I’m positively fascinated by this film because somehow a group of people got together and created something that everyone can be sincerely self-righteous about from the comfort of their home...If you screened this film for an audience composed entirely of sex-positive radicals and neo-conservatives they would all have something to talk about over drinks together. On the day this film was released, America was somehow truly united.And a side note: with some exceptions I like how Sex in the City fetishized fasion. I really do--weird I know. But it made me think about fashion, which I value (even if it often was to shriek in shock that anyone would ever wear such a thing). When I saw SitCI I went for the clothes, but was so horrified by the content I had to swear off. So, I'm feeling vicariously superior via other blogs.
Second side note: MMM's blog is not workplace appropriate. Not even a little.
5 comments:
I liked the series, but I couldn't tell you why. I think it was for the occasional bad puns maybe? Or maybe it was simply because I borrowed it from someone who loved it obsessively, so there was a lot of pressure to like it.
If you haven't already seen it, you should read Lindy West's insightful review on thestranger:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/burkas-and-birkins/Content?oid=4132715
I liked the series well enough; it was the movie that really sent me into coniptions.
I loved every word of Lindy West´s review. Why am I not subscribing to something she writes? Can we not be friends and bitch about things together?
First, before I forget, a theory on why you are not reading Lindy West on g-reader, maybe: A long time ago, I tried to subscribe to Dan Savage, and the stranger's rss feeds were so unwieldy I gave up. They may have changed since then.
Anyway. I just finally read the review--it's blocked at work, and I kept forgetting.
Honestly, I had totally forgotten that there was supposed to be anything about "sex" about SATC! Apart from the fact that sex is the subtext of fashion (and fashion is a not too subtle proxy for obscene wealth), I don't remember the show being about sex at all. At least, no more than any other show is about sex. Of course, I've also never understood how Seinfeld is a show about "nothing" either. Isn't it about a NY comedian and his band of wacky friends and neighbors?
But "sex and the city" isn't descriptive of the show, right? It's just the name of her column. Hm...I've been trying to come up with analogies for this, and I'm not having a lot of luck: a biopic of Martin Gardner called Mathematical Games? A sit-com about William Safire called "On Language"? Yeah, not really. So my theory is this: expecting that just because it's called "sex and the city" a show is in any way about either sex or the city is a mistake.
Finally, do we not live in the age when "being friends and bitching about things together" is the same as "rssing her column"?
I could easily be wrong, but I´m pretty sure the show thinks it´s about sex. I think the column is incidental.
Second, yes, and so I have rssed her posts on The Stranger. I kind of want to just rss The Stranger, as there seem to be interesting articles there.
Also: I have tv here, so I´ve seen about 80 thousand runs of the SITC2´s preview. It´s so...so...SO obnoxious. I´m starting to feel really hateful.
Post a Comment