I am rewatching Sex and the City, and oh dear

[Anonymous]

I still watch it for fun. I never thought to be an accurate depiction of reality. It’s like a NY fantasy. Stanford and Anthony were my favorite characters. Anthony’s voice makes me crack up every time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually found Charlotte’s character the most difficult to watch.

Yuppers

Agree. She was by far the most unfulfilled and constantly anxious. She never moved with ease throughout the social landscape she was occupying. By far the most cringe-worthy and Carrie was pretty bad.

[Anonymous]

This show came out when I was in high school and I’d watch it at the one friends house who had a tv in her room (and hbo too!). Then in college I’d watch it obsessively on DVD with my roommates.

I haven’t rewatched it but I’m seriously concerned if I do I’ll realize how much it subconsciously shaped my expectations for adulthood, dating, careers, and friends.

Anyone else have that experience?

[Anonymous]

Really great article about the writers - mostly women - who crafted the show. It’s a bit of a retrospective on their thought process in the writers’ room and how their lives ended up.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/06/sex-and-the-city-20th-anniversary-writers-room-stories/amp

[Anonymous]

I’m also rewatching and still love it. I appreciate samantha way more with age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still watch it for fun. I never thought to be an accurate depiction of reality. It’s like a NY fantasy. Stanford and Anthony were my favorite characters. Anthony’s voice makes me crack up every time.

Me too. “HATES IT!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nixon is terrific? Lol. Everyone always hated her character. Everything about her is repulsive.

I especially hated Steve. He came across as moronic.

Same! Everyone loves him and how "sweet" he is; I think he realized that Miranda could provide for him while he loafed around, so he wasn't completely stupid.

I don’t know, I think he’s a good guy who brought out the soft side in overworked Miranda. And he ended up becoming an independently successful small business owner. I have a friend who was so similar to Miranda I used to call her that jokingly, and she married a guy who reminds me of Steve. They’re happy and compliment each other.

[Anonymous]

I liked the concept of Samantha's character -- puts herself first, doesn't want to judge or be judged -- but Kim Catrall was such a parody of sexiness (pursed lips, hunched shoulders) that the only thing worse was Richard Wright, who was just so slimy. I like my unabashed horniness gleeful, thanks.

I liked Charlotte and Harry's relationship because when they broke up, he called her on thinking that she was a catch who was trading down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with the posters who say that we shouldn’t take the show so seriously but I think the problem with that notion is that the show took itself very seriously. The actors when interviewed never approached it as anything but “the right take on feminism”.

+1

I was the target audience the first time around, and I didn't like the show very much, but I remember the articles and interviews and all the hoopla about how feminist and empowering it was to show these women talking frankly about sex and dating, and these important female friendships. But it was such a shallow feminism, pretty much limited to wealthy, white, conventionally attractive women (even if Miranda was the "ugly" one).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never fell for the appeal of this show. I found it mildly amusing. The women who loved it in the nineties were so transparent and 'faux feminist'. It appealed to the masses I guess.

I agree and I think I was the target audience (white woman born in 70s, lived in NYC in the 90s). However, there were certain observations that, at the time, spoke to a certain truth that was not otherwise being voiced. The “he’s just not that into you” episode stuck with me. The one where Samantha gets frustrated that women are expected to wax everything and men aren’t. The one where carrie complains that women who get married and have babies have all sorts of celebrations of those moments but women who make other decisions go uncelebrated by their friends. And, at least back in the 90s (probably less true now), the observation that a bi guy is generally always going to dump you for a man.
So I wasn’t a huge fan, thought the character were mostly annoying, but—like Seinfeld—there were certain observations made in it that we’re not being said openly other places.

I agree and think the "He's just not that into you" ep should be required viewing for young women. Don't push it. If he's into you, you'll know it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. I enjoyed it back when it was airing as well but now it just feels cringe-y. I remember reading a criticism of it back in the day by someone who said it was "stiletto feminism" -- the easy feminism of rich white women who think being able to buy a pair of $400 shoes means independence. I felt like this was way too harsh and kind of petty at the time. But when I rewatched a couple seasons later, I couldn't stop thinking of that essay. That's exactly what it is. Super shallow and overly focused on consumption to an embarrassing degree.

Agree Cynthia Nixon/Miranda and Kim Catrall/Samantha are the only characters with a little more going on. It would be interesting to see a similar show told more through the perspectives of these characters. They both make digressive choices and wrestle with but ultimately become okay with the consequences. Whereas Carrie and Charlotte have these extremely naive, fairy tale ideas about what it means to be a woman. And that's the narrative that really dominates the show. It's kind of sad.

Really? I think Charlotte evolved the most with her marriage and falling in love with someone she never expected. It does seem that all evolved based on relationships, except Carrie. I would put Samantha after Charlotte, and then Miranda.

She married a rich guy who supports her lifestyle and lets her live exactly the way she wants, which is what she always wanted. He happened to be bald and Jewish, which she didn't expect. But she did EXACTLY what you would expect her to do and "sacrificed" on looks and background in order to get the $$$ and the lifestyle. I don't consider that a huge evolution, personally. She wanted a prince and she got one. Shrek did this story better, frankly.

OMG this. The show wants you to believe Charlotte did a complete 180 but it’s really more of a 20-25.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. I enjoyed it back when it was airing as well but now it just feels cringe-y. I remember reading a criticism of it back in the day by someone who said it was "stiletto feminism" -- the easy feminism of rich white women who think being able to buy a pair of $400 shoes means independence. I felt like this was way too harsh and kind of petty at the time. But when I rewatched a couple seasons later, I couldn't stop thinking of that essay. That's exactly what it is. Super shallow and overly focused on consumption to an embarrassing degree.

Agree Cynthia Nixon/Miranda and Kim Catrall/Samantha are the only characters with a little more going on. It would be interesting to see a similar show told more through the perspectives of these characters. They both make digressive choices and wrestle with but ultimately become okay with the consequences. Whereas Carrie and Charlotte have these extremely naive, fairy tale ideas about what it means to be a woman. And that's the narrative that really dominates the show. It's kind of sad.

Really? I think Charlotte evolved the most with her marriage and falling in love with someone she never expected. It does seem that all evolved based on relationships, except Carrie. I would put Samantha after Charlotte, and then Miranda.

She married a rich guy who supports her lifestyle and lets her live exactly the way she wants, which is what she always wanted. He happened to be bald and Jewish, which she didn't expect. But she did EXACTLY what you would expect her to do and "sacrificed" on looks and background in order to get the $$$ and the lifestyle. I don't consider that a huge evolution, personally. She wanted a prince and she got one. Shrek did this story better, frankly.

OMG this. The show wants you to believe Charlotte did a complete 180 but it’s really more of a 20-25.

So now we’re criticizing the show for being too realistic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never fell for the appeal of this show. I found it mildly amusing. The women who loved it in the nineties were so transparent and 'faux feminist'. It appealed to the masses I guess.

I agree and I think I was the target audience (white woman born in 70s, lived in NYC in the 90s). However, there were certain observations that, at the time, spoke to a certain truth that was not otherwise being voiced. The “he’s just not that into you” episode stuck with me. The one where Samantha gets frustrated that women are expected to wax everything and men aren’t. The one where carrie complains that women who get married and have babies have all sorts of celebrations of those moments but women who make other decisions go uncelebrated by their friends. And, at least back in the 90s (probably less true now), the observation that a bi guy is generally always going to dump you for a man.
So I wasn’t a huge fan, thought the character were mostly annoying, but—like Seinfeld—there were certain observations made in it that we’re not being said openly other places.

I agree and think the "He's just not that into you" ep should be required viewing for young women. Don't push it. If he's into you, you'll know it!

One of the script consultants to SATC, Greg Behrendt, coined the phrase. Then he along with one of the show's lead writers - Liz Tuccillo - wrote the best selling self-help book! It's literally a spin-off from the SATC writers' room lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He%27s_Just_Not_That_Into_You

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still watch it for fun. I never thought to be an accurate depiction of reality. It’s like a NY fantasy. Stanford and Anthony were my favorite characters. Anthony’s voice makes me crack up every time.

Me too. “HATES IT!”

He heh. Thanks for this laugh. .

[Anonymous]

It aired when I was in my early twenties and I loved it, though I hated Carrie Bradshaw from day one. For the central character of a show about friendship, she was really an awful friend. And for a slutty sex columnist, she was remarkably prudish.
I always related most to Miranda but the show really did her a disservice with how they styled her. Smart, funny, successful women can be beautiful and stylish too. Most of the women I know are Mirandas, who are beautiful and dress like a cross between Charlotte and Samantha.
I enjoyed Charlotte's evolution the most. I like Steve, but I'm not thrilled that Miranda ended up with him. So many Mirandas settle for Steve and they're usually not that happy.
Carrie was a trainwreck throughout the whole show. In real life, Big never marries Carrie, and Carrie does not end up obscenely wealthy. She ends up with a lot of credit card debt, regretting how she treated Aidan, and maybe settling for someone worse than any of the romantic partners we saw on the show. Like Harry looks and Berger treatment.
Samantha was a bit of a cliche but she was the most devoted friend of the four and the only truly independent woman who wasn't looking for a man to complete her life. She also had the best lines, and KC had great comic timing.
It's amazing how dated this show is, while The Golden Girls still works.