With all the media hysteria over the movie premiere of Sex and the City, I couldn’t resist having my say, an attempt to spark some debate on our website perhaps. I’ve been reading all kinds of interesting material, and while I can admit to having watched Sex and the City on a number of occasions—I’ve wanted to ask Carrie what she sees in Mr Big, slap Samantha, tell Charlotte to loosen up and ask Miranda if she really believes in a happily ever after—but I can’t say I’m a devout follower of the program. While the feminist in me can’t see myself lining up to see the film at the movies, it’s neither here nor there on my list of things to do, the writer in me is interested in how they’ve tackled the movie given where they left off in the series.
I do romanticise the notion of being able to sit in bed with my laptop, as Carrie Bradshaw the columnist does, asking herself the crucial question that forms the basis of each episode. I think the fact that she makes a living (a living which allows her to live an above modest lifestyle beyond what many of us can afford) writing a column for a metropolitan newspaper, suggests that there is a fantastical element to the plot.
One of the many interesting things I read was a blog called ‘Can a feminist really love Sex and the City?’ It talks about this program bringing something new to mainstream television when it first began. It was a show about women, for women. Each of the central characters was an independent woman with a successful career; however, what a letdown for all feminists out there to find that for a show about women, it was hollow in its obsession with men.
There are a number of feminist women that have relationships, feminist women who want relationships, so is there a real problem with this? I think the answer to that is it depends how it’s portrayed. Sex and the City didn’t do a very good job of breaking out of the stereotype. One of the problems extends from a questions asked by Professor Imelda Whelehan, author of the feminist Bestseller From Sex and the Single Girl to Sex and the City, ‘How can we respect her [Carrie]?’ The rationale I suspect lies in Mr Big (the name alone says it all), who is best described as arrogant and egocentric, who can’t see a good thing when it’s before him, and Carrie’s inability to see what a terrible cliché she’s fallen for.
The show has been labeled by some as shallow, because while deeper issues were touched on, they were dressed up by sex. But let’s face it, almost everything in our society today is dressed up by sex. At best it’s guaranteed viewing and at worst, lazy marketing. But is this just another form of objectifying women, and in the case of the new movie, perhaps even men too? Or is it indeed, as others have branded it, liberating? And depending on what side of the fence of feminism you sit on, your answer to that will vary.
Had the notion of sex (and relationships) not been the sole focus, had these women been struggling with deeper issues, for equal pay among their male colleagues for example, and had such issues been given equal importance, I can’t help but wonder whether the show would’ve been as successful? More respected without a doubt, but would it have been so well received? A sad reflection on us all is that I think the answer is no. We only have to look at people like Paris Hilton to know that it’s money, not respect that drives these industries.
Author of Princesses and Pornstars, Emily Maguire says ‘Sex and the City can’t be taken seriously’. Do viewers actually take this seriously? I see Sex and the City for what it is. Fiction. Narrative. Fantasy. And perhaps, from one’s feminist perspective, not the best one.
There are others who’ve suggested the script is clever, because viewers can see elements of themselves in the characters. A good script writer knows that you have to give viewers characters that they can relate to. But this story also had to fit into a genre and its plot had to correspond. The series ended with the notion of ‘happily ever after’, with all four paired off and in love. This was regarded as ‘controversial’. But, from a writer’s point of view, given the central theme, could it have ended any other way without loyal viewers feeling ripped off? Without breaking the conventions of plot?
There’s always going to be the argument that it’s not real life. Here’s the no brainer: I don’t think it’s meant to be. But my question is: are we betraying the things feminism has worked hard for by indulging in such stereotypical fantasy?
Filed under: staff blogs | 1 Comment »
