COMMENTS: 98
Will the Success of Sex and the City Force Hollywood to Stop Ignoring Women?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email.
Sex and the City made almost $27 million on its opening day, which is the same amount that The Devil Wears Prada made in its opening weekend. It earned the highest opening box office for a romantic comedy ever. The most stunning news is that it won the weekend by beating Indiana Jones, a feat not even the most optimistic observers predicted. Variety reported that "Sex and the City whips Indiana Jones" and went further, stating that the "film's performance took Hollywood by utter surprise, shattering the decades-old thinking that females, particularly those over 25, can't fuel a big opening or go up against a male-driven summer tentpole."
Carrie & Co. have sent Hollywood into a frenzy -- and according to website Deadline Hollywood "looking through their film and TV libraries to see what else they can produce for the fortysomething-and-older female" -- thinking that maybe women, even those over 40, are a real potential audience. Finally.
Whatever your thoughts on the actual content of Sex and the City, you can't help but acknowledge that this is a cultural watershed moment for women's films; that's true for a couple of reasons.
- Everyone (who talks about movies) has spent the last couple of weeks discussing a film that stars and celebrates women and women's friendships. Indiana Jones, which has two of the most successful moviemakers attached to it in George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, is so yesterday's news, just one week after being released after an almost 20 year wait!
- Everyone (who talks about movies) was scratching their heads trying to figure out how much money an R rated movie targeted at adult women could make. Imagine, women preoccupying the minds of Hollywood's men. The New York Times reported that studio execs were shocked at the interest.
- The male misogynists in the film blogosphere have outed themselves in a big way with their extreme meanness about the film, one actually calling it a "Taliban recruitment film."
- The film sold 1 million advance tickets through Fandango, at one point selling 10 tickets per second.
Harry Medved of Fandango monitored the growing interest and excitement: "We haven't seen anything like this before -- it's unusual for a female driven movie to inspire so much fan anticipation." In a survey on Fandango, 71% of the 10,000 respondents said that Hollywood does not create enough movies for adult females. They've got a point there: in 2007 only five of the top 50 grossing films starred or were focused on women and in 2006 the number was three.
But even in its overwhelming success, it's hard not to be disturbed by the double standard this film has been held to and the nasty tone in the media last week. So few films are targeted at women that when one is, it is held to an unreasonable high standard. The women's film world got lucky this time, and the movie was a success; but this film became more that a movie, it became an event. What happens to the next film about women that doesn't engender this event-like status?
Additionally, the gendered marketing campaign placed the burden of success directly on the wallets of women. No other film has that burden. As Philadelphia Inquirer movie critic and blogger Carrie Rickey said on her site last week: "Remember when movies -- and books -- were mass-marketed? When studios assumed that moviegoers were equally interested in Working Girl as Superman?"
Think about last year's hit film Wild Hogs. It was about four guys, including Tim Allen and John Travolta, on a middle-age road trip. The film opened in March 2007 to $40 million. This was not a film targeted at women, but women went to see it. The point is that women never got the impression that seeing a movie about four guys going through a mid-life crisis was not worthy of our time or money, the way Sex and the City was described to men.
No movie about men or starring men has ever had to deal with headlines like "Can Women Alone Make Sex and the City a Hit?" (AP); "Sex sells, but will men see City?" (Variety); Time Out NY ran a cover photo which had duct tape over the four women's mouths with the headline: "No Sex! Enough Already -- we love 'em, but it's just too much." As Carrie Rickey said, "the personal attacks on Sarah Jessica Parker not being conventionally beautiful are creepy. Why is it OK to be unconventional if you're a guy (Bruce Willis, Harrison Ford, Will Smith) but not a gal?"
All detractors aside, women proved themselves as a force this weekend as never before. Sarah Jessica Parker, the star and one of the producers of the film, knew that her film could have wide implications in the industry. In an interview with Entertainment Weekly she said: "I want people to make good movies for women of all ages, whether they're 11 or 68 years old. I want to convince those people who hold the purse strings that it's worth their money and their time. I want to be part of proving that."
You sure did.
This article was originally posted by The Women's Media Center at www.womensmediacenter.com. The WMC is a non-profit organization founded by Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan, dedicated to making the female half of the world visible and powerful in the media.
Stay up to date with the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: masterofbadenglish on Jun 3, 2008 12:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I say no but it has nothing to do with gender politics
Posted by: fanny666
» RE: I say no but it has nothing to do with gender politics
Posted by: Ambercat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cowardly_lion on Jun 3, 2008 12:17 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: fork
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: Cowardly_lion
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: fork
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: Cowardly_lion
» I'm using commonly accepted meanings; you're not.
Posted by: fork
» RE: I'm using commonly accepted meanings; you're not.
Posted by: Cowardly_lion
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
» They were never that "slutty." They actually LIKE sex, and...
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: They were never that "slutty." They actually LIKE sex, and...
Posted by: Cowardly_lion
» RE: They were never that "slutty." They actually LIKE sex, and...
Posted by: scheherezade
» RE: They were never that "slutty." They actually LIKE sex, and...
Posted by: Cowardly_lion
» RE: They were never that "slutty." They actually LIKE sex, and...
Posted by: scheherezade
» RE: They were never that "slutty." They actually LIKE sex, and...
Posted by: Cowardly_lion
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: Cynic13
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: undertheradarmang
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: Cowardly_lion
» Slutty Behavior?
Posted by: scheherezade
» RE: Slutty Behavior?
Posted by: Cowardly_lion
» RE: Slutty Behavior?
Posted by: scheherezade
» RE: Slutty Behavior?
Posted by: Cowardly_lion
» RE: Slutty Behavior?
Posted by: scheherezade
» RE: Slutty Behavior?
Posted by: Cowardly_lion
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jun 3, 2008 3:47 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of these recent women articles have been informative and stupid at the same time. It's interesting to know the statistical/demographic stuff, but they also try to give the impression that a lot of women sit around keeping tabs on how women are "represented" in Hollywood, and have been waiting their whole lives for this movie. In my experience, many prefer dark, creepy movies, action films, and other so-called "guy" movies, and don't seem to care about a lot of the PC/feminist criteria when it comes to entertainment.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mandiwrite on Jun 3, 2008 5:13 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I'm with you on that!
Posted by: undercover
Comments are closed-
Posted by: devilsh on Jun 3, 2008 6:18 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I must agree with this post. I'm no sexist but Hollywood Chick Flicks are quite "insufferable."
Posted by: yellow
» RE: I must agree with this post. I'm no sexist but Hollywood Chick Flicks are quite "insufferable."
Posted by: Cowardly_lion
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Esquire on Jun 3, 2008 6:29 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: dward
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» Edward
Posted by: Esquire
» RE: Edward the dwarf-minded
Posted by: Cynic13
» Edward
Posted by: Esquire
» RE: dward
Posted by: Cynic13
Comments are closed-
Posted by: True2Blue on Jun 3, 2008 6:31 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only good thing about SATC from my perspective is that it saved me time and money. Any woman who told me she was a fan of that show wasn't worth a second date. I could move on to someone more genuine and caring.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What a joke
Posted by: Cynic13
» RE: What a joke
Posted by: True2Blue
Comments are closed-
Posted by: edgeofnowhere on Jun 3, 2008 7:04 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: YECCCCHHHH!
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 3, 2008 7:08 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yep - & the show got a little darker as it went on, anyway
Posted by: war_on_tara
Comments are closed-
Posted by: beatlegem on Jun 3, 2008 7:13 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: entertainment (and what folks are missing...)
Posted by: Tat106
» RE: entertainment
Posted by: MartianBachelor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: welmama on Jun 3, 2008 7:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: women and movies
Posted by: undertheradarmang
» RE: women and movies
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
Comments are closed-
Posted by: everton9 on Jun 3, 2008 8:02 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this is also, to some degree, why it was considered a movie for women only. Being a man, I will generalize and speak for the majority of men when I say that I don't really care to spend two hours of my life watching one big advertisement for the designer obsessed lifestyle.
In conclusion, I feel the message of consumerism greatly outweighs any worthy element of feminism in the SATC movie. Sure Hollywood may no longer being ignoring women. Rather, they are content to marginalize them as sheepish, vain consumers. And many women fell for it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Sex and the Consumer
Posted by: Cynic13
Comments are closed-
» RE: Vapid Gold Digging Whores
Posted by: aahb21
» I've watched all of them and they are 100% about money and stuff
Posted by: HistArch
» RE: I've watched all of them and they are 100% about money and stuff
Posted by: CatDad
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cynic13 on Jun 3, 2008 8:29 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First the show - Bob and Sheri - http://1079thelink.com/index.cfm
Listen to Monday's podcast hour 1.
Second - guys - According to Bob and Sheri's MALE listeners who attended the movie with their wives, girlfriends, or gal pals - there was a secret added bonus AFTER the movie. Their women were turned on by the movie and gave them a memorable night later at home - actually some didn't even wait 'til they got home! So if men want to scratch that age-old biological itch, they may want to take the woman in their lives to see this flick - regardless of emptyness, materialism, sexualization, etc... Would it be so bad to watch four sexy women for a couple of hours and then go home with one of your own?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This is actually a guy flick too!
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Too bad the guys who saw it didn't have any testosterone left
Posted by: HistArch
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sweetlou on Jun 3, 2008 8:35 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Commence with the "small minded, misguided and utterly sexist" assignations in 3...2...1
Now...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Thanks, OvaryNet, for proving my point
Posted by: H.R. Chuckn'stuff
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kym525 on Jun 3, 2008 9:04 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Besides, what was this series really about? Four chicks talking and having sex and spending a lot of money on material possessions while trying to figure out what they really want out of life. Hmm, I don't need a television to show this to me, any happy hour at a trendy bar gives me the same stuff and all I have to pay for is drinks. Sex in the City should not be looked as some standard-bearer for chick flicks. We can do better than by having more diversity of roles not only for women of color but for older women as well. The closest we come to Britain's Helen Mirren is Meryl Streep, and even she admits Hollywood's not breaking down her door.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Wasn't "Waiting to Exhale" the very movie you're talking about. I heard it was interesting.
Posted by: yellow
» RE: Wasn't "Waiting to Exhale" the very movie you're talking about. I heard it was interesting.
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Wasn't "Waiting to Exhale" the very movie you're talking about. I heard it was interesting.
Posted by: Tat106
» This invisibilty factor is also a part of the romance novel genre
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: This invisibilty factor is also a part of the romance novel genre
Posted by: Cynic13
» RE: This invisibilty factor is also a part of the romance novel genre
Posted by: Kym525
» Come on down!
Posted by: Tat106
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davewrite on Jun 3, 2008 10:42 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But then, does not "vulgarity" best describe the zeitgeist of this decade?
So, of course, it will rake in obscene profits.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: evasta7 on Jun 3, 2008 11:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: yellow on Jun 3, 2008 11:23 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» So are all the posts bashing feminist Obama supporters
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: So are all the posts bashing feminist Obama supporters
Posted by: Cynic13
» Why is everything necessarily a racial issue. I was criticizing the sexist responses to SATC.
Posted by: yellow
» My "rage" thing
Posted by: Kym525
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ToddSmith on Jun 3, 2008 12:16 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Jun 3, 2008 12:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they've figured a more efficient means to distract women & market products.
circle the wagons, my fellow Activistas, or you'll find yourself spending all the lion's share of free time staring blankly at department store cosmetic counters & wondering if whatever's wrong with Nora Ephron's neck is contagious...
┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄
BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
┄┄
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
┄┄
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: more 'commercial commodification' focused towards women
Posted by: Kym525
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BettynotWilma on Jun 3, 2008 1:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like adventure/action films along with other genres and enjoy watching strong/smart/funny women roles. Holly"wood" just needs to place these gals in leading versus supporting roles. Loved Dame Judi Dench as Q in Casino Royale..amazing: older-female-smart !!!
Even the animated films are "guy" oriented, with all leading male characters Ratatoullie- Kung Fu Panda, The Lion King, Chicken Little, odd isn't it?!
I will not be seeing Sex in the City- never watched the show. But its a fair guess if the movie was titled "The Traveling Pants in the City"- it would be a wash-out at the box office. S*x sells..and Hollywood has been pushing it for decades. Thank-goodness for Turner Classic Movies and Lana, Kate, Audrey, Elizabeth, Rita, Debby,Greta,Doris etc. Good scripts, strong leading women -WHAT A CONCEPT.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» My idea of a "chick-flick" is
Posted by: Kym525
Comments are closed-
Posted by: erikasf on Jun 3, 2008 1:22 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I say hooray to the show, movie and all who made it happen!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CatDad on Jun 3, 2008 2:58 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You want a REAL movie to discuss, watch Sir, No Sir!, about the anti-war movement within the US military in the early 70s....a bit of American history that has been censored out of existence until this tiny inpendent movie came out.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kym525 on Jun 3, 2008 3:32 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, outside of the serious lack of DIVERSITY (a topic that seems to rile some of my privileged feminist sisters who LOVE this show and this movie and will hear NO word against it), the big issue with Sex in the City is really--is this ALL there is to women-centered films? Why on earth would a series and a movie that presents yet another unattainable goal of fashion and success be thought of as some sort of "positive" change? Here's the sheer hypocrisy that female supporters of this film are missing. Many of them are the same ones who complain about women made to feel inadequate if they don't meet a certain standard of beauty. Well, who could be more unrealistic than Carrie Bradshaw and her cohorts? They're all skinny with perfect legs and lips and hair. What's the message we're sending to our little girls?
If SITC wanted to be really and truly cutting edge, it would have featured women who actually looked like they enjoyed food and perhaps had a few crow's feet and cellulite? Would women be as quick to embrace a show like that? It would not have maintained the idea that only the starved and pretty are allowed to be sexually appealing.
Sorry ladies, the way I see it, SITC has set honest and well-written women-centered films back about three dozen years. Right now, all I can see on the horizon is a slew of Hollywood copycats--just like on television (i.e. Lipstick Jungle).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The bigger issues with Sex in the City
Posted by: Esquire
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SOWILO on Jun 3, 2008 3:36 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Check out the films of Catherine Breillat from France for instance.
Or those of Zoe Cassavetes.
Get away from the mainstream and stop spending your money at the cineplex, giving to corporations who could give a shit less about women's rights.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: genderless on Jun 3, 2008 5:56 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: An Antidote to American puritanical Misogyny
Posted by: CatDad
» RE: An Antidote to American puritanical Misogyny
Posted by: genderless
Comments are closed-
Posted by: war_on_tara on Jun 3, 2008 7:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not giving away the plot any further than that, but isn't that something most on AlterNet can agree on? Big commercial weddings are BAD?
Surprised? There's a lot more of course.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Okay, I saw it - it's a movie that argues AGAINST big weddings!
Posted by: genderless
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bluebirdella on Jun 3, 2008 7:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on Jun 4, 2008 8:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on Jun 5, 2008 8:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Alsu on Jun 6, 2008 9:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: desidid on Jun 7, 2008 8:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pangolin on Jun 7, 2008 11:13 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This movie is for you.
For those of us that have to use real skills to manipulate actual physical matter to get things done; this is like watching a cage of starved hamsters on cocaine. Lots of noise and movement but no content.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: masterofbadenglish on Jun 3, 2008 12:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I say no but it has nothing to do with gender politics
Posted by: fanny666
» RE: I say no but it has nothing to do with gender politics
Posted by: Ambercat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cowardly_lion on Jun 3, 2008 12:17 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: fork
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: Cowardly_lion
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: fork
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: Cowardly_lion
» I'm using commonly accepted meanings; you're not.
Posted by: fork
» RE: I'm using commonly accepted meanings; you're not.
Posted by: Cowardly_lion
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
» They were never that "slutty." They actually LIKE sex, and...
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: They were never that "slutty." They actually LIKE sex, and...
Posted by: Cowardly_lion
» RE: They were never that "slutty." They actually LIKE sex, and...
Posted by: scheherezade
» RE: They were never that "slutty." They actually LIKE sex, and...
Posted by: Cowardly_lion
» RE: They were never that "slutty." They actually LIKE sex, and...
Posted by: scheherezade
» RE: They were never that "slutty." They actually LIKE sex, and...
Posted by: Cowardly_lion
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: Cynic13
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: undertheradarmang
» RE: WTF?
Posted by: Cowardly_lion
» Slutty Behavior?
Posted by: scheherezade
» RE: Slutty Behavior?
Posted by: Cowardly_lion
» RE: Slutty Behavior?
Posted by: scheherezade
» RE: Slutty Behavior?
Posted by: Cowardly_lion
» RE: Slutty Behavior?
Posted by: scheherezade
» RE: Slutty Behavior?
Posted by: Cowardly_lion
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jun 3, 2008 3:47 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of these recent women articles have been informative and stupid at the same time. It's interesting to know the statistical/demographic stuff, but they also try to give the impression that a lot of women sit around keeping tabs on how women are "represented" in Hollywood, and have been waiting their whole lives for this movie. In my experience, many prefer dark, creepy movies, action films, and other so-called "guy" movies, and don't seem to care about a lot of the PC/feminist criteria when it comes to entertainment.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mandiwrite on Jun 3, 2008 5:13 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I'm with you on that!
Posted by: undercover
Comments are closed-
Posted by: devilsh on Jun 3, 2008 6:18 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I must agree with this post. I'm no sexist but Hollywood Chick Flicks are quite "insufferable."
Posted by: yellow
» RE: I must agree with this post. I'm no sexist but Hollywood Chick Flicks are quite "insufferable."
Posted by: Cowardly_lion
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Esquire on Jun 3, 2008 6:29 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: dward
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» Edward
Posted by: Esquire
» RE: Edward the dwarf-minded
Posted by: Cynic13
» Edward
Posted by: Esquire
» RE: dward
Posted by: Cynic13
Comments are closed-
Posted by: True2Blue on Jun 3, 2008 6:31 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only good thing about SATC from my perspective is that it saved me time and money. Any woman who told me she was a fan of that show wasn't worth a second date. I could move on to someone more genuine and caring.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What a joke
Posted by: Cynic13
» RE: What a joke
Posted by: True2Blue
Comments are closed-
Posted by: edgeofnowhere on Jun 3, 2008 7:04 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: YECCCCHHHH!
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 3, 2008 7:08 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yep - & the show got a little darker as it went on, anyway
Posted by: war_on_tara
Comments are closed-
Posted by: beatlegem on Jun 3, 2008 7:13 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: entertainment (and what folks are missing...)
Posted by: Tat106
» RE: entertainment
Posted by: MartianBachelor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: welmama on Jun 3, 2008 7:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: women and movies
Posted by: undertheradarmang
» RE: women and movies
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
Comments are closed-
Posted by: everton9 on Jun 3, 2008 8:02 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this is also, to some degree, why it was considered a movie for women only. Being a man, I will generalize and speak for the majority of men when I say that I don't really care to spend two hours of my life watching one big advertisement for the designer obsessed lifestyle.
In conclusion, I feel the message of consumerism greatly outweighs any worthy element of feminism in the SATC movie. Sure Hollywood may no longer being ignoring women. Rather, they are content to marginalize them as sheepish, vain consumers. And many women fell for it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Sex and the Consumer
Posted by: Cynic13
Comments are closed-
» RE: Vapid Gold Digging Whores
Posted by: aahb21
» I've watched all of them and they are 100% about money and stuff
Posted by: HistArch
» RE: I've watched all of them and they are 100% about money and stuff
Posted by: CatDad
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cynic13 on Jun 3, 2008 8:29 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First the show - Bob and Sheri - http://1079thelink.com/index.cfm
Listen to Monday's podcast hour 1.
Second - guys - According to Bob and Sheri's MALE listeners who attended the movie with their wives, girlfriends, or gal pals - there was a secret added bonus AFTER the movie. Their women were turned on by the movie and gave them a memorable night later at home - actually some didn't even wait 'til they got home! So if men want to scratch that age-old biological itch, they may want to take the woman in their lives to see this flick - regardless of emptyness, materialism, sexualization, etc... Would it be so bad to watch four sexy women for a couple of hours and then go home with one of your own?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This is actually a guy flick too!
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Too bad the guys who saw it didn't have any testosterone left
Posted by: HistArch
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sweetlou on Jun 3, 2008 8:35 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Commence with the "small minded, misguided and utterly sexist" assignations in 3...2...1
Now...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Thanks, OvaryNet, for proving my point
Posted by: H.R. Chuckn'stuff
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kym525 on Jun 3, 2008 9:04 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Besides, what was this series really about? Four chicks talking and having sex and spending a lot of money on material possessions while trying to figure out what they really want out of life. Hmm, I don't need a television to show this to me, any happy hour at a trendy bar gives me the same stuff and all I have to pay for is drinks. Sex in the City should not be looked as some standard-bearer for chick flicks. We can do better than by having more diversity of roles not only for women of color but for older women as well. The closest we come to Britain's Helen Mirren is Meryl Streep, and even she admits Hollywood's not breaking down her door.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Wasn't "Waiting to Exhale" the very movie you're talking about. I heard it was interesting.
Posted by: yellow
» RE: Wasn't "Waiting to Exhale" the very movie you're talking about. I heard it was interesting.
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Wasn't "Waiting to Exhale" the very movie you're talking about. I heard it was interesting.
Posted by: Tat106
» This invisibilty factor is also a part of the romance novel genre
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: This invisibilty factor is also a part of the romance novel genre
Posted by: Cynic13
» RE: This invisibilty factor is also a part of the romance novel genre
Posted by: Kym525
» Come on down!
Posted by: Tat106
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davewrite on Jun 3, 2008 10:42 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But then, does not "vulgarity" best describe the zeitgeist of this decade?
So, of course, it will rake in obscene profits.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: evasta7 on Jun 3, 2008 11:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: yellow on Jun 3, 2008 11:23 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» So are all the posts bashing feminist Obama supporters
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: So are all the posts bashing feminist Obama supporters
Posted by: Cynic13
» Why is everything necessarily a racial issue. I was criticizing the sexist responses to SATC.
Posted by: yellow
» My "rage" thing
Posted by: Kym525
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ToddSmith on Jun 3, 2008 12:16 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Jun 3, 2008 12:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they've figured a more efficient means to distract women & market products.
circle the wagons, my fellow Activistas, or you'll find yourself spending all the lion's share of free time staring blankly at department store cosmetic counters & wondering if whatever's wrong with Nora Ephron's neck is contagious...
┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄
BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
┄┄
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
┄┄
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: more 'commercial commodification' focused towards women
Posted by: Kym525
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BettynotWilma on Jun 3, 2008 1:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like adventure/action films along with other genres and enjoy watching strong/smart/funny women roles. Holly"wood" just needs to place these gals in leading versus supporting roles. Loved Dame Judi Dench as Q in Casino Royale..amazing: older-female-smart !!!
Even the animated films are "guy" oriented, with all leading male characters Ratatoullie- Kung Fu Panda, The Lion King, Chicken Little, odd isn't it?!
I will not be seeing Sex in the City- never watched the show. But its a fair guess if the movie was titled "The Traveling Pants in the City"- it would be a wash-out at the box office. S*x sells..and Hollywood has been pushing it for decades. Thank-goodness for Turner Classic Movies and Lana, Kate, Audrey, Elizabeth, Rita, Debby,Greta,Doris etc. Good scripts, strong leading women -WHAT A CONCEPT.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» My idea of a "chick-flick" is
Posted by: Kym525
Comments are closed-
Posted by: erikasf on Jun 3, 2008 1:22 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I say hooray to the show, movie and all who made it happen!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CatDad on Jun 3, 2008 2:58 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You want a REAL movie to discuss, watch Sir, No Sir!, about the anti-war movement within the US military in the early 70s....a bit of American history that has been censored out of existence until this tiny inpendent movie came out.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kym525 on Jun 3, 2008 3:32 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, outside of the serious lack of DIVERSITY (a topic that seems to rile some of my privileged feminist sisters who LOVE this show and this movie and will hear NO word against it), the big issue with Sex in the City is really--is this ALL there is to women-centered films? Why on earth would a series and a movie that presents yet another unattainable goal of fashion and success be thought of as some sort of "positive" change? Here's the sheer hypocrisy that female supporters of this film are missing. Many of them are the same ones who complain about women made to feel inadequate if they don't meet a certain standard of beauty. Well, who could be more unrealistic than Carrie Bradshaw and her cohorts? They're all skinny with perfect legs and lips and hair. What's the message we're sending to our little girls?
If SITC wanted to be really and truly cutting edge, it would have featured women who actually looked like they enjoyed food and perhaps had a few crow's feet and cellulite? Would women be as quick to embrace a show like that? It would not have maintained the idea that only the starved and pretty are allowed to be sexually appealing.
Sorry ladies, the way I see it, SITC has set honest and well-written women-centered films back about three dozen years. Right now, all I can see on the horizon is a slew of Hollywood copycats--just like on television (i.e. Lipstick Jungle).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The bigger issues with Sex in the City
Posted by: Esquire
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SOWILO on Jun 3, 2008 3:36 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Check out the films of Catherine Breillat from France for instance.
Or those of Zoe Cassavetes.
Get away from the mainstream and stop spending your money at the cineplex, giving to corporations who could give a shit less about women's rights.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: genderless on Jun 3, 2008 5:56 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: An Antidote to American puritanical Misogyny
Posted by: CatDad
» RE: An Antidote to American puritanical Misogyny
Posted by: genderless
Comments are closed-
Posted by: war_on_tara on Jun 3, 2008 7:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not giving away the plot any further than that, but isn't that something most on AlterNet can agree on? Big commercial weddings are BAD?
Surprised? There's a lot more of course.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Okay, I saw it - it's a movie that argues AGAINST big weddings!
Posted by: genderless
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bluebirdella on Jun 3, 2008 7:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on Jun 4, 2008 8:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on Jun 5, 2008 8:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Alsu on Jun 6, 2008 9:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: desidid on Jun 7, 2008 8:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pangolin on Jun 7, 2008 11:13 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This movie is for you.
For those of us that have to use real skills to manipulate actual physical matter to get things done; this is like watching a cage of starved hamsters on cocaine. Lots of noise and movement but no content.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Updated: Catholic Bishops Embrace Anti-Abortion Terrorizers Missy Smith and Randall Terry
10 Defining Feminist Moments of 2009
Going Undercover in the Crazy, Tragic World of Christian Gay-Conversion Therapy




