Sunday, June 22, 2008

"Sex" Is Better when Everyone's Doing It

It probably won't be long before I deviate from my focus on film here, but suffice it to say that any rant you read on this blog will be coming from a mind that runs at 24 frames per second. Anyway, enough with the introductions. Let's get to the good stuff -- the "Sex," naturally.

What is it about Carrie, Samantha, Miranda, and Charlotte that get women so excited? I have no clue. At some level, the four of them seem like any other chick flick/chick show protagonists: their many romantic tribulations only surpassed by the amount of words they use to reflect on them. Yet, "Maid of Honor" didn't make over $50 million in its first weekend and I'm pretty sure few would have paid premium cable prices to see about a half dozen episodes of "Gilmore Girls" each year. I can't comment on how the franchise has become such a hit among women, but maybe I can shed some light on it when I explain just why I like it so much.

For a guy like myself (hopelessly dense, that is), women seem to be something short of godlike. This power is not shown in their action, mind you, but in their inaction. For me, it is common to say and do things that clearly should never have gotten off of the drawing board. Just as common as these indiscretions are the women who look on in disapproval. It's almost as if they, in their perfection, possess some faculty that I do not. I doubt that the women in "Sex and the City" make the men in their lives feel any differently. What makes them different for me, however, is that while most of what I see (both in life and film) ends with that reaction, "Sex" begins there; it shows the idiosyncrasies behind the exterior.

Now you're thinking, "Well, the internet's lack of standards rears its head again; Matt thinks it's a revelation that 'Sex and the City' is from a woman's point of view." To that I say, "Screw off... and let me elaborate." Sure, Kate Hudson plays a woman and is, by all accounts, a woman, but when was the last time she gave you any real insight into the mind of a woman? I admit that I missed "Fool's Gold," but I'm just going to assume that she does about as much for women as Matthew McConaughey does for shirtless fucking idiots. The women of "Sex and the City" don't just run around, yelling about their problems; they over think their problems, try to make sense of the world around them and struggle to maintain a sense of individuality. In short: they are real characters, and it's sad but that's a revelation for Hollywood.

Now, I walked out of the film with mixed feelings. It was a bit too long, even if it never really dragged. I just feel as if writer/director Michael Patrick King didn't really have anything concrete in mind when he set out to make the film. He basically shakes some plotlines from the show loose enough that it takes 145 minutes to retie them. That may sound like a harsh criticism, but it's really pretty mild considering the level of quality with which he's starting. Also, the introduction of a new secondary character does feel forced and pointless. Still, something tells me that they would have to wear the franchise pretty thin before it stopped being the best of its kind. And until that happens, I can assure any disapproving woman that the vulgar, inappropriate comment I just made is one that would make Samantha proud.

No comments: