Sex and the City - It Don't Mean a Thing if it Ain't Got That Swing

Do Whop Do Whop...

Hey Dickwad, I’m speaking!

In Sex and the City: the movie, Carrie, Miranda, Charlotte, and Samantha may all sing, but none of them really swing. Or, in other words, they all talk the talk, but these ladies’ don’t really walk the walk.

I suppose it was wrong of me to invest so many of my feminist hopes and female dreams into this one fiendishly femme flick, but all of the signs pointed in the right direction and I must have gotten ’carried away’ with my desires to declare Sex and the City the most empowering chick flick of the year. It’s not. Plus, I was all starry eyed by the impact of the midnight show and being surrounded by hundreds of dolled-up gals. I’ve taken three weeks+ and three viewings of the film (…7.5 hours) to think things over carefully and considerately before declaring my verdict of the film to the world.

And, to be honest, I still haven’t completely made up my mind about the philosophy of SATC’s narrative. Though gray isn’t a prominent color in the wardrobe of these sparkling fashionistas, there sure is a lot of gray matter within their lives that either fails to be addressed completely or is glossed over and not given a second thought, which discredits a lot of the progress the film and TV show attains.

For instance, the fact that Samantha lives in Los Angeles now and, yet, still seems to appear in every single scene of the film. It had never occurred to me before seeing the movie that these friends don’t see each other every single day. The tourniquet-esque editing style coupled with the bombardment of lunches, shopping trips, and general hangouts between the ladies’ causes their lives to seem inseparable from one another. And, obviously, that’s the point of Michael Patrick King’s aesthetic choice and I absolutely love their towering friendship - however, it severely detracts from showcasing the women as individuals. It would be amazing to see Miranda kicking butt as a partner in her law firm and Samantha sassing up her agency. Or, better yet, see Charlotte slowly going insane with her happy housewife status and Carrie actually(!) doing some writing. In fact, about the only time they’re away from one another is when their men-folk are around.
So, what about their men folk? Why do these four talented, smart, absolutely gorgeous women drop everything for love with a sweet cheater, Mr. Blah but sexy, Mr. Blah but rich, and Mr. Blah Blah Blah? God knows they’ve tried, but why can’t the gals’ be involved with men who are as vibrant, passionate, and worthwhile as they are? Back in the glorious days of women’s pictures, it was perfectly acceptable for the man in the woman’s life to simply be “just” an archetype or even be a quadruple Blah (I’m looking at you Van Heflin) because the women themselves were larger than life - at least the life most women led at the time. They always put themselves first and didn’t revolve their entire lives around a man, at least not without wondering why they needed to. The ladies of SATC don’t have that option. Their friendships with one another may always come first, but the men in their lives come second with the third, less proportionate element being themselves as individual people. Why does it have to be that way?
Dare I say, is it because Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte, and Miranda aren’t worth a damn on their own? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Each gal may have her little niche inside the clan, but as separate characters, they’re mentally and emotionally malnourished and only become shall we say, “whole,” when around the other three women, kind of like Captain Planet for mature ladies with designer labels instead of teenagers with earth conservation.

Oh, but when they’re “whole,” glorious things start to happen - feminine love is spread throughout Manhattan and wonderful, sincere girl chat is vocalized and cherished by the three most important people in her/their lives. No other film this year has so completely understood the feminine need for friendship, for loving, comforting companionship. When the girls’ get together, there’s no stopping their powerful impact upon NYC, Mexico, LA, or anywhere else they choose to go. They rule the roost. And, most importantly, they cherish their femininity. They’re not ashamed to be women, in fact, they’re damn proud of it. The film, if nothing else, celebrates their pride and showcases it like a diamond necklace at Tiffany’s.

All in all, Sex and the City is a mixed bag of feminist feelings and ideas. I love the gals’ despite their shortcomings and seeing the movie at the midnight show with so many other women is a memory I’ll cherish forever. I'm also enormously happy to see it doing so well at the box office. Judging by the reaction to the film by critics and box office analysts, I'd say my hopes for studios creating other female-driven flicks based upon the success of SATC is a-go. Progression isn’t at the forefront of thought in either the movie or the show, but by doing its best to honor the code of femininity, I think the movie makes up for some of its falsehoods and meandering ideals.

She Did it the Hard Way - Bette Davis

Bette Davis (1908-1989)

Ruth Elizabeth Davis, more commonly known as Bette Davis, was born April 5, 1908 in Lowell, Massachusetts. She was a precocious, self-absorbed child who discovered her love of acting while watching the play, The Wild Duck (by Henrik Ibsen) when she was a teenager, proclaiming, "Before that performance I wanted to be an actress. When it ended, I had to be an actress... exactly like Peg Entwistle (who played Hedvig in the play). Her doting, generous mother, Ruthie (Bette’s best friend for her entire life) sacrificed herself to Bette’s whim by working two jobs, one as a very talented portrait photographer and, the other, as a laundress, to supply funds for she and the Davis family to live in NYC and send Bette to acting school at the John Murray Anderson School of Theatre. Bette was, of course, the most exceptional pupil in her class, which made Ruthie’s efforts worth the trouble. By 1929 at age nineteen, Bette had already appeared in on and off Broadway productions, including playing the part of Hedvig in The Wild Duck. During the performance of one of her plays, a Universal Studios talent scout spotted the young starlet and invited her to Hollywood for a screen test, which led to a run-of-the-mill contract, followed by bleached blonde hair, and then a whole lotta nothin’.

Universal didn’t know what to do with the odd-looking starlet they had on their hands. She played numerous bit parts in generally bad movies until 1932, when (then) superstar George Arliss chose her to be his leading lady in The Man Who Played God (1932) and she signed her first Warner Bros. contract. That role paved her way into playing her first mind-blowing performance as Mildred in Of Human Bondage in 1934, a part that pushed Davis into the mainstream appreciation of critics and fans and started her precedent for playing unlikable, challenging characters. Though she didn’t win the Academy Award that year (despite a Hollywood-wide campaign), she did win her first Oscar the following year for the film, Dangerous (1935) and won again in 1939 for the 1938 film, Jezebel. She was nominated for an Academy Award for best actress eight more times throughout her career.


Her best-known performances are probably as Charlotte Vale in Now, Voyager (1942), Margo Channing in All About Eve (1950), and as Baby Jane Hudson in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962). Though Bette acted in various genres throughout her life (horror, comedy, drama, etc.), she is most fondly remembered for her startling commitment to the women’s picture genre – a section of time in film that she realized affected thousands of women everywhere and, along with supporting the troops of WWII by starting The Hollywood Canteen in 1942, Davis acted in films starring/about strong females to support the women on the home front during the war. After starting in 1936 what Olivia DeHavilland eventually finished in 1943 with the “DeHavilland Law,” Bette was basically able to pick and choose which parts she should play and which directors would work with her, which, to say the least, was unusual for a female star to do during that era (…and even now). She challenged authority on a daily basis and she usually won her battles.


Her unwavering power and determination is clearly displayed in each performance she gives, which she does with her entire being and soul. Whether she’s being good Bette (All this, and Heaven Too, Now, Voyager, Dark Victory) or very bad Bette (The Letter, In this our Life, The Little Foxes), Ms. Davis always acted as a tower of female strength and pride for her audiences to identify with and aspire to be. She inspires me everyday – through her films, through the books written about her, and even through the images of her I have placed all over my apartment. I love Bette Davis because her ghostly presence over my life encourages me to be a better person and a better woman. Her image has attracted me to her since I saw the insipid Watcher in the Woods (1980) when I was a small child (I loved horror movies, what can I say?), which only grew into staunch admiration when I saw All About Eve and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? in junior high school. I’ve seen over thirty of her films and I want to see more. My personal favorite is probably Jezebel (1938) followed by Now, Voyager(1942), Old Acquaintance (1943), and Hush…Hush, Sweet Charlotte (1964).

Off screen, Ms. Davis’ life was far less gratifying – she married four times, all ending with divorce (three times) or death (once), and had three children, one of which, B.D. Hyman, wrote her own version of Mommie Dearest entitled My Mother’s Keeper that amounted to nothing – no publicity and no shame on Bette’s part. In fact, she wrote a fiery response in the form of a book called This ‘n’ That. The love of her life was director William Wyler, who directed Bette in three of her most beloved films, Jezebel (1938), The Letter(1940), and The Little Foxes (1941). She had affairs with Howard Hughes, George Brent, and Vincent Sherman. It seems that no man in her life liked being known as “Mr. Bette Davis.” They should have been honored.

Sara's Shit List - John Kass on Sex and the City "Because No Man Should Feel The Agony of this Film"

Ugh

John Kass, writer for the Chicago Tribune, took it upon himself to create a "Get Out of Watching Sex and the City" Card for all of the other insecure males out there. Are men really so freaked out by SATC's hyper-femininity that they'll go to these lengths to put an end to it?



More on this later.

These are a few of my favorite things... (Joan Crawford edition)

Dearest blog, I haven’t forgotten thee – I’m just kind of in movie limbo at the moment because I haven’t had an entire day set aside to catch up on chick flicks. Hopefully I’ll remedy that this weekend. Until then, I feel like making a guide to some of the filmic feminist icons, films, and such that I absolutely love.

Let’s start with Joan Crawford.


There are three women in the history of cinema whose work I continually turn to for both inspiration and identification and they are Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn, and Joan Crawford. These ladies’ don’t really need an introduction because their lives and work have been so well documented by other fans and writers, but I love ‘em passionately and generally watch one of their films per week. Without further ado:

"Damn it . . . Don't you dare ask God to help me." - Joan Crawford's last words

Joan Crawford (1906-1977): Born Lucille LeSueur in San Antonio, Texas, Ms. Crawford came to Hollywood in the mid 1920’s to be an actress in silent pictures. She had a career ranging chronologically from 1925 until 1972. Though her forty-seven year livelihood is the shortest of these three particular women, her grasp on the overall history of cinema is the strongest because it started significantly earlier (in show business years, that is) – she worked through the silent years, the early talkies, the golden age, and teetered off around the rise of the independents. She is probably best remembered for her role as Mildred in Mildred Pierce, the only film for which she won a Best Actress Oscar in 1945, because it encompasses her sizzling persona so accurately in the mainstream world. She generally acted in women’s pictures that put her character in a position of change – a change that mostly revolves around her trying to get out of a relationship with a bad man and move on with her life. She has fury to burn. Watching Joan Crawford get mad makes me feel like I just told someone off, which is kind of a combination feeling between a wonderful adrenaline rush and giddy enthusiasm. I’ve only seen about twenty of her films (basically all of the ones released on DVD), but I love her in nearly all of them. My favorite Crawford flick is The Damned Don’t Cry (195), closely followed by A Woman’s Face (1941), Harriet Craig (1950), and Johnny Guitar (1954). It’s certainly a shame that all of the hard work and dedication Ms. Crawford paid to cinema has all but been thrown back in her face because her…darling…daughter, Christina, chose to write an exaggerated tale of child abuse entitled Mommie Dearest. Crawford was a severe hypochondriac (for example, she washed her hands every ten minutes), but she loved her four children and her youngest daughter, Cathy (her twin, Cindy, died last year) has recently gone on the record to say that Christina fabricated a lot the material in Mommie Dearest. Alas, that’s all she’s known for in pop culture these days and I wish people could get over it and see what a great asset she is/was for us.

* I plan on doing two more posts - one on Ms. Hepburn and the other on Ms. Davis within the next few days. So, stay tuned!

A few fun and games...

Well, I got "tagged" by Ms. Alexa over at Pop Elegantiarum and I must comply with her wishes! :)

Five Things in my Purse:

(I don't have a digi camera handy, so I'll steal from google)

Fossil Wallet

Burt's Bees chapstick

Full Frontal Feminism by Jessica Valenti, founder of Feministing.com

Rhodia notepad with a Katharine Hepburn postcard glued to the cover.

And, a Yoyo!

Five Favorite Things in MY Room:

1. My DVDs
http://planet-baptiste.dvdaf.com/
2. Libby!

3. The Mickey Mouse blanket my father bought me when I was 7.
4. The Tenant (1978) original AU daybill poster Jake bought me for Christmas in '04.
5. My collaged coffee table.

Five things I've always wanted to do:

1. Visit Europe for an extended period of time with Jake.
2. Take my mom on a vacation to NYC.
3. Publish a book.
4. Write the sequel novel to Roman by Polanski with Roman's blessing.
5. Dance!!!

Five things I'm currently into:

1. Learning more about Jennifer Jones.
2. Reading classic literature.
3. Taking my dog for walks.
4. The TCM "flim flam" game.
5. The midnight show of Sex and the City.

Five impressions of Alexa at Pop Elegantiarum:

1. She's very talented.
2. She has a wide range of interests that help with the creation of her art.
3. She's a feminist.
4. She's considerate.
5. She's super cool!

My six quirks:

1. I hate it when the volume of the television is not at an even number.
2. I hate it when people use "your" when they mean "you're."
3. I wear black almost every day...I just like it.
4. I feel at home in cemetaries.
5. I can't stand writing with pencils.
6. I don't drink or do any drugs and I never have nor will.

I'll tag Lisa and Alex!

So what are we going to do? Sit around bars, sipping Cosmos and sleeping with strangers when we're eighty? Thoughts on Sex and the City: The Movie

Ok, I’ll admit it - I’ve seen every episode of Sex and the City at least twice. The girls’ (Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte, and Miranda) kept me company during the latter part of my high school years and my first year of college. Even then, I detested certain elements of the show and it’s almost constant need to pair up its ladies’ with mostly terrible men (among other things), which is exemplified in the show’s finale, but I couldn’t and still can’t help being drawn to the caring friendship between all four women. They’re goddamn soul mates for Christ sakes! And they’ve made it a point to flat out tell us so on more than one occasion.

So, even though I sold off my DVD sets long ago and haven’t watched the show in close to three years, I’m looking forward to the movie immensely…and so are other women, apparently. As it has sold more group sales tickets than Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull! The trailer has me hoping that the movie will un-do all of the romantic knots it created within the lives of the characters at the seasons end. I can’t wait to attend the first ever female oriented midnight show this upcoming Thursday evening. Could this be the first chick flick blockbuster in a decade? Could Sex and the City: the movie prove to studios, like, ahem, Warner Bros., that women want to see strong, important women on the big screen? It very well might.

Let’s hope certain obstacles don’t get in the way. Reporters keep trying to place the “bitch” label on each actresses forehead for some reason. Why do women have to be seen as constantly fighting with one another to sell newspapers and magazines? BTW, Kristin Davis (Charlotte) has emphatically denied all of the squabbling accounts here:

Sex And The City star Kristin Davis has denied reports alleging the hit TV show was marred by infighting between the four leading ladies. Davis and her co-stars Sarah Jessica Parker, Cynthia Nixon and Kim Cattrall have long been dogged by rumors they don't get on - with speculation that petty arguments about costumes and pay had divided the group. There was even gossip that the new movie adaptation was almost shelved because of the growing rift between the actresses - in particular between Parker and Cattrall, who have both admitted to a dispute over money. But Davis insists the four women rarely fight when working together - especially not over a trivial matter like costumes. She tells British TV show This Morning, "If we were fighting over shoes, if we actually got into a physical altercation over shoes - we would have to be in the nut house. We don't fight over shoes, we don't really fight. We are four of the luckiest, overpaid women in the world - with the best job in the world. We have been together for 10 years, working together for 18 hours a day. We would never have got through this if we weren't close. We love each other."

The reviews of the film are also very mixed thus far and while those aren’t all that interesting, the comments the reviews receive online are:

“This may not be an indictment of men, but it is surely an indictment on the kind of people too many women of this generation have become. Promiscuous, foul-mouthed male bashing sexists. I am in my early thirties and I am thoroughly disgusted by the way many women who are ten years younger than me to around my age act. Where are the feminine women who know how to be a lady and respect men. I guess women could say the same thing about men. Masculine men are becoming less and less. There are so many Gay men nowadays and women seem to want their men feminine instead of true men. When did the line between the way men and women act become so blurred? It makes me SICK! Speaking of sick, the way women and Homosexuals idolize this show and these women also makes me sick. Women of this generation need to join us in reality!!!”

Ok, well, this review is particularly hilarious:

That said, I am revising my box office estimates for the film to about double what was being bounced around the studio just a few weeks ago. In the last decade, I have never seen the New Line screening room this full… not for Rings… not for nothing. If the fire marshall had shown up, at least a dozen women would have been thrown out before they could show the film. And it was 88% women in the room. And 8% gay men. And me.

But in a summer where Anne Hathaway is playing with boys and Meryl Streep is in a movie that Universal is now trying to sell to the High School Musical set with the unknown blonde girl and there is not really a single film for women of all ages all summer long… this one is going to be a big, stinky hit.

Yeah!

Sunsilk, Sunsilk, Sunsilk

Well, Unilver and Sunsilk hair care are up to no good once again. They never returned my follow-up e-mails to the original “icon” complaints I gave them, but I hope they’ll respond this time around.

Their new campaign is geared towards the every day Jane’s who buy their product – women had the opportunity to submit “their own story” to the company in hopes of becoming one of their starlet icons and undergoing the celebrity pampering treatment. Out of all the entries they received, Sunsilk chose twenty-five women as finalists whose stories range from admirable to absolutely pathetic. I guess that’s fitting considering the icons they chose to represent them, Marilyn Monroe, Madonna, and Shakira. However, their stories aren’t necessarily what I’m concerned with, it’s the way they chose to represent them -

On their website, people from all over the world can visit, watch the video of the finalist telling their story, and vote who they think should be the first Sunsilk starlet. Instead of filming their finalists as if they’re people (from a head-on perspective, perhaps showing us some of their backgrounds in relation to their tale), they constantly fetishize their bodies with extreme, frenetic, Michael Bay editing that totally distracts from the person’s story. So, what they’re basically doing with this campaign is saying “vote for the person with the prettiest face, the hottest body, the most jewelry, and, of course, the best hair.” Way to go, Sunsilk.

If you’re interested in seeing of these vile shenanigans, visit their official website because I can’t post them here.