Not So Sexy Anymore

I'm going to see the Sex and the City movie. It's one of those things. It's not that I'm dying to see it, not that I expect it will be great, it's not that I think it's worth the $10+. I'm going because, I guess, it's one of those "events" things, though I'm really looking forward to seeing a bunch of friends I don't see that often.

I was (am) a big fan of the television show. I wrote a paper focusing on the season finale, and then retooled it a year later for a conference that I ended up submitting something else to. And when the first movie came out, I was super excited, and I went with a big group of girls, and we laughed and gasped and took it all in. It wasn't until later, on rewatch, without the audience and the expectations, that I realized that the film truly was not good.

I've seen the trailer for the sequel. There's not much to it. I've seen the ads, and the critiques with the photoshopped arms, legs, and hips. I kind of dread where the story will go, but I had that feeling when the movie was over--where else can they go? Women's lives, at least in story form, seem to follow the same trajectory of men and kids, and I didn't want to see Carrie pregnant. But what else will they do? I lamented to a friend, and we bitched. I don't want the movies to be part of my memory of the series.

Neither does Hadley Freeman, who posted her own response to the movies (Spoilers):

But the truth is, the show was fantastic: smart, funny, warm and wise, a far cry from the "middle-aged women having embarrassing sex with various unsuitable partners" cliche that the above writer used. It was about four smart women, three of whom had no interest in getting married. Candace Bushnell's original book on which the show was based was good, but the show was great.

But unlike in the films, that's not all there was, and that wasn't all the characters cared about. What elevated the show way above the normal chickflick tat, and way above the films, was that it had genuine emotional truth. It sang with lines that you knew had come from real life ("How can I have this baby? I barely had time to schedule this abortion" being quite possibly my all-time favourite) and plots that went beyond the limiting convention of cliche. Samantha's breast cancer, for example, showed not only how scary and sad cancer (obviously) is, but also how boring, sweaty and plain inconvenient it is, too.

My thesis in my Sex and the City paper was that the show was so successful because it stuck to this emotional truth. The movie, despite trying for it with Miranda's storyline, completely missed the mark. The men were barely involved, and when they were, they were out of character. The movie was just plain bad; there was nothing there, and spent too much time on things no one cared out (Mexico) and drew out what was unnecessary (Big and Carrie's roller coaster wedding).

There's been a lot written how the show increasingly focused on fashion and the "luxe life" in its later years, especially in the movies. Michael Patrick King, as a response to both the recession and the first movie, has purposely made the sequel light and airy, with the escapist trip to Abu Dhabi the centerpiece of this theme. Yes, it made it easier to shoot, and was different. But it was also a big "huh? ...ok" for the audience.

The fashion was fun, sometimes. But I always maintained it wasn't about that for true fans--they connected to the emotional issues the show brought up, the questions, no matter how serious or frivolous. They could connect to the women's tribulations, no matter what their actual lives were like.

Hopefully I will enjoy the movie, and it won't be a total waste. But I wonder: Do all women's entertainments have to be this way? Do they have to be like Eat Pray Love, an escapist journey, a fantasy that most of us won't be able to experience?

No "Sex and the City" sequels, please!

"Sex and the City" should not have a sequel. First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes baby in a baby carriage!

It's so obvious.

And it's so wrong.

It is not in Carrie Bradshaw's character to have a child. Mr. Big and Carrie especially do not mix with children. Mr. Big's elegance and dapper Old New York ways do not work with diapers; there is a reason he was not there for Brady's birth. Carrie's column would then morph into a parenting one, and her fabulosity would not overrule the dullness of the subject.

There are people who believe that Carrie is the eternal single woman--she should not and cannot get married. But it is her with a child that seems even more incongruous with her luxurious, wanderlustful lifestyle.

They should stop messing with "Sex and the City", because it will dilute the product.

Translating Audiences

I’ve been away for the last two weeks, traveling in Europe, and as such have been unable to comment on the storyline aspects of Sex and the City, incorporating some of that into musings on Rilo Kiley’s views of relationships and marriage in their songs (I saw them recently at Terminal 5 in New York City), as well as just general maintenance of this blog.

While abroad, I took lots of photos of movie posters in different languages. Indiana Jones and Sex and the City were by far the most popular, and in a city like Prague which has a substantial amount of foreigners and English-speakers (enough to warrant a weekly English-language newspaper) the billboards were displayed prominently. Once, the Oscar-winning film, and Horton Hears a Who! (abbreviated Horton), were also current movies featured in theaters.

A friend of mine commented on my post about the return of Sex and the City, musing how well it can possibly do overseas, considering the show is racy and may not be syndicated in those countries. I am going to bet that in countries that promoted the movie the show ran, although how and how long I have no idea. I’m not quite sure what to make of the prism Europeans will make of the show’s values—for Europe is generally considered more sexually liberal and permissive than Americans, so maybe all of Samantha’s shenanigans won’t be so shocking, and they’ll laugh off the true love and marriage messages.

But it turns out that even though Sex and the City takes place in a very specific time and place, it seems to translate well, whether referred to as "Sex ve Meste" or "Szex es New York". A recent article in the Times discusses how comedies translate abroad, and mentions how durable What Happens in Vegas is. That movie was also regularly found abroad, usually found by just “Vegas". (I was hoping that it would somehow be 21 instead, since "Vegas" looks really stupid.) The article focuses on Judd Apatow’s movies, since they do very well here but flounder overseas. I was amused that Forgetting Sarah Marshall in German is “Nie wider Sex mit der Ex”, which translates to "Never again sex with the ex". That just sounds crude, although it does give away the premise slightly more.

Although I tended to focus on American movies since they were familiar to me, some cinemas did have movies from other countries: Germany, Japan, Hungary. “Pop culture used to be American pop culture,” an analyst in the article is quoted as saying; American pop culture dominated the market in a perverse way, but now that countries, even developing ones like Russia and those in Central Europe, are beginning to have the capital, they are producing their own narratives. Good for them. The likelihood of them translating into American theaters will be small, partly because of the language barrier.

Apatow’s movies, it is noted, tend to have its characters reference other American movies and pop culture staples, and his recurrent themes of arrested adolescence may not make the transition to other cultures. I had a conversation with an Indian boy this past week who spoke about his father’s generation as being one that believed in good, hard work, whether you like it or not, while Western attitudes (which were beginning to filter down to his generation) were more about having a fulfilling, challenging job, one that fit your interests and strengths; these were never concerns of the elders he knew. We discussed dropping out of school and finding work congruent with our passions, both ideas incongruent with many other cultures. My friends and I have lauded Apatow’s portrayals in Superbad as being realistic, but maybe for many outside the US those lives come across as ridiculous fantasy, a silly way to live, and so do not connect with audiences.

Exceeding Expectations

Yes!

Early reports are in, and the Sex and the City movie not only nabbed #1 at the box office, but in taking $55.7 million is the best opening for a romantic comedy ever, as well as a TV adaptation, and the fifth-best for an R-rated film. It's also the highest opener for a female-led film (bye-bye, Angelina Jolie's crappy Tomb Raider!--which is another male-oriented action flick. Oh the irony!). Yeah. Suck on that.

Although there was a huge drop between Friday and Saturday (Friday alone garnered $26.1 million), I don't think this spells death-knell for the movie. I think it will still do well in the next couple of weeks, following a typical second-week plummet for blockbusters. Bank on multiple viewings--this is one movie where critical reception will mean naught, and the idea is to get rabid fans to get casual fans and/or females with little exposure to the show (those girls exist) to see it in subsequent weeks. And don't discount those fans who didn't have a chance to see it this weekend. When you even have males like this reviewer acknowledging that he even liked the movie, watch out.

The fact that this movie is an adult movie will also bring in middle-aged married folks. Some teens may have had exposure to the show, but I'll bet more 17 year-olds today are more likely to see High School Musical than Sex and the City, and it's not because of the R-rating; they just missed its heyday, and reruns are no match for the original.

I know people are going to mention Indiana Jones. That's a movie who's so-so ratings seemed to have hurt it, and it's buzz is definitely wearing off. I'm still hearing about Ironman; Indiana Jones, not so much. Indiana Jones feels so old to some people, but the girls of Sex and the City, while also being newer, have the allure of the present and the entertaining luxury to bathe in. Besides--it's seems a good romance can beat an action flick when the final numbers are tallied. Aren't some of the biggest movies of all-time romances, like Titantic and Gone with the Wind?

Of course, success already seems to spell one thing: sequel.

****One thing I wanted to mention in yesterday's entry was the previews for the movie. With the exception of Hancock, all the promos were for meant for a maximum female audience: Mamma Mia! with Meryl Streep, Colin Firth and Pierce Brosnan (it looked fun), the He's Just Not Into You with it's all-star cast (I'm guessing they took situations from the book and fleshed them out?), which is banking on that SATC tie-in, and a Diane Lane-Richard Gere adult romance that has my parents as its target demographic (it's a happier version of Unfaithful). I know movies always have promos that are pretty much based on a strict line of similarity (teen gross out comedy begets teen comedy), but man, did this feel like an estrogen-fest.

The Love Continues

I apologize for not posting in forever. I'm going to work on that, I swear.

I've had so many things that I've wanted to write on--spoilers, Britney Spears, Rihanna, Flyleaf's "All Around Me", random reviews...hopefully I'll post an extremely belated Britney Spears entry, as well as the spoiler one. But first, I'm hear to say that the Sex and the City movie is fantastic.

Michael Patrick King wrote a love letter to the show's fans. Anyone who loves the show will love the movie; if you don't like it, it's not for you. Ignore the reviews; many of the reviewers hadn't understood the appeal of the show, and for them, it's confusing. It's a full-fledged story. There is a plot. There are typical one-liners; there are waves of emotion; there are disappointments, heartbreak, fabulous fashions, whirlwind romance and of course, the requisite happy ending.

The men do get the shaft. But while Manohla Dargis of the New York Times writes, "I’m all for the female gaze, but, gee, it’s also nice to talk — and listen — to men, too," I feel that once we're allowed our day in the sun. Yes, it would be nice to hear Harry, Mr. Big, Steve and Smith actually get more than a few lines each, but this isn't about them. The movie celebrates love and female friendships, and if anything, this movie's success celebrates it. There have been reports that fans are seeing this movie in groups--hell, that's how I saw it--and I bet there will be a lot of repeat customers (I will be one as well). Everyone bitches and complains that Hollywood is a boy's club, and that the romantic comedy is dead, because the truism is that women will see men's movies (Ironman) but men won't see women's movies. I hope Sex and the City is number one at the box office this weekend. It deserves to be, and I think while everyone knows it's going to be huge, how huge it turns out to be--and number one--signifies that women still matter, that a women's movie, and one featuring middle-aged women, are willing to go out to the movies.

Will there ever be another movie so exclusively anticipated by women?

A friend pointed out an excellent observation to me tonight: That the upcoming Sex and the City movie is the only theatrical release she could think of that was so highly anticipated by women.

Maybe it's because movies are now marketed to teen boys and young men, maybe it's because traditional romantic comedies have lost cachet, but all the big blockbuster movies that had advanced buzz and expected huge grosses recently were either sci-fi or fantasy franchises (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter) and had a basis in another otherworldly mythology (Spider-man, Rocky). While none of these films had an exclusive male base, it was a given that these were guy movies...and the girlfriends and the kids would come along too. Sex and the City, just like the show, will be enjoyed by some males, but they're only going to say that if they're reviewing it. The funny thing is, when you think about it, Sex and the City does fall into the above pattern: It is a fantasy, an otherworldly mythology, one without trolls or hobbits or robots (at least not literal ones). While some fans undoubtedly know this, and many more profess to understand it, there are so many who unconsciously try to model some aspects of their life on the show. I find this symptom extremely dangerous--and while it's attached itself to this particular movie, there have been other programs where girls tend to model themselves after main characters. Gilmore Girls is one such show--even though Rory Gilmore is a terrible role model, somehow her magical life transcends all that, much like the girls on SATC.

It's not that girls don't like fantasy or sci-fi, but there are many that just don't find allegories fascinating instead of confusing and hard to follow. "Realistic fantasies" are stories that really wouldn't happen, but technically could happen. Most romantic comedies and meet cutes fall under this category. They're based in real life, so there are no intergalactic planets and funky orbital rules to follow. The interpersonal conflicts are generally realistic, if heightened. In reality, Carrie Bradshaw would not be able to afford her lifestyle, financially or emotionally (your columns are based around you and your friends' love lives, and no one ever gets mad that you spill their secrets to the world?). But that doesn't matter, because we could live fabulously in our own world and pretend those shoes we bought cost $1000 instead of $15 at Payless. We can't magically pretend we can shoot spiderwebs from our wrists and jump buildings; somehow we lost that ability in childhood.

My friend compared the Sex and the City frenzy to Star Wars. It's a good analogy--both will have fans camping out before to score exclusive first dibs, and both have cultlike fanbases. But what's more interesting is to see if there will ever be another movie that's so grabbed women in this way even before it was released. More women watch primetime TV than men (they're off playing videogames or glued to their computer, apparently), so it naturally follows that a movie they'd be waiting for on baited breath would be an extension of a television show, even one that ended four years earlier. Nowadays, no movie is going to have an inherent fanbase without having the necessary backstory to propel it through, meaning it is affiliated with another medium, usually comics or books. This hasn't worked for female-centered book adaptations, as that Jane Austen movie a few months ago underperformed and The Nanny Diaries sank. But one can argue that those fanbases were very narrow, and more people have watched at least some SATC than have read either of the books, especially with the DVDs and syndication on two stations as further means of access. And many of the blockbusters mentioned above were sequels, so the original source material (the comic, the book) didn't necessarily matter. Star- or producer-driven movies don't have the same cachet; Forgetting Sarah Marshall will do well, but it won't whip up people the way other defining movies have. It's the story we're after, not the star, and knowing the background, mythology or source material is a way of getting more engaged with the story, of also feeling part of something and having insider cachet, a type of spoiler, in a way--which is exactly how many people want to interact with their entertainment, especially the kind that feed off the internet and follow trends and hype.

Of course, people will say there are no heavily anticipated women's movies because females are underrepresented in the movie industry, and once they begin to get movies made that they want to see the audience will come to them. Perhaps. But the Sex and the City movie is written, directed, and produced by a man, so that argument doesn't work here. Maybe because television is a continuing story, with characters we grow to love and fret over, which demand time and energy that women give freely that the connection is strong, whereas movies are about the loud bang buck, the hustle and bustle and action and one-time out-of-sight-out-of-mind, which is more inclined with male habits. But that's a gross oversimplification. Either way, it's safe to say that the hysteria surrounding the Sex and the City movie--which will only grow more overpowering in the next month and a half--will be a very rare occurrence, until the next generation-defining critically-acclaimed television show about women's lives is made into a movie.