A Response to the SATC 2 Reviewers (I'm Looking at YOU, Roger Ebert!)

This past Wednesday night my friend, Janice, and I headed into Toronto to see a preview of Sex and the City 2. I had won tickets from the tv network Slice and so we were two of about 400 or so who got to view the movie in advance of its opening today. Most were contest winners from a couple of radio stations, some were media types.

I said to Janice as we were going in that it was blindingly obvious who the movie reviewers were: middle-aged white men in sport coats, looking like they were going to their execution.

I can't really blame them: Sex and the City is just not something that most straight men will ever understand. I'm sure I would have the same look on my face if someone tried to get me to watch Fight Club.

I enjoyed the movie. I imagine that most of the women in the audience did. Honestly, why would they have gone if they didn't already know that they enjoyed the series and the earlier movie? I didn't love the movie. There were parts that bugged me immensely: at the beginning, Carrie made me want to reach out and strangle her, whining about how Big wanted to spend the night at home, sitting in a chair staring at him like there wasn't a single thing to do in a glamourous - if somewhat user-unfriendly, in my opinion - Manhattan apartment. They eat out or eat take-out every night? Seriously? How can someone possibly be that spoiled? So, the movie already had a bit of a climb to dig out of that hole, about ten minutes in. Don't even get me started on Charlotte wearing white vintage Valentino while baking with two little girls.

However, as a general rule, I don't watch SATC for its intricate plot points, its statements on modern life or its moral values; I watch SATC for pure escapism, and this is where most of the reviewers and I differ.

Film critics - like theatre critics - are an interesting bunch. Every once in a while you get one who can accept a movie for just being fun, but that's rare. They want a "film", not a movie. There has to be some deeper meaning to all of it. They want to be intellectually stimulated (or just to be fooled into feeling intellectually stimulated). Absurdist comedies? That's okay. Heavy drama that makes you want to slit your wrist into your popcorn? Excellent - bring it on! Lifestyle porn for women? What's the "point" of it all?

And "lifestyle porn" is what SATC was created for. Yes, most of the women watching like to picture themselves as one of the characters (almost everyone claims to be a "Carrie", by the way), but for the thirty minutes of the tv show, or the 2.5 hours of the movie (and yes, even I think that's a bit ridiculous) you get to escape the reality of your own life. I don't know anyone who lives in an apartment like the ones in which Charlotte and Carrie live. I don't even know anyone with a house in Brooklyn like Miranda's. I sure as Hell don't know anyone with a hot, young movie star ex-boyfriend who gets invited to stay in a beyond luxury hotel in Abu Dhabi with a personal butler for each guest, just for the sake of a little PR. And, sadly, I've never been to a gay wedding officiated by Liza Minelli. A girl can dream, though.

Most of the reviews that I've read take issue with the "obscene" materialism of the movie. In real life, I would agree with them. It would be completely sickening, and I doubt that many real life women would enjoy hanging out with these characters. Most of us couldn't afford to! Watching them, though, is like picturing yourself glorious clothes and shoes that magically appear at just the right time, beautiful scenery that most of us will never see first-hand (even if it's actually Morocco standing in for the UAE) and having a butler fondly called "Paula Abdul".

And yes, men are always objectified in the movies. They were an abundance of package shots that had absolutely nothing to do with shopping. You know what? Good! For the amount of nudity that women do in every other movie on the planet not produced by Pixar, why can't men show a little skin (and er, other things...)? Why is it that women aren't allowed to have sexual thoughts? Do we all have to fit into the whole Virgin, Madonna, and Crone molds?

So Roger Ebert, I know that you feel you wasted your time in that movie. Did you really expect anything different, though? Why not just simply write a review saying "There was no way that I was going to like this movie. I can't objectively review it. If you enjoy Sex and the City you're going to go anyway, and if you don't, you won't."

And to Lindy West, does every movie have to be about your version of feminism? "essentially a home video of gay men playing with giant Barbie dolls"? Really? Because that isn't offensive at all. Why isn't it okay for women to be offended by and curious about women wearing burkas? We're just supposed to assume that they wear them (in that kind of heat!) out of their own free will? Do you really think that every woman wearing a veil is doing it because she WANTS to? Are the writers and producers of SATC playing with fire a bit by "going there"? Probably, but how many of us wouldn't be fascinated by a woman having to lift her veil just to put every bite of food in her mouth? Those of us who grew up with the ability to choose our own clothing, including how much skin to show, have every right to wonder how another woman can enjoy life like that.

Oh, and Ms. West? The "c-word" is never appropriate. EVER. So when you write thing like "SATC2 takes everything that I hold dear as a woman and as a human—working hard, contributing to society, not being an entitled cunt like it's my job—and rapes it to death with a stiletto that costs more than my car" you offend me WAY more than any spoiled rich girl ever could.

The Last Five Years

Back in April, my friend Lisa came for a visit. We don't get to see each other very often, even though she's my best friend from university and I miss her dreadfully when she's not around. She's one of those people who honestly just make me happy by their very presence. She told me about a show happening in Toronto in May, and that I had to see it with her.

Theatre is still my first love, but I rarely get to indulge myself anymore. When she decided it was my birthday present and she was taking me, I couldn't say no.

So last week I drove down to the Toronto Centre for the Arts. There, in the studio theatre, a new company called Angelwalk Theatre was presenting their second show: The Last Five Years by Jason Robert Brown.

It was everything Lisa told me it was: touching, sad, funny - altogether just a really good show. It's a two-hander: not something I'm used to seeing in musicals. It tells the story of a relationship from beginning to end, and from end to beginning all at once. Cathy tells her side of the story from the end and works backwards; Jamie tells his from the beginning to the end. The only song they sing together is "The Next Ten Minutes", which comes at the very middle of the show and shows their wedding.

Of course, I'm late now in posting this, since the show ended last weekend, but I wanted to congratulate Angelwalk Theatre on a great show, and encourage any GTA theatre-goers to check them out next season. If their next shows are as good as this one you'll be in for a wonderful evening.

In the meantime, here's a clip of the actress, Sherie-Rene Scott, who portrayed Cathy in the off-Broadway production, singing the song that's been stuck in my head since last Thursday night. The soundtrack is available, and I really recommend checking it out.

A Man and His Pickle...

I have to get this out somewhere or I'll burst!

I was in the grocery store this morning. My son and I walked around the corner of an aisle and there were two men, probably in their late 20s, with this ENORMOUS jar of pickles. They were holding it up and discussing how big it was, and joking about it being too heavy for the one guy to lift.

It took EVERYTHING in my being to keep my mouth shut. The number of pickle jokes that went running through my head was astonishing. Somehow I didn't know if random strange men would appreciate a 30-something mom making jokes about their pickles.

So since I (surprisingly) managed to hold it in there, I'm letting a few of them rip now. Feel free to add your own!

• You know what they say about men with big pickles...
• Is it really a good idea to display your pickles like that?
• I've never really liked my pickles that sour.
• At least you're not comparing pickles.
• A pickle in the hand is worth two in the jar.
• You men, all you ever think about is the size of your pickles.

All right, I've forgotten some since then, but still! It was REALLY hard! (Hey, just like the pickles!)

Toronto in the 1920s and 1930s

I'm looking for stories about Toronto in the early 20th century, preferably 1920-1950. I'll take links, original stories from those who were there, whatever. It's for a project I want to start working on. Photos are always great, too.

You can comment here, or send email to eighthcyn@gmail.com

Thanks!

More on Harper's Vendetta Against Women

I try not to just copy and paste articles as a general rule, but this one, from the Guelph Mercury, is worth reading.

Confused about federal take on women’s health

So, the Harper Government decided not to open up the abortion issue and allow debate. How surprising.
It didn’t want to open up a can of worms and embarrass its members. Refusing to fund international programs that fund abortions puts women’s lives at risk and is fundamental to the issue of maternal health. Thousands of women die every year from botched abortions. Let alone the number of women who die during and after child birth, because they do not have access to medical care.

Whatever your view, women who seek abortions will find a way to have one. The real issue is whether that abortion is a safe one. We can argue forever on whether it is ethical. There are valid arguments on both sides of the debate. But the issue is women’s maternal health and reproductive rights.

Canada’s stance is confusing. Canada’s public health care funds access to abortions, but the country denies that access internationally. Canada ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, back in 1980. That convention guarantees women’s reproductive rights including access to safe abortions. The United States is taking an opposite stance. The U.S. never ratified the convention. But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made it clear that maternal health includes access to safe abortions. President Obama’s National Health Care Plan does not include public funding of abortions. But America will fund it internationally, as will the other G8 countries. So, why is our government taking this stance?

Abortion is an issue few want to talk about and it is politically dangerous. It’s a topic that is emotionally charged and many people see it as black and white. Instead of seeing it as a health issue, many people will let their religion decide what side they are on. But the facts speak for themselves. There is compelling evidence that where there are broad legal grounds to safe abortions mortality among women is considerably reduced. Currently, according to the World Health Organization, 300,000 mothers die a year during pregnancy and childbirth, and thousands more die of botched abortions. Furthermore, according to the WHO, if barriers to safe abortions and abortion services are removed more maternal lives will be saved. Clearly, access to safe and legal abortions should be part of the goal of maternal health. Has the federal government followed the same path as our Ontario government on the safe sex curriculum and caved into pressure from religious groups?

There have been recent successes in overturning strict abortion laws in some countries. Mexico and Nepal overturned strict abortion laws even against political and religious opposition. Canadian and international human rights groups are surprised and disappointed with our government’s stance. According to a recent article in the Globe and Mail, Canada is getting failing grades on issues of human rights. I am saying human rights because women’s rights are human rights.

The problem is that international human rights groups have been critical of the Harper government, and groups that are critical lose their funding. As we know, this government does not respond well to criticism. It would rather shut down parliament and end debate rather than face criticism. In this case, it is the funding of international programs that support reproductive rights. Like women who seek abortions, these programs will be funded anyway from other more progressive countries — mainly the United States and European countries. I find it shameful and sad that Canada is now not considered progressive. This Conservative party got rid of that word and have to appease their backsliding origins. These backward world views do not match with the rest of the world, and what we need to do to improve the human condition. There are thousands of unwanted pregnancies due to sexual violence and these women do not have access to safe abortions and are at risk. If this conservative government is truly concerned with maternal health, then it should put its money where its mouth is.

Judith Sainsbury is a member of the Guelph Mercury Community Editorial Board. 

RIP Lena Horne

I was truly sad this morning to hear about the passing of Lena Horne. I'm not a huge jazz fan by any means, but I did love her voice.

She joined the chorus at the famous Cotton Club at the age of 16. She later moved to Hollywood and eventually starred in movies such as Cabin in the Sky and Stormy Weather. She found herself blacklisted, though, during the McCarthy era, and returned to her nightclub roots, also releasing many albums. She was an activist in the Civil Rights Movement, as well.

There are a lot of more thorough obituaries out there right now where you can read more about her. She's actually quite fascinating. I have a feeling that many people of my generation will remember her mostly from this, though.

Shout Out Louder!

Today is Shout the F**k Up Day, according to a group on Facebook. I think it's about time. Today, as well as being Mother's Day (happy Mother's Day to meeeeeeee...) is also the 50th anniversary of the FDA approving "the pill" for use as birth control. It's ironic the way that the current government has been working to take away women's rights.

Conservatives deny it's happening. They say we shouldn't be funding abortion in other countries anyway, citing laws in many of these countries make abortion illegal. This ignores the fact that it's not illegal in ALL of the countries that the G8 is trying to help.

Funding cuts are affecting everyone, they say, not just women's groups, and if new rules created by this government make it easier to deny funding to certain groups, that's just a coincidence. If the Toronto Pride Parade loses it's funding, it's because it's such a big event that it can stand on its own two feet. The Calgary Stampede (which has been around since 1886, by the way) obviously can't.

What does the Pride parade have to do with women's rights? Truthfully, it has everything to do with women's rights now, because the Tories are just showing again that if you're not a white, middle- or upper-class man, they just don't care about you.

The claim this week is that this government has done more to promote safety than any other, and apparently that's what women care about. We don't care about abortion rights at home or abroad, they told us. We don't care about groups promoting women's equality, or protecting women from violence. Isn't it good that they told us that? Because obviously we don't know what we care about without Stephen Harper telling us. And the claim about safety? This is the same government that's trying to dismantle the gun registry, despite a coalition of police officers and chiefs telling them that they want and need it.

Stephen Harper, you do NOT speak for me, and you have no idea what I care about, but I will not STFU just to avoid further backlash. I will use every last breath that I have to keep shouting the f**k up. I am a mother, a daughter and a woman, and there is nothing "fringe" about that.

But what if she [CENSORED]???

The publication ban in the Tori Stafford murder trial (which I suppose should really be referred to as the trial of the woman accused of her murder, but I'd prefer not to use her name) has me a little perplexed. I'm not a journalist, so I'm not in the "freedom of the press!" camp. Personally I think that freedom gets taken a little too far sometimes, but I also wouldn't want it taken away.

I also remember the publication ban in Karla Homolka's plea bargin, leading up to Paul Bernardo's trial. There is still so much anger across Canada, but especially in southern Ontario, about that plea bargain (AKA "The Deal with the Devil" for my US readers) that I think for a lot of us this is bringing up some very bad memories.

Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy were my age. In fact, Kristen French was born just over two weeks after me. Her abduction and murder was a source of terror for girls my age in 1992. I doubt that there is a girl my age who didn't feel anger, fear, sadness, and so many other emotions over that case. When Karla Homolka was released from prison in 2005 it brought back all of the anger that she had gotten such a "sweet deal" from the prosecution.


And so, seeing the woman in this couple, both charged with first-degree murder, and apparently being tried first, having a similar publication ban imposed on her court proceedings, it is hard not to see the parallels. We don't know why the ban is there. We don't know what's going on in those proceedings (although apparently it's fairly common knowledge in Woodstock, Ontario where the trial is going on). It could be that there's a perfectly logical reason for this ban. I don't really trust the newspapers in their outrage: they have obvious motivation for their righteous indignation. It's possible that they are right, but for most of the general public it's impossible to know, and it's unsettling, to say the least.

No one wants to see another Deal with the Devil. All we can do right now, though, is wait and see, and hope it's not too late by the time that the ban is lifted.

Mr. Rogers is EVIL???

I must thank Roger Ebert (whose Tweets I enjoy mightily @ebertchicago ) for pointing this out to me. It's apparently an oldie, but still amusingly asinine, clip from good ol' Fox News.

Yes, it's Mr. Rogers' fault that the current generation has a sense of entitlement. God forbid anyone think that they're special just because of who they are. Just wait until you see the response from "Nancy" in Tallahassee. Apparently it's not just Mr. Rogers who ruined children's lives!