Mon 2 Jun 2008
Who Me? Write a “Sex and the City” Movie Review? Jaaaareddd!
Posted by Catherine Berlin under Buffalo Spree , WNY Life[4] Comments
The movie does to male characters what most movies do to female characters: Male part enters, stage right, and remains peripheral and stupid. I mean, when did Mr. Big turn into Fabian? All guys should watch this movie actually. The pain of seeing the male gender so classified and restricted might give men a better understanding of how odd it is for women to see women treated with the same degree of Director and screenwriters’, “Hunh, honey? Did you say something?” attitude that exists in 90 percent of the rest of filmdom.
In other words, the man-acting was, um, stiff. And fantastical.
And the clothes, mon dieu. Are we to seriously believe that there would be more than four shades of black and two or three primary colors on a New York City street at any one time? I know people that travel west of the Hudson only in sunglasses, saying, “It’s so bright – so bright. I’m not used to this much color!” Only kidding, sort of, but some of the scenes looked like Easter bonnets at Temple.
Ok, running through SJP’s 80’s dresses collection was fun and a lesson to all of us: Never be photographed in high fashion. The fashion fades; the photographs linger.
And still, I really liked it. So what’s wrong with me? Nothing, really. The movie did not have the quirky innovation experience equal to watching an entire season of SATC on a snowed-in weekend, and it seemed to be oddly lacking in, well, sex, but there I was, routing right along, laughing with the girls when they laughed, as if I were at the table with them. And I got goosebumps when SJP gifted her assistant ( Dreamgirls Jennifer Hudson) with the perfect present (because I am product nuts, apparently). G_d, that was sweet. And although I may not be able to relate to how it is to be female and, say, a serial killer on death row or a rape victim turn chillingly efficient vigilante – as in some movies, I can relate to a broken heart, a seriously bad reflection in the mirror, and hiding under the covers for a few days.
And that’s kind of how it is: bad scripting, embarrassingly predictable predicaments (take a memo: you put a bird on your wedding veil or tell your husband to hurry up and orgasm already, and you will be sorry), bleeding obvious product placement and staging, you know – the kind of things that if forced on a French director would lead to his suicide (actually, one good part is that there is more male nudity then female and another reason for Pierre to leap). And were we really expected to accept that Carrie did not know about rentable handbags? Ouch. But the female characters are now part of the living room, and we still believe we are part of theirs. And there’s magic in that result.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Re: the male characters, I agree 100 percent. It’s nothing less than revolutionary in my mind to sell a movie where men don’t count to an audience of millions. The New York Times reviewer had a problem with it and wanted to know more about the men. My response: WHY??? Isn’t, you know, almost everything else, about them as it is? We can’t have two hours that’s not?
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:34 pm
I am so sorry… I almost think I might have enjoyed myself more going to the SATC screening for a review than The Strangers (double booked that night)…although possibly not…
We’ll have to get Lori Johnson or Jenny Ellis to write a response as they took the tickets and saw the film in all its glory (and received a lipstick pen for their trouble? I hate missing free swag)
Gotta say, might not end up catching this one…
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Oh, thanks for you! I purposefully didn’t read anything about it before I had a chance to see the movie and write my own piece, but now you made me go there. Manohla Dargis and I agree in questioning the movie’s obvious conventions and simplifications. But then we part ways. No, boys don’t have to always have equal time. In real life, not everybody comes off the playing field a winner. And I’m not interested right this minute in saving the whales. I’m with you, Jessica. Before we move on to more serious ventures, let’s recognize this all too rare a Hollywood event and celebrate some things that are familiar in the core.
The scene (spoiler warning) where Carrie flummoxes Big with flowers, for example, worked quite well for me, thank you. It felt good, physically, and wasn’t so material. It wasn’t such a material moment, either, when Carrie washes her face in the morning and the same sad, over-forty face did not miraculously disappear down the drain. (I said “an over-forty face.” How incredibly refreshing is that?) Ditto on the scene where Carrie blamed her loss on being too material and self-focused? (I blame it on that bird in the veil, but I suppose that’s included within the being too material part.) And when Samatha brought her food and said it was ok if Carrie just tried to eat something and went back to bed for another billion hours, I (1) almost forgot that Parker and Catrell aren’t so fond of each other and (2) knew as a mom and friend that that was the absolute rightest of all answers for a wounded soul and that such an answer would help that soul to get out of bed sooner. Not so very Bergman, but I never get to feel those connections at the movies. Instead, for movies where the woman is in her thirties or older, all we have is an endless parade of films where that woman dies or is getting replaced, or we’re moms who just don’t get it (begin with ET and start counting) or screw up some kid when we are less than a classic type. Sixteen scared me to pieces. Nothing, of course, can top the Disney formula, where the post twenty-something woman was always either so wicked even a five year old would want her dead or a fairy that every six year old knew wasn’t real. And what do we have for endearing friendships? Thelma and Louise? Is death the only option if we strike out on our own? Oh, I know, I know a few other girlfriend movies: all those high school cheerleaders-from-hell flicks. No wait, those aren’t right, either.
In so many ways the movie could have been better, but in a few critical ways it was a smash: it’s a big budget film about many women as central characters, who are headed towards their fifties and experience things that I have experienced, still loving, laughing, and working to stay in touch. Excuse me while I dance.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I will never go to a sneak preview for any movie again, because of Sex and the City. Having to show up an hour early to 5 rows of women, men & prize pigs, then wait for the security to wand me down to make sure that I don’t have a cell phone. Then if that wasn’t ridiculous enough, watch Cojo freak out on the Pink carpet (Live-don’t think so) in New York. By that time I didn’t want anymore of the over priced popcorn my friend bought, my pop was drank and I have no idea what time it is, because my cell phone is in the car. By the time the movie started, I was done! It was so HOT in the movie theater my friends chocolate candy bar was melted. I couldn’t wait for the movie to be over, it lost my interest from when I first stepped in line. I’m sure I would have enjoyed it on a none sneak preview day. I feel like I lost 5 hours of my life thanks to Sex in the City.