The Tom & Lorenzo Archives: 2006 -2011
Our current site is here: www.tomandlorenzo.com

T Lo Saw Sex and the City and They Have Opinions

Darlings, life's been rearing back and stuffing its boot up our asses lately and yes, the ensuing result is we have once again neglected this poor little blog. We promise a Dames & Divas Deathmatch on Friday.

Meanwhile, we took a couple hours off from life (and away from this withering heat) to let someone else foot the air conditioning bill while we sat in a darkened theater in the middle of the afternoon, cooling off and taking in Sex and the City. We'll grant you, this wasn't the optimal method of seeing the movie, since we originally planned on dressing up with our gals and making a drunken, cosmo-fueled night of it, but as we said, life's been a bear lately and we just had to make do with sipping our six-dollar Diet Cokes in flip-flops and t-shirts while sitting in a mostly empty theater.

Now, we know you're all leaning forward in your seats, dying to hear the answer to the burning question "What did T Lo think of the Sex and the City movie?" Well, relax kittens. As usual, we have opinions. But be warned, there will be some spoilers here. We'll give you fair warning when we feel the need to indulge.

Okay, so.

Here it is: We didn't love it.

That isn't to say that we hated it, but we had to admit with disappointment as we left the theater that we only just liked it. The good stuff: The girls all still have great chemistry with each other and they slipped into their old roles with the ease of actors who could play these characters in their sleep. There are several genuinely funny moments and more than a couple laugh-out-loud scenes. Writer/director Michael Patrick King wisely understood that for a lot of the viewing audience, the primary goal was to just see their old friends again and catch up with them on their lives. Well, mission accomplished. In fact, the whole 2-and-a-half-hour movie might as well be called SATC Season 7, because that's basically what it feels like; an entire season stuffed into one bloated episode.

And speaking of bloated, let's get down to what we didn't like. Number 1: these characters are ridiculously over-the-top wealthy in a way they never were on the show. Oh sure, they certainly weren't ever living what could be called a middle-class lifestyle, but in the movie, they're all living a "Top .5% of the population" lifestyle. Every outfit, bag and shoe is ridiculously expensive. Every living space (even Carrie's relatively humble apartment, which gets a major - and kinda ugly - makeover) is grand and glorious and expensively appointed. Every time a character meets a bump in the road of life, they merely pack up and move somewhere else and when life rights itself, they move right back in to their old place, as if all of Manhattan real estate is simply there to provide emotional support for these ladies. The level of consumption in this movie is slightly nauseating. Sure, you could argue that "it's just a fantasy," and we guess that's true. The problem is, the show, when it was at its best, wasn't "just" a fantasy. The characters had real problems and in fact occasionally revealed that they couldn't afford everything they ever wanted. In the film, nothing is off limits and price tags are tackily announced several times; a 300-dollar pillow here, a 525-dollar pair of shoes there, and a 50-thousand dollar ring that becomes something of a plot point. These ladies suddenly seem to delight in announcing how much money they're spending on everything.

Number 2: Jennifer Hudson. For an Oscar winner, the girl just isn't that much of an actress. Still, that wasn't even much of an issue. It's not as if she had some serious emoting to do and she is at least pleasant and personable and easy to watch on screen. No, the problem with her character is that she's the 21st century version of the "Mammy" role; the magical negro who teaches our sophisticated pristine heroine a little about life while she serves her needs. The heroine of course responds with gifts for her that she could never afford herself, as well as a somewhat condescending "Whatever would I do without you, Mammy?" attitude. We're all for injecting a little color into the all-white SATC universe, but not if it's going to play on tropes that were deemed offensive over 40 years ago.

Number 3: The supporting cast. Look, we get it. It's a movie about women and their friendships. Still, the men in this movie were virtually non-existent. Charlotte's husband gets about 3 lines, Miranda's gets a few more, Samantha's beau seems to have been asleep through most of his scenes, and poor Stanford and Anthony were basically extras in the background. Sure, Big gets some prime moments, but that's only because he's attached to Carrie, who basically becomes Diana Ross to the other three girls' "-- and the Supremes." All 4 women get character arcs, but they all tend to fizzle out. Carrie's the STAR and everyone else merely supporting players.


We just couldn't reconcile Carrie's choice at the end. How many times can Big mistreat her and have her come back begging for more? It took them ten years to get to the altar and he humiliates her by not showing up. Nine months of drinking and soul-searching and all is forgiven? Seriously? We hate to say it, but we think that ending could only have been written by a man . Michael Patrick King was certainly the guiding force behind the show, but he had a huge team of women writers who gave the show its perspective and grounded it in real emotions and real experiences. Their absence in the making of this film was glaring. To be blunt, having Carrie marry Big after all the shitty things he's done to her simply didn't feel like a happy ending, although the film treated it as one.

To sum it up, if you're a fan of the show, go see the movie. There's enough fun stuff there to make it worth your while. Just be warned that these aren't exactly the same characters you remember in a lot of ways and what was once an earnest, sometimes raw look at relationships and sex from a female perspective has largely morphed into a bloated Princess fantasy on steroids.
137 comments:

I was hoping for a different ending. I think I'll wait for it on DVD. Thank you for the (as usual) objective and entertaining critique.


Spoiler comment alert: I have to admit that I didn't see the end coming--it caught me by surprise, and I think you guys are right: they wanted to give her the "happy ending" and probably couldn't think of anything else. On the plus side, the way it played out sticks a pin in the "perfect wedding" as end-all-be-all-every-girl's-dream myth, and I thank them for that.

TLo said, "these characters are ridiculously over-the-top wealthy in a way they never were on the show"; I couldn't agree more. Fantasy, yes, but this was so over the top it actually took me out of the world of the movie. The shopping bags, the penthouse bought on a whim, the ring, the pillow, etc., etc. -- it was all so bizarre that it made it harder to suspend disbelief. (Though I did get a tickle from seeing the two dresses she schleps around at Diane Von Furstenburg because I'd bought [on sale] both of them, though they didn't look good on me, so I had to return them.)

All that said, the movie does push a lot of the right emotional buttons and was an enjoyable way to spend an afternoon. Some have said it's like a lengthy episode, but I think you Boys got it: it's a season packed into 2-1/2 hours. It didn't rock my world but I enjoyed it.


How many times can Big mistreat her and have her come back begging for more?

You know, the fact that Carousel glorifies an abusive relationship is one of the reasons I dislike that musical. But at least it has the "excuse" of having been written over 60 years ago. There is no excuse in 2008 for doing so.


You expressed this beautifully. I was in shock at the Aunt Jemima quality of Jennifer Hudson's role (here to serve with a smile), except that instead of wearing a headscarf, she carries around (an inescapable pun) a several thousand dollar purse (which is hideous). Carrie didn't even bother to buy a Louis Vuitton bag with taste; instead, she buys a bag that looks like it just got out of a tilt-a-whirl filled with crayola paint. Carrie wouldn't wear this bag--so it appears that in buying in, she's relying on blatant cultural stereotypes. As for the role of the men, I had little problem with Carrie returning to Big, because Big really didn't do anything terrible. Carrie forgets her phone, a little girl stuffs in it her bag, Big begs to walk in with Carrie, and--even after he freaks out--he tells Carrie he made a mistake and wants to go back. So why not just do that, instead of making us wait for a two-hour ridiculous and predictable plot to unfold? I had more problems with Carrie and the girls telling Miranda, a tough, smart woman, to take back a man who had been a lying dog.

All in all, this movie felt like dull rehashing of the series. Pat Field has little taste, and the wardrobe was as inflated and dull, at once, as usual. At least Miranda finally was given a great haircut!


C'est moi, c'est moi Lola

Dames & Divas on Friday! Can't wait!

TLo, thanks for the review! Nice to know that you found time to relax from a hectic life. And movies are always a great way to escape the heat.

As for SATC, I think your reveiw is right on, and in fact some of the things that I got tired of in the latter seasons of the series seemed to be more of the focus on screen. Like the conspicuous consumption mentioned. And don't get me started on the whole "let's put Big & Carrie through the wringer again". I mean, what's the sense to having the series' happy ending to only put fans through the same-old-same-old for $10-15 a pop? Disappointing if you went to see the movie asking what they could do that was new with the characters.

Anyway, thanks for the review, and I'll wait with baited breath for the Marlene vs. Bette results!


Spoilers...

Um, she pretty much coerces him into proposing, forces a huge circus of a wedding on him (prompted solely on her getting into Vogue), but its all his fault?

They belonged together - the entire movie was about "I screwed up, please forgive me." You want absurd plot twist? How about Carrie blaming Miranda or ruining her wedding? Like one comment made at a rehersal dinner could cause a guy to bolt like that. And did y'all notice he turned around to come back? He didn't jilt her, she was just too embarassed to go through with it.

And yes, I'm female. And I wanted then to get their heads out of their asses and hook up at the end of the film.


Am I the only one who thought Dreamgirls was overblown melodrama which Oscar should have completely shunned? Jennifer Hudson did fine with what she was given in SATC, but the truth is her character could have been completely cut out of the movie and it would have been better for it. It was a "token black girl" role and done in the most offensive way possible! What was Michael Patrick thinking?

On the other hand I agree with anonymous in that Carrie is just as much to blame as Big in the wedding debacle and she comes to realize that which is why it works for them to get back together in the end. Well it worked for me anyway.

I was happy with how true to all the characters the story stayed and just happy to see the girls again. I missed them.

And I thought Kristin Davis as Charlotte was the funniest thing in the whole film!


My sentiments exactly. Thank you T Lo. This was probably the most perfect thing you two have ever written.


I know it's bad form to link to your own blog, but I'm not a troll (I'm a devoted TLo and Rungay fan) and thought some of you might like to see my expanded thoughts on the consumption issues. If so, please check out:

YoureNotInKansasAnymore.blogspot.com

Thanks!
Jen


And I totally agree with anon's comment about Carrie selfishly blaming Miranda for "runining" her marriage. Yes, she said "marriage," not "wedding," as if Miranda broke something that already existed.


I absolutely agree with every fucking thing you two said.


My whole comment is pretty spoilery so I'll warn ya'll up front. And I respectfully disagree with T.Lo. I LOVED the movie.


I think the point was made at the beginning of the movie that they had all been successful in the four years since the show ended. Carrie had had two books published, Smith had his own TV show and Samantha was his agent. They were all making more money than they had in the past. Carrie always bought shoes that she couldn't really afford. Samantha wouldn't go over $50K for the ring. The spending didn't really seem any more outrageous than it ever was. (Really, could Carrie afford all those clothes and fancy shoes before when she was only writing a newspaper column?)

The penthouse was bought on a whim. I think Carrie mentioned it was the 33rd place they had looked at. Big has always been wealthy (he "retired" and bought a vineyard in Napa) and Carrie loved it so much he bought it for her. When Carrie needed her apartment back, Miranda negotiated a deal with the new owners to buy it back, it wasn't magically available to her.

Yes, Big had been shitty to her in the past but they had moved past that. He made a good point to her in the closet. They just decided to get married because it seemed like the thing to do. He was freaking out about it and if Carrie hadn't been so consumed with the wedding, she would have realized that. She did eventually.

As for the bag that Carrie bought her assistant... It was the same one she was carrying in the interview the first time they met.

I loved the ending. It was what I was hoping for all along. It was perfect that it was just them and when Big whispered in her ear *sigh*.

This was the first movie I've watched in a while that I immediately wanted to watch again and I know I'm getting the DVD.


Shiver72876, you are not alone. "Dreamgirls" was a dreadful movie; I couldn't finish it. Bloated, no soul.

TLo, I love you. This was a thoughtful review and I'll take your word on the flick. I'm not a big enough fan to spend $12 to see this in a theater, I'll wait for Netflix around Christmastime.

Can't wait for Friday's Deathmatch!!!!!


Spoilers spoliers spoilers. . .



Oh, yeah. . . also, glad you Boys brought up the Jennifer Hudson role. Some good things about it, but plenty of problems, as you and others describe.

I agree with those who commented that Big didn't exactly jilt Carrie. While I can't blame her for being upset, her reaction was based more on their history than on what was actually happening.

And just as I think they wanted to give Carrie a happy ending, I think they also didn't want to end it with all 4 women happily attached; hence the Samantha bust up, which felt manufactured.


I was a fan of the show but have had no desire to see the movie, especially after I heard about the ending. It's a little too perfect-fantasy for a movie that I didn't think was supposed to be a romantic comedy. And all the obsessive consumption seems a little silly to me now. (And I think I'm about the age Carrie was at the beginning of the show.)

I've always been a firm believer that Carrie should have married Aiden (? John Corbett?). I never gave up hope that that *could* happen. :)


Goldilox said, "When Carrie needed her apartment back, Miranda negotiated a deal with the new owners to buy it back, it wasn't magically available to her."

That's pretty magical!


Tlo said: The problem is, the show, when it was at its best, wasn't "just" a fantasy."



Thank you.

I was rolling my eyes from the very first line; the one about women coming to NYC for two things, 'labels and love'. Ugh. How about, they (we) come here because they are smart & talented and want a creative life, and want to compete with the best and the brightest.

While it was great to see the girls again, it seemed like the movie was just as I feared it would be-- a sell-out to the lowest common denominator fans, rather than the smaller, original group of fans.

At its best SATC had a great resonance for single urban career women, that no other TV show has had. Episodes like the one where Tatum O'Neill played the obnoxious mommy, about societal validation of the choices people make, to the one where Miranda bought her apartment, about what a woman STILL deals with when being independent - those storylines gave the show a soul that made it OK to overlook the more brainless dependence aspects of some of the women's choices.

Plus, originally, the fashion & fabulosity was just a sidebar to the story - it wasn't the whole story. In this movie it was. It was like eating a whole box of Krispy Kremes, instead of just one.

And I agree about Big as well. That is the thing that has always bothered me about Carrie (aside from her smoking) is how, despite her success, she was always so needy and looking for a man to complete her. Just pathetic. In this movie, all four of the women crossed the rubicon and became stupid, boring suburban girls - the ones we moved to The City to get away from.

Though, in a weird way, that parallels what has been happening in Manhattan - which has, in the last several years, become so gentrified, over developed, franchised and over run with suburban banality, that whole swaths of it are not even recognizeable anymore. It's a big mall. This movie seems to have been made for those people - the mall walkers on the SATC tour buses.

Maybe some thought that closet Big built Carrie was fabulous, but when I saw it and how the shows were going to be laid out all I thought was, yikes, this in NYC, who is going to dust all those shoes?? (I know, the hired help. But still...) But the movie was as hollow as that closet.

And BTW, I missed Anthony & Stanford. How did they ever hook up? One of many contrived toss-ins.

On the way to the big screen it lost its intelligent way, its single soul and its gay heart.

Overall- a disappointment.

--GothamTomato


" Goldilox said: When Carrie needed her apartment back, Miranda negotiated a deal with the new owners to buy it back, it wasn't magically available to her."



In this town, that is pretty magical.

--GothamTomato


Yeah, Gotham! I loved especially your other-reasons-women-come-to-NY comment. (Question, though: did Anthony & Stanford hook up? I didn't think so, but it was unclear.)

Also, GT: Jinx! (re magical comment -- look up 2 comments before yours!)

And Jen, ("thought some of you might like to see my expanded thoughts on the consumption issues.") -- good bloggery! Thanks for posting that.

Okay, must run. I have to go buy a penthouse and some expensive shoes and bags.


i think this show is about finding old fashioned love in a modern world. good or bad, in the end, Carrie got what she wanted, whether she's been willing to admit it or not.


After I watched the movie, I thought it was fabulous. BUT during the movie:

- I got a bit queasy at all the in your face branding
- I wondered WHERE were all the other characters
- I was sad Stanford had like 5 lines in total and ditto Harry
- I got a bit sick of Samantha popping back in from LA and the girls squealing and being hysterical every time she walked in the door
- The gift giving of the LV bag kinda felt a bit insulting. Louise was doing her thing and was happy to rent the bags but then Carrie kinda sweeps in and says, here darling, quit slumming! Was condescending, absolutely.
- Carrie's home re-do was like porn for home decorating buffs (myself included) but it also made me feel like it wasn't carrie anymore....with the flat screen TV and the expensive pillows.....

As for the ending - I was relieved but yes, I did wonder if I would ever be able to forgive my man if he ditched me at the altar. Although I felt that the scenes in Mexico and during Carrie's soul searching was pretty real and raw. We've all been there honey.

My husband (who's also an SATC fan) summed it up hilariously for me when I asked him what he thought when Big couldn't even get out of the car when Carrie was 3 feet away.....he said he was thinking "Oh dude. Not cool."

Indeed.


opps, forgot to add: one thing I did love was that they made the point that a wedding should be about you and your man - NOT about the guests, the dress, the venue, the honeymoon. Love is about 2 people. Everyone and everything else is extra and can sometimes get in the way.


yes! agree! with whoever brilliant who said that "the first 2 lines of the movie" was UGH...

what kind of message did that send about women?? that all we want is Labels and Love??

Didn't season 6 end on "if you find someone to love the You you love, then that's just fabulous"?? The movie beginning kinda stomped on that point a bit there....


miss chris in chicago

OMG - I totally agree about the ending. As much as I love SATC I was really disappointed that after all of the years of "I couldn't help but wonder..." Carrie wasn't strong enough to kick him in the nuts and walk away. What happened to girl power?


I think I'll just wait for the movie to come out on cable.....

Stanford & Anthony?! Oh, puhleeze. What happened to that darling Marcus?


shiver72876 said...

Am I the only one who thought Dreamgirls was overblown melodrama which Oscar should have completely shunned? Jennifer Hudson did fine with what she was given in SATC, but the truth is her character could have been completely cut out of the movie and it would have been better for it. It was a "token black girl" role and done in the most offensive way possible! What was Michael Patrick thinking?

Can you think of any other Hollywood movie (that doesn't star Will Smith or isn't a comedy) where blacks aren't just the supporting/subordinate roles?
("The Last King of Scotland", the film for which Forrest Whitaker won his Oscar was a British production)
We won't discuss the roles (or lack thereof) of Asians, Hispanics, gays et al.

TLo, I salute you. I loved the movie, but you gave me pause to really think about the deeper aspects of the film's context.


potty mouth princess

Ah, the joys of capitalism. :-)


It's funny you mention the ending.

Endings are difficult. There's the true ending, which has been influenced by everything that has happened in the character's past, and then there's the obligatory ending, which often writers will do when they think everything has to be wrapped up in a package.

In this case, the "Hollywood ending" is not atypical a scenario for a big budget movie such as this. It's formulaic and basically gutless --a real no brainer, and often leaves more knowing viewers, readers and often writers saying, "Oh, damn. What a cop out."


Oh my God, these are the ONLY problems you had with this movie? How about the ridiculous, over-the-top Victorian melodrama at Carrie's wedding when she drops the phone in slow-motion and almost faints? And then she compares what happened to her to death and getting shot? "Will I ever laugh again?" Not until your friend craps her pants, apparently.

And since when did Charlotte become such a xenophobe? And why can't a beautiful, middle-aged woman like Samantha gain 5 pounds without her friends being bitchy about it?

It was just all so gross and self-indulgent and old-fashioned and so clearly written by a gay man that I want to write Michael Patrick King a letter.


I also agree with a previous Anonymous: had Carrie reacted calmly rather that overreacting to Big's indecisive moment, the entire trauma/drama that was the wedding would never had been (of course, neither would the movie). But, I believe she realizes her mistake by the end of the movie. I also took issue with the plot point that Miranda was somehow to "blame" for Big's panic as well as Carrie's response to Miranda's confession. Not in character for either one of them.


Thanks for the great review, TLo!

I haven't seen the movie and will probably wait for the DVD, too.

One of the great things about the series was the self-deprecating humor.
One of the worst things was the level of whining about men, especially from the protagonist, over what can only be called trivialities.
The shallowness of the Carrie Bradshaw character wore thinner and thinner as the show went on.
I have to laugh when I read comments about Big being shitty to Carrie, or mistreating her in some way: I don't think I would have pushed him away in the first place. Smart, funny, good looking, hot in bed, financially stable, no chemical dependencies, a good friend to have, and really no more emotionally inscrutable than the majority of men out there: what's not to like?


Do I still enjoy watching the re-runs? Yes.
Do I get why Carrie broke it off with Big the first time? No.


"sangaril said: Do I get why Carrie broke it off with Big the first time? No."



Didn't they break up because he moved to Paris and got married to someone else?

Not exactly a subtle hint that.

--GothamTomato


Spoilerish, I guess.

There were lots of reasons to not love this movie, but I still did. I bought into it, like others, mostly because I loved seeing the girls together again. I felt that the Big/Carrie thing was just as much her fault as his, and so I bought it.

I could buy the Miranda/Steve thing, because there are couples who can get past indiscretions and start again.

I even swallowed the Samantha/Smith break up, even though it was kind of thrown in at the end.

And I never had an issue with the spending the girls did. I felt the movie explained they were more successful than they were before, thus the more lavish lifestyles. But really, the show was never (or very rarely) realistic in this sense.

What I could not get past?

The fact that they had a character named Louise. From St. Louis. That loved Louis Vuitton.

I was surprised they didn't make her tap her way out of Carrie's apartment singing, "Meet Me in St. Louis"

Louise should have married Louis from Louisiana from the "Fleet Week" Episode.


Granted, I don't know much about real estate in NY (I live in OK and my property buying experiences have been pretty painless), but Miranda said that she negotiated the deal at the "escalated" price which I took to mean that Carrie was pretty much willing to pay whatever to get back in that apartment. Is escalated a term I'm not familiar with?


That has got to be the most honest and illuminating review of this movie that I have yet read, so thank you for that, TLo!

And I am so not in the mood for watching conspicuous consumption these days, so thank you also for saving me from that until I'm ready.


To those defending the money-flows-like-wine aspect of the movie:

I haven't seen it yet, but I got the impression that the problem wasn't so much one of logic but one of theme. Whether or not it makes sense that the characters could afford to spend money that way, the fact is, people don't want to see the SatC girls at that sort of height of self-indulgence; we want to see them a little bit indulgent, but still constrained by the bounds of reality the way most of us are.

I mean, you could just say that all four characters had won the lottery and the results would be roughly the same.


edina monsoon

I understand that SATC:TM (as referred in VOGUE) was a feature-length movie and therefore portrayed the girls in a bigger, bolder, more lavish,over-the-top depiction than their small screen origns. However, it seems that part of the conflict with the movie lies in the fact that the girls were always so honest, real and raw in their friendships, relationships with men, emotions and lives in general, and that in their big-screen incarnations they lost some of their realness, rawness and what we as women most identified with the overblown quantities of clothes, shoes, jewels, penthouses, etc.. I think that what some people are saying is that they felt a bit of a disconnect with many of the characters because of the focus and elevation of Carrie's and the other ladies success. I know I did.
It's not to say that I didn't enjoy the movie (for what it was), but they probably could've put a little less spotlight on the Carrie's indulgences and pershaps a bit more on what really makes her need these things and why she feels she even needs Big to complete her.


Goldielox said, Granted, I don't know much about real estate in NY . . .

Here's the thing. You hunt forever in NYC (particularly Manhattan) to find the apartment, and, when you find it, you have to hope nobody outbids you. You gather up all your financials, kiss the co-op board's ass and then wait another forever while they decide if you are good enough for them. NOBODY, having done all that, is going to give up their apartment and have to do it all over again. It's not the $$$$$$$, it's the aggravation.


I must be the only bitch on the planet that never really liked the show. I always thought they seemed so silly.
I never liked Allie McBeal either, I think I'm missing a gene or something.


'GothamTomato said...

Didn't they break up because he moved to Paris and got married to someone else?"

Gotham,

If memory serves, Carrie dumped Big at or near the end of season one, just before they were to go on a Caribbean vacation together. At the curb. Luggage in hand. High drama.

Instead she insisted on hearing whether or not she was "the one", instead of going on that tropical getaway with him and making sure he would never have a doubt about it.


On the one hand, the ending did have me scratching my head like "would that ever really happen"... But on the other, it brought with is a line I really liked: "Why are we willing to write our own vows, but not make our own rules?" I think that's a really great thought/lesson in this age of people near bankrupting themselves on fancy weddings (for marriages that may not last beyond a year or two) - it's not the dress or the party that make the marriage.


The whole "Miranda ruined my wedding" thing was ridiculous. Miranda got the silent treatment, but what about Charlotte's daughter? Didn't she have a hand in ruining things by hanging up on him and hiding the phone in her cupcake purse?


"edinamonsoon said: I think that what some people are saying is that they felt a bit of a disconnect with many of the characters because of the focus and elevation of Carrie's and the other ladies success."



It's not the elevation of their 'success' that caused the disconnect. It was that there is nothing underneath it, and it was in place of what was there before.

They were already very successful before - in the show. The problem was that the movie took the lowest common denominator route - it was more Oprah's Favorite Things than SATC (and meant to appeal to those kind of women - lemmings who scream over free stuff - who never watched the show til it moved to basic cable and had its guts edited out) rather than its original fans.

The movie was all about the stuff. In the TV show, the stuff was merely incidental. That is the difference.

--GothamTomato


"dan said: I think that's a really great thought/lesson in this age of people near bankrupting themselves on fancy weddings (for marriages that may not last beyond a year or two) - it's not the dress or the party that make the marriage."



I agree, but it was a completely bizarre to try to make that point when the 2 hours leading up to it were all about conspicuous consumption.

Also too, too sacharine (and telegraphed) when Big proposed in the closet, and put a shoe on Carrie (ala Cinderella & Prince Charming). Gag.

We haven't come such a long way baby. (As if the media's mocking treatment of Hillary's campaign was not proof enough).

--GothamTomato


The forgiveness/transgression thread was intriguing. But the movie could have taken everything a bit further. Here are the plot points I would have wanted to see (perhaps in the next movie!)

- Carrie develops horrible bunions and can no longer wear her beautiful shoes.

- Big loses shirt in real estate crash (movie hints at it but doesn't go there.) Does Carrie still love him when he's "little?"

- Miranda comes out of the closet!

- Charlotte's baby has a developmental disability. Her world is no longer perfect, but she takes on the challenge. I vote for Tourette's!

- In my movie, Samantha would have been getting it on with the hunky neighbor at the precise moment when her beachhouse begins to plunge down its embankment (faulty foundation.)

- Stanford confesses to an encounter with a US Senator and is hounded by paparazzi continuously.

You would have loved my movie much better.


Sewing Siren said...
I must be the only bitch on the planet that never really liked the show. I always thought they seemed so silly.
I never liked Allie McBeal either, I think I'm missing a gene or something.


No, you are not the only one. I always thought it was NOT the message about career, working women I wanted my daughter to get.


sorry, that last anon message was from

SisterZip


Will Big cheat on her once they're married?


Tlo said: Number 2: Jennifer Hudson. For an Oscar winner, the girl just isn't that much of an actress."



To be fair to Jennifer, they didn't really give her much to work with. She was the Cousin Oliver of the cast.

But I loved your analysis of her character and its politics. It was just one more tone deaf note in this very off-key tribute band rendition of SATC's greatest hits.

--GothamTomato


Interestingly, the women I know who saw this liked or loved it, the gay men not so much. Both groups were fans of the show, but there was a pretty serious divide among my friends.

While the clothes and apartments were over the top, the moral of the story was that the dress took over the wedding to the point where the groom's wishes and emotions were completely ignored. The right thing to do was to get married in the little white suit.

I think Carrie and Big are meant to be one of those giant love stories that overcome all drama and adversity and can only end together because while the other one is on the planet, they can't be with anyone else. It's a fictional arc.

If they were real friends of mone, I wouldn't bet on a happy ending. They will put each other through the wringer until the drinking or the smoking or the stress gets one of them. But then, we all know couples like that.


I felt similarly about much of the film as you gays (guys? Dolls? Oy) did. The conspicuous consumption went way, WAY over the top. Obviously the movie was a continuation of the shoe/clothing/decor porn that was the show's raison d'etre after a while, but it got numbing after a while.


Goldielox, don't be insulted. Lillithcat pretty much explained it, but I'll add that buying and selling real estate in NY usually are among life's more excruciating experiences, I kid you not, so it did seem a bit beyond imagining. And since she'd put the money from the sale into the place with Big, I don't see how she'd then have had that amount of money plus the escalation to buy it back. Oh, and then redecorate. But... y'know. It's a movie.

Tehkou makes a good point: "Whether or not it makes sense that the characters could afford to spend money that way, the fact is, people don't want to see the SatC girls at that sort of height of self-indulgence."


"Am I the only one who thought Dreamgirls was overblown melodrama which Oscar should have completely shunned?" No, Shiver, you are not the only one. Aside from the Mammy-ishness of the role, JHud's lack of acting chops was really distracting to me. I went with a friend who had never seen SATC and we both enjoyed the movie but neither of us cared that much for the ending. And I agree with an earlier poster: I usually have a lot of Steve love but he was pretty much a dog.


Sewing Siren said...

I must be the only bitch on the planet that never really liked the show. I always thought they seemed so silly.
I never liked Allie McBeal either, I think I'm missing a gene or something.


No, you're not the only bitch on the planet who thought that. I never really got the show either. I tried a few times, but I could never get through one complete episode.

Thanks TLo, for keeping me up to date. I like knowing what it's about without having to sit through it.

~ Dogbreath ~


I'm with you, Sewing Siren. I've seen most of the sanitized SATC reruns though not the original HBO run and wondered what the big deal was. And all these women identifying themselves as a Carrie or a Samantha. I kept thinking 'Really?' I don't know any women like that.

I couldn't even relate to Miranda and I was a partner in a law firm. Which is also the reason I only saw about 10 minutes of Ally McBeal. The practice of law ain't like that. Ever.


This movie was just a piece of Hollywood product from the beginning, and not being much of a fan I have no plans to see it. However, I was indeed one of the many who wondered "What would Tom & Lorenzo think?". So, thanks for answering that important query.


You guys nailed it!


I have to say that the demographic that this movie was geared for is not the intelligent, aware and aesthetically sophisticated group who blogs here on a regular basis. They went for the widest/lowest common denominator for the biggest Box Office.


It did make me miss the show....it was my NY fix after moving here to FL.

Still cannot get past the fucking ridiculous dead bird and Vivienne Westwood monstrosity. I am sorry, it was a joke.


Well, I'll say that I loved the movie. At the heart are the girls friendships, which remained consistent. I thought the way Samantha cared for Carrie in Mexico was touching and exactly what I would expect of my two best girl friends. One of my best friends lost her husband a few months ago to cancer and the other friend and I took her out for drinks at lunch the same day. Because friendship is always at the core. The rest of it - the consumerism, etc - is just window dressing. Although, I agree - didn't love Carries new apartment.

As for Jennifer Hudson's character - I think she was less the token "minority" than the token 20-something girl. She was cast just after she won the Academy Award, so she was hot at the time. I'm totally stunned at the "Mammie" comment - it's awfully insulting to Jennifer Hudson. If the role had been played by Kate Hudson - what would you have thought of it? Would you have thought - oh, the poor skinny blond girl - she's so servile!! Probably not. As for Carries' gift to her at the end - it was a token of her appreciation for everything the girl did for her. Something a 40-something boss would and should do for a 20-something assistant. That's not condescension and to turn it into such is just a bit closed minded.

Carrie was always an idiot when it came to Big - she pushed him away instead of lured him in, and then blamed him for leaving. I thought it made sense that she went back to him in the end - he wavered (but really only slightly) but it was in the face of her turning the wedding into a side show, even though he kept saying it wasn't what he wanted. She said it herself - she made the wedding bigger than big.

I missed the guys - although there was just too much story for 2-1/2 hours. I missed Stanford and Anthony's usual bitchiness towards one another - they should have retained that.


Linda,

Regarding the J-Hud role, I think it's more that there was a lot of publicity going into this about Sex and the City getting its "first major black character." So for a lot of people (not just here but on other blogs I've read) it seems to be not so much "this character is inherently lame" as "this is the best you could come up with for this highly publicized role?"

At least, that's my take on it, based on what I've read.


i can't lie- i did enjoy the fashion porn in the movie. however, i hated how three of the four gals (thank god for samantha) wound up married. wasn't the original point of this series to debunk the idea that a woman needed to get married? that a single gal was some kind of tragic spinster? and yet the "happily ever after" hollywood ending involves our fearless, independent gals settling down and getting married.


Nice review, guys.

One thing that annoyed me the most was Carrie's reaction to Miranda revealing what she said to Big. It's as if Carrie was moving the accountability of Big's actions to the villainous Miranda, rather than realizing that Big didn't have the balls to go through with it. I mean, does Carrie really want to be with a man who let's a pissy comment from one of her girlfriends leave her stranded at the alter? Lame.


How many times can Big mistreat her and have her come back begging for more?

Lilithcat: You know, the fact that Carousel glorifies an abusive relationship is one of the reasons I dislike that musical. But at least it has the "excuse" of having been written over 60 years ago. There is no excuse in 2008 for doing so.

****

Unfortunately, there are plenty of women in relationships where friends and relatives tear their hair out and scream, "He treats you like crap! Why are you going back?! Why were you ever with him in the first place??!!!"

The fact that relationships like this exist in the real world doesn't mean we have to see it on the big screen--especially tied in a ribbon and disguised as a happy ending.

I think I'll watch "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" again instead of this mess.


I too watched the movie under similar circumstances.... escaping the heat and humidity (and bathroom renovations...) I also agree with your comments concerning the movie. It delivered the somewhat diminished goods.
For the first time, the materialism really got to me. For god's sake, everytime we saw Charlotte she had at least 5 or 6 shopping bags in her hands. The stuff was simply too much... the stuff in Lilly's room, the stuff in Carrie's closet, the stuff in the first almost wedding. ughhhh I like to shop as much as the next girl, but it got to me after awhile.
Just like Curb Your Enthusiasm, I think I like Sex in the City in small, delicious doses.


Addenda (since I'm half awake)--my adult daughter is a fan of the show and was forget-hinting-flat-out-asking for us to go and see the movie. I've never made it through a full episode without saying, "What am I missing?"--so I'll get her her own ticket and find something else for mother-daughter bonding.

(I didn't watch Ally McBeal, Seinfeld or Friends, either. That should make several people draw back in horror.)


Linda Merrill said...

As for Jennifer Hudson's character - I think she was less the token "minority" than the token 20-something girl. She was cast just after she won the Academy Award, so she was hot at the time. I'm totally stunned at the "Mammie" comment - it's awfully insulting to Jennifer Hudson. If the role had been played by Kate Hudson - what would you have thought of it? Would you have thought - oh, the poor skinny blond girl - she's so servile!! Probably not. As for Carries' gift to her at the end - it was a token of her appreciation for everything the girl did for her. Something a 40-something boss would and should do for a 20-something assistant. That's not condescension and to turn it into such is just a bit closed minded.


Google the term "subtext," because you're clearly ignorant of the concept.


I'm glad to see someone else wasn't happy she married him. I'm sorry, thoughout the show (and then the movie) he treated her like crap and she kept coming back for more. That's not love, that's abuse.

I guess I just don't get it.


You know, you're totally right about the "mammy" role. I had no idea why Jennifer Hudson's character had to be in there. It totally felt "filler" and yeah... kind of condescending.

As for the lack of Stanford, I was very sad. :( It was definitely Carrie's movie.

I loved however how Samantha didn't just end up happily with Smith. I never thought she was the relationship type anyway, but I liked that she wasn't a bitch about it and she tried something different, it just wasn't meant to be I guess. Her heart is in NYC that's for sure. I always liked her character the best - Carrie just got annoying most of the time. :/


Poor Jennifer Hudson was used as SATC's way to answer ethnicity and body-image criticisms without them having to actually sacrifice any of the precious screen time or story belonging to its rich, white, and skinny leads.


" Brandenburg3rd said...

(I didn't watch Ally McBeal, Seinfeld or Friends, either. That should make several people draw back in horror.)"


Not me! I never watched those shows either.


The fact that relationships like this exist in the real world doesn't mean we have to see it on the big screen--especially tied in a ribbon and disguised as a happy ending.

Perfectly expressed! I would much rather see filmmakers go to the challenge of creating a relationship where the people really are right for each other. It's a much more fulfilling, and far less destructive, fantasy...


Anon said me to:
Google the term "subtext," because you're clearly ignorant of the concept.

Hey Anon, first, why don't you then explain what you think the subtext is, since I am indeed so ignorant of your thought process. And while you're at it, why don't you remove the cloak of anonymity.

I will state it again, the character was there as a 20-something girl to be compared to the 40-something women. The series always compared the 20-somethings to the 4 leads. The actress' color was completely irrelevant. I don't recall the publicity around her casting as much as the internet world making a big deal of it. Meanwhile, how in the world could they have ever written in a large role for a new character? They couldn't sufficiently handle the regulars.


"Megan said...
I'm sorry, thoughout the show (and then the movie) he treated her like crap and she kept coming back for more. That's not love, that's abuse."

That's hyperbole, not abuse honey. In fact, that statement is an insult to any woman who has been a victim of *real* abuse.

Among other things:

Abuse is when a guy doesn't let his 'property' see her friends, or even have friends for that matter.
Abuse is when a guy drains a woman of any shred of self confidence so she'll think that he's the only one who 'really' looks out for her.
Abuse is when a guy gives a woman a black eye because she did something as trivial as forget to clean up after him.
Abuse is when a guy drains a womans bank account and dumps her.
Abuse is when a guy uses intimidation to get his way.
Manipulative, controlling, physically violent men are abusive.


Linda Merrill said...

Hey Anon, first, why don't you then explain what you think the subtext is, since I am indeed so ignorant of your thought process. And while you're at it, why don't you remove the cloak of anonymity.


Considering you sling around accusations like "close minded" and "condescending" so freely, you sure get pissy when someone disagrees with you.

When you cast a black actress in a subservient role, you are harkening back to decades of that imagery being used in old films. Further, when you cast her as wise in life, yet unsophisticated, you are using EXACTLY the same characterization found in old "mammy" roles. As T Lo said, that kind of portrayal was considered offensive 40 years ago. You cast a white actress in the same role and you're not going to have that problem.

I will state it again, the character was there as a 20-something girl to be compared to the 40-something women. The series always compared the 20-somethings to the 4 leads. The actress' color was completely irrelevant.

Wrong. The director specifically cast her because she was black and because he wanted to inject some diversity into the cast. He said so in many interviews.


Yay! Is it pathetic that I've been waiting and waiting to hear what you boys thought of the movie? Well, I did.

I have to agree with most of what you said, except for throwing all the blame on Big. Carrie was just throwing the entire thing on him and getting wrapped up in everything and selfish, as usual. Not that I condone what he did, either, it just...ehhhn. I think Big is in for divorce #3, because if that's how the writers envisioned their future, what the hell else can they do?

Oh, and can I just say that Charlotte seemed completely written out other than the baby thing? It seems like MPK thought oh shit, I forgot about Charlotte. Well, here's a baby for her! Yay! And wow, what a corny, predictable way to plug Big back into the story with her going into labor at the same restaurant. It makes me puke.

I just wished there could've been less of the label bullshit and more real emotion. It also REALLY annoyed me that EVERY plot point was given away in the previews!!! Seriously, WTF? Horrible, horrible, horrible. Bloated princess fantasy, indeed.


I'm sorry, Anon. Who did you say you were again?

I didn't say the commenters or TLo were condescending. I said "As for Carries' gift to her at the end - it was a token of her appreciation for everything the girl did for her. Something a 40-something boss would and should do for a 20-something assistant. That's not condescension and to turn it into such is just a bit closed minded." Some of the comments specifically said that they felt Carrie was being condescending by giving Louise a pricey gift. Here is a quote The gift giving of the LV bag kinda felt a bit insulting. Louise was doing her thing and was happy to rent the bags but then Carrie kinda sweeps in and says, here darling, quit slumming! Was condescending, absolutely.

That was my point.

At some point, we will need to get over imbuing everything with deeper subtext of things like racism or sexism. Because, if we don't, then the young blond skinny girls will the only ones cast in smaller roles for fear of putting a performer of color into a role that might seem demeaning. Now, how those young actors will ever grow to be A-listers without the small roles to start out in eludes me. Enough from me, I know you're all bored by me now.


Linda Merrill said...

I'm sorry, Anon. Who did you say you were again?


Does the lack of a name render my points moot?

I didn't say the commenters or TLo were condescending.

My bad. You DID say they were close-minded tho.

I said "As for Carries' gift to her at the end - it was a token of her appreciation for everything the girl did for her. Something a 40-something boss would and should do for a 20-something assistant. That's not condescension and to turn it into such is just a bit closed minded." Some of the comments specifically said that they felt Carrie was being condescending by giving Louise a pricey gift.

Carrie's not a real person. The point is, the writer chose to depict the relationship in a condescending manner. Poor black girl gets a job as a servant to rich white woman. Rich white woman learns valuable lessons from poor black girl and repays her by giving her something she could never afford herself. That's straight out of a 1930s melodrama. Go watch Imitation of Life if you don't believe me.

At some point, we will need to get over imbuing everything with deeper subtext of things like racism or sexism. Because, if we don't, then the young blond skinny girls will the only ones cast in smaller roles for fear of putting a performer of color into a role that might seem demeaning.

Oh, horseshit. Art has subtext. ALL art. To pretend that it doesn't is like looking at a painting with your eyes half-closed from 100 feet away. It's when the subtext trades in themes that were borne out of racist attitudes that it becomes a problem.

I don't know why you're going off on the size of her role. No one's arguing that she should have a bigger role, nor is anyone arguing that she should have been white.


"Carrie's not a real person. The point is, the writer chose to depict the relationship in a condescending manner. Poor black girl gets a job as a servant to rich white woman. Rich white woman learns valuable lessons from poor black girl and repays her by giving her something she could never afford herself. That's straight out of a 1930s melodrama. Go watch Imitation of Life if you don't believe me."

Oh, horseshit.

Here's my edit:
Poor girl gets job with wealthy employer. Wealthy employer values employee's insight enough to give poor employee a 'bonus'.

There...does that sound melodramatic or racist?


Ms Sangrail said...

Here's my edit:

Poor girl gets job with wealthy employer. Wealthy employer values employee's insight enough to give poor employee a 'bonus'.

There...does that sound melodramatic or racist?


When you remove all references to race, nothing sounds racist.


At some point, we will need to get over imbuing everything with deeper subtext of things like racism or sexism. Because, if we don't, then the young blond skinny girls will the only ones cast in smaller roles for fear of putting a performer of color into a role that might seem demeaning. Now, how those young actors will ever grow to be A-listers without the small roles to start out in eludes me. Enough from me, I know you're all bored by me now.

Bored's not the word that comes to mind.
Linda, I'd planned to keep silent but this has to be said.
I know you want to believe the reason SATC:TM took 4 years to get made is because Sarah Jessica Parker told the truth re: the timing had to right, Michael Patrick King finally had the right script, etc.
It took 4 years to get made because Warner Brothers president Jeff Rubinov put a moratorium on any script w/ a female lead. WB is the parent co of HBO, who had no interest in a SATC movie even though SJP had been hounding them to do it since the series ended (all the rumors about salaries, feuds was complete crap).
Then even when they did finally green light it, they got cold feet & relegated it to the nearly bankrupt New Line Pictures, which they had just acquired. If you want to pretend that sexism doesn't exist, movies aren't the worse of your problem.


Jennifer Hudson is an Oscar winner. A Best Supporting Oscar winner.
There are 2 other African American Best Supporting Actresses:
Hattie McDaniel-- Gone With The Wind. "MAMMY".
Whoopi Goldberg-- Ghost. ODA MAE BROWN.
If you need an explanation what the similarities of these roles are: Both actresses won by playing subservient roles to white lead actors. Sound familiar?

Jennifer Hudson took the role in SATC because there was NO OTHER ROLE OFFERED that came close to her Oscar winner stature since she won.
Do you really think if Jennifer Hudson (AN OSCAR WINNER) continues to just be a trooper & play maid roles she'll finally get that plum lead role?
Can you give me an example of 1 film that was made in the last year w/ a black female lead? (Just so you know, Tyler Perry--if you even know who that is--is in drag)
Do you think out of all of the thousands of scripts that the studios buy, maybe 1 could be made w/ a minority lead?
Do you think Katherine Heigl is the breakout star from "GREY'S ANATOMY" and gets movies like "27 Dresses" because (Best Supporting Oscar Nominee) Sandra Oh isn't as good of an actress?
And, Linda, who makes those decisions, btw?


Racism & sexism in this world will never end until people like you stop turning a blind eye so you can keep your supremacist place in it.


Sorry. My post above began w/ a quote from Linda Merrill. I forgot to denote that.

To clarify:
Linda Merrill said...
At some point, we will need to get over imbuing everything with deeper subtext of things like racism or sexism. Because, if we don't, then the young blond skinny girls will the only ones cast in smaller roles for fear of putting a performer of color into a role that might seem demeaning. Now, how those young actors will ever grow to be A-listers without the small roles to start out in eludes me. Enough from me, I know you're all bored by me now.


"When you remove all references to race, nothing sounds racist."

Your powers of observation are nothing short of remarkable!

You chose to read a cringe-worthy racial-stereotype subtext into a situation where perhaps none exists.

Does that mean that you would never hire a minority, as it would put them in a position of subservience to you?

And did you ever consider that perhaps JHud might have turned down a mammy role, but didn't view this part as fitting that mold.

You shouldn't be using race as a frame of reference: isn't how things should be?

I'm with Linda on this one.


Jesus - this has become hateful. And how did I suddenly become a supremacist? All I said was I didn't see this one role as demeaning. I've seen "Imitation of Life" and there is no comparison. Jennifer Hudson's character was not "poor", she was young and hadn't made it yet, she was not poorly done to, she was not a victim, she was not saved. She was an educated, ambitious young professional who took a job, got some experience and moved on by her own choice.

Sorry, I didn't mean to keep weighing in, but to be called a supremacist is just too much to ignore.


Ms Sangrail said...

"When you remove all references to race, nothing sounds racist."

Your powers of observation are nothing short of remarkable!


Hey, it's not my fault that you attempted to make a point and failed.

You chose to read a cringe-worthy racial-stereotype subtext into a situation where perhaps none exists.

"Perhaps." You admitted earlier that you haven't even seen the film. And I'm not the one making the "cringe-worthy" point, T Lo is. I happen to agree with them.

Funny, you told them it was a "Great" review. Why haven't you told them how cringe-worthy their point it?

Does that mean that you would never hire a minority, as it would put them in a position of subservience to you?

Do you understand the difference between real life and a movie? In real life, there is no subtext.

And did you ever consider that perhaps JHud might have turned down a mammy role, but didn't view this part as fitting that mold.

Not really, because it doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about.

You shouldn't be using race as a frame of reference: isn't how things should be?

Again, not really. We live in a world where racism exists. Denying that by pretending it doesn't does more harm than good.

I'm with Linda on this one.

Without ever having seen the film we're discussing. Talk about remarkable powers of observation.


I'm wondering if Anonymous's name is one of those Shaniqua ones, and she belongs to Obama's Chicago Church of Hatred.

I'm with Linda, too. I'm really really tired of the race / victimhood card being played at every instance, and aspersions cast upon people who haven't earned them. I don't think Linda is racist in her comments. I *do* think Anonymous is, however.


well, I’m going to see SACT tomorrow. But I’ve got already spoiled with reading your post! I couldn't stand what's your opinion though.

In South Korea, panda things (don’t know the title) casting Jack black is top selling movie currently following SACT.

Things might be changed I’m not sure.

Anyways! Thanks for wonderful posting. Can’t wait seeing SATC!


NahnCee said...

I'm wondering if Anonymous's name is one of those Shaniqua ones, and she belongs to Obama's Chicago Church of Hatred.


HOLY SHIT.

I mean...GodDAMN, lady. Are you for real?

I'm with Linda, too. I'm really really tired of the race / victimhood card being played at every instance, and aspersions cast upon people who haven't earned them. I don't think Linda is racist in her comments. I *do* think Anonymous is, however.

Actually, I didn't think anyone on this thread was a racist until you came along. Ms. Sangrail has no idea what she's talking about and Linda just doesn't see things the way I do. But you...you are a piece of work. "Shaniqua?"

Jesus Christ.


Just like the women of SATC read waaaay too much into the meaning of men's actions, it looks like some here are reading too much into this movie.

Anonymous, when I reply to you, I'm not referring to anyone else's stated opinions but yours. You did in fact play the race card. I made a point which you chose to dismiss.

I am very aware of the difference between movies and real life: I have one that I live on a daily basis.

JHud's acceptance of the role has everything to do with this, unless of course you think that a black woman is incapable of being that discerning. I f she found it acceptable, why can't you?

Racism certainly does exist, and I certainly don't pretend that it doesn't, so the denial remark is another leap of logic. That racism exists doesn't mean that it is universal: it doesn't mean that everyone is racist, hires according to race, rents according to race or anything else. I for one happen to hire on talent when it comes to my personnel, nor do I care what about the race of my tenants.

BTW you're making a big assumption about my having seen the movie....I did post that remark yesterday, afterall...that, and you never answered my question about hiring minorities. Nice dodge.


DID you see the movie, Ms. Sangrail? It's not too much of an assumption on my part when you came right out and said you didn't and in all your responses since then have not claimed to have seen it.

I didn't dodge your question. I gave you an answer that you didn't want to hear. Yes, I would hire a minority but my point still stands. We're talking about subtext in a film, not real life.

Now, what point of yours did I dismiss and how exactly did I "play the race card" when all I'm doing is agreeing with the original point that T Lo made in what you called a "great" review?

As for J Hud accepting the role, it's really not relevant to the discussion. We're talking about the writing and directing, both of which could have changed or evolved after she took the role.


"Now, what point of yours did I dismiss and how exactly did I "play the race card" when all I'm doing is agreeing with the original point that T Lo made in what you called a "great" review?"

I'll try this again, slowly.

You-yourself-have-injected-a-racial
-subtext-to-JHud's-role.When-you-
remove-all-references-to-race,
-nothing-sounds-racist.If-a-white
-person-had-been-cast-you-would-
have-no-argument.

There, did that help?

And your "answer" was another question, which even you should see is not a reply.

I still think that TLO wrote a great review...that doesn't mean that I agree with every last word of it.


And you'd probably run screaming that Carrie Bradshaw was a racist if she *hadn't* hired a black assistant.

If I give you a dollar, will you go buy a life for yourself?


Ms Sangrail said...

I'll try this again, slowly.

You-yourself-have-injected-a-racial
-subtext-to-JHud's-role.When-you-
remove-all-references-to-race,
-nothing-sounds-racist.If-a-white
-person-had-been-cast-you-would-
have-no-argument.

There, did that help?


No, actually. It didn't. I didn't inject race into this discussion. T Lo did. I agree with them.

And I would have no argument if the actress had been white because there is no long, shameful history of white actresses being forced into wise-but-unsophisticated servant roles. That's kind of the point.

Look, let's say a news report comes out about a group of white men ganging up on a black man and beating him senseless. Any normal person would at least stop and consider if there was a racial component. If the news report said a group of men beat another man senseless, then there would no reason to consider it racist because all racial aspects have been removed from the story. When you remove race from everything, then nothing appears racist.

And your "answer" was another question, which even you should see is not a reply.

It was a rhetorical question. I wouldn't have thought that needed explaining.

By the way, speaking of non-replies...have you seen the movie?

I still think that TLO wrote a great review...that doesn't mean that I agree with every last word of it.

And yet, somehow you think it's normal to tell them their review was great while hammering me for merely agreeing with them.

And you'd probably run screaming that Carrie Bradshaw was a racist if she *hadn't* hired a black assistant.

No I wouldn't.

If I give you a dollar, will you go buy a life for yourself?

Why all the nastiness?


"Why all the nastiness?"

Indeed, why? Do you really think that you have been a model of courtesy and decorum? You don't even identify yourself to set yourself apart from the other Anonymous posters of the world.

And yes, you did indeed inject racism into your statement when you described the role thusly:"Poor black girl gets a job as a servant to rich white woman. Rich white woman learns valuable lessons from poor black girl and repays her by giving her something she could never afford herself."

There have been of plenty wise but unsophisticated white servant roles. You should check them out some time.

Oh, and last I checked, we weren't talking about a criminal assault, we were talking about a MOVIE. Funny how you think that JHud's acceptance of the role is irrelevant, and yet you try to 'prove' your point with such an irrelevant analogy.

Goodness me. You're all over the place.


Ms Sangrail, I bet you thought the Obamas' fist bump was a gang thing.

If I never hear the term "race card" again it will be too soon. It isn't a card, jackasses, it is a shameful part of our collective history.

Personal assistant= 21st century version of maid. They put Jennifer Hudson in the maid role. There is a historical context to that, one that has been patiently explained so I won't do so again.

TLO - thanks for the thoughtful review.


"smmo said...

Ms Sangrail, I bet you thought the Obamas' fist bump was a gang thing."

Well, you bet very wrong. What a ridiculous assumption. Did you vote for him? We did, and we will again in November. We will also vote against our black council person who has made a career out of fabricating racial disharmony where none exists.

And save your jackass comment for someone who deserves it...like some of the people who constantly bring up the subject of race and *use it* to drive a wedge where one doesn't belong, wielding it like, yes, a trump card.

Your indignation is misplaced, friend.


Indeed, why? Do you really think that you have been a model of courtesy and decorum?

I disagree with you. I haven't told you to get a life.

You don't even identify yourself to set yourself apart from the other Anonymous posters of the world.

And that's a good reason to be nasty?

And yes, you did indeed inject racism into your statement when you described the role thusly:"Poor black girl gets a job as a servant to rich white woman. Rich white woman learns valuable lessons from poor black girl and repays her by giving her something she could never afford herself."

That's actually the plot. I'll ask a third time: have you seen the movie?

There have been of plenty wise but unsophisticated white servant roles. You should check them out some time.

There isn't a decades-long shameful tradition of ONLY allowing white woman to play servants.

Oh, and last I checked, we weren't talking about a criminal assault, we were talking about a MOVIE. Funny how you think that JHud's acceptance of the role is irrelevant, and yet you try to 'prove' your point with such an irrelevant analogy.

Are you kidding me? That was meant to illustrate that when you remove race completely, it becomes impossible to detect racism. It was not meant as a comparison to the movie.

Goodness me. You're all over the place.

Not really. You just can't seem to grasp rhetorical questions or analogies.

Have you seen the movie?


Your indignation is misplaced, friend

And as long as you keep using the 15 years out-of-date, dismissive, and just plain stupid term "race card" I will continue to think you're an idiot.


Signed, not your friend.


NahnCee said...

I'm wondering if Anonymous's name is one of those Shaniqua ones, and she belongs to Obama's Chicago Church of Hatred.

Can you explain how that statement, all of it, doesn't make you a racist?
Thanks in advance for clearing that up.

Linda, it's obvious you don't want to face the truth about the role Jennifer Hudson played in the movie, let alone how other races were underrepresented in the series; and all series on television & movies even today. You only touched upon 2 aspects of my earlier post:

Linda Merrill said...
I've seen "Imitation of Life" and there is no comparison. Jennifer Hudson's character was not "poor", she was young and hadn't made it yet, she was not poorly done to, she was not a victim, she was not saved. She was an educated, ambitious young professional who took a job, got some experience and moved on by her own choice.

Poor & subservient are 2 different words. So is victim. Are you saying as long as an African American (in the case female) character is not depicted as a victim or not "treated poorly", it's ok for them to be continuously cast African Americans (et al) in subservient roles?

Why couldn't JHud have been cast as LOUISE, the plucky new writer @ Vogue who Enid asks Carrie, who's returned to Vogue to bury herself in work to forget her heartbreak (so much irony & drama ensues that she has to return to the scene of the photo shoot crime), to take the new writer under her wing to help the new writer on 1 of her articles ('cause God knows those "Life With Andre" pieces aren't going to write themselves!). A friendship (of equals) develops, Carrie helps Louise doing the thing she does best, WRITING, Louise empowers Carrie w/ youthful enthusiasm to get her life back in order.
We get to see more of Candice Bergen, Anna Wintour, Andre Leon Talley AND Vogue, stereotype & this ugly exchange averted.

Linda Merrill said...
Sorry, I didn't mean to keep weighing in, but to be called a supremacist is just too much to ignore.

My earlier post explains my assertion, I stand by it.
Feel free to rebut any part of it.

BTW, Considering how stilted the dialog between JHud & SJP, I'm sure Michael Patrick King went through several drafts from notes from the studio. Because if you think Jeff Robinov hates women, he hates blacks like Nahncee.


Oh wow, this has exploded into some seriously weighty drama and discussion for a blog about fashion. I am absolutely in awe.

I wish Anonymous would reveal her identity (assuming girl just by default, here) so I could nominate her for Dames & Divas. I mean, I love Bette Davis and all, but judging by what's transpired here, I think she would rip her throat out.

Please forgive me for making light of the situation-- I do normally take the issue at hand very seriously. But I am seriously just in awe at this war of words. It's fabulous.


though i hate to get tesy, i can't let that "shaniqua" comment stand.

(gloating!) i just graduated from vassar college (yes i know my grammar and capitalization don't indicate that. it's 3am). rev. michael eric dyson was our baccalaureate speaker this year. he said something i think applies to the nasty shaniqua/obama/church of hatred comment:

why are white people surprised by the anger in black churches? whenever someone puts you don't down you get angry? don't you sometimes say mean and nasty things about them? imagine experiencing that everyday of your life for no reason other than being dark (something you can't control). it's not a church of hatred. it's a church of righteous anger. i went to vassar. its 75% white. are my classmates racist? no. i love them. but are they blind to racial issues because they've never experienced them? yes.

i had a friend say racism doesn't exist in this world. i think this thread shows it absolutely does. when i would bring up race, they'd say, "you just like being a minority. you think everything is about race." for me, everything is. you cannot divorce me from the fact of my race, and it will always inform my choices and how people see me. it's part of our world history.

i haven't seen the movie yet, so i can't weigh in on if jhud is playing a modern day mammy, but when tlo mentioned the "super duper magical negro" stereotype, it resonated with me. morgan freeman has said he took the role he's currently playing on broadway because it's not a "super duper magical negro." that is a very famous and oft used movie device. films like "corina, corina" and "bruce almighty" use literal magic. films like "driving miss daisy" and "shawshank redemption" use metaphorical magic. does that take away the value and beauty of these films? no. they're some of my favorites. but does that mean race is totally unimportant in them? absolutely not. (well, that's obvious w/ "driving miss daisy" and "corina, corina" but anyway...).

race is not always the answer to situations, but to say "well what if she was white," is an ignorant statement. she's not white. she's voluptuous, black, nappy haired (and i say that as someone with similar hair) jennifer hudson. because of our cultural history her looks do carry meaning. and as was mentioned before, she was cast specifically because she's black, meaning the director was aware of those cultural meanings and what they would bring to his film. he could've gone after a white actress. he chose to offer the role to jhud. he chose her partially because she was hot after winning an oscar and partially because she was black.

this got much longer than i intended, and my insomnia appears to be cured. i hope i didn't offend, but i just needed to say my piece.

namaste.


Is this about the actual part or about the color of the actress playing it?

It seems to me that there are plenty of twenty-somethings out there who view the job of personal assistant to a wealthy person of some notoriety as being quite a a good one. Probably plenty of hard work, but likely also some unique perks and privileges, as well as cachet, status and, in some cases, real power. Coveted jobs, according to some.

Unless of course that twenty-something is black, in which case its just another a demeaning servile job.

Until we, collectively, treat other human beings simply as fellow human beings, instead of categorizing them by race, color, or anything else, we'll perpetuate racism. And yes, that includes the well-meaning but still patronizing efforts of politically correct whites out there who constantly backhandedly insult minorities by continuing to view them as "others" who to be held to a different standard.


You're still not getting it, Ms. Sangrail. It's not about black people in the real world; it's about how black people are portrayed in fictional words and the choices that a director or writer makes to that end.

Louise is a character and as such no one can "treat" her in any way. She's fictional and because of that we can discuss what her portrayal means.

Have you seen the movie yet?


Oh, I 'get' what you're trying to say, I just don't agree with you.

Your focus on the negative stereotypes is telling: apparently you have forgotten about the actors and actresses who have been nominated for or won Academy and other awards for their non-servant roles.
Dorothy Dandridge, first black nominee for best actress (and Halle Berry who WON for her portrayal of Dandridge)
Look at the nominee list for The Color Purple...did Oprah Winfrey disappear after playing Sofia? How about Whoopi Goldberg?

I could go on but I think I'd probably just piss some of you off.


Black actresses who won the academy award have nothing to do with what we're talking about, although it's telling that in over 70 years, you can only name one who won an oscar for a non-servile role. And P.S.: Halle Berry didn't win an Oscar for playing Dandridge.

Seen the movie yet?


Give it a rest, Anonymous. It's telling that you keep asking me whether I've seen the movie, and yet when Mina weighs in on the subject without having seen the movie, but fundamentally agrees with you, you give her a pass.

And you continue to think that you're not biased, I bet.

Go re-direct your writing energies to writing screenplays with more meaningful roles for black actors.


Oh, and you're right about Halle's Oscar for Monster's Ball.


Oh, so you HAVEN'T seen the movie. You've spent all this time arguing about a movie you haven't seen, getting nastier with each response.

There are two reasons I "gave [Mina] a pass." Firstly, she was smart enough to say this:

"i haven't seen the movie yet, so i can't weigh in on if jhud is playing a modern day mammy,

Secondly, she didn't tell me I was being presumptuous in assuming she hadn't seen it, as you did. Nor did she accuse me of "dodging" a question, as you did. I've asked you about 6 times point blank if you've seen it and you refuse to answer.


*Yawn.*

I did go see the movie. Happy now?

Buh-bye!


whoopi didn't disappear after her oscar nod for color purple, but i really wish she had continued to pursue roles like that one. her acting sort of plateaued instead of getting better, like it could have. though i love the movies she did after that, she REALLY REALLY should have done more like color purple. (and that's not a comment on race, just on her choices of roles).

AND OPRAH!!! she could be a first class actress right now!!! why would she stop acting?!?! it's insane to me!!

seriously, whoopi and oprah have just as much talent as meryl or tom hanks. WHY DID THEY THROW IT AWAY?!?!?


I have never *gasp* been a SATC fan, but at least I've been able to enjoy/laugh at the clothes (which are, of course, the important part of any show). WTF is with that housecoat that SJP is wearing in the last pic, the one where Carrie's kissing Big? Did she mug my grandmother to get it? Or is this outfit the visual representation of what Carrie's getting herself into and putting the lie to the end of the film?


Ms Sangrail said...

*Yawn.*

I did go see the movie. Happy now?


Oh please. And it took seven queries for you to finally answer the question? AFTER you said you were going to wait for the DVD?

Yeah, that's believable.


Mina you're cracking me up!

Thanks for the levity.


Anonymous, you go on and keep believing what you want to believe. I really just don't care.

You'll probably never be satisfied with anything I have to say, as a result of your bias. Such is life.


ms. sangrail, my earlier post was about the race of the actress. until someone gets cast, a role is race-less. so louise could've been played by a white actress, which would have made the character white. unless the character was written to be black. if so, there was a conscious decision to use a BLACK actress, not a white one. the production team wanted her BLACK skin and the cultural ideas that come with it. i have no idea since i didn't see a draft of the script.

it's entirely possible they always meant to cast a black actress. SATC was criticized for it's dearth of real black characters (just like friends. they live in NYC and everyone is white? even the extras? i can buy the core group all being white, but not every person they interact with...but i digress). and the only black characters from the series i remember are the guy samantha dated and his racist sister (i hated her!) and i only vaguely remember them.

i think it's admirable to want the world to be color blind. but it's not. and it won't be if people just ignore race and pretend everyone who mentions it is crazy/angry/has a chip on their shoulder.


What bias is that, Ms. Sangrail? I'd really like to hear.


ms. sangrail, i have been disappointed with whoopi since that movie where she owned a basketball team. i don't even remember the title. it was BAD!! every time i watch color purple i am ASTOUNDED by whoopi and oprah. perfectly cast, perfect acting.

my star trek class teacher (i'm so nerdy...i know) is also sad about the state of whoopi's career. she's really great on star trek: tng. REALLY great. and this is after she won her oscar, so she has chops. it just makes us both sad she didn't keep going in a strong direction. she would've won a best actress oscar WAY before halle berry (who i don't think was that great in monster's ball...and i never want to see billy bob thornton's naked body EVER AGAIN!!!).

whoopi!! go back to acting!! you too oprah! now!


I don't want to get into this argument or even to read all the posts, but I cannot let the Shaniqa comment go by without comment. I'm shocked to see that kind of hateful remark on this board. Anyone, Obama-supporter or not, African American or not, should be offended by it.


I HATED that she ended up with Big. Again. But I enjoyed the friendship stuff, and I loved the clothes!

--beth


Am I the only one who wanted Carrie to end up with Baryshnikov? Ok, he was a bit distant then needy, but at least he was interesting and didn't call her "Baby" . They had a tough time in their relationship, bt it wasn't the love/break-up cycle that is Carrie/Big. I'm just sayin'.


i thought barysh (as i call him in my private fantasies) slapped her? did i make that up? i haven't seen the show itself in so long. anyone want to buy me the complete series on dvd so i can refresh my memory?


Oooh- I don't remember that part of the episode, just Carrie being left out of his life while he was putting together his show and she really missed New York- but perhaps I am blocking something because of my own personal bias on who I would choose...


They were arguing. He gestured and caught her cheek with his hand. Was it deliberate or accidental? Unclear -- deliberately ambiguous. But sexy though M.B. might be, the character he played was a needy, self-centered child who had little regard for the woman he supposedly loved. (I'm not comparing him to Big, by the way, just sayin' how he was.)


" Brooklyn Bomber said...

But sexy though M.B. might be, the character he played was a needy, self-centered child who had little regard for the woman he supposedly loved."

Very European: chauvinism cloaked in chivalry...


Miranda also went out with the sexy black doctor who subsequently turned into the rascally Simon Elder on Dirty Sexy Money - and why she ditched him for the dreadful whiny Steve I do not know.

I'm British so I have a somewhat different perspective on the race issue, but it didn't look that bad to me. I just thought they wanted to inject some younger blood into the story (it wouldn't surprise me to see J Hud and maybe her friends becoming more prominent if there's a sequel) and took it as a golden opportunity to inject some racial diversity/plus sizeness into the equation while they were at it.

I thought Carrie's attitude towards Louise was more because Carrie saw something of her own 20 something self in her rather than anything else. But maybe I'm being naive.

And I do wish people wouldn't get so hung up about whether the girls could afford all their stuff. Isn't it just a huge running joke? I choose to suspend disbelief because that way I get to watch fashion porn as you very rarely see it - moving out in the streets, with various designers mixed and matched and on women who aren't in their first flush of youth and don't have the bodies of supermodels.


Everything that bugged me about the movie, you guys hit right on it. I has just watched season one of SATC before I went, and I just felt that everything that Candace Bushnell had insisted be in the earlier seasons was completely removed for the movie. Other than the "Mammy" portrayal of J-Hud, I just couldn't see any rationale for Louise going back to a man who said she wasn't "the one." That's just offensive.
The whole thing felt like Cinderella story written by a man - albeit a man who understands women but a man nonetheless.


"emmap said: Why couldn't JHud have been cast as LOUISE, the plucky new writer @ Vogue"



Because everyone knows that Anna Wintour hates overweight people.

--GothamTomato


"NahnCee said...
I'm wondering if Anonymous's name is one of those Shaniqua ones, and she belongs to Obama's Chicago Church of Hatred.

I'm with Linda, too. I'm really really tired of the race / victimhood card being played at every instance, and aspersions cast upon people who haven't earned them. I don't think Linda is racist in her comments. I *do* think Anonymous is, however."



Um, no you wouldn't think that anyone is racist - because YOU ARE.

No one that I have seen posting on these blogs has a more consistant record of racist comments that YOU, 'Nahncee'. Whether it is about designers, models or whatever you are an ignorant racist, no debate.

And BTW, do you belong to Billy Graham's Church of Hatred??

---GothamTomato


"Ms Sangrail said: It seems to me that there are plenty of twenty-somethings out there who view the job of personal assistant to a wealthy person of some notoriety as being quite a a good one. Probably plenty of hard work, but likely also some unique perks and privileges, as well as cachet, status and, in some cases, real power. Coveted jobs, according to some."




I think that to some degree you are right, but to some degree you are wrong. Like it or not, there IS a subtext of race that is there, even when not intended, because you cannot divorce everything from history. And different people, from different cultures have had different experiences and histories that inform their feelings and opinions, and the way they view things, and they are valid whether they are the same as yours or not.

You could think of it as being like a relationship: A couple could get into a big fight over something as trivial as taking out the garbage, but in reality, the argument is NOT really about the garbage. It is really about something in the past that is unresolved that one or the other still (rightly) feels slighted, or put upon about.

By the same token, just because you don't see things the same way, it doesn't automatically make you a racist. You can be a perfectly well meaning person, just with a different perspective, because you cannot have had the same experiences. For example, there have been times when I've seen stereotypes of Jewish women in the media, and discussed it with a friend (who is male and Christian), and he would say I'm over-reacting. Of course, he has never had the experiences of dealing with anti-semitism and the ramifications and limitations of those stereotypes, so he just doesn't get it. He's not a bad person, and not bigoted; he just has a more limited view of the world because he is white, male and Christian. That's all.

I see 'racist' as someone with hateful intentions, and just plain ignorant, (like 'NahnCee').

As for the personal assistant role - it is always subserviant. But, look at Kathy Griffin's assistants, and the way she treats them. If they were black, it would have a completely different subtext, even though not intended, even though it is comedy, like it or not. It just would.

--GothamTomato


GothamTomato said...

"emmap said: Why couldn't JHud have been cast as LOUISE, the plucky new writer @ Vogue"

Because everyone knows that Anna Wintour hates overweight people.

--GothamTomato

Really? Movie Anna Wintour written by Michael Patrick King hates overweight people?
LOL!

GT, I think you're the real Carrie Bradshaw. The 1 that isn't a pathetic, needy twit. The 1 that handles her life like a gorgeous pair of Manolos (corny reference, sorry), like she's in control of it and sees things reasonably yet passionately. What you said re: Nazi Nahncee & the aspect of race in this movie & society I respect.
I'm in NY for Fashion Week this Sept, I'd love to buy you a drink.
As a prisoner, sorry, denizen of the film/TV business for the last 20 years, I'd like you to consider how "The Devil Wears Prada" wasn't even a thinly veiled depiction of Anna Wintour. If Jeff Robinov (President, WB) saw a profit in portraying JHud @ Vogue, he wouldn't give a rat's red puckered ass what Anna Wintour wanted. If there had been any problem from her, he would have simply went to Charles Townsend, the CEO of Vogue's owner, Conde Nast, & got permission.
But this gets back to my point about Linda Merrill, Ms Sangrail et al. To quote my President of Production (when discussing the lack of minority leads in film & TV), "Our audience doesn't want equals, they want Oprah".


Shaniqua from Obama's Church of Hate

What does Obama have to do with SATC? Was Obama in SATC?

I don't think that Jennifer Hudson was a "mammy" in the movie. Others may disagree with me and that's fine.

Rather, I think Jennifer Hudson was a Magical Negro: The black character who comes in specifically to teach a white character a lesson in life and make them feel better about themselves. The Magical Negro has been used in SATC many times:

A) When Brady wouldn't stop crying, and Miranda felt like a crappy mother, it was the black mother in Miranda's building who told her she wasn't a bad mother, she needed to reach out for help and gave her the vibrating chair to quiet Brady.

B) When Charlotte felt bad about having a second wedding, it was the black bride at the bar and her bridal party who oohed and awed over Charlotte's ring and wedding plans and made her feel better about marrying for the 2nd time.

C) When Carrie went to her own book party feeling bad because she didn't have a plus one, it was the black female limo driver who took Carrie to celebrate with hot dogs and told her she should feel great about being a published author.

Samantha's interactions with black characters tended to be adversarial (Samantha vs. Adeena, the black woman who didn't want Sam dating her brother; Samantha vs. the loud drag queens).

The only other significant black character was Robert, and he was basically Miranda's Jules & Mimi fantasy come to life.

Jennifer Hudson's character is in character with the series, using a black female character to show the white female characters the ways of the world.

I will add that there were plenty of black extras and background people in SATC. In reality most white people hang out in mostly white groups, and most black people hang out in mostly black groups and it doesn't mean the whites don't like the blacks and vice versa. It is what it is.

I can see how people would see the JHud character as a "mammy," but I would argue she was more of a Magical Negro instead.


Emma P - have another cocktail, and lighten up.


Finally saw the movie last night (none of the in-town friends are SATC fans and the boyfriend wasn't touching the film with a ten-foot pole), and the one I wondered was how the hell Carrie could afford to hire Louise in the first place? With all of the other purchases, I didn't see room left to pay any salaries...unless she was perhaps paying minimum wage/part-time/no benefits. But even doing that with $550 shoes?

What was missing here for me was the sense that Carrie managed money like crap on the series. She had to borrow funds a few times (she didn't even have a cent to think about buying her apartment with it first went condo) and I always imagined her with like 8 credit cards and sky-high balances to afford her lifestyle. In real life, I know some of these people who pay minimum balances and ignore the debt to indulge. Never understood it, but saw it. In the movie, that disappeared. Could two books really erase all the debt Carrie most likely had? Do books make that much $$? Or was Big that rich that he magically took care of it and Carrie was free to spend and spend?

Sorry about the length of that. But I could understand the new wealth of Samantha (Smith was hot in Hollywood) and Charlotte (married well twice) and Miranda (she makes very good money and she - to me - has always been portrayed as a women who managed her money very well and worked her ass off for it and lived in Brooklyn for the cost benefits).

But Carrie...but then again I may be biased, as she was always my least favorite character. I watched for Samantha.


I'll be honest, I was never a truly devoted SATC watcher...i know a little bit about Big's transgressions, but I didn't experience it like so many other watchers...so...I fell in love with Big when he left for California and left Carrie the "Moon River" record, and I can't possibly blame him for panicing at the church...with Carrie in her big fancy gown and unrecognizable "bridezilla" ness...I mean, the man's been divorced 3 times! She knew this going in, and she recognized her part in the mistake at the end...women CAN relate with this. Big is not abusive, he's just a little touched in the head regarding relationships...it's my understanding that Carrie gets that better than most, and THAT is why she's so right for him. But yeah, the consumerism was SO overblown, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who scoffed at the consistently over the top price tags. One CAN have impecible and even off-beat style without spending thousands per outfit.


I find this whole thread fascinating. It's amazing how many people see the same thing and yet no one "sees" the same thing.

Now for my opinion:

Consumerism: The story is 4 years later, the ladies are more successful. Let em spend some money dammit.

Mr. Big and Carrie: Sorry but I don't get all the hatred for Mr. Big like Carrie had nothing to do with it. Frankly I'd be a little peeved and unsure about marriage to someone if the guest count jumped from 75 to 200 and they didn't even bother tellimg me. Carrie was just as much responsibe for the problems in their relationship as Big and even admitted it.

Jennifer Hudson: Carrie hires an assistant who has a college degree and all of a sudden it's a racial issue. I see both sides of the argument but frankly very few people have brought up the reason why her role might have been so small: She can't really act. Throw the Oscar thing at me and I will reply with she won that for singing not acting. And here's a handy little bit of trivia..while she might have had to get her hand bag from Bag Borrow or Steal, the bag RENTS for a little over $200 a WEEK? She might abd been playing a servant but the girl wasn't broke.

The Apartment make over: EEEK!


Boys, your review was right on the money. Just like the last episode of the series, this one tied things up a little too neatly.


this was an amazing summary (thanks to eric3000 for linking to you). i did love the movie, for all the reasons you gave first. but your critique is right on the money.

well done.

peacester





BALMAIN for women

Blog Archive

Search This Blog

Loading...

Project Runway