjects the show often dealt with.  The media backlash has convinced much of America that nothing of depth was done or said on the show, because you know, the main characters are just women, single ones at that.  But they still drove down some dark roads in the movie, and it was engaging because of it.  I was especially impressed with how Miranda and Steve’s failing relationship was portrayed, because both characters do really shitty things to one another but they both come across not as bad people so much as good people who fumble and fuck up like all the rest of us.  Big’s character had to be rewritten a little so you didn’t want to stab your eyes out with a fork to see Carrie give him another chance, but damn if they didn’t pull it off.  The trick, I think, was to use the intervening years to imply that Big was a man who just slowed down and saw what was really important in his middle age, and yet has occasional and understandable backsliding impulses that he generally can deal with.  Even though the wedding blow-up is a bit contrived (it hinges on the idea that Big wouldn’t have fucked things up if he had just gotten a small pep talk from Carrie right before the wedding), it works pretty well at showing him as a man grappling with the idea that change is even possible. 

Charlotte’s character is just there as comic relief, which was fine by me.  What made the show work when it was good was the tension between the dark, sardonic humor (which is abundant as Miranda, Carrie, and Samantha make cracks about the dark turns in their lives) and plain silliness.  Kristin Davis is blessed with the comic timing you have to have to make silliness work, so they let her have at it.  Both she and Kim Catrall are too funny to be left on the shelf, but I guess they’re too old to get parts in Hollywood, where women aging is verboten.  You know, it occurs to me, thinking about the movie, that 95% of the laugh lines are in women’s mouths.  I think the only man who says anything funny that got a laugh out of me was Charlotte’s husband.  No wonder so many male critics were offended.  The shoe put on the other foot doesn’t fit so comfortably, huh?

What kills me—-what absolutely fucking murders me—-is that this movie has been lambasted for “materialism”, something bad when women have it, but understandable when men have it, especially in regards to things that increase your carbon footprint.  But the moral of the movie is that while things are nice, we shouldn’t let them get in the way of people.  Which, last I checked, was a statement against materialism.  Probably not good enough for the harumphers, because anything short of women self-flagellating because they start deciding to enjoy the things like clothes and nice homes that were supposed to be feminine duties performed for the enjoyment of men, not ourselves, but still, it’s there. 

And it’s subtly teased out, no less.  It seems natural that Big would pull a dick move and stand Carrie up at the altar, but slowly over the movie, you actually get to go along with Carrie as she comes to the realization that the big, materialistic wedding you throw to show off for the rest of the world has great potential to harm your relationship, which should be about you and your partner at the end of the day.  The movie protests the ultimate expression of the loathed feminine materialism—-the big blow-out wedding.  First thing my friend and I were talking about as we left was—-okay, I lie.  First we made fun of Carrie’s clothes.  The second thing we talked about was how the movie really reaffirmed our sense that the big wedding is just a big, bad idea.  You just see how Carrie gets railroaded by friends and colleagues out of her good judgment that demands a small wedding to having the show-off extravaganza that makes Big feel like he’s just a bit player and not, you know, the groom. 

So, I loved that.  And I loved how Samantha redeems herself after an ill-conceived series ending that puts her in a monogamous relationship. The scene where she finds herself, um, dolled up and waiting for a man to show up for a romantic evening she put effort into planning probably struck a chord with a huge percentage of women.  They nail the humiliation of that moment that many (most?) women have suffered perfectly, a humiliation that’s so exquisite that it really demands that the guilty party suffer serious consequences.  Again, I can see why this movie was threatening, because it’s clear that in Samantha’s case, deliberately refusing to be in a relationship is in fact a better choice than putting yourself at the mercy of a man’s whims.  Like, that choice is actively endorsed. 

*Oooh, Amanda wrote a Carrie-ism.  I always thought that the writers on the show had a good time expressing all those bad writing urges through Carrie.  Like if you want to write teeth-grinding puns or hokey navel-gazing sentences, and you know better as a general rule, getting a job as a writer for “SATC” was a dream, because you could put the maudlin stuff and the puns in Carrie’s keyboard.  Kind of the way that Fox News gets away with saying really wretched things by putting the words in the mouth of “liberals”

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 11:22 AM • (44) Comments

In the movie, the best example is the montage of Carrie in wedding gowns, each more hideous than the last, with an alarming nod to Christian Lacroix, who I hold singularly responsible for how bad the 80s were.

May the ghost of Edina Monsoon strike you dead!

I was especially impressed with how Miranda and Steve’s failing relationship was portrayed, because both characters do really shitty things to one another but they both come across not as bad people so much as good people who fumble and fuck up like all the rest of us.

Exactly.

And it was great to see Samantha be Samantha. Something about her “settling down” at the end of the series just didn’t ring right.

Comment #1: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  06/15  at  11:30 AM

I know!  I immediately made a joke about “But it’s Lacroix, darling, LACROIX!”

And that’s why I loved “Absolutely Fabulous”, and why I suspect that show doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to people.  So much of the humor relies on you knowing things like the fact that Lacroix specializes in ghastly ugly clothes that no normal human being would like but for the label and the opportunity to be outrageous.

Comment #2: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/15  at  11:33 AM

“Oh, then it’s fabulous.”

Comment #3: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  06/15  at  11:35 AM

And that Vuitton hanbag Christmas present?  Giving Lacroix a run for his money on the hideous front.

Comment #4: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  06/15  at  11:36 AM

I want to be Patsy when I grow up.  Patsy would never find herself in love with a man and waiting for him with sushi on her tits.  First of all, she would immediately fear that calories would be absorbed through her skin.

Comment #5: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/15  at  11:37 AM

I will never understand the obsession with Vuitton.  Well, I do, which is that because it’s so awesomely ugly, you know a Vuitton handbag from across the room.  But still.

Comment #6: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/15  at  11:38 AM

I want to be Patsy when I grow up.  Patsy would never find herself in love with a man and waiting for him with sushi on her tits.  First of all, she would immediately fear that calories would be absorbed through her skin.

Hello! Life goal!

And that season 4 classic black and white wardrobe. Classic!

Comment #7: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  06/15  at  11:40 AM

“Have you eaten, darling?”

“Not since 1973.”

If there weren’t serious social ramifications, I would go buy a bouffant wig and start wearing it right now.

Comment #8: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/15  at  11:42 AM

If there weren’t serious social ramifications, I would go buy a bouffant wig and start wearing it right now.

I’ve worn one.  With that and heels, I’m over 7-feet tall.

Comment #9: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  06/15  at  11:48 AM

After reading (I forget where and can’t find it on Google) that female critics generally liked the movie, and male critics generally disliked it

Maybe it was here:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/139889

“Sexism and the City:  What’s up with this vicious bashing of the ‘Sex and the City’ movie?”

Comment #11: Notorious P.A.T.  on  06/15  at  12:14 PM

So much of the humor relies on you knowing things like the fact that Lacroix specializes in ghastly ugly clothes that no normal human being would like

And most men *do* know that, but choose not to like this show anyway, thus proving men who don’t like it are misogynists. 

Did I get that right?

Comment #12: Notorious P.A.T.  on  06/15  at  12:23 PM

Kristin Davis is blessed with the comic timing you have to have to make silliness work, so they let her have at it.  Both she and Kim Catrall are too funny to be left on the shelf, but I guess they’re too old to get parts in Hollywood, where women aging is verboten.

Wait, what?

Watching the show (note: haven’t seen much of it, never in order, and I think mainly later seasons), my understanding was that Kristin Davis’ character was a little younger than the others. 

*taking it to wikipedia or imdb or something*

Wow.  43, who knew?  Always pegged her for like 25-28 on the show, which should put her in her early to mid 30’s now…  Though Parker and Nixon are the same age, actually and haven’t faced “shelf life” issues as much…  Hm.

Comment #13: The Opoponax  on  06/15  at  12:44 PM

“And most men *do* know that, but choose not to like this show anyway”

the poster you were replying to wasnt talking about sex and the city, they were talking about absolutely fabulous

Comment #14: kaleigh  on  06/15  at  01:24 PM

And most men *do* know that, but choose not to like this show anyway, thus proving men who don’t like it are misogynists. 

Huh?  We’re talking about Absolutely Fabulous.  SATC is not a giant satire.  AbFab really requires you to get the cultural references.  But SATC’s humor is grounded in stuff that’s pretty easy to understand, if you’re willing.  And the willingness to look at the world through the eyes of four funny female characters who dominate the screen while men are shoved to the side—-a reverse of most Hollywood movies—-is in short supply for a lot of male viewers.

How tediously sexist to assume most women would understand the Lacroix jokes, either.  I think both men and women are perfectly capable of getting that high fashion gets ridiculous.  But I’ve had a female friend who makes clothes herself who didn’t know why Lacroix was especially the butt of the joke on AbFab.

The irony is that AbFab was also like the most searing satire of the 60s faux counterculture like ever.  It’s possible that hostility to female-centered comedy has run off a lot of male viewers from that show that would have appreciated the 60s flashbacks especially.

Sadly, in SATC, Lacroix is not a joke.  You’re supposed to take that ridiculous wedding dress she tries on seriously.

Comment #15: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/15  at  01:27 PM

I also really liked that Carrie’s motivation for marriage was, well, financial, not romantic.  The recognition that moving in with Big meant a loss of financial self-sufficiency without any claim on any of the things Big was buying for “them” was really important.  Women need to either be self-sufficient, or have a legal claim on joint property through contracts or marriage.  Just relying on the idea that “everything will be fine forever” gets a lot of women in trouble.  I liked that that was addressed so clearly.

Comment #16: Roadrunner  on  06/15  at  01:54 PM

That Newsweek article wasn’t the one.  But I do like how the writer points out the obsession with denouncing the characters because they don’t fit many male audience members’ ideal of what a wife or girlfriend should act/look like.  Yeah. And. So. What?  I’m perfectly capable of enjoying male main characters in movies without needing to feel like proposing.  They can even be annoying or threatening or insulting and enjoyable.  Tony Stark in Ironman was a blast for the viewer, but in real life, I’d avoid that guy at parties.

Comment #17: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/15  at  01:54 PM

The only review of the SATC movie I read was in Entertainment Weekly. I believe it was by Owen Gleiberman—a man!—and it was thoughtful and quite positive.

Just saw the movie yesterday. Wow, it really did a nice job of hitting those vulnerabilities for the three not-happily-married characters. When’s the last time a major motion picture presented the Samantha philosophy and committed to it? It’s fairly radically feminist, her decision to commit to being herself, for herself, rather than staying in a relationship with a decent guy. Smith wasn’t characterized as a jerk she needed to leave—so her decision was really about being true to herself.

I could’ve done without Miranda using Steve’s exact words in her apology to Carrie months later. I wasn’t sure if Miranda’s anguished eyes conveyed her grasping that she was being hypocritical and needed to extend to Steve the same forgiveness she asked from Carrie, or if she was just anguished without the epiphany.

And Carrie’s selfishness was a theme throughout the length of the series. Not so much a positive selfishness like Samantha settles into by the end, but a disregard for other people’s emotional needs. (Me, I wouldn’t have minded a bigger wedding than I had, but my groom wanted to do the city hall thing. I wanted him more than a wedding, so the courthouse it was. Was much more evolved than Carrie in my 20s! Deserve big cookie and pat on back.)

Comment #18: Orange  on  06/15  at  01:56 PM

You can vaunt Davis’ comic timing all you want.  I haven’t seen the movie but I find it difficult to picture anything as drop-dead funny as:
> the brilliant facial play on Samantha’s face when the two gay fellas who have invited her to bed leave her just lying there so they can race off for gelato;
or
> the razor-toothed “man that’s funny and cutting at the same time” brilliance she brought to her blowout with her lesbian lover.  (The writers gave her marvellous line and she made it fly: “Jeez, no sex and we spend all our time processing…  Yeah, it sounds like a relationship to me!”)

I vote Kim Cattrall.

Comment #19: seeker6079  on  06/15  at  02:44 PM

Kim Cattrall also deserves a lot more work than she gets. 

What I liked, Orange, was how Carrie did have the right impulse at first, with the suit and the small guest list, and then just let the idea of the wedding sweep her away.  I think that happens to a lot of couples.  But it’s poison, and I’m so glad a major movie finally said it.

Comment #20: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/15  at  03:48 PM

The all-time best AbFab was Patsy trying to ask Saffron for help about a gynecological issue. Later in what I think was the same episode, Saffron is trying to bribe Patsy with a bottle of Stoli to stay out of Saffron’s business. The physical comedy between the two as Patsy tries to snatch the bottle while visibly wondering what trick Saffron is trying to pull is truly priceless.

And the comedy of the “Lacroix, sweetie,” line comes in Patsy’s response, which is a deadpan “It’s fabulous.”

Comment #21: felagund  on  06/15  at  03:49 PM

Joanna Lumley has always had a deft hand at comedy.  Just dig out an episode of the old “New Avengers” and watch her somewhat half-smiling delivery and one realizes that.  (On tapping a steel wall that looks like oak paneling but gives a very metallic sound: “Ah. Your decorator must be the same one who does Steed’s hats.” Moderately funny line, very funnily delivered.)

Comment #22: seeker6079  on  06/15  at  04:06 PM

I loved the way AbFab used other series’ devotion to The Tender Moment as a setup to viciousness.  The quiet mother-daughter talk on the morning of Saffie’s wedding, for example, seemed tender but it was just an excuse to pin her down and rip her Saffie’s little mustache out.

Comment #23: seeker6079  on  06/15  at  04:07 PM

Is it bad that it took this entire weekend for me to figure out why you’re calling them Bamboo Reviews?

It’s because pandas eat bamboo, right?

I still think I might not quite get it yet…

Comment #24: The Opoponax  on  06/15  at  04:42 PM

I will never understand the obsession with Vuitton.

Everyone got their barf bags?  A woman living up the road from me has named her son Vuitton.  I don’t see her much, but last time I did she was pregnant again and planning to name this child Armani if it is a girl.

Not. Making. This. Up.

Comment #25: tigtog  on  06/15  at  04:46 PM

Everyone got their barf bags?  A woman living up the road from me has named her son Vuitton.  I don’t see her much, but last time I did she was pregnant again and planning to name this child Armani if it is a girl.

Wouldn’t “Emporio” make a great middle name?

Comment #26: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  06/15  at  05:03 PM

A woman living up the road from me has named her son Vuitton. ... she [is] pregnant again and planning to name this child Armani if it is a girl.

“Why do I get the impression that some day I’ll be explaining this to a psychiatrist?

Comment #27: seeker6079  on  06/15  at  05:06 PM

Well considering there was at least one Tiffany in my grade for my entire educational career, I don’t see how either Vuitton or Armani are really all that different. I also know a few Chanels, though some are spelled Shanelle and with other variations so may just be coincedental homophones with the famous designer. 

Vuitton is going to be difficult to spell, and unless the family is French will probably grow up never understanding how to pronounce his own name.  Which is a damn shame.

Comment #28: The Opoponax  on  06/15  at  05:08 PM

I had a mixed reaction to Samantha saying bye bye to Smith. On the one hand, it was good to see at least one of the women on her own by the end of the movie. On the other hand, Samantha was the only one whose relationship was in any sense transgressive. How much more meaningful would it have been for Charlotte to have ended up proudly on her own?

And yeah…. The anti-materialist message was there at the end of the film, after they made sure to indulge luxury label excesses for the bulk of the story. I doubt that the typical prospective bride in the audience is going to take the closure to heart and decide to downsize her wedding because of it. Far from it.

Comment #29: Celia Bruno  on  06/15  at  05:24 PM

I just saw SATC last night myself after holding off in fear of the bad reviews (I was actually skeptical that they would be able to make a beloved 22 minute program into a 2 hour movie). I agree with you, Amanda, that the product placement was just annoying, and I preferred it when it wasn’t so over the top (why on earth was that fashion week scene worth the money? really?).  But in terms of the characters and their flaws continuing to grow and change—well, I loved that.  I also loved that the audience in my movie theater basically gasped and laughed and sniffed in unison throughout the movie.  The 65-year old women next to me kept gasping, “Oh, those shoes…” every time Carrie came on screen in a new ridiculous, 6” wonder. 

May I also give a shout-out to women in their 40s having sex on the big screen?  Cynthia Nixon going full frontal at 40?  Actually, both ends of that spectrum:  that Miranda just isn’t that in to sex anymore after several years of marriage, a career and a small child, and that she can still have hot sex with her partner.

Comment #30: Kirsten bringer of a nice white wine  on  06/15  at  05:35 PM

At least Vuitton and Armani are people’s actual names.  I can’t wait until people start naming their kids after brands that aren’t actual human names, like Coca-Cola.  I guess Paltrow did that when she named her kid Apple.

Comment #31: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/15  at  05:49 PM

A woman living up the road from me has named her son Vuitton.  I don’t see her much, but last time I did she was pregnant again and planning to name this child Armani if it is a girl.

A woman in a well-publicized D.C.-area legal case named her pet monkey Armani, so the mother ought to think twice about doing this.

I think the monkey was male, too.

Comment #32: sara  on  06/15  at  05:50 PM

that the product placement was just annoying, and I preferred it when it wasn’t so over the top (why on earth was that fashion week scene worth the money? really?).

Well, from the point of view of the producers that scene was “free”—-  Mercedes (who sponsor the event in real life) recreated it return for the placement of a number of their automobiles.

Comment #33: topometropolis  on  06/15  at  05:52 PM

Though I doubt that Mercedes also paid the salaries of the cast and crew, the rental fees on the equipment, the cost of film stock and other non-durable items, etc. etc. etc. that goes into shooting a scene in a film.

Though it’s neither here nor there for me, as I haven’t seen the movie.

Comment #34: The Opoponax  on  06/15  at  11:55 PM

I thought the movie was pretty bad.  Not as bad as many standard issue rom-coms and action blockbusters, but I thought it was bloated and treacly and had one deeply silly or offensive scene for each good one.  All the squealing, the nasty scene where Samantha shames Miranda for not getting a bikini wax in the middle of winter (it was supposed to be funny, but it didn’t amuse me at all), the very boring fashion stuff…it didn’t work for me. 

But I am having a reaction to the nasty reviews.  I started out hating the idea of the movie, and I still don’t think it’s good, but I am so sick of reading men’s freaked-out knee-jerk reviews of the movie and the show that I’ve had to develop a grudging respect for it in the same way I did for “The Vagina Monologues.”

Comment #35: Elinor  on  06/16  at  12:07 AM

I wondered if it was the camera roving over Samantha’s neighbour’s naked body while he was soaping up in the shower contributed to male reviewer’s condemnation. An unsettling female gaze that objectified the male body, replete with a glimpse of his penis. I don’t know if SATC is feminist per se but it certainly unsettles some of traditional movie norms - depicts female sexuality without always sublimating it into a desire for love.

Comment #36: lily  on  06/16  at  12:23 AM

So I just did what I always threatened to do and picked up the first disc of the first season of SATC from Blockbuster.  Watched the pilot episode.  And Lily, you’ll be excited to know that the theme for the very first episode of the show is “Women Having Sex Like Men”, i.e. no strings attached, not looking for a relationship, not even really respectful of the guy’s feelings or anything mushy like that.  So I think that’s something they’ve fooled with during the whole run of the show. 

BTW, the first episode of SATC blows chunks.  Don’t ever watch it.

Comment #37: The Opoponax  on  06/16  at  12:30 AM

The second thing we talked about was how the movie really reaffirmed our sense that the big wedding is just a big, bad idea.

And starting tomorrow in California, gay wedding planners can make the same mess of our lives that they’ve been making of straight people’s.

Comment #38: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  06/16  at  08:26 AM

One more data point for those who care - I’m a straight male could never stand watching SATC. I was ok with the naive one whose name I forget, and I really liked Samantha and Miranda, but I was always irked by the fact that Carrie is continually smoking. Just one of those personal things*, but such an annoyance that it kept breaking into my enjoyment of the show. Well, at least if I need to see more of Kim Cattrall, I can always watch Star Trek VI.


*too many smoking deaths in my family, maybe.

Comment #39: canuckistani  on  06/16  at  11:54 AM

Once again, I’m relentlessly shocked by people who think portraying=endorsing.  Carrie’s smoking habit (which she drops at the behest of a pushy boyfriend) was not endorsed by the show.

I’m creeped out by how obvious her smoking was, because NO ONE smokes on TV.  It’s a lot less popular than it used to be, sure, but a lot of people still smoke.  Just for the sake of realism, you’d think that someone would smoke on TV.  I don’t think anyone even did on “The Wire”, and I don’t buy it.  At least Lester would smoke.

Comment #40: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/16  at  02:17 PM

Except on “Mad Men”.  On that show, everyone smokes all the time.  Which is accurate for the era.

Comment #41: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/16  at  02:18 PM

As a straight man who enjoyed the show, I have to say that the movie was a predictable disappointment.  Beyond the marketing of an extravagant, nigh-unattainable lifestyle, the whole plot centered on two points that were completely out of character and thus made it (for me) completely unbelievable: Steve cheating on Miranda and then Miranda turning around venting to BIG (of all people) that marriage is a bum deal.  I think the latter is a huge betrayal to the series; the women have been remained such close friends for so long because of they’re profound LOYALTY to one another, and there’s no way Miranda, no matter how upset, would ever have done that.  On the flip side, I enjoyed Jennifer Hudson’s portrayal of the Token Black Character (R) in an understated, un-characatured way (apart from the cringe-inducing “fall in love” line).

Comment #42: Josh  on  06/16  at  02:31 PM

OK, can I just say that it’s been weeks of reading about this movie, and I over and over people have talked about Jennifer Hudson’s token black character, or magical negro, or whatever, and I have been really confused about what they meant because I was thinking of Jennifer Garner.      D’oh.

Comment #43: The Opoponax  on  06/16  at  03:43 PM

Once again, I’m relentlessly shocked by people who think portraying=endorsing.

No confusion there. I’m sure it made the show more realistic. It’s just that every time she lit up, I would get jolted out of the narrative and start thinking about personal issues with smoking in the real world. It just wasn’t fun to watch.

Comment #44: canuckistani  on  06/17  at  11:44 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.