Lisa Kirchner

 

Emily Rems has already done the job here of explaining why all the Sex and the City haters need to get a grip, but that’s not what swayed me to go see this. Maybe because I was expecting to hate it, or maybe because I was in an opening night audience full of women shouting things at the screen like, “damn, girl, work that dress.” Or, “oh no she dih-n’t!” But when the credits rolled, I wasn’t ready for it to be over. This was particularly surprising since one of the more massive complaints (by the masses of male reviewers) is that this thing is overlong. Unlike most men I know however (including male reviewers I’ve had the occasion to know more intimately), I can last more than two hours. That’s right, this is two hours of pure, unadulterated female porn. Seriously, the shoes alone coulda kept me in my chair for another half hour. And I hate to shop. And I didn’t even bother seeing SATC 1. My interest in seeing this–as a woman who has lived in Qatar (right next door to the film’s fictional setting), and Tunisia (near where this was actually shot)–was in seeing its depiction of women.

 

Of all the places the producers could’ve picked to set this film they chose the United Arab Emirates, a land known for is its excesses and lack of regard for human rights. Sure, our Fab Four are all about the fantasy, but this seemed like a pretty sad choice to me. Were they really managing to craft a movie that was both anti-feminist and anti-Muslim? I couldn’t have been more wrong. And yet, early reviews seem to be getting it wronger.

 

"SATC 2 is at once proudly feminist and blatantly anti-Muslim, which means that it might confound liberal viewers,” writes Stephen Farber in The Hollywood Reporter.

 

I hate seeing the phrase “proudly feminist” bandied about in this way, implying that a belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes is naturally shameful. The bigger concern was that these characters would embrace their vacationland while blithely ignoring the inequities. Not so. They even hinted at the plight of the guest workers. And while it is unfortunate there is not a female Muslim character for the gals to bounce their reactions off of, this is in fact totally accurate. It’s quite difficult to get inside those enclaves, and we have Miranda on hand to explain the behavioral oddities and call for respecting the culture. That didn’t make it any less deeply satisfying to hear Samantha scream about getting “the fuck out of Abu Dhabi, now!” For one, it’s completely in keeping with her character. More importantly, it gets right at the heart of the problem.

 

The power of this culture comes from the fact that these laws are not to be questioned. (Interestingly, Muslim clerics constantly issue fatwas meant to interpret Quranic edicts but more often confuse and contradict, but that’s another posting.) In my experience, the women can be just as savage in tearing down women who do not follow dress codes. There is a definite movement, also hinted at here, to defy the long-standing traditions, and the women there will continue on in their way and achieve their own version of equity. It’s the suggestion that the criticism is the problem that I find to be the real crisis. It is so much easier to deny. Ignore. Not stand out. But that’s not these ladies style. And that's why, even with my sourpuss attitude, I totes loved it. Considering the criticisms seeping out, I love it even more.

 

Oh, there will be blood. I, for one, cannot wait.

 

Tagged in: Sex and the City 2 , sarah jessica parker   

The opinions expressed on the BUST blog are those of the authors themselves and do not necessarily reflect the position of BUST Magazine or its staff.



Trackback(0)
Comments (20)Add Comment
0
...
written by Laura T, May 29, 2010
I'm not sure I understand why anyone who hates a movie needs to get a grip? Especially when we're talking about fantasy or action films? It's not like we're talking about Citizen Kane or something.

The whole male flick versus chick flick thing is tired. While I have no trouble believing that there are some men who may not dig this flick just because it's all about women, I also have no trouble believing that there are critics out there who have a perfectly valid reason for their opinions.

Personally, I'd rather see women kick ass on film - like Uma Thurman in Kill Bill, for example. But that's just me. smilies/smiley.gif
0
...
written by elisejoan, May 29, 2010
I loved both Emily's, as well as your review. Can't wait to see it for myself.

Typically I'm not a fan of "chick flicks" but the SATC series and films are somehow different to me. They're fun, and lack the ultra cheesy, syrupy sweet, trying too hard lameness that I find comes with most movies that fit that category.

I Kill Bill is one of my favorite movies, and I love Tarantino movies in general, but I can see where there may be some movies that females don't quite "get" or aren't interested in, as well as there may be movies that men aren't interested in. I think growing up watching a lot of movies with my Dad and little brother is what got me into a lot of the crazy action flicks.
Lisa Kirchner
...
written by Lisa Kirchner, May 30, 2010
I actually went to see The Losers for exactly this love of female action heroes. Not only did it have a female in a fairly significant role, she was unabashedly flat chested. A rare combo indeed. Sadly the movie totally sucked. Kick Ass, however, rocked, and the 11-year-old girl lead also happened to be flat-chested, though that wasn't so much of a plot point. And yes, trying to elevate women by pitting them against men is tired. But anything can be criticized. I wasn't exactly kidding about the way this flick hits the porn spot. My reptilian hindbrain responds; it's like I can't help it. It is much easier to be hypercritical of say, a John Wayne movie or a porno–they simply don't have the same effect.

0
...
written by Laura T, May 30, 2010
Good points, ladies. I just think that for me, this franchise has jumped the shark. Too bad they couldn't just leave it alone. But hey, this is America and it's Hollywood so if there's a profit to be made...
Tina
...
written by Tina, May 31, 2010
It's best not to talk about S&TC series or movies to certain feminists. They do not want to view it as female empowerment.

I normally don't write comments on blogs or in forums because things can get misinterpreted via the lack of voice inflection and physical cues. But after first and last posting at FlickFilosopher.com, I decided it's time for me to do more of it.

When searching for reviews on the film, I came across FlickFilosopher.com and posted a comment. Wow, that was a big mistake. While I thought the review was hilarious, I commented saying that it's just my guilty pleasure or "fluff" (everyone has one) all hell broke loose.

I heard of women not liking S&TC that much, including some of my friends, but the reviewer and many others HATE IT with such passion. They say S&TC dangerous. I guess I never viewed my guilty pleasure and associate female empowerment or feminism with it. I usually always made fun of the clothes, but could relate to the story lines.

The more I made a case for my guilty pleasure the more visceral reaction I got. One said (and a paraphrase) I was shoving that disgusting S&TC down their throats. And one lumped me in with S&TC group that that thinks everyone with a vagina should like S&TC. And that I don't understand those who don't.

One of my plausible arguments was it doesn't matter that you don't like show, but it has allowed women to talk about sex in a different way. At least for me and my friends. All those on that forum don't want to admit to this because it's giving the show/movies merit which they are unwilling to do.

I think what pisses me off is the reviewer's caption under a S&TC picture -- "for the brainless who luv sparkle." Considering my mom, her friends and my friends all went to see it, it was a sweeping generalization of the S&TC audience. Besides, you can call me brainless, but don't say that about my mom, lol. It's just insulting.

I tried to be gracious when exiting the forum and thanked everyone and even the reviewer for their replies. But I have no desire to keep trying to defend why I like this show or the movies to people who don't want to hear it.

Thanks Ms. Kirchner for being brave and actually saying you like the film and to be able to see Sex and The City 2 for what it is -- female porn, lol!!


0
...
written by Ri, May 31, 2010
I saw it and loved it!! If any feminist has an issue with that, they can just whine about it in the corner. Let me have my SATC women and my Jimmy Choossmilies/wink.gif
0
...
written by Laura T, June 01, 2010
I just have to say something about the Jimmy Choo brand. As a feminist, I was profoundly offended by an ad campaign they did a couple of years ago that featured a gangster looking guy with a slick car that had a dead beautiful woman in the trunk. I'm not making that up. Ever since I saw that, I have to say Fuck Jimmy Choo and the shoes he walked in on.
Tina
...
written by Tina, June 01, 2010
@Laura T ...

I remember that ad! That "gangster" was Quincy Jones ... here is a link to a story featuring the ad, but they were talking about the racial aspect.

http://www.mixedmediawatch.com/2006/08/25/fashion-and-diversity-jimmy-choo/
0
...
written by Revo Bunny, June 01, 2010
The movie was bad. Not because of it's portrayals and characterizations of gender and culture, but because it was poorly written and lacked a cohesive story line. I think they thought they could heap on a whole lot of fashion and no one would notice that the flick was as boring as fuck. I didn't find the movie particularly racist -- I think sometimes when people lack exposure of other cultures they take comedy too seriously. Nor did I find myself feeling moved by any underlying feminist tones. Is Sam being a horny bitch supposed to be feminist? Is seeing arabic women show their affinity for fashion supposed to be a racist characterization? It doesn't matter, because the film was drop-dead, snooze-worthy boring. And it makes me sad, because I don't want anyone talking shit about SATC.
0
...
written by Afar, June 03, 2010
SJP's character, Carrie, is as shallow as they come in this movie. I found her grating.

The thing that REALLY blew me away (as a filmmaker) is the incredibly bad lighting. SJP had dark shadows under her nose. There was no soft lenses used (though very much needed). The camera work was shoddy and uninspired. I'm going to blame the director.

So much more to say but I'll keep it at - see it in the theater in NYC, if you can. The audience comments made the film.
0
...
written by Liz On Ya, June 03, 2010
As a woman living in the UAE (not Abu Dhabi, where the film is set, but the next Emirate over, Dubai), I can't comment on the movie since it won't be released here.
SATC 1 was censored so heavily that no cinemas bothered to release it. The same thing has happened to the sequel.
Apparently they filmed in Tunisia because permission was refused to film in Abu Dhabi as they felt the series is too dangerous and controversial.

I don't understand why the producers of this movie would try to help out the tourism industry for a place that has an obvious disdain for their franchise and women's rights in general. I mean, FGM is still legal here! Why not set it in a more progressive exotic locale?
0
...
written by MamaMary, June 03, 2010
I have not seen the movie. I have no intention of seeing the movie, even though I love shoes. I didn't enjoy SATC when it was on TV, because I couldn't relate to the characters or their situation.
That being said, I think a lot of reviewers and critics miss the point. This is not a movie about how 4 American women change the world by riding camels while wearing couture. This is a movie about 4 American women visiting an area that used to be synonymous with adventure, romance, and all that 1001 Arabian Nights stuff, and doing the same stuff they did in America, with a different background. Please tell me if I'm wrong; as I said, I haven't seen the movie, only read reviews and discussed it with friends who have seen it.
The part that really amuses me is the feminist angle - or rather, the various angles that different feminists take, as from the beginning of the series feminists have argued whether these women are empowered or oppressed by their fashion and outlook. Apparently, by going to an area of the world that still treats women as property while wearing proscribed outfits, they are either standing up for women's rights or ignoring them completely. Which is it? Enquiring minds still want to know!
0
...
written by TLC, June 03, 2010
I don't understand how anyone can say that this film wasn't like the tv show... has it been so long since anyone has watched the series?? It has just as many cheesy (and effing hilarious!) moments as this film! I was completely jazzed while watching it, and I loved that they used Abu Dabi to pit our outspoken girls against!

If you can tell me that the entire episode of SatC, in season 4, where Samantha brings canned peas in attempt to screw Friar Fuck, is not as shark-jumpy as Liza Minelli singin' Single Ladies, then you're just closing your eyes smilies/tongue.gif
0
...
written by Laura T, June 03, 2010
OK - TLC, I might concede the Friar Fuck moment. However, I think that the first movie was unlike the show in the most important ways possible - tight story telling and interesting dialogue. Not having seen the second movie, I can't say. But trailers exist for a reason and this one just looks dumb. And it's not in New York, so I don't really care. I could watch Pricilla Queen of the Desert if I want to see desert hijinks.
kelly lee
...
written by kelly lee, June 03, 2010
finally - a positive review. honestly, the bashing by male reviewers disturbed me a lot. a.o. scott and roger ebert, who complained that it wasn't realistic (yet spooged over avatar?!), really enraged me. i loved the satc series, didn't like the first movie, but loved satc 2. it was like a big party the whole time. i think it was really smart to set the movie where they did and found it very relatable. who wouldn't think going to abu dabi (all expenses) paid is a fun, luxurious adventure? until you get there and start seeing many of the injustices. i think it was clever and brave to shine on a light on a topic that's mostly ignored in american cinema.

0
...
written by Golda, June 03, 2010
As a female viewer (and reviewer) who actually enjoyed the show on occasion and kind of enjoyed the last movie, I can honestly say that SATC 2 was totally horrendous. It really had nothing to do with the storyline. The humor was just off, the dialogue was completely forced, the conflicts were fake, and yes, the lighting was horrific. It was literally hard to watch. And it could have been interesting and even point out some major social issues, but the writing was so poor as to make the story seem even triter. It's truly, indefensibly, bad.
0
...
written by Dennise, June 03, 2010
Great review. Sex and the City (the show) premiered when I was in high school and it changed my life. A show about four women who talked freely about vibrators, threesomes, anal sex and masturbating? Empowering! The same way that Barbara Eden baring her midriff on TV when it was a no-no and Courtney Cox saying the word "period" in a commercial when it had never been uttered before.

What I hate most about all the "feminist" backlash surrounding this movie is that it's contradictory. Isn't the purpose of feminism or women empowerment that we set our own rules and standards? Aren't we allowed to like what we like? Everyone is entitled to an opinion about movies, positive or negative. But hating on people who like a movie you don't like in Tina's case? That's not feminism, it's just immature.
0
...
written by Dennise, June 03, 2010
I just caught all my grammatical errors, I apologize. There is nothing worse than a comment chock full of grammatical errors. I meant to say *like in Tina's case, referring to all the backlash she received for defending SATC 2 in a forum.
0
...
written by Laura T, June 03, 2010
Good point, Dennise. It's also immature to assume that the men (and women) out there who gave the movie a bad review only did so because they are sexist. It seems that both arguments are being made when it should just be about analyzing what one thinks makes a film good and reviewing it based on that.

Also, anyone who needs to feel outrage towards a male critic, particularly ones who possess a great knowledge of film like Ebert and Scott, should ask themselves what they are doing to support women in film. Also, I dig the SATC show, but if these four women are the best defense we can make towards powerful female role models, then that's sort of pathetic.

But then again, there are almost 20 posts about this topic and the various things one can store in their breasts and only three about Louise Bourgeois, so there you go. smilies/cry.gif
0
...
written by erisgrrrl, June 09, 2010
Okay, I think the movie and the series are dumb. I think it encourages women to be vapid, super-consumers. But, I don't feel strongly enough to comment on it in a normal situation. However, something someone else said above kicked me in the butt. She said "i think it was really smart to set the movie where they did and found it very relatable. who wouldn't think going to abu dabi (all expenses) paid is a fun, luxurious adventure? until you get there and start seeing many of the injustices." Umm, I'm sorry, but no woman who has any kind of current education/knowledge would think going to Abu Dhabi would be a "fun, luxurious adventure!" Those women would already be well aware of the "many injustices" and problems they would face attempting to travel freely there. While I'm sure there would be "adventures" to be had I'm also sure they wouldn't be of the crass, "free-spirit", breast-baring type the comment implies!

Write comment

busy