May 28th, 2008
Sex and the so what?
This week, I have something in common with possibly every heterosexual man in the land – I couldn’t care less about the release of the Sex and the City film. Sounding off to friends has drawn lots of “What?! You don’t like Sex and the City?”, as if I had just confessed to not liking shoes (meh – more on them later). And why is everyone so excited about a movie of a series that had long gone stale by the time it finally ended?
There are so many reasons the show bugged me, but the biggest one of all was the fact that it presumed that every woman in its target demographic couldn’t get enough of it. Technically, I’m supposed to be part of this little slice of marketing pie – women who went to college, have thriving careers and are socially and financially independent. Not to mention the ones with disposable incomes coming out of designer handbags they can’t really afford.
This was a show that purported to show us how “free” women were and how we could have everything. Judged on Irish terms, it pointed out that this generation of twenty and thirty-something women were finally liberated from the sexual shackles of previous generations. And yet looking at the characters in Sex in the City, you wonder how free they actually were. For all their thumping on the glass ceiling, cocktail get-togethers and bed-hopping declarations of sexual independence, they were still portrayed the way women frequently are – as neurotic, materialistic and ultimately looking for a husband.
If those clichés aren’t enough to make you gag on your Cosmo, the fact that these women were meant to represent the most Metropolitan city in the world should. You can’t get more ethnically diverse than New York, and yet the cast were a sanitised, wholesome all-white ensemble – right down to the box-ticking redhead, blondes and brunette.
Carrie, Charlotte, Samantha and Miranda supposedly embody the modern woman, in all guises from careers to hair colour and attitude. And yet in spite of seemingly having it all, they were riddled with insecurities and never stopped whining. The materialism (expensive shoe fetishes) was nauseating and the social aspiration (eating/drinking at only the hippest restaurant/clubs) was elitist. All of it condensed into one negative image of needy, moany, greedy women who wouldn’t know a real problem if it bit them on their designer clad asses.
If the TV show succeeded in anything, it was in demonstrating that female friendships are as competitive as male ones, and with added bitchiness. It also showed us that for all their independence, women will get their come-uppance: Miranda ends up as a reluctant mammy minding the sick mother-in-law she has always looked down on, Samantha gets cancer, Charlotte can’t bear a child of her own and Carrie ends up with the wrong man. Above all, Carrie was contradictory epicentre of the program. Supposedly a sassy, have-it-all journalist, to me, she came off as a black hole of neediness and self-absorption who never represented my idea of being an autonomous, confident woman. Thank you US gossip site Gawker for finally hitting the descriptive nail on the head by dubbing her character “Scary Sadshaw”. Spare me from the SATC film, I’ll be at Indiana Jones instead.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Nice post on Sex and the City, it’s about time someone exposed it as being the shoddy marketing for idiots by idiots that it is.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I don’t think Sex in the City sets out to embody the modern woman …it shouldn’t be taken that seriously…..its only a giggle!!
May 28th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I totally agree with your critique of the show. I could never identify with one (never mind all) of these women and I definitely wouldn’t like them to be my friends. But I really enjoyed SATC nonetheless and I will be going to see the film too- even though I know it’ll probably be rubbish. A strange one that…
May 28th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
If the TV show succeeded in anything, it was in demonstrating that female friendships are as competitive as male ones, and with added bitchiness.
Actually, although I agree with most of you said, I just don’t think this is true. The thing I liked about SATC was that, for all its faults, it showed female friendships as mutually supportive and important, rather than the bitchy cat-fights of, well, almost every mainstream depiction of female friendships - the SATC ladies actually are remarkably unbitchy about each other, and there’s never really a sense of competition.
I couldn’t care less about the film, though.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
“Carrie marries the wrong man” — Sinead, have you just ruined a major plot line of the movie? Or are you making that bit up? If the former, you should have a warning on this post about plot disclosure!
I agree with Emma there; it was fun to watch. It never seemed remotely realistic, but some of the one-liners were quite snappy.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
To be honest I’ve never even seen an episode of Sex and the City, so really, I don’t care at all about the upcoming film. But, Indy isn’t all that great either.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Maebh - it’s just not for me.
Emma - everything about SATC was directed at modern women because that’s what the characters were. If only it was a giggle: even the gags were cliched and mostly unfunny. Some of the earlier shows were fun, but on balance I couldn’t say I’m a fan.
Red - I thought it really had something in the first couple of series, and then it just got repetitive. The more it tried to make the characters moral and real, the more irritating it became. All the plots related to the individual characters became very formulaic, so by the end, it had run out of ideas.
Stella - again, I think I’m the black sheep here because I can think of so many episodes where there was clearly NO support from the others for a characters’ predicament. There are examples in Samantha’s cancer, Miranda having kids. Very few of their conversations had any depth - it was sex, food, shoes and shopping by and large with the odd deep moment. Perhaps the bitchiness is more minimal, but the competivenes is definitely there.
Sylvia - sorry. Can’t remember if she marries the Russian dude or not, so I’ve amended it to “ends up with”. I was referring to the TV show. I don’t know, or care, what happens in the film - hence the post!
Fence - say it ain’t so on Indy! My brother reckons it’s alright but a bit over CGI’d in the second half.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
My brother reckons it’s alright but a bit over CGI’d in the second half.
It’s over-CGI’d all the way through. Seriously, it was one step away from having a gopher with a little Indy hat and whip whistling the theme tune (don’t worry, that’s not a spoiler).
May 28th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Strangely enough this is not on my list to see! Heard a few girls mention that even though they thought there would be nothing new in the film, they felt compelled to see it…sometimes marketing works unfortunately. Think the film Caramel looks much better so will hopefully get to see it before its out of the cinema-you always have to be quick with the independent ones!
May 28th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Love your critique of the show. I have to say I am a big fan…I can’t put my finger on why…I like the way sex was discussed frankly and I think this helped women talk to each other about sex. The consumerism bugged me alot as did the fact that they all settled down in the end…hardly a feminist outlook. Looking forward to the movie but not expecting much.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Indy is very good if you don’t count the last 20 minutes. Because the plot is so laughable the whole thing falls flat at the end. At least I laughed myself silly watching it.
May 28th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I’m not bothered about seeing the film. I wouldn’t mind sometime down the line but I won’t be rushing out to any of the huge parties that are going on around here when it opens.
The first few seasons of it were the best and the dialogue was great sometimes, but as you say, as soon as they tried to introduce any depth to the characters it became irritating, simply because it wasn’t done very well. They had already been established as too cartoonish for that - the older man-eater, the WASPY ditz, the no-nonsense lawyer, the sensitive, explorer-of-the-modern-heart columnist who learns a lesson in every episode.
I enjoyed it for what it was but was never under the illusion it advanced women in any way. For a show that purported to be about smart women, the reliance on all the ephemera of shoes and bags and Manhattans was contradictory to say the least. Zippy dialogue and Mr. Big aside - and I did enjoy that - if you took away all the many minutes devoted to shoes, bags and Manhattans there wasn’t much of a show left, just some needy princesses.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
I was scanning down through the comments and I thought that you were saying that sex and the city was over CGI’d…’probabably to get rid of that wart on her face’ I thought.
But I was wrong.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
It’s the intolerable air of self-satisfaction - ‘aren’t we daring?’ - that makes the series so annoying.
May 28th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Ooh…you said the emperor is naked! Good on you, SInead! No, if SATC *really* showed independent women, the TV series would not have lasted that long. TV corporations are not interested in portraying strong women, it was more about the great advertising dollar, hence the absurd shrill materialism of its characters.
I never followed the show, but in the original series, there were the odd glimpses of interesting storylines. But they were few and far between.
And you do realise that the series head writer and film screenwriter is a gay man, don’t you. Even though the idea for the show was based on Candace Bushnell’s column, the vision of “modern” women was spawned from a gay man’s sensibilities. Sex, shoes and shopping - hmmm… sounds very gay to me
ps. I won’t be watching SATC, but neither will I watch Indy. The original didn’t impress me, and this feels like more of the same, only more tired.
My choice for this week’s movie is the flawed but likely cinematic feast from Wong Kar Wai, My Blueberry Nights, his first English language feature, set in the US.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Hi Sinead,
I have always loved “Sex & the City” and am really looking forward to the film. It was sold out in all 5 screens in Cineworld tonight. The film has had a huge marketing campaign and is the darling of every celebrity magazine since it went into production so the emphasis has been completely on the sex and shopping aspect. The TV show was a hit while Ireland was becoming a wealthy country and “Heat” magazine was at it’s success peak so the shows were a product of their time.
Your post got to me to thinking why I liked it so much and it’s because I liked the 4 main characters and many of the story lines. It is one of those shows that just made me feel good and laugh. It is a fantasy show and is pure escapism and sometimes the characters experiences reminded me of things that happened to me or people I know. Several of my male friends loved it but many have no interest in it at all and I don’t know any straight men who have ever liked it. I don’t like shows like “Scrubs” so everyone has different tastes I guess. The joy of popular culture is that there is such a variety of it.
It’s great when posts like this provoke a reaction.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Sinead, I’ll probably go and see it on my own but I still recognize that your position is a valid critique, and I have no argument with it. Even though I watch it, I’m uneasy with many problems it raises about gender, class and race. It pissed me off that now that they’ve added a lone woman of color (Jennifer Hudson as Carrie’s assistant) she’s also “the fat one.” She gets stuck in the stereotypical role of the “sassy black girlfriend” that Hollywood is so find of rehashing.
Yet there are so few movies made with women as lead cast members and even less with women all over 40, an age when Hollywood usually demotes them to someone’s mother or jilted wife.
I’m not defending it necessarily.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Dare I reinforce all those gender stereotypes by admitting that I watched the series purely for the fashion and will watch film for same. Not that I’m into high-heels even, let alone designer wear (yes, teh brand endorsement is nauseating) but the whole costume design element is the stuff of creative fantasy.
(However Carrie’s ever-shrinking frame has always been a cause of concern for me on the ethical/role model side of things. Though as Medbh says, they’ve now ‘the fat one’ in the film.)
Not that the characters could ever serve as role models for me, as I find them all fairly abhorrent, especially Carrie who treats men like dirt (as least Samantha respects them for them for the sex).
May 29th, 2008 at 9:48 am
I like SATC in the same way I like Entourage or something. It doesn’t speak to me, I have very little in common with any of the characters, but I find it entertaining and glossy and fun to watch.
As for SATC’s portrayal of friendships and relationships between women - ultimately the characters are all so self-centred that the construction of those friendships always rings false. It’s not about friendship. It’s about trying not to be single. And shoes. And New York.
Anyway, the best TV protrayal about the complexities of friendships between women is The L Word. It’s the only programme I’ve ever seen get it right when it comes to the female group dynamic.
So, yeah, I will be going to see it. But I’m also going to see Indiana Jones.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Cool post, Sinéad.
Was SATC ever meant to be anything more than mindless entertainment? It’s certainly about as far removed from real life as any other mainstream US entertainment (”Friends” being another example).
It has nothing to say of any real relevance but so what? It’s just entertainment. Any suggestion that this TV Show was social commentary was just hype from the people involved in its making.
By the way, i think the new Indy film is terrible. Loved the original 3 films but this one is flat and dull. It’s more Shia Lebeouf’s film than it is Harrison Ford’s, which is annoying. I felt sad and disappointed afterwards.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:22 am
“Don’t ask me, I’m just a girl! Heh heh! Heh heh!”
- Malibu Stacy
“Sex and the City is fucking shit”
- G.I. Joe
May 29th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Thanks for this post, Sinéad. I never got into SATC. Watched it one and a half times and thought ‘So what?’ and found the characters twittering and dull. And someone said they watched it for the fashion?! From what I saw, the clothes were ridiculous looking. And I love clothes.
Chick-lit for the screen, perhaps?
I too hate the idea that you are supposed to love it, want to see it etc. Yawn.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Brilliant. I love this post.
I can’t tell you how much fun it is to see the show sliced and diced like this for once. Three cheers.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
This is a great post! I was one of the masses last night and went to see the SATC film. I don’t think I’ve ever been to a film where the audience were cheering and clapping at points in the film and asides from it being a bit strange, it really highlighted what a following the show had.
I really enjoyed the show (and the film) for what they are - light hearted entertainment that gives you a bit of a laugh and also it is also great to watch visually, the clothes etc. Yes, the clothes are ridiculous a lot of the time but then why not? It’s part of it, it really is fantasy/escapism stuff.
The show and the representations cannot be taken as realistic, as Sinead said in her post it depicts the tiny demographic of priviliged, upper middle class, white women in its four main characters and it even does this unrealistically (eg Miranda is supposed to be a lawywer working 60+ hours a week yet always has the time for long lunches, Carrie writes one column a week but can afford to spend thousands on shoes etc etc).
In the film, I think the elitism is even more pronounced - there’s more money, more spontaneous (’I don’t have to worry about my job’) holiday getaways and in general more stuff that is seen to define the characters (especially Carrie) and their sense of identity. I found that a bit irritating and it again highlighted how far removed it is from reality, not to mention the audience who last night were comprised of women from their late teens to their thirties but mostly in their twenties (with a few sheepish looking men thrown in). From the looks of us, I don’t think anybody was going home to New York style penthouses or getting whisked off to Rio or the likes for the weekend on a private jet but still, we whooped and clapped.It is what it is - entertainment!
What annoys me about the whole show, and I suppose the reason why many people hate it is the constant talk of it being representative of modern women today or that it is feminist. It clearly isn’t. I had to do an essay on SATC last year and was surprised to find the oodles of acedemic essays on the show and even a few entire books. They dealt with so many different issues but some pointed out that because it has such a massive following it must have some resonance in contemporary culture or society. So in that sense i think it’s awful that so many women aspire to the characters and their lifestyles as indicators of what it is to be successful. That is each person’s choice however, to be so influenced by a TV show.
When women are depicted in the media - actresses, politicians, celebrities in crap magazines like Heat, or in programmes like SATC everyone starts to talk about their appearance or how they can be ‘role-models’ for modern women in a way that happens far less with their male counterparts or shows like Entourage. We are presumed to use such depictions in the media as influences in our lives, which for the most part, is grossly untrue.
Anyway, apologies for the very long rant, I’ve probably contradicted myself about ten times. I loved the SATC film. That said, I also loved Indiana Jones…
May 29th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Jesus - it’s only a movie and a TV series. It’s good fun, well structured, and whether we like it or not we can identify with these characters on some emotional level. Yes, they’re somewhat moany and needy, but let she who has never whinged in her life cast the next derogatory email about the show/movie…
May 29th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Damn, I was away the last couple of days well away from a computer screen and I’d composed a nice rant in my head about Sex and the City that would have featured on my blog in the next day or two but you’ve expressed my general sentiments perfectly.
I think what annoyed me most was the way each show would start out with some daring and risque question such as “Is monogamy an out-dated concept?” And then conclude that, erm…no, its not. Ultimately the show’s message seems to have been shag about while young, wear lots of nice shoes, then find yourself a nice rich man and get married. How very radical.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
With you on the moany whinging, the materialism, the lack of diversity.
You do reveal them to encounter real problems though - cancer/family burdens/infertility/bad relationships.
I wonder if they’re meant to be as unpleasant as they are, like Seinfeld’s cast of characters?
Still, I have to admit to having got a lot of laughs out of it, and the analingus scene was one of the only times tv has made me blsuh when I was by myself!
I won’t be going to see the film though. A good late night, nothing else on tv movie for the future, methinks.
One question - why is Harrison Ford playing his young self rather than his old self? What were they thinking?
May 30th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Great post, Sinead. SATC has a lot to answer for in the kind of annoying women it spawned
May 30th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Thanks so much for all the great comments. It’s obviously a show that divides people, and this post was merely a commentary on one side of that divide.
Tim - I’d love to see Caramel, let me know what you think.
Ro Ro - it was certainly frank about sex, I’ll give it that, but even then I felt like they were running through the whole gamut (this week oral sex, next week water games etc) for the sake of it.
Crocodile - the “daring” thing is so true.
David - I know you’re a big fan, so I’m delighted you got so much out of it. You pointed out something really interesting, the fact that its screening in Ireland coincided with a rise in wealth/Celtic Tiger stuff. Do you think that’s why so many women related to it? Would it have been so popular if Ireland of the late 90s/early 00s was more economically like Ireland of the 80s - and they’d never have gotten away with showing all that sex on 80s TV here.
DC - “No, if SATC *really* showed independent women, the TV series would not have lasted that long. TV corporations are not interested in portraying strong women, it was more about the great advertising dollar, hence the absurd shrill materialism of its characters.” - Totally with you on this. That’s a very good point that it was a projected male view of women’s lives.
OFTR - they may have considered CGIing some of the sex scenes maybe?
Sam - the contradictions (we’re so liberated, but we’re all about the shoes) and stereotypes are a central flaw.
Medbh - had no idea the film would be as blatant with the non-white, non-skinny woman. Seems a bit tokenistic, no?
You’re so right about roles for women in Hollywood, as Shirley McClaine once said, “the only good roles for women in hollywood is playing hookers, victims or doormats.” When you’re over 40, it’s as grannies and kindly neighbours.
Little Red - some of those clothes looked plain weird on SJP. In one episode, I couldn’t concentrate on the plot, because she was wearing this massive over-sized corsage that distracted me for the whole half hour.
Una - “As for SATC’s portrayal of friendships and relationships between women - ultimately the characters are all so self-centred that the construction of those friendships always rings false.” I completely agree, and that’s what I was saying above to Stellanova. To me, they all seemed as self-obsessed as each other and the friendships never really came across as warm or connected. Have only seen a couple of L word episodes, but they were really good. Man, I have so many series to catch up on.
Conor - It was certainly nowhere near social commentary, but it was definitely being fed to women as aspirational, and as feminism-with-fashion.
Martin - there was definitely an air of Malibu Stacey about Carrie’s character. She was this tough, sassy journo until a man came along and she did that infuriating thing with her hair, tilting her head and acting like a little girl. Ugh.
WRW - “chick lit for the screen” - you’re spot on!
Tom - thank you. Not a fan then?
Sinead OS - thanks for taking the time to write such an interesting comment, you make some great points and I’m with you on the realism and elitism. Can I ask you, do you think that many women aspired to be like those characters, and live that kind of lifestyle? (I think a lot do)
J.I., MacDara, Jo - the more I hear about Indy, the more appeal it loses.
Deborah - the structure (and the opening question thing) became old very quickly. As various people have said here, they didn’t identify with the characters on any level, emotional or otherwise. But yes, we’re all guilty of an ol’ moan about life.
Crocodile and Chancer/Andrew - you’ve both hit on something important, that for me was one of its failures. The daring/risqueness of it became really jaded really quickly because you that sooner or later, no taboo would be left untouched.
Jo - like the sex stuff, I felt it ran through all the “issues” it assumed young women might encounter - the ones you mention - and it became formulaic for me.
Claire - thanks. Do you feel it spawned lots of annoying fans?
May 30th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I’m going to see the movie tonight and I can’t wait. I loved the series. Like another commenter said it’s pure escapism, I didn’t for one minute think it reflected real life, I just liked it cos it was fun. And yeah, I liked the clothes too. I didn’t want to buy or wear any of them, I just liked looking at them. And sometimes laughing at them!
I feel the same way about chick-lit, I like it, just some frothy stories to while away a few hours and give my brain time-out. I like weighty-er novels too though, I’m not a complete philistine, but sometimes I just want something easy.
Have to say though, whether you love or hate Sex and the City, everyone’s talking about it so the marketers are doing their job!
(oh and ps, I’m a journalist who writes a weekly column for a newspaper and, no, I don’t spend thousands on shoes! Affording a Snickers with my Spar sandwich for lunch is about the height of it!)
May 30th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Hi Sinead,
I do think that some people could relate or get wrapped up in the whole fantasy of the show when it was first shown, it was one of those shows that often got media attention over the years. It was HBO on America so by being on cable I think they got away with stuff that wouldn’t have been on TV a decade beforehand,
I posted a piece on the series on my blog,
Dx.
May 31st, 2008 at 5:39 am
An interesting related topic to the SATC film: cultural watershed? Women-led movies? …with views from a cross section of women involved in the film industry.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-silverstein/a-womens-cultural-moment_b_104398.html
May 31st, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Yes Sinead, I can’t disagree that there are lots of women trying to emulate them, you see it especially in certain areas/bars/department stores but what can you do, people using American TV as reference points in their own lives, sad times!
June 1st, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I can take or leave it. The characters were a bit whiny and desparate but they did manage to laught at themselves too sometimes. The one that springs to mind is the one when Carrie is taken to the countryside by her new bf and hates it.
And I’m not ashamed to admit it, I did learn some stuff about sex from it.
OK, maybe a little embarrassed…
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Perhaps it’s biggest failing is as you mentioned Carrie’s relentless efforts to secure a man, though that seems to be what she wants it is not true of the other characters certainly not Samantha.
If you are simply to take the show for what it is. It is an entirely true representations not just of the freedom women have but also the challenges they face. Yes they have fabulous wardrobes, yes they are sexually liberated and yes they have great friends but that does not equate to happiness, most people are never satisfied with what they have anyway so why pretend otherwise? These women represent the millions of women who are out there working their arse off, aspiring to have it all, clothes, cars, houses, jobs, babies, whatever they want and what is wrong with that? It may not always work out, you see this over and over in the TV series, Miranda having to take care of her mother-in law for example, but they still press on. I would much prefer my teenager daughter sat down to watch an episode of Sex and the City were anything is possible as opposed to the likes of Eastenders or Coronations Street were their lives are full of sadness and betrayal, were the best a young girl can hope for is a job in the Café or buying clothes in the markets and if she’s lucky she might marry somebody who won’t abuse her.