I saw it

Dara writes:

I saw SATC tonight. I went in Connecticut. James told me that for the theater near his office, lines were around the block. A friend said that at her local theater on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, all shows the entire weekend were sold out. I knew where I was going in CT we would not have those troubles. But still, being a City gal, I drove to the theater in the afternoon to buy tickets for the evening show. When I arrived a mere 20 minutes early, the theater was empty, except for another woman I knew--from, of course, the City. At show-time, the theater was only half full.

And that describes how I see the movie: half full. Almost totally full. I liked it, and disagree wholeheartedly with the negative New York Times review. The movie was fully in keeping with the TV show and not a let-down in any way. True, no new ground was broken. But for a fan of the show, another two-plus hours of it is a good thing.

I don't sound deep when describing my reaction to the movie--well, it's neither Bergman nor Fellini. It's a soap opera, one I very much enjoy watching. In the movie, Carrie grows up quite a bit. I did not feel the women's obsession with clothing seemed out of step with today's financial climate. When things get tough, isn't that precisely when we want escapist fantasies?

Like most fans of the show, I embrace the depiction of the friendships of the women. That's how my friends would be, I think, if they had all the time in the world to devote to friendship. That's the biggest fantasy of the show, many have said: how much sheer time the women have to talk to one another. Charlotte is as adorable as ever in the movie. At a school I worked at last year, the British drama teacher always called me Charlotte. I'll take the compliment, though I'm not sure it's entirely accurate.

As for the racism leveled by the New York magazine reviewer: bunk. In no way is Carrie's assistant, played by Jennifer Hudson, a servant. David Edelstein in NY magazine called her a "Hattie McDaniel." If she is campy and fawning, I would say that's how Hudson plays her. I don't necessarily think the part was written that way. I also don't necessarily think the part was written for an African American actress--I suspect Hudson landed the role through her connection to famed Vogue editor Andre Leon Talley, who appears in the movie. (It is well known that Hudson is Talley's protegee.)

It is true the show does not accurately represent the diversity of the City in which it takes place. Well, the show was never realistic. And the movie isn't a cinematic masterpiece. In fact, some shots are downright cheesy--like those of the promiscuous guy who lives next door to Samantha, about whom she fantasizes. You know: the shot traveling from his feet to his head as he soaps up in his outdoor shower. (In case you're trying to picture an outdoor shower on Gansevoort Street, you should know that Samantha no longer lives in the Meatpacking District, but in Los Angeles.) But the show always contained scenes like that. In a way, the highest compliment I could pay the movie would be to say it was like another episode of the show. Well, that is how I feel about it: a longer episode, with all things I loved about the show, and all of the things that made me cringe. 

Times Review of SATC

Dara writes:

Like many women I know, I am looking forward to seeing the Sex and the City movie. Knowing it would be reviewed in the New York Times today, I avidly awaited the arrival of the paper.

Reader, I cried: yes, Manohla Dargis pans the movie. In a nutshell, Dargis feels that while the small screen was suited to the show, as it was essentially trivial in many ways, the big screen amplifies the triviality. The women, especially Carrie, seem self-obsessed and petty, while the men are drawn in an even more one-dimensional manner than on the show.

I will see the film for myself, but I did want to mention the end of Dargis's review, in which she writes: "It isn’t that Carrie has grown older or overly familiar. It’s that awash in materialism and narcissism, a cloth flower pinned to her dress where cool chicks wear their Obama buttons, this It Girl has become totally Ick." Why is Obama in that last sentence? Why has Dargis brought politics into this?

The New York magazine reviewer detected racism in the film's treatment of Carrie's assistant, played by Jennifer Hudson. Perhaps Dargis agrees. Instead of addressing it head-on, however, she alludes to it by bringing in politics in an obtrusive manner.

I look forward to seeing the film and reporting back post-haste.

Eat, Pray, Love

Dara writes:

Elizabeth Gilbert, the author of the best-selling book of spiritual exploration, Eat, Pray, Love, has a remarkably engaging voice. Rarely does the conversational tone translate effectively into prose. But Ms. Gilbert nails it. Her style is a marvel of humor, sassiness, and folksiness. In a word: irresistible. And why should one resist? Readers haven't, as her book has sold a gazillion copies.

Good for her...and for Jhumpa Lahiri? I noticed an interesting similarity between Gilbert's book and Lahiri's latest. Both end on a beach--the former near Bali and the latter in Thailand--around the time of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Lahiri's relentlessly fatalistic outlook dictates that the catastrophe will claim one of her characters, while Gilbert's doe-eyed optimism requires that her characters remain safe. Is there any way Lahiri was rebutting Gilbert in the end of her work? Probably not. But I like to contemplate the possibility.

Lahiri, and Indian American writer, has her antennae up for racism. Gilbert devotes one third of her book to time she spent in an Ashram in India--time during which she describes Indian culture as delightful and Indian girls as eminently charming. Her descriptions are a tad prone to caricature--which perhaps irked Lahiri? Perhaps she wanted to puncture the pretty bubble Gilbert draws around South Asia.

The similar descriptions that conclude their books struck me. Lahiri's character Kaushik lowers himself over the side of the boat and "lets go." Later we learn the tsunami claimed him. Gilbert--herself a character in her book--and her lover Felipe dip into the water from their boat and stride safely to shore. Many people dismiss Gilbert's book as whiny chick-lit. Perhaps Lahiri is one of those who can resist Gilbert's charms? Shunning fantasy, Lahiri plants a flag in the territory of realism.