Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Will the Success of Sex and the City Force Hollywood to Stop Ignoring Women?

By Melissa Silverstein, The Women's Media Center. Posted June 3, 2008.


Sex and the City killed at the box office. Maybe now Hollywood will stop only making movies geared at teen boys.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Unless you've been under a rock for the last week or so you know that the women from the TV show Sex and the City are back, this time on the big screen. Four years after we said goodbye to Carrie, Miranda, Samantha and Charlotte, the women have taken the movie industry and the country by storm, besting all projections with an opening weekend take of almost $56 million dollars.

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.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: women, hollywood, movies, sex and the city

Melissa Silverstein is a media consultant and writer with 15 years experience in the non-profit and communications fields. She specializes in the area of women issues, with an emphasis on women and Hollywood. She blogs regularly on issues related to women and Hollywood from a feminist perspective at her blog, Women & Hollywood: www.womenandhollywood.com, which was recently named by More Magazine as one of the "blogs to watch.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I say no and here is why
Posted by: masterofbadenglish on Jun 3, 2008 12:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I say no and here is why. As long as hollywood success for women is focused around sex, they will never get the same freedom of roles the men do. This is the same with Charlie's Angels. That didn't change things up because it once again focused a huge amount on sex or sex appeal. If another movie comes out with middle aged women looking sexy, then this will happen again but it won't start up movies who's primary appeal is women who aren't being particularly sexy. I don't know what will but I don't think this will.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WTF?
Posted by: Cowardly_lion on Jun 3, 2008 12:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why should we stop ignoring women? Because a movie about 4 women who like to dialogue about their slutty behavior does well at the box office? What kind of nonsense is this? If women REALLY want to be represented in the way that Sex and the City represents them, then the whole feminist attitude has changed DRAMATICALLY! I thought we were supposed to respect women and treat them with class and chivalry. But how are we supposed to do that if they represent themselves as the exact opposite? This movie should be an outrage to women, not something they want men to view them as.

[« 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
» RE: WTF? Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
» 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
Cool
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jun 3, 2008 3:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know much about SATC, except from what I've heard. Either way, I'm glad it beat the big Indiana Jones comeback. I've been forced to watch a couple of his movies, and found them boring and overrated. Maybe the embarasment to the IJ series will kill it off for good.

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]

The next step
Posted by: mandiwrite on Jun 3, 2008 5:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So SATC: the movie did well. Now can we see some intelligent, well-written movies that aim at the huge demographic of women who have entered into their power, women of 50+? These are women whose sex lives are sorted, so that it's no longer a predominant panic, who care about clothes, but also about other things which may be a leetle more important, who want to see women who are mature, good role models who are powerful agents in the world, not the current choices of grannies, sidekicks to the main action, best friend, victim, Lara Croft or Barbie.

[« 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
Don't believe the hype....
Posted by: devilsh on Jun 3, 2008 6:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no demise of the "chick flick" and women have been a targeted hollywood demographic since "Gone with the wind." As long as women date, men will be dragged to these insufferable movies and told to connect with our feelings...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Edward
Posted by: Esquire on Jun 3, 2008 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sex and the City is not the portrayal of women that Hollywood should perpetuate. Not because they sleep around, but because underlying every theme in that show is elitism and materialism. A woman is nothing if she's not constantly buying and wearing $800 shoes; if you can't afford their extravagent life you don't exist and are an object of ridicule. Further, do they ever really DO anything? They are basicly female versions of Harold and Kumar without the pot, with tons of plastic surgery and not funny.

[« 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
What a joke
Posted by: True2Blue on Jun 3, 2008 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How any well-adjusted, informed, or worldly woman could find "Sex and the City" appealing is beyond me. It's the story of four vapid, self-absorbed New Yorkers, whose lives revolve solely around men and fashion and pretentious snippets of NYC. If there are any women whose lives even approach the emptiness of these four, surely they are either alcoholics, or addicts, or mentally ill. Had a show been made about four men in NYC who treated women purely as sexual playthings, who obsessed ad nauseum about the sizes of women's breasts, and gave them nicknames like "Busty," oh how the feminists would have screamed. But because it was instead from a woman's perspective, it's "empowering." What a joke.

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
YECCCCHHHH!
Posted by: edgeofnowhere on Jun 3, 2008 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another embarrassment to American "culture." The only thing that would top this mindless slop would be to make a film where the SATC moronettes somehow team up with Indiana Jones to fight a gang of Islamic terrorists trying to blow up Gucci or Prada in NYC. Special effects would be fantastic, especially in the scene where old Indy tries to get it up for the love scene with all four of the girls. Thank god for digital enhancement!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: YECCCCHHHH! Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
ANYBODY HAVING FUN YET?
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 3, 2008 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, so it's not Ingmar Berman. The movie like the show is intended to be "entertainment". When we get by the moralizing and preaching, it's just plain fun. Lighten up! Enjoy! Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

entertainment
Posted by: beatlegem on Jun 3, 2008 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's the thing everyone is forgetting...it's entertainment. I am nothing like those 4 women and sometimes I am completely disgusted by them (mostly when they wear fur), I buy my shoes from Payless, but I watched the show and I saw the movie and I enjoyed it. All the women that I know that like the show all like it for the same reason...the friendships between the women. The city and the 'glamour' are just the background, the main reason SATC is/was popular is becuase most ladies can relate to the friendship aspect...and it's entertaining.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: entertainment Posted by: MartianBachelor
women and movies
Posted by: welmama on Jun 3, 2008 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a forty something women I am disgusted that this is what women my age want to see. Women that are raging capitalists with no thought to anything but men, and clothes and shoes produced by exploited workers in china. This is not the kind of movie that appeals to me or any of the women I know and I certainly don't want young girls to look up to this kind of movie as one to fight for.

[« 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
Sex and the Consumer
Posted by: everton9 on Jun 3, 2008 8:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From what I've heard (haven't seen it myself), the Sex and the City movie is rife with commercialism. Expensive shoes, designer dresses, and plenty of handbags. Is this the message we want to send to our women, that spending ridiculous amounts of money on trivial goods will provide some sense of accomplishment?

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
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
This is actually a guy flick too!
Posted by: Cynic13 on Jun 3, 2008 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Monday morning on the best non-political show in talk radio they had a discussion of how this movie is also for guys....

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
Thanks, OvaryNet, for proving my point
Posted by: sweetlou on Jun 3, 2008 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hoping that yesterday was an aberration, I decided to swing back by. Happy to see that I was not proven wrong, again.

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
Uh, did anyone forget the lack of diversity in this series and this film?
Posted by: Kym525 on Jun 3, 2008 9:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excuse me all you Sex in the City lovers, but did it EVER occur to you that a series set in one of the most ethnically diverse cities in THE WORLD only featured white females? It would be more understandable had SITC taken place in some small midwest town where the number of black and latino people can be counted on one hand, but aren't there any black people in New York? I mean, who's in Harlem then? This series would have resonated far better had the cast been as diverse as the city it takes place in, and more importantly, it may have created a dialogue in which women of color could learn to discuss their sexual needs and desires openly.

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]

» Come on down! Posted by: Tat106
Cinderella lives
Posted by: davewrite on Jun 3, 2008 10:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I do understand about the "Sex and the City" phenomena is that sexual fantasies, self delusion, and the superficialities of wealth act like chocolate on the human brain; what I don't understand is why a show about sex should star a woman as homely as Sally Jessica Parker. And what about the acting and dialogue: Could they possibly be more shallow and stupid?

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]

Selling an image of an image
Posted by: evasta7 on Jun 3, 2008 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Big deal: a movie about women who spend enough money on clothes and shoes to feed Darfur for a year and who aren't happy without complying to the usual romantic social script of getting married and making babies. (yawn) Show me a movie about women in which at least some of the women are happy without Prince Charming (or charming enough). Show me a movie that points out the absurd difference in social perceptions between a "bachelor" and an "old maid".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Posts are either examples of identity politics or self righteous moral chastizing of strong women
Posted by: yellow on Jun 3, 2008 11:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is sad. We see all this moral chastizing of successful women who are in control of their lives and are called "vulgar", "vapid", "selfish" or "arrogant" for doing and thinking the same things for which men are routinely praised. Sexism is as evident as so many other horrible prejudices among Alternet users.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» My "rage" thing Posted by: Kym525
Sluts in the City
Posted by: ToddSmith on Jun 3, 2008 12:16 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a stupid movie from a stupid television program. Let's keep it in perspective. It does nothing but allow your wife or girl friend to escape the heat for a couple of hours. I don't think that it will rally our enemies to attack New York or propel Samantha into the role of this generations Susan B. Anthony. It may rally me to bring a flask to the Theatre if my wife makes me go to this crap.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

more 'commercial commodification' focused towards women
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Jun 3, 2008 12:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
cool

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]

Tired of "testos-a-movies"
Posted by: BettynotWilma on Jun 3, 2008 1:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I suppose its the oppocite of "chick flicks"..but frankly, it gets boring to see preview after preview of "Transformers, Incredible Hulk, Spiderman, Metal Man, SlasherHack, etc" . These movies are market oriented to squeeze as much cash from a segmented audience.

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]

Thank you for acknowledging this phenomenon
Posted by: erikasf on Jun 3, 2008 1:22 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you, Melissa, for acknowledging this tremendous box office success! I knew it would be huge! You are so right about the film outing all of the sexists! Even in the "liberal media", I have seen these characters called "sluts, whores, broads, bitches, hookers..."But some men really do love it! My husband asked to go with me and my gal pals to see it. He thought the show and film were hilarious! And it is clear some of the critics posting here didn't watch the show...FYI, the show DID discuss how women are called "old maids" while men get to be "bachelors". They did a whole episode on it! Yes, these women are somewhat elitist and materialistic, but at least they admit they are, unlike most others in pop culture. The fancy clothes and shoes are more about fantasy than reality.
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]

Narcissism and the City, The Movie...
Posted by: CatDad on Jun 3, 2008 2:58 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...doesn't deserve this coverage or this level of discussion on Alternet.

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]

The bigger issues with Sex in the City
Posted by: Kym525 on Jun 3, 2008 3:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is not the ideal of four independent women who are attempting to change the rules of dating and marriage. Like most women here, I do take great umbrage at the name-calling by some men (and there's an Alternet story concerning the double-standard that was posted last week). A sexually aggressive woman should not be castigated for enjoying her body or her sexuality. I am currently engaged in an discussion with a man who thinks the whole idea of "slut" is something women use against each other. Perhaps I should direct him here.

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]

HOW ABOUT DITCHING HOLLYWOOD ALL TOGETHER.
Posted by: SOWILO on Jun 3, 2008 3:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are a slew of great indie and foreign films that deal with women's issues in a much more interesting way.

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]

An Antidote to American puritanical Misogyny
Posted by: genderless on Jun 3, 2008 5:56 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why all this anger about this movie it does reflect a part of New York city's life style, the club scenes, the lounges, the restaurants, the bar hoppers, the galleries and so on. I am sory it is not a race issue or a political statement. Those type of people exist and unfortunately the Media strive on that type of news such as sex scandals, outragous wardrobe and so on. But why this denial and why not have a chick flick better than Dick Flicks that glamorizes violence, murder, drugs, rape war and above all misogyny and the male double standard puritanical religious hypocrisy. Why the acceptance of movies such as 'In the Company of Men' which was out right misogynistic or many others where they portray women to be subservient. It is suppose to be a light funny movie nothing more. In addition it reflects on society and what the Media News continuously covers, fashion, beauty fixes, sex, celebrities and so on. Why not demand from the media to start focusing on the real issues instead of attacking a movie made to entertain the populace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Okay, I saw it - it's a movie that argues AGAINST big weddings!
Posted by: war_on_tara on Jun 3, 2008 7:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was going to see it anyway (gay male & in the demographic) but this thread got me there today.

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]

chick flicks suck
Posted by: bluebirdella on Jun 3, 2008 7:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't see Sex & the City (didn't watch the show either because I avoid television shows that star women who are dressed like men in drag) so I don't know if it was a good movie or not, but I do know that movies deemed "women's films" are about as deep as magazines labeled "women's magazines" or issues considered "women's issues," - supposedly those topics related to romance, marriage, divorce, motherhood, difficult relationships, dieting, eating disorders, bogus standards of beauty, how to look cheerful, twirling, bonding, and maybe even getting into cat fights with fluff-headed zombies. I don't need movie makers to graciously bestow upon me more malarkey about fictitious women who are shallow, daffy, and/or incapable of thinking about anything other than men or domesticity. Thanks, but no thanks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Everybody (female) loves "Sex and the City?"
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on Jun 4, 2008 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everybody, please, go read the article here concerned with female stereotyping - by the media. It should be fun.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's, just for fun . . .
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on Jun 5, 2008 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's, just for fun, imagine a world in which women couldn't talk about sex. Imagine book sales for the female audience, and books by female authors. Imagine what a world wherein there were no sex in movies, television, and entertainment generally would do to "women's rights in the workplace." Go ahead, have some fun. Just imagine what would happen if god took from women the power to exploit and control sex.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If SATC is the kind of movie
Posted by: Alsu on Jun 6, 2008 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I get to see as targetet at women, I'd rather be a teenage boy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This Movie Will Change Hollywood In The Way
Posted by: desidid on Jun 7, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that 'Waiting to Exhale' changed the number and quality of roles written for Black women. NOT AT ALL.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's PORN for white, suburban, ex-greek, gals.
Posted by: pangolin on Jun 7, 2008 11:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing more, nothing less. Are you a shallow, over-pampered, SUV driving, mall mommy with a job in insurance? Did you spend your college years wearing pink clothes with letters of a language you don't speak or read on them? Did you ever sleep with a guy because he was in the right fraternity? Is your children's father somebody other than the guy who mows the lawn?

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]