Sex and the City Mega-Post
by Latoya Peterson
Y’all knew we had to do it, eventually. Sex and the City is an event, and though none of the Racialicious staffers have seen the movie yet, we got enough tips and articles sent in we decided to do a post. (Carmen and I are both opting to catch the film on DVD.)
Random Trivia
In the July 2008 issue of Marie Claire, Willie Garson (who played Stanford Blatch) said this about his character:
I didn’t audition for the role of Stanford at all the way he’s played in the show. I just read it as a guy who happened to be homosexual. Then when we went to shoot the pilot, I remember Darren shouting at me, “Gayer!” You know, to the point where it felt really kind of artificial to me. But people loved it.
The Women Themselves
Dodai from Jezebel breaks down why the movie was all kinds of wrong:
To be honest, I was a fan of the TV show when it first aired. A female writer living in New York and dealing with messy relationships? Of course I could relate. Of course I was attracted to the glitter, the nightlife, the search for love and the dating psychodramas. And what the show did really well was to tell those modern urban love legends: The Guy With The Funky Spunk, The Guy Who Died Before The Second Date, The Time The Writer Fell On The Runway, The Time Your Friend Had A Brazilian Lesbian Lover For Like A Week. But the movie made me want to cut myself. It was a showcase for how hollow and soulless these characters were. Do they have hobbies, aside from shopping? Interests? Do they read anything beyond Page Six? They are just rich bitches who don’t even have the decency to be over-the-top, and therefore amusing, like Absolutely Fabulous. I was seriously offended when Charlotte wouldn’t eat anything except packaged chocolate pudding on their trip because “It’s Mexico.” I was also offended by Miranda’s rudeness to her nanny and Samantha’s “Honey, we can pay people to do the stuff we don’t want to do” attitude. Then it dawned on me: These women are assholes. […]
While the SATC TV show often presented silly conundrums easily solved and then post-mortemed over cocktails; SATC the movie insists that the audience empathize with these fools. Carrie cares more about herself and her elaborate gown than her groom, and we’re supposed to feel sorry for her? I always thought Big was a smug cad who dyed his gray hair black, so I didn’t care if she ended up with him or not. Samantha breaks up with Smith by saying “I love you, but I love me more,” and that’s supposed to be empowering? Is getting a lapdog really a happy ending for a 50-year-old? I found myself hating every single one of them: Idiotic, superficial Carrie; stuck-up, naggy perfectionist Charlotte; cold, ruthless Miranda and bitter, narcissisitic Samantha. The worst part is that these women have spawned a new generation of materialistic empty-headed women: When Carrie thanks Jennifer Hudson’s character, Louise (rightfully called a magical negro by Moe’s sister) for bringing her back to life, Louise replies, “And you bought me my first Louise[sic] Vuitton.” Because the only thing more important than soul-searching is having a thousand-dollar bag that will be out of style in three to six months.
The BBF (Black Best Friend):
This piece from the Root examines a phenomenon we are all familiar with:
In August 2007, Greg Braxton of the Los Angeles Times first coined the term BBF — black best friend — in the article “Buddy system; They’re wise, loyal and often sassy. Black Best Friends help white heroines, but do they limit black actresses?” One unnamed source joked that celluloid BBFs should form a support group to save “woefully helpless white girls.”
Here are the specs on the BBF: “They are gorgeous, independent, loyal and successful. They live or work with their friend but are not really around all that much except for well-timed moments when the heroine needs a dining companion or is in crisis. BBFs basically have very little going on, so they are largely available for such moments. And even though they are single or lack solid consistent relationships, BBFs are experts in the ways of the world, using that knowledge to comfort, warn or scold their BFF.”
Of Hudson’s “bossy” Louise, one article said the character had “an uncanny ability to help her boss get her life back in order.”
Seriously?
Interesting contrast:
It’s no wonder most women of a certain hue never got into SATC. Instead many tuned in to Mara Brock Akil’s Girlfriends, often rightly referred to as the black Sex and the City. Airing for eight seasons, Girlfriends followed the careers, sex lives and friendships of four (then three) women trying to make it big in the big city. Sound familiar? Except this time the chicks looked like us. And to be fair, just as SATC lacked main black characters, GFs lacked white ones—sans Toni’s lovah Dr. Todd Garrett. Sound familiar?
NYT Looks for a Different Kind of Fan
The New York Times did a piece seeking out women who were fans of the show from different economic, social, and racial backgrounds:
“I think the ‘Sex and the City’ women do portray the single life in New York City for the most part,” said Alkia Thompson, a 36-year-old single woman who lives in Harlem and plans to see the movie Friday night. “ ‘Sex and the City’ is my little fantasy. When I watch it, it gives me a chance to get away from everyday life. I can escape into their world.
“I mean, who can afford Jimmy Choos? I can’t even afford one pair! But the way New York City is changing now, you’re going to need a lot of money to live here. I don’t mind changes like this, but I don’t like the fact that people are being pushed out.”
Sung ea Parke, a 33-year-old married Korean immigrant who works in a dry cleaner in Jackson Heights, Queens, said her existence could hardly be more different than the lives of Carrie, Charlotte, Miranda and especially Samantha, a devotee of no-commitment sex.
“I’ve never experienced that kind of lifestyle, but the drama of the show is very interesting and very funny,” she said. “I’ve seen every show. I understand that kind of life, but I cannot live it. I am married.” […]
Like most of the women who talked about the series, Ms. Marshall said the friendships among the women and the relationship problems they had with men were what had pulled her in. And like many others, she said she overlooked the fact that the series featured few immigrants or minorities.
“Race,” she said, “is not a factor. It’s a girl thing.”
Another Black Perspective on Sex and The City
On the Spout Blog, Steven Boone talks to three black women about Sex and the City. The article opens:
The most idiotic comment I’ve heard in reference to Sex and the City is, “Who wants to watch a bunch of old ladies having sex? Yuck.” (uttered by a 23 year old co-worker who looked like Wally Cleaver). The second most idiotic comment I’ve heard in reference to Sex and the City is, “That show’s just for rich white chicks.” What rot! There are armies of black women who adore the show and were doing cartwheels in anticipation of the movie. But there is some ambivalence, some trouble among the ranks…
The three women quoted - Annette Lathan, Janelle McNeil, and Susan Lyerly - range in age from 19 to 40 and are in a variety of occupations.
Money quotes:
The show completely changed the way I dress. Best I’ve ever looked in my life. Rich white people knew about stuff like Manolo Blahniks but I didn’t know about it ’til Sex and the City. Inside I feel like that hot, skinny blonde chick. Inside I’m Carrie, but the world doesn’t see that. - Susan Lyerly
I appreciate the show or what it was and don’t try to make it more than it was. In a way, the people behind he show were being small-minded. But what about other minorities? I don’t know why black people would complain so much, because at least Miranda had a black boyfriend at one point. […]
New York City, for all its gays and liberation, is still segregated. What bothers me more is how we’re portrayed sometimes in these shows. There was one episode where the girls were waiting on line at a club and a black woman was there, all loud and cursing. The producers must have been, like, “Be black, be loud and curse.” - Susan Lyerly
Girlfriends? That was LA. And it was a terrible show. Sex and the City is a great show. Girlfriends was, on some level, the black Sex and the City, but it was fake, a sitcom with a laugh track, where Sex and the City was real. The girls on Girlfriends didn’t even act like real black women. They were white women dipped in chocolate. [Editor raises an eyebrow here- LDP] The question isn’t, “Why not more black shows?” The question is, “Why not more real?” - Susan Lyerly
To me, they should show African-American women like that also. Why can’t it be us also? African-American women have that style, too. They should have given Jennifer Hudson a role as a professional woman, same as them, instead of being a secretary for Carrie. - Janelle McNeil
The problem I have is that they always portray white people to be like that and always portray young black people to be hood and like we’ll never amount to anything, never go far in life, but that’s not true. Even though my generation seems like it’s not going far, there are a lot of people around my age who really are trying to get into the same positions as those white people. I feel that America as a society, as a whole, shouldn’t just down black people because there are very intelligent black people out there, and the images that they show to these little kids is that white people are always the ones who are going to amount to something, they’re the ones who will make all the money. - Janelle McNeil
[A]s far as making unusual strides for black women, The L Word was the show to watch. - Annette Lathan
Gentrification
Reader Naomi C saw the film and sent in this interesting little tidbit:
In a scene from the new “Sex and the City” movie, Miranda scouts out an apartment in Chinatown. She explains to her Ukrainian maid how Chinatown is the new up-and-coming area. Then she sees a white man with a baby walking down the street, exclaims “See! There’s a white man with a baby! Follow him! Let’s see where he’s going!”
I didn’t find much humor in the gentrification displayed there.
A View from Across the Pond
Lemn Sissay, poet and artist at The South Bank centre, is quoted in the Guardian with an apt observation on how television operates:
Like everyone else I had to watch the programme - it had the word ’sex’ in the title and I am a guy - and to be frank I enjoyed the sex, the women and the city, New York. They’re all gorgeous. But if Sex and the City is as honest about women as it is about race then by watching I was entering the sticky realms of fantasy. Let’s not pretend it was anything else.
Every black American male or female, knew from the start that like the other international hit, Friends, Sex and the City was just not about them. By exclusion from one of the most cosmopolitan and racially mixed cities of the world, the message was abundantly clear - this one is not for you.
Jeez, you cannot get more cosmopolitan than Manhattan: Hispanic, Asian and black people make up more than 50 per cent of the population of the city. You can’t step on a passer-by without having to apologise in four languages.
The truth is, there’s nothing wrong with a show about white girls and their inner city lives - black folks have had their inner city lives portrayed throughout TV’s short history. If there were too many black people in the show it couldn’t be called Sex and the City anyway. It’d have to be called Sex in the Inner City or Sex in the Urban Environment or Sex on the Streets. Yawn.
Asians in the City
Angry Asian Man did a list exploring how many Asians had screentime during the film:
1. Charlotte’s cute adopted daughter from China, Lily, played by Alexandra and Parker Fong (twins). The gals teach her to say “sex.” I guess it had to happen sooner or later.
2. Carrie and Mr. Big’s realtor. An older lady wearing lots of makeup.
3. Woman having wild sex with Samantha’s neighbor. Very, very naked.
4. Man with an extremely impressive resume interviewing for the job of Carrie’s assistant… wearing bright pink heels. Goes from overqualified to emasculated in about nine seconds.
5. Dude with a ponytail, serving Samantha a drink. Seen at a distance. No lines.
[…]
UPDATE: Okay, I totally forgot about the Sikh man driving the cab. Also, there were a handful of scattered Asians roaming around the scene in Chinatown. Of course! Gentrification of the lower east side and all. And that’s it. Those are all the Asians in “the City.” Just like real life, right?
Some Black Fashionista Perspectives
The Fashion Bomb put up a quick piece on the movie. Claire asked her readers ” Were you happy with the ’sister’ representation???” The commenters verdict? Hated it!
Gina said…
I agree with Anonymous 11.15a. It’s like Patricia Field just sent her to Sears with $200 and a product placement deal with Bag, Borrow, or Steal. Against the backdrop of all the other sartorial wondrousness, Poor St.Louise faded into the background. No pretty dresses, no edgy coats or tops for poor Louise. Just those damned bags. *sigh* I was so looking forward to some non-skinny fashion, too. Oh well.
Brooklyn said…
this is funny because I paid no attention to her until my friend was like what the hell is up with JHUD look then it dawned on me THE BLACK GIRL FROM ST LOUIS=A HOT ASS MESS what is the world coming to must we be misrepresented all the time? I mean bad enough they exclude us from everything but when they do find it in their heart(or lack there of) to include us they represent who we are totally not…oh well I guess until we define who we are others will continue to do it for us….
jetta said…YSL was one of the greats, he will be missed.
I personally thought they could’ve done ‘better by’ Jennifer Hudson. The film is all about fantasy. The journalist who can afford Manolo Blahnik’s, Christian Dior Dresses, and Chanel bags. So why on earth did they feel the need to ‘keep it real’ with the assistant? They could’ve pushed the envelope with her and really draped some labels on her. Miranda was wearing a Chanel scarf….when, in the series, was she ever so fashionable and label conscious as to wear a Chanel scarf for a walk in the park??
Basically, they did a disservice to Jhud. Maybe ALT should’ve put his LV case down and taken some pain to really style her.
Ridiculous Marketing Tie In
Fabsugar reports on some new trinket to buy:
At Patricia Field online, you can purchase this Custom Carrie Nameplate Necklace ($189). Choose from silver or gold, add a diamond or two, and decide between small, medium, or large font. Look at you, following in Carrie’s (Manolo Blahnik) footsteps!
Or you could say fuck the diamonds and just buy one at the mall.
(Thanks to Xavier, Jasmine, Naomi C and Tze Ming Mok for the tips.)
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:
How about we all just boycott the movie and see somethign else?
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 12:11 pm ¶
Jas wrote:
I saw maybe 6 episodes of the show and I didn’t really notice the racial aspect. It just didn’t seem real to me because those 4 women were so successful yet so incredibly air-headed it just didn’t make sense to me. It’s like they took 4 grown up women with the mentality of 14 year old girls with raging hormones, gave them a ton of money, and said “Hey do whatever you like!”.
If they had been middle-class suburban women or something of that sort I might have felt the show would have synced up with the characters personalities. But if I want to see rich white women acting like airheads I’ll go back down to my University for a visit and hit up a sorority house. These women just seriously came off as that stupid to me.
My sister loved that show too (she’s black).
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 12:21 pm ¶
Redstar wrote:
I loved the show and I loved the movie - fundamentally because of the relationships among the women and the focus on that. Yet, I found the movie even more materialistic than the show, though my dear pal NYC Weboy blogs about the role of fashion as someone who ardently follows it, whereas I’m just sort of clueless about that stuff and try to take it in stride in order to enjoy the show.
That said, I felt more class-conscious than usual in watching the flick, in part because I knew they were going to go all out about the fashion (Carrie has a ridiculous opening montage about “labels and love” signifying a young woman’s relationship with NY - spare me! In my highly educated multi-cultural peer group, NYC was all about making it big career-wise. Anyhoo…) and in part because of the real estate/gentrification piece. The ridiculously enormous penthouse on 5th Av for Big and Carrie; the unselfconcious “white-guy-with-a-baby!” remark by Miranda, the house on the beach in Malibu for Samantha. In the show, you watched the women - with the exception of Charlotte, who was written as a Park Avenue WASP - work their way up independently and purchase their fab apts. In the movie it was Big buying for Carrie, Sam living out in L.A. for Smith.
As for Jennifer Hudson, I was really curious about her casting because according to an interview I read producer Michael Patrick King wrote a role for a black woman because of complaints from black fans that the show was too white. A personal assistant to get Carrie’s life back together seems innocuous enough in theory, but a) Carrie’s life really didn’t require one, and b) the only thing they could really think to do with Hudson was give her mad IT skills and a love of purses to make her fit into an otherwise useless role. I was more disappointed that they wrote Hudson’s character as an independent woman from a big family with an IT degree who moves to the big city a) to find love (enough already! Don’t women have professional ambitions???) and b) gives it up to take back a guy in St. Louis who’d dumped her ass for some stupid reason. I hate the hopeless romantic cliche for women and sort of deal w/it with Charlotte because she’s been written that way from the beginning, but was disappointed that they couldn’t make Louise more complex than that.
As for the pudding in Mexico - agreed - though a Latin@ friend of mine who has lived and worked all over the world (Mexico, Pakistan, Kenya, Indonesia) in reproductive health advocacy says in her networks more folks have gotten food poisoning in Mexico than anywhere else. Still, the Charlotte/SATC context was insulting.
And as for the adopted Asian daughter, I just felt like Charlotte was a totally lackluster mom - they did not write her and Harry as engaged parents AT ALL. Lily, their daughter, was a total prop.
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 12:27 pm ¶
Mary wrote:
The SATC movie was painful in so many ways. I was a fan of the show - not a superfan, but I liked it. The movie felt like it was 15 years long, and I wanted to punch Carrie Bradshaw in the face several times. Was I supposed to do something other than groan loudly when she’s whining about how her Vogue photo shoot ruined her life? I mean I’m totally fine with extended shots of fashion porn, but don’t ask me to actually feel sympathy for that kind of self-absorption.
Speaking of the Asian man in pink high heels - leaving aside, for a moment, the obvious offensiveness of the “effeminate Asian male” punchline - why exactly didn’t Carrie hire him? Like, she’s a 40-year-old grownup living in New York City, having all kinds of crazy sex and is theoretically acquainted with people from other walks of life… but the pink high heels are an instant dealbreaker for an extremely qualified candidate? What the hell is that about? Especially because Carrie’s oh-so-deep revelation about life is to “reject labels! Be who you are!” Unless you’re a man in high heels, apparently.
It’s a fine example of how even people who think they’re so “sassy” and “groundbreaking” and “liberating” can still fall back on the most tired, old, hoary cliches about PoC. The BBF (played by an Academy Award winner, no less)? Check. Turbaned cab driver? Check. “Sissy” Asian man played for comic relief? Check. Even leaving aside the offensiveness, aren’t people just tired of seeing and using these stock characters again and again?
And what the show did really well was to tell those modern urban love legends: The Guy With The Funky Spunk, The Guy Who Died Before The Second Date, The Time The Writer Fell On The Runway, The Time Your Friend Had A Brazilian Lesbian Lover For Like A Week.
Totally why I was a fan of the show - sex comedy from a female perspective, that’s actually good, is a rare thing. Only the Golden Girls and occasionally Soap entertained me the same way. I had my criticisms of the show, but overall it felt a little bit like criticizing the nutritional value of cotton candy. The movie was just irritating as hell, though.
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 12:30 pm ¶
cosmicsistren wrote:
I saw the movie and wasn’t impressed at all. I remember hearing all this fuss that Jennifer Hudson was playing an assistant to Carrie. An oscare winning actor and her next role was playing an assistant? I have been an assistant before so I knew the role was going to be a piece of crap. I also didn’t like Miranda’s comment when she was in Chinatown, or Charlotte in Mexico. I found both to be kind of racist to me. The film was a big infomercial for Vitamin Water, Manolo Blahninks (not sure of spelling), and Vivienne Westwood.
@ latoya and staff - Try to see the movie on a bootleg at a friend’s house. Don’t waste your money in buying it.
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 12:46 pm ¶
Sarah wrote:
@ Mary - I was wondering the same thing as you when Carrie didn’t hire the Asian applicant.
I enjoyed the movie because I wasn’t expecting much. I figured it would be a loaf of fluff, and thats exactly what it was - not a single surprise in the entire 2 or so hours.
But I was horrified when Miranda went apartment hunting in Chinatown and followed the “white guy with a baby.” I mean seriously? I used to live in that part of NY, specifically because there are still areas of Chinatown that haven’t been gentrified yet. Its one of the few places that still looks and feels like a real neighborhood rather than a giant shopping mall. I was really upset that they would have such a smart character say something that stupid.
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 1:00 pm ¶
Redstar wrote:
This is totally off topic, but I wondered if Racialicious might ever cover Army Wives. The show is TOTAL cheese (but I love it!), but it has this character Joan, a black female Lt. Cnl, the first at the Fort. Her character grew up on the South Side, went to the Citadel, and in light of the Newsweek article about that study about female and/or racial minority satisfaction in the Armed Forces, I didn’t know if you all might take this on for discussion.
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 1:14 pm ¶
Nadra wrote:
Is it realistic to expect the characters featuredin “SATC” to have friends of color? I don’t believe that Carrie and Co. and the “Friends” cast really seem like the type who would go out of their comfort zones to form relationships with people of diverse backgrounds. They all seem to be comfortable maintaining the status quo, and that’s the case with most folks, unfortunately. The common thread I’ve heard in the stories that POCs in largely white settings have told me is that they suffered categoric exclusion. That said, I can’t expect a cast of elitist, materialistic, sex-crazed white women to be interested in breaking down cultural barriers since exclusion plays a major part in their lives. Their connections allow them to get into clubs and live in homes that many whites, and certainly most POCs, would be turned away from. All in all, I believe that if we’re to have more meaningful POC characters, we need to have more meaningul white characters. If Carrie & Co. came from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and neighborhoods and had more diverse interests, it would seem natural that their friends would be diverse as well. Accordingly, the POCs featured would be more than underlings, colleagues or abrasive folks they encounter on the street.
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 1:55 pm ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:
A hundred and eighty-nine dollars for a stupid nametag necklace??????? Wow.
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 1:58 pm ¶
waxghost wrote:
Deaf Feminist Punk, I’m with you.
But it is interesting to read everyone’s take on this movie.
Mary, about the cliched roles for people of color, absolutely! But EVERY role in SATC seems to be based on a cliche, even the four main characters who are cliches of the men- and shopping-obsessed woman. It’s all very yawn, indeed. (Good point about the Asian man in pink heels, too.)
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 2:09 pm ¶
SerenityNow wrote:
Brillz, Racialicious crew. Encapsulated much of what I couldnt put my finger on about SATC.
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 2:20 pm ¶
Genevieve wrote:
This is far worse than I realized it would be, having only seen about 10 minutes of one episode. And I knew it would be bad, because all the women reminded me of the high school I was attending at the time where 90% of the white girls had Louis Vuitton bags while most of the Hmong girls I knew had jobs to help support their families’ incomes and most of the Mexican-Americans lived on the other side of town. But I guess it’s super racist on top of the super materialistic upper class super fluff!
Having been to New York and having family from New York, I am amazed at the sheer luck displayed by the characters in Friends, Seinfeld, and Sex and the City, because I got the vague impression that they not only never had roach problems, but probably never got lost or had to worry about getting mugged. Because I guess those are problems that follow my minority status around, like a goddamn sniper.
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 3:09 pm ¶
Jaye wrote:
I’ve watched maybe half of 2-3 episodes, and I never liked the show. Always felt like it was the TV version of Cosmo magazine.
As for Hudson, I wondered why they couldn’t have made her Carrie’s lawyer or accountant or something…why assistant?
Are the directors just incredibly eager to perpetuate stereotypes?
Also wanted to comment on this quote:
“[A]s far as making unusual strides for black women, The L Word was the show to watch. - Annette Lathan”
I’ve thought the way The L Word has dealt with race has been interesting, and was wondering if you would do a post on it. Especially the lead character (Jennifer Beals) identifying as African-American on the show, but I actually had no idea she was AA until she said so and was wondering why Pam Grier was her sister for a long time. Her circle of friends is mainly Caucasian (although they added in Rose Rollins the last 2 seasons) and they have had Hispanic main characters as well.
I’m not always sure what to make of the way they portray different races on the show, thought it would make a good post.
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 3:45 pm ¶
Fatemeh wrote:
(sniff) I miss Girlfriends.
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 3:53 pm ¶
Slush wrote:
Well, it passes the feminist test:
1. At least TWO women characters
2. Who talk to each other
3. About something other than men.
I think only 5% of movies even pass this test, pathetic as it is. And if they do, it’s generally because the nurse who appeared in two scenes says her one line to the main character’s mother.
We could adopt a similar test for race, only I’m not sure what the third element should be.
1. At least two POC characters
2. Who talk to each other
3. About something other than to identify their own race/ethnicity(?)
Suggestions?
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 4:03 pm ¶
dettan wrote:
If the characters from Girlfriends were “white women dipped in chocolate”, how do Black women want to be portrayed in television and movies? What is a “real” black woman?
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 4:05 pm ¶
patrick wrote:
Sex and the City seems to have a polarizing effect on both men and women… people either love the movie or hate it
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 4:32 pm ¶
G.K. wrote:
@dettan
About the “white women dipped in chocolate” comment, apparently the woman who said that dosen’t know that the show was created by a black woman (Mara Brock Akil). I totally disagree with her, because even though some of the characters could be downright irritating sometimes, and it wasn’t always that damn funny, it still showed more of a range of black female characters than you find would anywhere else on the T.V. period.
I guess because none of the characters acted like or fitted into the usual black stereotypes you usually see on T.V., the lady who made this comment felt that she couldn’t relate to them, because they didn’t act like any black women she knew. That dosen’t make them any less of a real representation of black women, because we’re not all the same, we don’t act or think the same, and as a black woman myself, I hate when we get shoved into a blanket generalization of what black women should act,think, or be like—even from other black women.
And when I heard JHud was going to play a secretary, I was like, “C’mon, the woman just won a damn Oscar and that’s the best role they could find for her? That’s some BS, for real!” You’re right–why couldn’t they have made her a profesional equal to the main characters? Because they didn’t want her stealing those white girls’ thunder, plus that would be too much like right, y’know what I’m saying?
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 5:31 pm ¶
Miss Lisa S wrote:
Huge fan of the show but certain elements of the movie didn’t sit well with me either.
Samantha’s life is going to hell because at age 50, she gets a gut?! I’m sorry but very few of us have washboard abs. I found that totally ridiculous.
As for Jennifer Hudson, her acting was so bad it was almost distracting.
And how about the frontal male nudity?
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 5:41 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:
I loved the show. To someone who’s only seen a few episodes it will seem more frivolous and material-focused than it was. I loved the humor and complexity of the characters. I enjoyed the fantastical fashion porn aspect.
I was, however, really disappointed in the movie, from the “looking for love and labels” exposition at the beginning to the meanness, pettiness and casual racism. I had been pleased when I read an interview with SJP, saying that she didn’t like how whitewashed the city had been on the show and she hoped they would rectify that in the movie, but I found Jennifer Hudson’s assistant role pointless and disappointing. They could have done something really interesting by making her Samantha’s Los Angeles celebrity client instead of the terrible storyline they did give Samantha.
As for St. Louise’s lousy fashion: yeah she was supposed to be Carrie’s younger, poorer self, but Carrie’s look on the show always relied more on creativity and mixing high style with low than straight up label-whoring. There’s no reason she couldn’t have had fun with her outfits and worn some really chic young daytime fashion.
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 6:06 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:
@dettan and GK: cosign on that. The women on Girlfriends were all different, none of them a stereotype, so they’re “dipped in chocolate”?? Ridiculous.
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 6:11 pm ¶
kerrita k. wrote:
crazy question. if we interrogate this movie the same way we do poc/woc an their responses to their pop culture image - why do white women tolerate their presentation in sex and the city - as it presents them as vapid penis/love/material-obsessed mannequins oblivious to the lives of women outside their own special circle?
what does this say about how our society is structured?
-kerrita k .
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 6:40 pm ¶
JustChaz wrote:
Ok, I watched “Sex In The City” when it went into syndication, and watched “Girlfriends” until like the fifth season (when Joan was increasingly erratic to Brock about his freakin’ marriage proposal, that did it for me), then started watching that again in synidcation, all the way up till the end. I have to agree with G.K.’s comments on the show, and overall, I enjoyed GF MUCH MORE than SITC.
I couldn’t disagree more with Susan Lyerly’s comments. What the hell wasn’t “real” about those black women? Three of them came from meager backgrounds and worked themselves up to prosperity and success (Mya and Toni), one was a middle class boho mixed chick. Not only that, but the show did a great job of showing a whole range of different black men. Finally, the show may not have been a laugh riot, but it definitely carried with it a certain gravitas that didn’t exist with SITC (maybe because to me, I really didn’t give a damn about those characters). Seriously, I want to know what show that woman was watching.
Furthermore, can we stop calling “Girlfriends” the “black Sex In The City” and call it the “west-coast more mature Living Single?” Because other than fashion statements, Joan and company had more in common with Khadijah and crew than Carrie and nem.
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 7:21 pm ¶
frufru wrote:
OK, not very deep here:
I LOVE Girlfriends. Is it true they’re going to take it off the air without making DVDs?
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 8:03 pm ¶
drispe wrote:
The problem with Hollywood’s marginalization of non-whites is that it just pops up at face value without exploration. There are plenty of affluent white folks in New York like the ones in this movie, for whom people of color are expendable and downright irrelevant. But the only prominent white person on Girlfriends was Mr. Swedelson, Joan’s out of touch/racially insensitive boss. What about Maya’s racial conspiracy theories? On either side, we either see other people as monolithic or ignore them entirely. Miranda’s glee at finding a white Chinatown resident pissed me off, but I’m even more shocked that the scene didn’t take place in Harlem. Let’s face it, this is the way people think but never admit out loud. I’m personally tired of characters who lead racially exclusive lives and never even hint at the the choice they’ve made. And why are we pouncing on Jennifer Hudson? Actors have done much worse for themselves after winning an Oscar. Nobody here could have imagined that she’d get a meaty role with 4 women already dominating the film. Her character moving to NY for love after a breakup was NOTHING compared to what Carrie & co. have done for it over the years. Sure she was excited about getting the LV bag, but she was a responsible young lady in search of gainful employment from her very first scene. By renting bags, she found a happy medium between knockoffs and going broke. Let’s not make her a vapid label whore given the bigger fashion show going on around her.
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 8:41 pm ¶
Jaye wrote:
I wanted to comment on this quote too:
“Girlfriends? That was LA. And it was a terrible show. Sex and the City is a great show. Girlfriends was, on some level, the black Sex and the City, but it was fake, a sitcom with a laugh track, where Sex and the City was real. The girls on Girlfriends didn’t even act like real black women. They were white women dipped in chocolate.”
But I didn’t before because I’m not an AA woman, so what do I know about what is authentic and what isn’t? But GK noted
“we’re not all the same, we don’t act or think the same, and as a black woman myself, I hate when we get shoved into a blanket generalization of what black women should act,think, or be like—even from other black women.”
So I’m going to comment: Girlfriends could be incredibly cheesy, but I felt it had this undercurrent of edginess and seriousness that I really enjoyed, so I was willing to sit through the cheesy to get to those good moments, and there was quite a few of them. That woman saying that Girlfriends was the black SATC, does she know Girlfriends was around for years before SATC ever came on?
And for her to say “Inside I feel like that hot, skinny blonde chick.” Honestly, I don’t even know what to do with that statement.
And then to say that Girlfriends was fake because it had a laugh track…so SATC was real because it didn’t have a laugh track? That’s the definition of real now? I’m not wholeheartedly defending Girlfriends, it could have done with a lot of improvement…but on the authenticity issue, I might not be an AA woman, but the characters on Girlfriends had a lot more in common with women I actually know in real life than SATC ever would. SATC - I just can’t relate, at all. If I had friends like the women on SATC, I think I would shoot myself.
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 9:07 pm ¶
Whitney wrote:
I agree with whoever said that the move was vapid. It’s like they all lost a part of themselves as soon as they stayed in their relationships for the longhaul.
I was really disappointed in Jennifer Hudson’s character. I agree with what others said here. I won’t be seeing the sequel if one comes out.
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 10:49 pm ¶
jaded wrote:
Jaye: re Gf before SATC. Sorry SATC was on before. I recall reviews of the Pilot calling it just that. SATC started in 1998, GF in 2000. I started watching SATC in season 3, and GF in season 2 I like both shows. And I felt like the GF girls were a lot more like my life than other shows. It was nice to have successful professional AA women on TV. That’s a rarity. Especially when there are more than 1. I also like SATC. I found it funny and frank. It was nice to have shows with a women’s perspective. SATC isn’t any different than any other show set in NYC. All of the people of color disappear. It is like the shows in CA that don’t have Mexican or Asian people. TV character development is getting better, hopefully soon we can see the real life diversity shown on TV.
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 11:02 pm ¶
Alexandra wrote:
When I found out they cast Jennifer Hudson as Carrie’s assistant, I figured SATC was not going to deal well with race. I enjoyed parts of the movie including the fashion porn but I agree it was way way too long. I cringed at the part in Mexico but I feel Charlotte got what she deserved. The gentrification played for laughs was horrible too. It was pretty hit and miss for me with mostly misses.
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 11:10 pm ¶
willa wrote:
i somewhat like watching the show as a kind of brain candy - it was a lot more meaningful to me as an adolescent who liked the friendship aspect of the show as well as the sex comedy and fashion. however, the more distanced i am from that self, the racially insensitive aspects of the show jump at me so much that a lot of the episodes are hard to watch. i agree with the characterization of louise as the “magic negro” (forgot who coined that first) and it especially makes me cringe because the show is sprinkled with those kinds of characters (when carrie feels lousy after her book party a black female driver cheers her up, when charlotte is down about getting married a second time a a group of black women at a bachelorette party helps her get past it all…)
the treatment of poc in general is pretty lousy. the maid of one of samantha’s bfs is portrayed as a shrieking, manipulative person. miranda remarks something along the lines of “i don’t have anyone to talk to - i’m in brooklyn.” the movie definitely continued this pattern.
one thing i was neutral on was louise’s portrayal as a young woman. generally, on the show, young women are depicted as vacuous, naive, annoying, or the boyfriend-stealer.
i am still desperately waiting for a show that features what i liked about sex and the city (the fashion, the friendship, sex) in a non-awful way. we should get together and write one!
Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 11:56 pm ¶
A Random wrote:
The movie made me cringe at times .
Charlotte ” It`s mexico ”
Miranada ” white man with a baby let`s follow him”
Posted 19 Jun 2008 at 12:46 am ¶
Chris wrote:
He didn’t audition the character as being gay? He opens his mouth and a purse falls out!
Posted 19 Jun 2008 at 3:28 am ¶
Joselle Palacios wrote:
The movie was embarrassing and I agree with many of the sentiments shared in the comments. Miranda’s comment on the white buy with the baby was definitely the topper for me. It was played for edgy laughs but it sank like a lead balloon. I can get down with racial humor but it was simply offensive and not funny at all.
The other scene that did me in was when the “girls” leave the fashion show and Samantha gets red paint splashed on her by anti-fur activists. First of all, fur IS awful (so is leather and wool and that’s why I’m vegan). Her fur coat and most of her other outfits were UGLY anyway and animals had to die for that fugness? Great. Beyond that, the animal rights activist were dour, mean, humorless, makeupless, older women who, to me, were the biggest caricatures in a movie full of nothing but caricatures. A lot of young, hip women find fur utterly repugnant. Nice way to keep your finger on the pulse, SATC.
I used to love the show. Once it got syndicated and I got a bit older, I completely stopped relating to it or aspiring to their lives. I find the whole franchise quite sad. That’s what the movie made me feel. Sad. Sad that these women are held up as half-assed feminist heroines because that’s the best we can do nowadays. Sad that their lives are so vapid and pitiful and the writers and producers don’t even seem to know that. And I was infuriated that Carrie just leapt back into Big’s arms again after being left at the altar. But should I have expected more? She sure doesn’t.
I left the movie with my boyfriend who I’m in a monogamous relationship with wearing rubber flip flops and my curly hair out and felt fucking relieved that I am no longer 19 and looking up to Carrie freakin Bradshaw. Yay!
Posted 19 Jun 2008 at 11:18 am ¶
Jaye wrote:
GF did come after SATC. I was convinced GF had been on for 10 years. My mistake.
Posted 19 Jun 2008 at 12:31 pm ¶
sfsinger wrote:
The movie was too long and had some obviously objectionable plots and dialog. Cosign on the Mexico slight, the white man in Chinatown, Carrie’s wedding dress obsession, Samantha’s selfishness, Miranda’s unforgiving attitude, the Louise character and a bunch of other things. The financial resources available to them is really a slap in the face to a lot of people right now - even those of us how are fans of the series. Carrie being able to buy back her apartment with such ease and then buying a new place and hiring a decorator..well I guess it’s no more realistic than the Vogue spread and her never ending closet. I almost wish they hadn’t bothered to make the movie. Or that it would have been better if the original movie plot had been filmed 4 years ago instead.
Posted 19 Jun 2008 at 2:31 pm ¶
AmericanGirl wrote:
Manhattan. Picture it. 2008.
Two girlfriends (black) go see SATC.
Ok so one, me, well, I cringe, cover my eyes and ask if it’s over yet and the movie hadn’t started. It was the trailer of Will Smith’s new
summer Blockbuster Super Negro flick “Hancock.”
OMG!
I couldn’t believe my eyes.
For the love of Jada, what is that?
Those Hollywood checks must really be nice?
Meanwhile, SATC.
Sigh.
That movie, at the risk of sounding like a 10-year-old, sucked!
Samantha’s yellow dress was the best part of the film. Even my New York wasn’t given
a starring role?
Jennifer Hudson—what’s there to say? I didn’t see Dreamgirls.
But I know that you have to be pretty talented to win an Oscar or something like that, but this role was so cornbread. And yes, the Asian guy would’ve been my choice but movies love the super saving negro…”The
Legend of Bagger Vance,”" “Green Mile”…[fast fwd] “Hancock”…Sorry, I still can’t forget that trailor–please, someone go see that movie (opens July 2) and get back to me, because after spending $12.00 on SATC my Hollywood account is tapped out till Fall.
Posted 20 Jun 2008 at 1:35 pm ¶
candlelight wrote:
Off Topic: Okay Joselle, I’m African and I’m sorry but I’m going to play the tribal card. Do you think PETA should splash red paint on Africans who wear fur??!!! frikkin ridiculous. Do you know some of my relatives have animal fur rugs, ooh how horrible, maybe they should go to the shops and buy a non-fur one right?
Posted 21 Jun 2008 at 5:54 pm ¶