I've written about Sex and the City a few times before, so it seems fitting for me to review its new movie. It was actually better than I thought it would be, however, that's not saying much. Based on the trailer, I thought it would be unwatchable (and I say this as a big fan of the show). And at least, it was moderately entertaining and had a plot, albeit a silly one. A lot of reviewers found it offensive, especially to Muslims (a large part of the movie happens, inexplicably, in the United Arab Emirates). But as someone who tends to be easily offended, both for myself and others, I couldn't really get riled up about it. It wasn't as if the visiting Americans were portrayed in a better light than the Muslim characters; everyone was over-the-top and unrealistic. I mean, look at the photo below; the characters were pretty much just something to hang clothes on. In the show, the main characters would learn and grow to some extent, but in the films, that doesn't happen. The characters stay pretty much where we left them, with the possible exception of Mr. Big. I think the movies missed a chance to be real movies in their own right, rather than just inferior extensions of the show.
I thought this part of Slate's review was apt: "...its complete disconnection from our current economic and geopolitical reality, by moments achieves a perverse Warholian profundity." I do find it interesting that this particular movie has been targeted as an example of pointless excess. Yes, it is full of pointless excess, but isn't almost every action movie evidence of the same thing? You don't usually hear people accusing Batman or James Bond of spending too much money. I'm not sure exactly what to make of that, but find it interesting. Now believe me, I'm not a fan of excess, on a personal level or in the film industry. But there must be a comment about gender in there somewhere. Women are supposed to spend tons of money on every useless thing (firming body lotion! prescription eyelash lengthener!) so I'm actually kind of surprised that there seems to be an upper limit. Do male characters just get a pass because they overspend on cooler things? Probably.
One minor thing I liked about the movie was that the "You mean you don't want KIDS?!?!?" people were made to look ridiculous. They're not bad people, but one scene in the movie shows how rude and intrusive their questioning can be. On a slightly related note, you know how so many romantic movies end with these montages, in which the woman is suddenly pregnant? I always thought that was a cop-out, a shorthand for "let's portray a long-lasting relationship", as if one thing magically flowed from the other. You never see the couple actually talk about kids or parenting. You never see the couple actively choosing to have kids, but isn't that a good place to be? I think this is the right trope...
4 comments:
A lot of the cooler thing the men spend money on don't actually exist though, I guarantee that is Ironman style power armour existed that stuff would be so mass produced so as repair/upgrade parts would be available at 7-elevens.
I want to live in that world. I don't care what other people say, everyone would have a power armour even if it was just for formal occasions, like weddings.
That's true. Although a lot of the things in "Sex and the City" barely exist, in a way. I mean, yeah, some number of people really do drive customized Maybachs (from Mercedes), but they don't exist for me, or most other people. I haven't seen "Iron Man" but I think I know what you're talking about.
I've just finishing reading Erick Weiner's The Geography of Bliss, which has a chapter on Dubai. He (humorously) writes that Dubai has no real culture or its own but is awash with money now and super-spending is just what people do who live there. The "excess" therefore would pretty much be built into the expectations of any movie supposed to be set there. Any grumping about the SATC crew spending money there is more about sexism than economics!--Level Best
What??? No way!!! I'm still in shock to learn that you like that show. For me, it is nothing but an invitation for women to behave like men. For me, it states that in order to be happy you have to have sex like a man; that if you have sex like a woman you would suffer. It's like saying being a woman is wrong. That's demeaning.
Post a Comment