It is disturbing enough to me that something like Sex and the City is/was so popular, but are our film critics passing it off as some kind of pop-art masterpiece? I like reading about interesting critical theory, Truffaut's development of the auteur theory, something that was cohesive and controversial, if short lived, the new wave phenomenon, the New Criticism, etc. I can't imagine why, in a world where films like The Bicycle Thief, Night and Fog and Viridiana have been made, anyone would be seriously defending this philistine nonsense. Okay so defend it even though it's not 'just good fun'. But to suggest that this is a 'women's film' in any way is beyond obnoxious.
"[T]there is probably a review out there written by one of the middle-aged men who dominate film criticism, some of whom I witnessed entering the SATC screening with grim, clenched faces, as if they were heading for a group colonoscopy."
I don't think it is fair to assume this was a sexism issue, maybe they were ESP powered, evolved beings and knew the movie sucked. Or maybe they had seen the trailer or knew anything about the show.
"Most of all, SATC lived by the truism that women exist in relation to one another, and are hyper-alert to the social dynamics that build the world around them. (That seems as good a definition of feminism to me as any.) This may also be the reason so many straight men want to blow their heads off when SATC is mentioned."
A. I would want to off myself too.
B. Oh yeah, fuck feminist theory when we have this golden one-liner.
Oh wait, from another article by author, "Though I stand by my argument that Sex and the City isn’t merely shorthand for “trivial,” because the pursuit of love is no small idea. A few poets agree."
There is a good book out there called The Gucci Bag, maybe these people will mistaken it for a Shopaholic book and read it one day.
I really shouldn't go stumbling onto things like this in the archives so late at night, just look how annoyed I get.
Posts
8 hours ago
