Arcane Fire

This is a blog.

My Two Cents

leave a comment »

My two cents on the Sex and the City 2 movie via a long email that I sent to my coworker a few days ago in response to a review that he sent me.  Spoiler: I didn’t quite agree with the review in my email.  Also this commentary is mainly for Strout.

Am I the only person that didn’t like this review?  I found it a little bit harsh.  But maybe I didn’t read into the film enough to see all the symbolism that was apparently right in front of my face.  For example, I didn’t get the sense that the movie was trying to promote a sense of American faux–feminism in the middle east that the review claimed.  I found it to be a pretty accurate account of how many American women would probably act if they were to visit the middle east.  In fact, I found the film to be even more forgiving of the American mindset than I would expect.  I mean, chances are if you travel to the middle east, you are likely to be stunned by the modesty of Arab women (particularly those from the Gulf who cover themselves up entirely in 100 degree heat).  I think the movie accurately portrayed that fine line that American tourists walk between wanting to be modest themselves and respecting a culture that is so pious and different from their own, but also wanting to shout “double standard” and to “liberate” the covered women.

And I didn’t mind that at the end of the movie the SATC characters “discover” that the robed Arab women are actually “interested” in the same things as they are: fashion and expensive garb.  But you know, I also missed the whole analogy of the “stoning of sexism” in the market place, and the subsequent “funeral procession” with the Arab women, so I maybe that’s why I missed that that scene was supposed to anger me?

And I thought the author’s description of Samantha and her womanly region was…ignorant?  I mean, at one point the author cross through the word prostitute and wrote “sexual revolutionary.”  I didn’t find that cheeky; I found that offensive.  I don’t know, it kind of trivialized Samantha’s character (and in the series, Samantha’s character was awesome, even if over the top).  It’s like the author of the movie review is ashamed of any other kind of feminism except for the brand with which she identifies–like any other form of feminism (even if it comes in obvious comedic form and should be taken with a large grain of salt) reflects too poorly on what “real” feminism looks like.

I mean, I agree that the vapidness that surrounds the film is more annoying than anything else.  For instance the focus on all their “problems” (a husband who wants to stay at home and eat take out, a daughter who ruins vintage Valentino, etc.), and the extravagance of Carrie’s “punishment” at the end of the film (Big gives her an enormous black diamond ring)–it’s ridiculous and very focused on money.  And you know, all the references to Aladdin and the playing of middle eastern chimes whenever one of their butlers comes around, yes, ok, playing deeply into stereotypes.  But, I don’t know, I …. I just didn’t agree with the review!  I didn’t like the film that much but I didn’t agree with the review either.  It’s a different form of feminism, and that review was saying it’s not feminism at all – it’s a bunch of material harlots.  And that author is wrong, too extreme.  There I said it.


Written by doorr

June 3, 2010 at 12:43 am

Posted in Politics, TV

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: