![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Defending Sex and the City
Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010 11:02 pmLast night, I finally got around to watching Sex and the City II. After we had eagerly awaited its arrival in Turkey and got furious about the possibility of its being banned, poor health and hectic circumstances meant that we had to wait for another week after it was released before we actually saw it. This was not such a bad thing, because it was a late-night show on a Sunday and we had the place to ourselves.
Unlike my wife, who never takes any notice of film reviews, I went expecting at best a bad film that was just about worth watching if you really like Sex and the City, and at worst a film so bad that it spoils your happy memories of Sex and the City. Every review I had read had panned it; even articles decrying Abu Dhabi's censorship of the film felt obliged to say that it was a bad film. In fact, it wasn't a bad film. It wasn't a great film either; I'm not putting Sex and the City II in the same league as The Seven Samurai or Fanny and Alexander, but it didn't deserve the venom spat at it.
The most cogent criticism of SATC2 is that the plot is slow-moving, fragmentary and, well, a mess. If SATC2 were a stand-alone film, that would be enough to sink it. As it is, though, when you go to see a SATC film, you're not really going to see a film, you're going to see a few more episodes of SATC. Of course for some critics, that was the problem, but if you don't like SATC, why go and see a SATC film? I can understand X-Files fans finding the film disappointing because it didn't do justice to the series, but a film critic who didn't like the series not liking the film is a bit like a music critic not liking a performance of Beethoven's Ninth because he doesn't like classical music. Any review that criticises the film because it's about four middle-aged women who obsess about clothes and relationships is not worth more than a second of your reading time. I mean come on, would you take a review of Schindler's List seriously if it complained that the film had too many Jews in it?
Of course you can argue that no film, TV series, novel or whatever should be about middle-aged women who obsess about clothes and relationships, but if you go there, then you are going into very dangerous territory. I am notorious for disliking Jane Austen on the grounds that, as Tom Shippey once said, "she writes about boring people doing boring things," but I would not go on to say that Sense and Sensibility was trash. I think Austen is actually a brilliant writer, who almost managed to get me interested in what her characters were doing; I also think it is a tribute to the writers, cast and production team of SATC that they really did get me interested. If someone out of the blue were to say "Hey, let's go and watch a film about a bunch of women obsessing about clothes and men," I would politely decline, and maybe point out that there was a good werewolf film on at the same cinema.
Related to this, much of the harshest criticism is implicitly or blatantly misogynistic, as a review in The Guardian pointed out:
Two things are shocking here. The first is that someone who uses a phrase like "wind-tunnel miasma" can succeed as a professional writer. The second is that, in 2010, it is still obviously not OK to make a film about the sexual adventures of middle-aged women. (We're not even talking old women here; even Samantha is only 52.) O'Hagan's response is not much less bigoted than the men who chase our heroines through the streets of old Abu Dhabi.
That brings me naturally to the last point, which is the accusations of racism, Orientalism, Islamophobia or whatever. As I said, when the Turkish release of the film was delayed, there were rumours that this was because the government was following Abu Dhabi's lead in banning it for being disrespectful to Islam. This was greeted by howls of outrage from many Turks who saw this as sucking up to the Arabs, and there probably wasn't much to the rumours in the first place, but it's interesting to look at what supporters of the ban saw as slanderous, and why even many who didn't saw fit to throw the word "Orientalist" at it.
I'd like to say this once again: Samantha is not a role model. Neither are Miranda or Charlotte. Not even Carrie is meant to be a role model, though many women both in and out of the series seem to insist on seeing her as one. They are comic characters, and comedy comes from people's flaws, not their virtues. Not that they are without virtues; like Seinfeld, it's that combination of flawed and lovable that makes the series so successful. If the Fabergé Four suddenly became spiritually aware, culturally sensitive and politically radical ... now that is when I would start to complain.
Unlike my wife, who never takes any notice of film reviews, I went expecting at best a bad film that was just about worth watching if you really like Sex and the City, and at worst a film so bad that it spoils your happy memories of Sex and the City. Every review I had read had panned it; even articles decrying Abu Dhabi's censorship of the film felt obliged to say that it was a bad film. In fact, it wasn't a bad film. It wasn't a great film either; I'm not putting Sex and the City II in the same league as The Seven Samurai or Fanny and Alexander, but it didn't deserve the venom spat at it.
The most cogent criticism of SATC2 is that the plot is slow-moving, fragmentary and, well, a mess. If SATC2 were a stand-alone film, that would be enough to sink it. As it is, though, when you go to see a SATC film, you're not really going to see a film, you're going to see a few more episodes of SATC. Of course for some critics, that was the problem, but if you don't like SATC, why go and see a SATC film? I can understand X-Files fans finding the film disappointing because it didn't do justice to the series, but a film critic who didn't like the series not liking the film is a bit like a music critic not liking a performance of Beethoven's Ninth because he doesn't like classical music. Any review that criticises the film because it's about four middle-aged women who obsess about clothes and relationships is not worth more than a second of your reading time. I mean come on, would you take a review of Schindler's List seriously if it complained that the film had too many Jews in it?
Of course you can argue that no film, TV series, novel or whatever should be about middle-aged women who obsess about clothes and relationships, but if you go there, then you are going into very dangerous territory. I am notorious for disliking Jane Austen on the grounds that, as Tom Shippey once said, "she writes about boring people doing boring things," but I would not go on to say that Sense and Sensibility was trash. I think Austen is actually a brilliant writer, who almost managed to get me interested in what her characters were doing; I also think it is a tribute to the writers, cast and production team of SATC that they really did get me interested. If someone out of the blue were to say "Hey, let's go and watch a film about a bunch of women obsessing about clothes and men," I would politely decline, and maybe point out that there was a good werewolf film on at the same cinema.
Related to this, much of the harshest criticism is implicitly or blatantly misogynistic, as a review in The Guardian pointed out:
Sukhdev Sandhu in the Telegraph sneered at the women for "all getting older" adding that Sarah Jessica Parker "looks like a cross between Wurzel Gummidge and Bride of Chucky", while Miranda "looks badly embalmed". In the Observer, Philip French ridiculed the "bitchy heroines" who enjoy "an orgy of self-pity" and described Carrie as "equine" (horse-like, people).
In the London Evening Standard Andrew O'Hagan seethed like an Olde Worlde pontiff giving himself a hernia over the vile perfidy of Woman. "These girls are so hung up on looking great they've forgotten there are several ways to be ugly." The women are "greedy, faithless, spoiled, patronising . . . morons". Samantha is a "blonde slut" with "the desperate mentality of the School Bike", Miranda is "the ginger one", Charlotte plumbs "the depths of her own venality" and Carrie is stuck in a "wind-tunnel miasma of selfish needs. Yuck." The women behave like "materialistic whores".
Two things are shocking here. The first is that someone who uses a phrase like "wind-tunnel miasma" can succeed as a professional writer. The second is that, in 2010, it is still obviously not OK to make a film about the sexual adventures of middle-aged women. (We're not even talking old women here; even Samantha is only 52.) O'Hagan's response is not much less bigoted than the men who chase our heroines through the streets of old Abu Dhabi.
That brings me naturally to the last point, which is the accusations of racism, Orientalism, Islamophobia or whatever. As I said, when the Turkish release of the film was delayed, there were rumours that this was because the government was following Abu Dhabi's lead in banning it for being disrespectful to Islam. This was greeted by howls of outrage from many Turks who saw this as sucking up to the Arabs, and there probably wasn't much to the rumours in the first place, but it's interesting to look at what supporters of the ban saw as slanderous, and why even many who didn't saw fit to throw the word "Orientalist" at it.
- A number of comments, usually glib, are made about the veil. A woman is shown painstakingly poking chips under her veil, reminding me of an interview I read with a British woman who had recently covered up and was explaining proudly how she'd even come up with a technique for eating a hamburger without taking it off. Sorry sisters, but trying to eat with a piece of cloth in front of your face makes you look silly, so either take the thing off, don't eat in public, or don't get angry when people laugh at you. And don't hide behind Islam, because a veil is not an Islamic religious requirement; if it were, then it would be worn much more widely. After all, Iranian women don't wear the veil, and Iranians aren't exactly wishy-washy liberals when it comes to religious issues. If I were going to accuse the film of anything, it would be of failing to point out that most Muslim women don't wear veils, but to be fair, you see plenty of shots of unveiled women, so we should assume that the directors trusted their viewers to use their common sense rather than listening to Miranda. (And by the way, dear reviewers, when Miranda gushes patronisingly about Middle-Eastern culture, that's supposed to be comic.)
- Samantha is arrested for having sex on the beach. Well, it is true that you can get arrested for having sex on the beach in the UAE, but you can also get arrested for having sex on the beach in the UK. Samantha claims they were only kissing, but that is beside the point; she was arrested on the charge of having sex in a public place, which is illegal pretty much everywhere. On the other hand, even if the film had shown her getting arrested just for kissing, that has happened in Dubai, which is just down the road from Abu Dhabi. This isn't Orientalism; this is telling it like it is. And just in case it weren't obvious, Samantha is not intended to be a role model in this or any other SATC production: Samantha is just a horny woman who is always getting into trouble because of her libido. If she were a male character, no eyebrows would ever be raised.
- Speaking of Samantha, there is that famous bazaar chase after she brandishes condoms and yells about having sex. It's embarrassing, but then it's meant to be embarrassing. Did I mention that Samantha isn't supposed to be a role model? I don't know if men in Abu Dhabi would react like they do in the film, but there are plenty of places in the Muslim world where they would—and plenty of places where they'd just laugh it off.
- The funniest of the criticisms is about the scene when the women who rescue them from the mob take off their robes to reveal their fashionable clothes. I'm sorry but I can't think of any way in which this is insulting to Islam, to Muslim women or to anybody. It's what they do.
- The Middle East is seen as "exotic". Well, yes. These are Americans; to them, France is exotic. Of course there are a few clichéd lines and bad puns that make you wince ("Laurence of My Labia"), but these no more constitute cultural imperialism than innuendos about lederhosen would if they'd been to Bavaria instead of the Gulf.
I'd like to say this once again: Samantha is not a role model. Neither are Miranda or Charlotte. Not even Carrie is meant to be a role model, though many women both in and out of the series seem to insist on seeing her as one. They are comic characters, and comedy comes from people's flaws, not their virtues. Not that they are without virtues; like Seinfeld, it's that combination of flawed and lovable that makes the series so successful. If the Fabergé Four suddenly became spiritually aware, culturally sensitive and politically radical ... now that is when I would start to complain.
