Location: Reviewer Resource Library

Discussion: Film Review: Sex and the City, by Michael Patrick King.Reported This is a featured thread

Category: Discussion Forum / Off-Topic
Showing 2 posts

RahmaJerad
Film Review: Sex and the City, by Michael Patrick King.
Sep 14 2009, 4:27 PM EDT | Post edited: Sep 14 2009, 4:27 PM EDT
When first broadcast in 1998, the HBO series turned the world of TV series upside down. The show openly and humorously displayed the sexual lives of contemporary New York women, thus debunking some stereotypes about female sexuality. Unfortunately, Sex and the City the movie was quite the disappointment because, among other reasons, it follows the typical chick-flick plot. Carrie Bradshaw is finally going to marry Mr Big and while she is busy with the preparations of the wedding at the New York Public Library, Mr Big isn’t thrilled by the perspective of a public ceremony. On D day, while on his way to the Public Library, he decides to call off the wedding, while she is already on the premises. But as soon as he realizes his mistake, he turns back to join Carrie and apologizes for his blunder. But Carrie refuses to have him back. That’s the start of her long journey through depression, first in a luxurious Mexican palace, then in her cosy NYC flat, with the help of her friends and Louise, her new assistant who, just like Carry, happens to be a fashion addict, with a fetishism for expansive designer handbags. After a long path out of depression, Ms Bradshaw randomly meets Mr Big and they finally get married.

Besides the typical plot, the movie is merely a juxtaposition of clichés about women, from the Cinderella-like happy ending to Bradshaw's obsessions for expensive designer shoes. Women here are just as materialistic, hysterical and depressed as in any other misogynistic film or piece of literature. The movie seems to be part of a trend in recent romantic comedies such as The Wedding Planner (2001), 27 Dresses (2008), or Made of Honor (2008) where the heroines’ ultimate goal in life is to get married and have a perfect wedding ceremony. The US film industry is thus perpetuating the idea that women’s main goal in life is, and should be, to get married, which merely perpetuates a centuries-old stereotype and puts the feminist movement in the trash. Do you find this valuable?    
GregoryKlages
GregoryKlages
1. RE: Film Review: Sex and the City, by Michael Patrick King.
Oct 1 2009, 11:47 AM EDT | Post edited: Oct 1 2009, 11:47 AM EDT
I recently read a comment that "Sex and the City" (the series) was really just an updated version of "Golden Girls" adapted for a different audience. The change of audience, however, seems pretty critical. Portraying female seniors as sexual, sometimes crude, but ultimately humane and caring people was pretty revolutionary.

What I'm trying to get to is this: if the series/movie just trucks out the same old negative cliches, what is it about Sex in the City that attracts so many viewers? Is the audience aware of the insult and doesn't care? Is the movie significantly different from the series in terms of its content/message? How do we reconcile such a conservative position with attacks on Hollywood as the bastion of "liberal" US morality? Do you find this valuable?