Tuesday, June 03, 2008

In Defense of Sex and the Twitty

Saw a movie about four splendid women, shared their sense of sisterhood, their adventures, their struggles with adulthood. Peeked into their shopping, their acquisition of property, mates, and a place in the world. It wasn’t called Sex and the City, it was called Little Women.


This morning:
Me (mock embarrassed): OK, you can’t tell anyone this. Promise you won’t! I’m going to go see the The Sex and the City movie. If you tell anyone I’ll… I’ll

Big A (mock exasperated): Relax, Pups. I won’t tell any one. You think I want anyone to know that you went to see it?


About the movie:
What happened to the original writers? What happened to the two-puns-a-minute rule? How did those women get so old so fast? Remember all the trite but really useful terminolgy that SATC used to churn out? ## The only thing close to that nifty shorthand in the movie was “emotional cutter.”

After the movie:
It reminded me of that that lonely first year in the US when I watched a couple of episodes alone, of those homesick years in Oxford when I had to book the common-room at college to watch the show with J and S and W on Channel Four.

It reminded me that pre-SATC I’d never really had girlfriends. My sister was my best gal pal and the rest of my friends were guys. SATC made being girlfriends seem fun and important. (Not girlfriend—that part I seemed to have a natural prolific knack for—the part about having female friends.)

And it was a nod to my time in New York City. A city in which I had the Chrysler Building dissected for me by SP, in which I walked across the Brooklyn Bridge and back in the snow on my first real date with Big A, in which a self-assured sisterhood gives you a secret-handshake smile when you pull off a witty outfit. A city that comes close to being like India without being in India.

What I resent:
All the unnecessary noise about SATC’s product placements, its materialistic triteness, its lack of an intellectual component, its caricatured commodified milieu, and its narrative deficiencies. It’s not like you're pointing out anything new. Anything we don't already know. Yes, its excess mocks our imminent recession—and perhaps that’s exactly what is so fun about it. It is a female world—an empty, unlikely, twitty, unrealistic world, yes—but if women want to watch it, let ‘em. It’s their minds, their wallets, their time. It’s not as if the summer’s cache of multi-million-dollar dick flicks are intellectually intense, eschew product placement, or yield narrative gold. So stop preaching and prescribing propah female behavior and cultural taste. A world where cosmopolitans are contemptible but “a martini; shaken not stirred” is an epicurean touchstone just doesn’t make sense. Equal opportunity mind-farting twittiness, yo! Seriously, come on now.


## Eg. Modelizers: men who only date models



Blue said...

Which version of Little Women? I've seen them all (including the little-known BBC one) except the 1970s made-for-TV version starring William Shatner as Prof. Bhaer (and boy, would I love to get my hands on a copy of that one).

My fav's the Winona Ryder version, even though I know I should like the Katharine Hepburn one better.

maya said...

You say, the Winona Ryder version, my son says, the Kirsten Dunst version :). (he knows her from the Spidey movies and she was a very cute Amy).

This was the first movie version i've seen, although i've read Little Women every summer vacation since i first won it as a prize in third grade...

Are there any "Rose" movies? (Eight Cousins, Rose in Bloom.)

Blue said...

Internet says no Eight Cousins movies. :P

Kirsten Dunst was also a very cute child vampire, but you probably don't want to show your son that film! ;)


Max is tiny; the responsibilities are huge.  One forgets the massive undertaking the care and keeping of little ones can be.  He's absol...