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.