I don't mean this in a snarky way, but reading this thread it struck me that there's something amusing about a group of straight (for the most part) men analyzing and critiquing Sex and the City.

I know the the "(for the most part)" was meant to be inclusive of Sam, but I choose to read it otherwise.

Oh, and I'll volunteer for the first month of kicking this guy in the nuts 30 times a day.

Kirsten Davis was the only one of the 4 I found attractive and the only one I wanted to see naked. It was one of the reasons why I bought my then fiance the DVD's. It was that reason and because she wanted them. Which was the same reason why I bought all the Buffy DVD's for her. Anything to see more of Charisma Carpenter. I watched quite a bit of the episodes, I found them amusing and I don't think I was ever bored while watching them. But I never found anything truly great or memorable in that show. The only thing that I will probably remember about that show is the reaction it had on women in my area. I don't know about you guys but when women watched it around here they tended to chain smoke and drink cosmos like crazy. Which was a bit funny because my girlfriend didn't even like cosmos but whenever the show was on she would drink several.

Oh, and I'll volunteer for the first month of kicking this guy in the nuts 30 times a day

Nah hire a professional: think 'Morten Anderson.'

Best Regards

John

Nah hire a professional: think 'Morten Anderson.'

In fact, make it a public spectacle--I'm sure FOX would carry it.

Take a football field. Have stripped down to tightie whities and have him squat like a catcher on the 30 yard line.

Have a referee blow a whistle and wave his arm like he's signalling for a kick off (although technically it's a field goal).

Anderson, dressed in full football gear (including cleats) takes his usual stride and hoof him right in the ol' nickles.

After the deed is done have the ref signal either 'good' or throw a flag and have a re-kick.

While Petcka is writhing on the ground have a sound effect of a cat with a video of a feline that's making a face that looks like it's laughing.

When he's done rolling on the ground, have Anderson autograph Petcka's backside. Sell each set of (autographed) underwear on e-Bay (after laundering of course) with the proceeds donated to a different animal shelter.

BestRegards

John

Sam, I think you make a really good point about Aiden. We'll have to agree to disagree on Harry and Jarrett (Harry was my favorite, but I'm predisposed to fellow Jews, making my preference of Milledge over Green even more surprising).

The other issue is Miranda- she's the most developed of any of the characters, maybe by far. But boy, was she unlikeable. And not just because she was a Yankees fan, either. Did you at any point root for her? Unless your standard is that everybody deserves happiness, does she qualify?

You found Miranda unlikable? Jeez, Miranda was the one character who kept the show going for me. She was the only one who seemed like a real person - she had a real job, she worked hard, she pushed each of the other women to be independent, she spoke her mind to them when they were crazy, and she worked through a bunch of hangups around being a successful woman in a relationship. And she was actually funny. The scene in the last or second-to-last season when Steve calls her and says he's worried about caring for the baby himself, and she says, "Steve. I understand. We're both afraid we're going to kill the baby." That's funny. (and true)

The show was at its best when it was about Miranda, even if she wasn't as good to Steve as he deserved. (Though it's probably unlikely that a guy like Steve would get a woman as successful and interesting as Miranda without putting up with a little bit of crazy.)

I disagree, though, with Sam that the show would raise a man's awareness. In the end, Carrie is a woman with her own life who is constantly ready to throw it and her friends away to get married to the right man. She's a stupid, terrible, unlikable person, and she's inexplicably portrayed as the everywoman. It's hard for me to think of a more anti-feminist character on television in recent years. Her ending up with Big when he saves her from the nasty European wasn't a mistake - it was the logical conclusion to her character's arc. You have to read Sex and the City seriously against the grain to get any consciousness raised out of it - in the end, Carrie is supposed to be what a modern woman is, and that's as depressing as it is wrong.

By the way Sam, I think I'm coming across harshly here, and I don't think that's particularly good when we're discussing subjective issues of personal taste. I'll fight you to the death on OP and John Maine, but I'll never convince you that you didn't like this show, nor would it be particularly admirable to try.

More to the point, Sex was the Rey Ordonez of television shows- huge, very notceable flaws, while the supposed strengths were greatly overrated.

I don't mean this in a snarky way, but reading this thread it struck me that there's something amusing about a group of straight (for the most part) men analyzing and critiquing Sex and the City.

Well, we are all very secure in our manhood here. Plus, I have found it impresses women if you are open-minded about SITC.

I think the shield makes for an interesting comparison. Having never seen Entourage I can't say anything about it. But in the very first episode of the Shield the lead character kills a cop. A cop who for the most part was doing his job. You quickly realize that the 4 main characters are for the most part bad guys and bad human beings in general. Sure Lem is the best of the bunch and is constantly battling with his conscience but even he doesn't always play by the rules and they end up killing him for his troubles. Yes despite the evilness of the main characters you root for them and hope they overcome the obstacles that are put in front of them

.

I like the style/pacing of The Shield, and I think it works for me for the same reason I liked all The Godfather:books and movies (even GF Part 3 has some good moments) the main characters are on some level "bad" but they have redeeming qualities that make them interesting nad give the constant duplicity and violence a context. I have never seen The Sopranos, but I would bet it's the same.

I think it was Kevin that mentioned the lack of ordinary, hard-working people who make the city work, and I totally disagree. Aiden makes furniture and later runs a bar with Steve. He has a little cabin upstate that he works on with his own hands. He is an ordinary decent guy who wants to spend weekend nights with a rented movie and some chicken. And Carrie, due to her own conflict and selfishness, ruins the relationship. But that happens, even with otherwise decent people, and the pain involved in that failure comes right through in the show.

Steve may even be more that guy. He's a family man at heart, wants to move to Brooklyn to have a better place for his kid, takes care of his mom and has her move in... where's the shallow materialism with him? He always wants Miranda, but he has to deal with her rebuffing him over and over. And the point of Steve is that he is that guy, and Miranda has to struggle with her making partner at the firm, living the high life, being superwoman, and having that ultimately be unsatisfying compared to life with Steve. The tension there lasts for a long time before she ultimately realizes that Steve, with his "flaws" (not rich, not very good-looking, not the Manhattan social-type) is actually what is best for her. In the end, she isn't "settling" - she, to a point, turns away from the so-called shallow life and finds happiness in the more normal world.

The show is permeated with the tension inherent in the life espoused by the third wave of feminism. Women are supposed to be able to have it all, to satisfy themselves, to pursue the careers and lives that they want, to be beautiful and successful and happy with all the sex they want on the women's terms. Men either don't particularly figure into it (as in disposable), or they will come around to the modern world and fit right in to the women's lives with barely a hitch. And the men will correspond to that world - equal partners, emotionally available - in essence, the male (and sexual) counterparts to their women friends.

Ultimately, though, the women come to realize that it isn't that easy, that the lives they thought they had ahead of them don't materialize so easily, and that by living independently of men (save the disposable sexual relationships), they have real trouble relating and having satisfying relationships. The men either don't really know what to do with these women, so they stay distant and protect themselves or find themselves confused as to why they are continuously rebuffed. Eventually, though, as the women get older they soften a bit and realize that they are missing something substantial in their lives. In essence, they have to realize that what they thought was settling isn't settling after all.

I agree that there are some unsatisfying elements as the series concludes. I never got Charlotte. She is supposedly this nice and decent person, but has this woefully naive little girl princess with the perfect wedding thing about her and I can't relate to her obsession with marrying to her station. Granted, the show portrays the pitfalls of her marriage to Trey, particularly with Trey's creepy mom Bunny, but what real trouble does she ever have? She supposedly has to settle for Harry, but who doesn't love Harry? He is awesome, and we are supposed to believe that he is so flawed because he is bald and sweaty? Meh. The only saving grace is that we like Harry so much.

Alexander is a simplistic, shallow portrayal of what is supposed to be the perfect man, but guess what, he isn't. He is a pretty predictable plot device to get Carrie back with Big. And yeah, they are both flawed (who isn't), but it is obvious that they were soulmates and it is satisfying to see them together at last, both wiser and stripped of the defense mechanisms that kept them apart. And despite Big's money, it isn't as if he isn't a fairly down-to-earth guy, albeit a chauffeured one.

I agree with MCofA that Miranda's story arc and character are the most developed (and satisfying). Samantha, despite being a caricature of a character, is at least a vehicle for presenting problems like bad relationships and breast cancer. Also, she is the character who is supposedly the most secure and satisfied with the disposability of men, but ultimately, even she finds that isn't enough. She really appears quite vulnerable and afraid toward the end as her fabulous, sex-filled life crashes down around her, and her underlying decency becomes apparent through Smith as she finally opens up to him and acts as if even super-confident Samantha isn't worthy.

I can get how people wouldn't relate to the show, and it isn't about how much money one has. I would guess that someone who has a more typical American life of marrying reasonably early, having a good relationship, having kids and living in the suburbs would be fairly put off by the show. I can't say that my life has been much like what is portrayed in SiTC, but being unmarried at 32 and having lived in big cities for years and years, I see a lot of parallels to the show around me and in women I know. And man, so many of the girls I went to college and law school with have a lot in common with the characters.

I would guess that someone who has a more typical American life of marrying reasonably early, having a good relationship,

ok... maybe take out the "good relationship" part of typical American life...

You found Miranda unlikable? Jeez, Miranda was the one character who kept the show going for me. She was the only one who seemed like a real person - she had a real job, she worked hard, she pushed each of the other women to be independent, she spoke her mind to them when they were crazy, and she worked through a bunch of hangups around being a successful woman in a relationship. And she was actually funny.

MCoA identifying with the Miranda character? Truly bizarre.

The error in that commentary is that being ambitious and career-driven does not equal independence or success. I thought Miranda's character demonstrated that extremely well. I saw nothing independent or successful about Miranda, she was neurotic and self-absorbed to a pathologic degree.

I really enjoyed SitC. I don't think it was a sitcom or a "docu-drama" (whatever that is) I thought it was a trashy, fun soap opera. Sam is quite crazy for expecting people to have their "moral sensitivity raised" by watching it.

There's a lot of bad things you can say about the show - a lot of stupidity, a lot of cliche, a lot of forced sappiness, but I don't think anyone is saying it's some kind of high work of art. Well, except Sam and his "raised moral sensitivity" but he must be crazy. You're looking in the wrong place for deep social messages. To the extent that the show has a "message" it's episode by episode, in the trite bit of nonsense Carrie writes in her column, normally expressed not as an answer but a question. Stuff like "Should we be ashamed of our shame?" - the kind of thing that we might expect Quinn from Daria to say. I don't think anyone intends us to take this seriously.

I don't actually agree that men were treated particularly badly in SitC. Yes, many of them take actions quite unnatural to their characters just in order to write them out of the story, but ALL the supporting characters (male and female) got treated like that by the writers. Which, per Vonnegut, would make the show immoral, I guess - but then, the central characters are pretty immoral too. I don't actually agree that the heart of the show is some deep shared friendship. It's not like they're prepared to make any sacrifices for each other! It's not like they are particularly concerned to help each other in any way. It's not even like they're particularly honest with each other. The depth of their friendship is that they shop together, go to parties together, and discuss men in cafes. They don't rely on each other any more than they rely on men.

As for sympathy - I think Miranda and particularly Charlotte are very sympathetic characters. I don't understand how it could be seen otherwise. Samantha I went back and forth on - she's clearly obnoxious but she has her moments. Carrie, strictly as a character, I think I could have some sympathy for, but all the shows worst bits get dumped on her. Not just the ridiculous column, but the even more ridiculous narration, which is always some variation on "We went to some nice shops, then we went to a party late at night, where there were single people. This kind of thing only happens in New York." It's pretty hard to like a character who says things like this with a straight face. Maybe it's meant to be a character trait, because almost all of her dialogue was simultaneously ludicrous and pretentious. I don't know.

But I think my analysis is rather missing the point. It's the TV version of a Jackie Collins novel. We don't dissect those for literary meaning.