Monday, June 16, 2008

sex and the city

So, I finally saw Sex & the City yesterday ... I felt like the only girl alive who hadn't seen it yet, but judging by the packed theater, I was mistaken.

Unfortunately, I really have nothing positive to say about it. I mean, for a piece of pure fluff, it was perfect. Did it uphold what the show was about? In some parts, yes. Other parts, not so much. Was it incredibly offensive to women? Well, it should have been. I'm sorry, but I really resent the implication that women only care about two things ... labels and love.

Labels? Oh, I do love a good Coach bag. If I ever get my hands on that gorgeous purple Prada clutch that was giving away, I think I could probably die and go straight to heaven. But ... I also have a real problem spending as much money on a purse or a pair of shoes as I do for rent. If I have that kind of money to throw away, shouldn't it go to a good cause? Like ... food for starving people or something?

I think if you have the money and you've worked for it, good for you! Splurge a little. I'm not saying you need to be shopping at Goodwill (although I *heart* Goodwill and any thrift store!) But it's important to give back ... something this movie didn't even touch upon. In fact, both Miranda and Samantha blatantly portrayed that for any "dirty" task they didn't want to do (such as watch their kid or unpack some moving boxes), they could just pay someone else to do it. Um, hello? Kind of wrong. It should definitely be offensive to anyone in the middle and lower classes.

And love? I'm sorry, but the entire premise of the show (especially the first four season) was that you didn't NEED a man to be happy. You didn't need a man to be complete. You can be complete on your own. Unfortunately, the movie subscribes to the same idea that women magazines push on us ... single women aren't REALLY happy ... they can't be, after all they don't have the husband and the 2.5 kids and a dog, right?

And again, I love the idea of love. I would love to be in love at some point. But if I don't happen to find that man I'm supposed to be with, should that mean that I failed at some aspect of my life? Or that any single woman who never gets married is unhappy and a failure? This, of course, brings up the same old dumb argument ... George Clooney is a handsome bachelor while older single women are old maids, people to be pitied. Kind of dumb, very cliche ... but 100% true.

The main problem with the movie, of course, is Carrie. Not only has she always been the whiny-ass bitch of the show, but she's completely irrelevant today. While I don't think the target demographic quite gets it, the point is that close-to-50-year-old women should be grown up (as should their over-50-year-old boyfriends), and not still be treating a possible wedding like a high school prom. *That* was irritating.

Women need to wake up (particularly women in their middle age) and realize that we are still second class citizens (even after three waves of feminism) instead of parading around NYC streets searching for "labels and love" to the beats of some horrific Fergie song. The four women of SATC in seasons 1-4 (at least) would have realized that. And that's what made the movie such a disappointment.

No comments: