Carrie Bradshaw Is the Harbinger of Death
I used to not be scared of Sex and the City. In fact, I used to be a casual fan. But I now look forward to Carrie Bradshaw's big screen debut about as much as I look forward to the day when I arrive in hell and am told David Spade is my roommate.
Why my lack of enthusiasm? Blame it on repetition. Thanks to TBS, I've now seen every SATC episode at least 43 times -- making it a little hard to overlook the show's flaws. And no, I'm not talking about the whole female-empowerment-through-sexual-promiscuity thing. The idea that a woman might use me as a sex toy then laugh about my physical failings over brunch with her friends just doesn't bother me. If it bothers you, you should get married. Pretty soon neither you nor your girl will have any friends at all. Then she won't have anyone to bitch about your penis size to. Problem solved.
What I'm talking about is the whole female-empowerment-through-buying-tons-of-ugly-crap-
you-don't-need thing. For the uninitiated, SATC is about Carrie Bradshaw, a newspaper columnist who lives in the most expensive city in human history and spends ungodly amounts of money to dress like Jackie Curtis. This bothers me because most of the women I met during my 10 years in newspapers barely earned enough money to buy the vodka they needed to make them forget the horrible life decision they made when they entered the newspaper field. The rest of them were in their 80s.
Crap salary or no, the majority of those women were too sensible to fashion themselves Carrie Bradshaw types. That's what working in a dying industry does to you: It imbues you with practicality (and kills your dreams with a pick-axe).
But there are plenty of men and women out there who want to spend like Carrie, whether they can afford to or not. A recent study by the Economic Opportunity Program at Demos found that the average college graduate humps $20,000 of debt around. The same study also found that earnings for college graduates ages 25 to 34 had risen by only 10 percent among women and remained flat among men between 1975 and 2005. And while only 18 percent of 25-to 34-year olds spent more than 33 percent of their pre-tax income on rent in 1970, that number rose to 43 percent by 2005.
In other words, if you're college educated and under 35, you're screwed. You're also -- assuming you're a woman, or the type of man who goes to movies with a woman because you love her, or the type of man who goes to movies with another man because you love him -- part of the target audience for Sex and the City. And when you find yourself in the theater watching as Carrie marries Big or Samantha gets a spray tan or whatever, do not look up and think, "Why can't I have what she has?" Instead, remember: She is older than you, and doesn't feel your demographic pain. Also, she is made of fiction (like Tinker Bell or Heidi Montag).
I haven't seen the SATC movie yet. That will soon change. And despite serious reservations, my fondness for certain elements in the show (the structure of the three best friends representing three different parts of Carrie's -- or, let's be honest, the viewer's -- personality is one of the best evil-genius strokes in the last 10 years of television) gives me reason to be optimistic. But watching the show recently, the consumerism that used to only mildly annoy me now makes me want to do to all the world's handbag designers what Scarlett Johansson does to Tom Waits songs. We live in different times, shittier times. And if Carrie Bradshaw hasn't changed with those times, there could be plenty of reason to dread her return.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Let's call the movie what it is: The Chick Flick From Hell.
the best description of SATC came from Chris Griffin on Family Guy:It's a show about 3 hookers and their mom.it's also a show written by/for and about gay men living in the late seventies early eighties before AIDS.the gender of the protagonists was changed to make the show more acceptable to TV viewing americans.
Once again, Family Guy stole a joke from the Simpsons. During an episode in which Marge stays with her sisters to avoid Homer's snoring, the three of them watch "Nookie in New York". Patti (or was it Selma?) described it as a show about four women who act like gay men.
The only thing worse than Sex in the City is Family Guy.
If I want to see 100% reality, I wouldn't look to the TV or movies to show it to me?! SATC would hardly be as good as it was if it was realistic. Part of the appeal of the show was the carefree lifestyle (of course the humor, scripts, heartaches, etc etc were huge) - and not only did they shop like fiends but ever notice that they never really worked all that hard? Sorry, but a show about 4 women who are at work all day busting their ass and can't afford to buy nice things would not have been a show I'd like to come home from my own long days and watch.
Maybe the problem is that you've been watching the edited re-runs, where they take the heart and soul of the episode and just chop it out to make it "safe for the whole family." Carrie seems exponentially more vapid in those chopped censored episodes.
i've read some of the comments and sadly some seem to take your post too seriously. I didn't, and laughed out loud.
I may have to go to the movie also, and may secretly enjoy its fantasy. But this post just cheered me up at the end of a tough day.
I didn't think it was that funny and I can't believe people are comparing SATC and Seinfeld although nobody in the entertainment industry seems to be able write funny sitcoms anymore so maybe they will have a new show combining both of those - they can call it Seinfeld In The City.
Jerry: Have you ever knows someone who brushes their teeth in the shower? What is up with that? Are they really too lazy to take a few minutes to do it by the sink?
Carrie: I don't care about that - let's talk about our relationship and me, my favorite subject. When are you going to marry me?Why don't we have sex more often? Why are you looking at me that way? What do you think about these shoes? Do you think the dry cleaner ruined this dress? What are we doing tonight?
Jerry: Please leave now and don't ever come back.
I thought it was very funny. But I also love your idea!
I didn't identify with any of the gals on Sex in the City but found them entertaining as all get out. Looked forward to their antics on Sunday nights. However, I doubt if they will translate that well to the big screen.
I miss the days when you could actually look foward to shows on HBO because it isn't that way now. Both SATC and the Sopranos changed the way people thought about TV in some ways. But they replaced the man at HBO responsible for that with someone who thought "John from Cincinatti" was a good idea or that showing full-frontal nudity would make people watch a show about really uninteresting people obsessed with their own problems. Although The Wire was supposed to be really good.
The SATC movie will probably be very successful. It's a good summer movie when you don't want anything too serious. And I really like Kim Catrall - I think she is a great actress.
well, be fair. London is actually more expensive to live and shop in than NYC.
I, a woman, never identified with any of the 4 women in SATC. Never saw myself as any combination of them. Never bought a pair of shoes that costed more than $60, and I would feel pretty silly to do this.
BUT, I enjoyed SATC. I watched the whole series, had my opinion about Mr Big, shared it with friends, etc.. Did I think SATC is realistic? No. Did I envy the fictitious lifestyle? Never. Still, I enjoyed the show and will gladly watch the movie.
However, I disagree when people say this is reflective of women, of being over 40, of female friendships. This series is so remote from reality that it is actually a concern to me when the media explains its success by saying it depicts women. It does not.
Of course, all those shows in which "middle class" men are able to drive expensive cars, afford multi-million dollar homes, and date super-model wives (who also happen to be kind and well-educated) are completely realistic. Apparently men can tell the difference between fantasy and reality and women can't.
I'm not even a big SATC fan, but this article insults my intelligence as a woman. Grown women know that television is not the same as reality. SATC did break ground by showing middle aged women with glamourous lives,dynamic sexualities, and, just a little (a very little) intellectual depth. Apparently this author want to see middle-aged women lonely, poor, and wearing ugly shoes. How terribly entertaining.
I love the show, I find it empowering and entertaining fantasy for women. Men have such issues with that. I fantasize being Samantha...(all my friends are Carrie), with a bit of Charlotte mixed in. What's wrong with that? If anyone knows reality and has half a brain, they can discern that it's just entertainment.
PS I found myself single late in life (ex cheated) and guess what? I am having a great time, feeling my SATC oats and realizing women are amazing goddesses and have the alter at which all men worship (Bill Maher)....it's exhilarating........bring it on, Carrie.
ALL television comedy (and most drama) is based on ridiculous premises. Look at the huge homes and apartments where the characters live. I remember the living room sized bathroom on "Everybody Loves Raymond." or the immense apartment (with a view! In New York City!) Shared by Monica and Rachel on "Friends". Ever notice in movies the typical "suburban" neighborhood is filled with beautiful old Craftsman style homes? I've seen imitation Craftsman homes (I call them Crapsman) here in the 'burbs, but never the real thing. The only sitcom I ever saw that realistically depicted how people lived was "Rosanne".
"Grace Under Fire" did too...
good call, I watched 'Roseanne' with my bro and single mother back in the day and thought the same thing. the only show I've ever seen which depicts something close to what my life was like. everything sucks - and you make do by doing what you can to get by, and trying to keep laughing the whole time. Roseanne has fallen off a bit since then, but as a skinny, effeminate male in my teens, at the time, she was one of my heroes. SATC on the other hand, has been massively influential to many of the women I knew during college, and not just in a 'let's go shopping!' way, although, some in that way. but more in a way of setting one's expectations as to how life will be - how much money to demand as you enter the workplace, where to live and work, how to factor your personal life into your own career and life development. SATC was a model of how to do this from a place of complete self-interest, which women are often encouraged not to do. so, a lot of women in their 20's to early 30's especially, the show is, yes, laughable because of the bad writing, stupid puns, and cheesy sucking up to brand names, wealth and privilege, but its more than that to them.
So it all comes down to the usual: oh my God this is so unrealistic and how could she ever afford those Manolos etc., but since when was this meant to be a great example of social realism? SATC is part of that great Hollywood tradition of high society comedies going back to Cuckor, Hawks and pretty traditional - moralistic? - at that: glamour, witty dialogues and good acting will never get in the way of a happy ending with Mr Right/Wedding and possibly children, but does all that make the glamour, witty dialogues and good acting any less entertaining? The other tradition it falls into is the one of the modern sitcom, where friends have supplanted family (seinfeld, friends you name it). It did though, push female friendship to the fore, and in this it was certainly innovative for a mainstream tv show. Also never really quite got the whole: straight women as imagined by gay men thing, or, as a poster below says, how gay men would live if they were straight women. I'm a gay man and I have nil interest in expensive shoes and baubles. If you mean living in a decent-sized Manhattan apartment and going out for every meal + drinks afterwards while doing very little work, well yeah, bring it on!
I don't think it had anything to do with buying expensive shoes and clothes - actually that part of the show was kind of realistic. Many women do spend too much money on fashion while assuming eventually we'll be married and maybe all that debt will just disappear.
I'm going to say something about gay men that you might think is offensive and I hope you're not angry about it because I've been accused of being homophobic here before. I've noticed that some gay men are very explicit when talking about their sex life and that is the part of the show that I thought was unrealistic. I have never met a woman in my entire life who talked about how "big" her man is or other explicit details although maybe that is changing with all these narcissistic I'm-the-next-Carrie-Bradshaw female writers.
Although I thought SATC was funny sometimes I think comedies like Seinfeld were so much funnier. Although the characters from both shows were self-absorbed the women on SATC were only humorous about their own lives and relationships because that is all they cared about. But on Seinfeld they were laughing at the absurdity of life but it wasn't always about them and that was the best part of it - meeting a woman who doesn't move her arms when she walks, visiting your crazy family, stealing a loaf of bread from an elderly woman because you didn't buy any, working for a crazy person.
Uh, excuse me, but ... we all know that Kara Thrace is the harbinger of death.
Leoben said so. The Hybrid said so.
But can you imagine Carrie Bradshaw on the Galactica? Looking for her Mahnolos under Gaius Baltar's bed before right after Lee Adama breaks up with her via intergalactic Post-It Note.
I betcha Samantha would looooove Kara.
Okay, back to reality.
I thought the same thing when I read the headline. And I find it hard to believe that the author just happened to pick the phrase out of the clear black sky....
My idea of a good chick flick is Racetrack telling Starbuck that Barolay was moving in on Anders while she was gone, and Athena chiming in that anyone who makes a move on Helo is DEAD WITH NO GOO BATH!
Am SO over handbag designers and vapid girls and "fashion"....
I think you're being kind of condescending to women - there are lots of TV shows where men life an unrealistic lifestyle yet nobody is writing all these essays saying "this show is horrible because now men will think they can buy expensive cars when it's unrealistic!" Do you think women are stupid or is it possible women realized the characters were not realistic? Do you really think women can't tell the difference between fiction and reality?
And the show wasn't about women anyway - it was how gay men think women act and talk. The show wasn't that great but it wasn't horrible either. Sometimes it was funny and there was great fashion. And some women watch TV to be entertained - we're not all idiots.
While I saw most episodes of SITC, I did have some concerns about their obsessions with very expensive shoes, clothes, goodies and very rich perfect men. The show was a fatasay of the life of only a few 100 women in NY City. Only occasionally did the show deal with the post 9/11 NY City, sexually transmitted diseases, the emptyness of promiscuous sexual behaeviors, money issues, employment security and selfishness. The movie is the ultimate 'Chick Flick' and will probably do well in it's first 2 weeks and on DVD. I think with our comming times, the reruns and the movie will not wear well.
.
Excellent essay.
Much has been said about this TV series, but this essay brought it into focus and added some new wrinkles.
Those who found fault with the show labeled it ``Sluts in the City'' and others said it was the kind of fiction that showed how gay men would live if they were heterosexual females.
Not sure if either take is correct or complete. But how is it, exactly, that empty sex and empty consumerism added up to compelling characters, especially for a female audience? Maybe this is not for straight men to know. Sort of like the whole Princess Di thing.
.
.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
