Sex and the City: Good Article

[EricMontreal22]

We discussed Sex and the City a lot in a recent thread about a best TV list--but I thought this article in this week's New Yorker was pretty spot on (although Nussbaum seems to like the series more than I ever did, I agree with near all her points.)

She brings the subject up because of the recent book, “Difficult Men: Behind the Scenes of a Creative Revolution: From ‘The Sopranos’ and ‘The Wire’ to ‘Mad Men’ and ‘Breaking Bad,’ ” which she says she otherwise loves--and I've been meaning to buy. In the book, she says it's largely dismissed compared to the other shows that put HBO on the map due to dealing with, according to the book, four stereotypical women whose only distinction is they're more foul mouthed. ANyway, the article goes on to ask why a show that initially was seen as so groundbreaking has tarnished--at least critically--when others haven't (her main reasoning seems to be what I'd think--the end of the series, and the TERRIBLE movies did it in.)

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2013/07/29/130729crte_television_nussbaum

[JackPeyton]

Carrie Bradshaw was very much an anti-Hero. It and the series dismissed due to the endless reruns, the stars being in tabloids and IMO mostly due to it being about females. The movies I don't think have much to do with it.

[P.J.]

Yeah, I wouldn't doubt that SATC is overlooked for being centered on women vs these "reinvigorating" shows driven by men. Not that there isn't an element of drama snobbery involved in it as well. Men being assh*oles are to be admired. Women being bitches aren't.

[EricMontreal22]

Well she brought up those points more than the movies, actually (I'm assuming you didn't read the article--specifically she mentioned the watered down reruns which *do* make it seem more like a traditional rom-com. And I think you're spot on about the female thing. While the "Golden Age of TV" did eventually lead to shows with strong women (Six Feet Under, Mad Men, Game of Thrones all have iconic female characters,) I think you're right. It's a bit like how the film era that this TV Golden Age is always compared to--the late 60s to late 70s--also was extremely male dominated.

But I do think that the movies played a part. However, I think if the show does have a legacy, in time the movies will simply be ignored, the way they have been with other shows where the movies were truly awful.

[EricMontreal22]

I think it's amazing--as she points out--that so many dismiss it as being based on stereotypes of women--ie the bitch, the prude, the slut... Which misses the point completely.

[Skin]

I don't know if I agree with her in entirety persay. When I was in high-school I used to stay up until 1 am in the morning to watch this show as I wanted to see what the fuss was about and I genuinely enjoyed it, however I think it has aged badly and most of that is because of a poor ending as well as it's dismal sequels. Regardless, I don't think that it's truly as ground breaking or as innovative as she says it was. I don't even find The Office or 30 Rock to be that important and those are critically revered and respected, which she links back to Sex And The City making those shows possible. I don't see much tread in regards to her argument, if she had made the argument for Desperate Housewives or Grey's Anatomy I would have felt the argument would have more levity, but as it stands I don't think there has truly been that much progress from SATC to the Office in regards to what she is arguing. Ultimately, comedies are not going to be as respected as powerful dramas in the critic circle -- regardless of what they are. The more respected comedies on cable that have been getting praise over the past few years have been comedy/drama hybrids or dramady shows like Weeds, Nurse Jackie, Shameless, and so on -- There are not really big comedy/satire/slice of life shows like SATC on high profile cable shows, and you can just see how television is being skewed on cable, it's going darker, grittier and twisting previous ideas on their heads to make something new and different. Back to the topic at hand I personally always had a problem with "Big" and how the series was ultimately defined by him and Carrie's standing with him. In the end, her being up with him in the finale was the shows ultimate unraveling. I think the author of this article has the right idea that Carrie should have been solo, or just with anyone other then Big for the finale episode. Once that happened it stripped away everything that was important to not only Carrie but the series itself.

[JackPeyton]

Another issue with the series is that its best years are really its middle years. The first season is painfully bad, the second is where it becomes good, with the third being amazing. By the end it was less of a sitcom comedy and more of a drama with light moments, and it worked, but it evolved as it was on. Shows that are praised heavily like mad men, lost, the sopranos are legit the same from start to finish.

[ThePrinceOfSunspear]

The first season bad? Umm okay.....the very first episode is absolutely iconic....I was hooked from the very beginning. SO many one lines and words of wisdom. Every episode was just mind boggling to me in how Carrie would just make all these revelations....

[YRBB]

Thank you so much for this article. It articulated exactly what I think about, and why I love, this show so much. It also said what was really so off about its ending: It was rom com, plain and simple, and the show was never about that.

I agree, its middle seasons (3 and 4) were the best.

[DRW50]

Automatic fail.

China Beach had not one, but two, in Colleen and KC, with KC (Marg Helgenberger) being the best damn anti-heroine ever on a dramatic series that I can remember.

[DRW50]

As for why the show hasn't kept its luster, of course the female-dominated cast (even if it was written by a man who, IMO, hates women) has something to do with that. But it's more complicated.

The show worked best as a breezy, tough comedy, with moments of tenderness and caring. Unfortunately, when the show became popular in season two, critics fell over themselves to justify liking a show that had long subplots about tiny-dicked men, so we heard all sorts of stuff about how Important and Profound the show was.

And Michael Patrick King ran with this, stripping away too much of the show's quirkiness for way too many arch monologues and stale "moments" that felt like Barbie dolls performing War and Peace. I never, ever wanted to hear again about the broken princess dreams of Carrie Bradshaw, and seeing her with that anguished look, squealing and squeaking like someone had forgotten to give her food and water. This went on for years and years and it sucked the character dry.

I'll never forget the 9/11 episode, when they showed Carrie walking outside in beautiful fall weather. I thought this was extremely moving, showing a New Yorker moving on, in the midst of her beautiful city. And then comes a long monologue that trampled over the poignancy and threw me right out of the moment.

The show became extremely self-conscious, and self-conscious, arch shows rarely wear well with the public.

[VirginiaHamilton]

I'm of the opinion that folks sh!t on this show because it is trendy to do so these days (partially due to the fact that they are repulsed by the idea that any woman over a certain age be any kind of sexual being), not because of any genuine reasoning or feeling behind it. Mind you, these are the very same critics who blew smoke up it's ass during its run, so all these 'SATC-ruined-the-fabric-of-television' rants are pure and utter bullshit.

Furthermore, as someone who loved/loves the show precisely because it was a delicious cocktail of designer duds and chic NYC spots with the unwavering genuine female friendship being at its core (a rarity these days where bitchery is considered to be a 'real' representation of such on TV), I'll gladly point out that anyone who actually looked to this show for social cues on how to live their lives are idiots.

[DRW50]

I had a tough time buying any of the friendship in the last few seasons. I thought the only genuine friendships by the end were with people like Charlotte and Anthony.

The critics always like to overinflate and drain the life out of a show once they find it. I remember all the breathless hype about Everybody Loves Raymond and how profound it was, which never made a bit of sense to me. It was just a sitcom that ran too long, with a few very good actors, some annoying, overexposed actors, and a very mean tone.

[juppiter]

Really really great article. It's true -- it happened so quickly that I did not even notice. Sex and the City is basically a joke now whereas it was praised in its time -- as mentioned in this article, in the pilot of "Girls" Shoshanna talks about which one of the Sex and the City characters she and her friends are (a conversation I have also heard girls that age having on trains in NYC.) This show has become a caricature of everything wrong with this generation and its "first world problems." But really, women did not talk about sex like they do now until Sex and the City made it OK, either in real life or on television. I agree with Carl that this show started taking itself too seriously toward the end and the relationships were just not realistic anymore, but I think it changed our culture and our language irreversibly.

[ThePrinceOfSunspear]

The paragraph about her relationship with Mr Big is so scary true.... And what a great article. It makes me want to rewatch the entire show. I still melt every time I hear that finale monologue that Carrie gave to the Russian artist/architect about the kinda love she was hungering for... The show just resonated with me on so many levels and despite its flaws I'll never think of it as a joke. I just pretend like the movies never happened honestly. I am so a mix of Carrie and Charlotte though...it's not even funny.