“I couldn’t help but wonder: Did the critics have it wrong?”
Release date: 30 May 2008
By Jerilyn Covert
Somewhere, in a fantasyland version of Manhattan inhabited by fashion socialites Carrie Bradshaw, Charlotte York, Miranda Hobbes and Samantha Jones, the term “repression” bears no meaning. Today, the “Sex and the City” heroines, bouncing about in the kind of fashion labels most of us recognize by virtue only of red-carpet specials, made their much anticipated, “Big” screen debut, though many fans saw the movie last night, at midnight showings scattered across the nation. (At our local movie theater, empty seats were harder to find than Manolo Blahniks on sale.) As a born-again fan of the popular HBO series, I have to admit that early buzz on the film, which some critics have portrayed as little more than a glorified Cinderella tale, had me somewhat concerned. Had our girls grown tame with age? Would the racy sex talk dissolve into giddy-girlfriend babble? And now that they all had husbands or lovers, would they–could they?–still wear their independence like badges on their sleeves, prominently displayed beside their pricey Prada handbags? But as I watched the film–and the trendy, parodic twentysomethings who sat entranced in the dark–I realized something, something I think some critics have overlooked. You see, “SATC” has always been something of a paradox, a strange marriage of feminist ideals–and stiletto high heals. Furthermore, this hybrid may be the greatest of all evidence of social change. And it certainly explains why, while Carrie’s single womanhood may be at stake, she still uses her oven as storage for sweaters.
As a show, “SATC” was incredibly successful. It ran from 1998 to 2004, winning seven Emmy Awards and eight Golden Globes. Millions of viewers still tune in to TBS everyday to watch reruns. The four leading ladies were New York big shots who unapologetically pursued their wants and desires and never let anything get in the way of their friendships. The film was directed by the show’s executive producer, Michael Patrick King. And as it turns out, not a whole lot was lost in the translation from sitcom to silver screen. As the thirtysomethings turn 40–and, one of them, 50–they are, in many ways, still the same: clever, successful and utterly devoted to each other. But for a show that so glamorized the single life, the success of the movie hinges entirely on whether we the viewers can bring ourselves to not just believe in, but root for, the idea of Carrie and “Mr. Big” (Sarah Jessica Parker and Chris Noth) getting married. Perhaps Kim Cattrall’s character, Samantha, puts it best when, shocked at news of the engagement, she says to Carrie, “It’s just that it’s you. I’d put you in my ‘We’re never getting married’ file. Now I’ll have to take you out of that file.” To which Carrie, with typical quick wit, replies, “Well, I’m sorry for all the extra paperwork.” But if we’re concerned for the future of this power couple, then so is Big, now a two-time divorcee, who worries that marrying Carrie may change their relationship for the worse. Meanwhile, Miranda and Steve (Cynthia Nixon and David Eigenberg) struggle with their own marital problems, which I won’t spoil for you here. And in fact, all the relationships are tested, with the exception of Charlotte’s marriage with Harry (Kristin Davis and Evan Handler), an apparent fairytale come true. But for the other three women, the story of “Cinderella”–which is referenced several times within the film–is anything but a version of their lives.
All in all, reviewing “SATC” feels a bit like describing a Cosmopolitan to guests at a cocktail party: They already know what it is, and they already know if they like it. I will say that, at 148 minutes, the movie may struggle to maintain the attention spans of some fans, who are more accustomed to 30-minute stints at a time. And I have to give kudos to Parker, who courageously chose to forgo makeup in certain scenes. But what I find most interesting about “SATC” is not the movie itself, but all the dialogue surrounding it: the critiques of a show that raised questions but never answered them. Perhaps the problem is in the way we interpret “revolution.” For some happily single females, the sight of a woman who once declared herself to be “missing the bride gene” trying on lavish wedding gowns and pouring over guest lists and personalized vows might seem a bit like one step forward, two steps back. And for all their liberating, sexual expeditions and dogged self reliance, at least three of the four women may end up getting married, having babies and settling down after all. But these days, social progress is subtle; we’re not exactly besieging castle walls and assassinating tyrants in their sleep. Let’s not overlook the fact that, married or not, Carrie Bradshaw will never be traditional and neither will her friends. And maybe the value of the show, and now the movie, is simply that it allows us to go there–to confront the issues we all think about but rarely speak of. Maybe “SATC” raised the questions so that we could answer them for ourselves. And if the movie panders to social norms, then it also reflects them. We see ourselves in Carrie, Charlotte, Miranda and Samantha–four modern women trying to reconcile their dual need for love and freedom, albeit better dressed than most.