Back is Amaldo.com’s video blogger Ilana Donna with a new video documenting the craze that’s managed to sweep the nation, otherwise known as Sex & The City fanaticism and Sarah Jessica Parker idolatry. (The girl gets furious over wearing an old dress? I mean, really?)
While I know I’m in the minority here, can someone tell me why the lives of 4 utterly vacuous women are so intriguing and why women hold these prototypes to be so dear? Do people actually see these women as liberated feminists and mistake their silly little tacky lives – the promiscuity, spending sprees, zero career drive, and total lack of a desire to define themselves as anything but “the other” to be qualities to be admired?
Latest posts by beth (see all)
- Ilana Donna & Kabbalah - 1/20/2010
- Brittany Murphy Dead at 32 (& Her Husband is a Whack Job) - 12/20/2009
- Just Seen & Heard on FOX: A Majorly Anti-Semitic Seth MacFarlane - 11/8/2009
Türkiyenin Discount Casino sitesi, bonus kampanyalar?, giri? linkleri, yeni adres ve güncel linkler, nakit iade ve freespinler bu sitededir.
anyone seen Zohan?
…and lets not forget the probably very small minority who have never heard of the show and though ‘finally I get to see Sarah Jessica Parker do some porn!’
And the others who are being promised sexual adventures if they go.
First off it was her turn to pick the movie. This movie should of been called “Placement in the city” I thought it was one big bore myself. I got her back though. I picked Harold and Kumar the next week. It seems to me there are only two types of guys going to see this movie. The ones dragged there by there girlfriends and the others are GAY.
“Unfortunately, chickflicks and chicklit are the kinds of multiculturalism we can expect a lot more of under Obama.”
I wasn’t aware he was going to get a minister of culture, and the videos produced by others for his campaign have pretty much seemed to embrace a broader cultural dynamic than anything that would seem partial to “chicklit”. So I’m not sure I follow you Tom. Please explain.
Regarding comment 17, I would scream Godwin’s Law, but while close, it isn’t entirely accurate. BTW Tom, I seem to recall Dirty Dancing coming out in 1987.
Unfortunately, chickflicks and chicklit are the kinds of multiculturalism we can expect a lot more of under Obama.
The movie? Heaven forbid. I mean, if that’s what it took, I’d have picked the wrong spouse.
Did it, uh, spice up your, uh, love life with the missus?
My wife went with one of her friends. 😉
She said there were 3 men in the full cinema.
“Sleep with me and maybe I’ll go see the flick with you.”
“ick. You need to take a shower, fast. That site is dirty and so is the blogger.”
Right, I get it; I understand the script. But the comment was a well put one. And besides, being able to get a guest blogger who balances her knowledge of SATC with extensive musings on the pros and cons of placing the base of the rebel alliance on a frozen planet is just pure gold.
Speaking of which – gold, that is – this is reminding me to re-assess the sincerity of my desire to actually go see You Don’t Mess with the Zohan today. How did that have anything to do with gold? I don’t know. Ari Gold? Gold chains?
So, Middle, how did you enjoy the film? 🙂
“Honey, if you come see SATC with me, I’ll sleep with you later.”
Seems fair to me.
To make a man watch SATC for a lay.
What would?
Urgh, Muffti, that would be like a forcing a woman to wear combat pants and chequered flannel shirts and eat raw meat and not shower for three consecutive days. 🙂
Muffti liked the part where video woman Ilana was like ‘If any guy wants a date he has to come to this theatre’. It reminded Muffti a bit of that game teenagers plan that goes kind of like this madlib:
‘if you had the opportunity to _______ (fill in sexual verb) ________ (fill in name of uber desireable woman) but you would have to ________ (fill in extremely unpleasant experience) would you?’
Fill in ‘go see Sex and The City Movie’ for unpleasant experience and the question is only answered in the affirmative for Muffti if there is either a VERY interesting sexual verb in place (preferably that includes ‘during the movie’ as a part) or perhaps if a loosening the criteria for the second fill-in from ‘woman’ to ‘women’…
(akin to the other, somewhat similar game:
‘if you HAD to, would you rather _________ (fill in extremely unpleasant experience) or __________ (fill in different but on close inspection very similarly unpleasant experience)’)
By far the most interesting thing about S&TC is that Cynthia Nixon turned out to be a lesbian.
“Matt Yglesias’ site”
ick. You need to take a shower, fast. That site is dirty and so is the blogger.
Good call, Beth. Funnily enough, I know more men that watch SATC than women that do. In fact it was my bf years ago that asked me why I didn’t watch the show as he considered it funny. I’ll spare readers from the reply I gave him lest some SATC devotee starts crying. Suppose it’s the assumed laissez faire & savoir vivre-lifestyle that appeals to a certain type of young women. It doesn’t seem to matter that that kind of lifestyle does not necessarily encourage personal and intellectual growth. At that, it’s an anything but progressive role of women portrayed on the show. It strongly reminds me of several characters in works by Jane Austen. I find it funny that there are women that claim SATC is “soooo NYC”; I go to NYC a lot, and compared to anywhere in Europe, people dress pretty drab there (which is ok, mind you, as long as they are comfortable).
I thought this post from a guest blogger on Matt Yglesias’ site, comparing the SATC phenomenon among women to the action movie genre and particularly to the Star Wars phenomenon among young men, was kind of funny. Here’s one comment’s take on how SATC changed New York for men.
“The problem with SATC is that thousands upon thousands of soulless females with rich dads paying for everything came stampeding into Manhattan, determined to live the SATC lifestyle. All that was quirky, artsy, DIY, dirty, fun, and dangerous about NYC was replaced by high end shopping socialites with egos too big for such a small town, wanting nothing more than a rich man to buy them fancy shoes.
The city became more and more like the materialistic vapid hell depicted in the show the more and more popular it got.
One benefit for the men was that it promoted heavy drinking and sexual promiscuity amongst many young women. Unfortunately, most of these women were incapable of thinking about anything but fancy parties and shopping.
In short, the show made it increasingly easier for NYC men to get laid, but increasingly harder to meet any woman of substance, and many men I know happily sowed their wild oats in that atmosphere before leaving town to pursue women who had their priorities straight and knew what was truly important in life. The shadier men stuck around to knock boots with the new crop of girls who can’t hold their appletinis.’
“While I know I’m in the minority here, can someone tell me why the lives of 4 utterly vacuous women are so intriguing and why women hold these prototypes to be so dear? Do people actually see these women as liberated feminists and mistake their silly little tacky lives – the promiscuity, spending sprees, zero career drive, and total lack of a desire to define themselves as anything but “the other†to be qualities to be admired?”
As to your second question, I’m not sure they care much about the first part. As to the second part, um yeah. They do.
I’m with the Times review of the movie. While the series was well written and provided witty snippets of insight into a certain sort of lifestyle that is popular with young urban women, when the movie drags those episodes out as long as movies tend to do, the fact that there was no deeper meaning to be found becomes, I would imagine, achingly obvious.