![\"\"](\"https:\/\/4.bp.blogspot.com\/_MwnH1kpbPRM\/SFBiofvkYnI\/AAAAAAAABos\/GLkYar3i1sE\/s1600-h\/sexandthecity-startrek.jpg\")
<\/a>No, I still have not seen Sex and the City<\/a><\/i> \u2014 though I might, some day. There is only one other film that made over $100 million domestically within the past decade that I have not<\/i> yet seen, namely The Pacifier<\/a><\/i> (2005), and I do try to stay on top of stuff like this. But in the meantime, the urban mating film is<\/i> provoking a few discussions that I think are worth noting.<\/span><\/p>\n
First, a number of people have asked whether the clothes- obsessed, dialogue-quoting fans of this TV-series-turned-movie can be compared to Star Trek<\/a><\/i> and Star Wars<\/a><\/i> fans \u2014 though no one seems to have put this question to Sex and the City<\/i> co-star Kim Cattrall, who once played a Vulcan Starfleet officer in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country<\/a><\/i> (1991; my comments<\/a>).<\/p>\n In a story headlined \u201cFemale Trekkies\u201d \u2014 as if plenty of Star Trek<\/i> fans were not female to begin with \u2014 Mark Medley<\/a> reports:<\/p>\n Filmmaker Roger Nygard knows a thing or two about nerds. He directed 1997\u2019s Trekkies and its 2004 sequel, documentaries about Star Trek fan culture. He sees many similarities between the two groups.<\/p>\n \u201cHaving studied Star Trek fans first-hand,\u201d he says, \u201cI could say that I have seen the same fervor, the same symptoms if you will, in the [Sex and the City] fans. My girlfriend bases her daily wardrobe on \u2018What would Carrie wear?\u2019 \u201c<\/p>\n But not all chronicles of geek culture are convinced these \u00fcber-fans fit the mould.<\/p>\n \u201cWomen who follow Sex and the City are not geeks,\u201d says Annalee Newitz, editor of science fiction blog io9 and co-editor of the book She\u2019s Such A Geek. \u201cThey are doing what soap opera fans have always done: obsessively reading about their stories, and buying related consumer items. Are women who read Vogue geeks? Are women who know every detail about Sephora cosmetics geeks? No. You can\u2019t expand the term \u2018geek\u2019 to mean anyone who is interested in something without draining the term of all meaning.\u201d . . .<\/p>\n Jason Tocci runs the blog Geek Studies and is a doctoral student at Penn, where he is writing his dissertation on geek culture. He says it\u2019s not surprising that a discussion of what-is-and-what-is-not-geek-inspires-such-debate.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s still a highly contested concept,\u201d says Tocci over the phone from Philadelphia. While he says SATC fans may playfully call themselves geeks in the sense that they love the show, Tocci doesn\u2019t think they see themselves in the same constellation as Star Trek fans, Linux users, or readers of Spider-Man comics.<\/p>\n \u201cBeing identified as a geek, or identifying oneself as a geek, kind of signals an understanding that you are or you know that you should be feeling embarrassed about what it is that you\u2019re interested in,\u201d he explains. \u201cAnd I doubt that\u2026Sex and the City fans are really particularly embarrassed about their great interest in the show.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Then there is Kyle Smith<\/a>, who says Sex and the City<\/i> fans are \u201cworse<\/a>\u201d than Star Wars<\/i> fans because \u201cat least \u2018Star Wars\u2019 geeks have some perspective\u201d:<\/p>\n Unlike the \u201cStar Wars\u201d nerds, who are under no illusions that they will ever actually take the Millennium Falcon out for a chance to complete the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs, the \u201cSex and the City\u201d fangirls think that they can live the life they see on TV. . . .<\/p>\n Even 33-year-old women are not living in reality in this town. The multiplexes and networks and bookstores can barely accommodate all the movies and TV series and books (almost all written by men; one, I recall vaguely, written by me) about comical manboys coming to terms with the need to grow up. There is no equivalent message getting through to women. For them, it\u2019s all \u201c27 Dresses\u201d and \u201cMade of Honor<\/a>\u201d and novels from \u201cPride and Prejudice<\/a>\u201d on that sling the same fantasy: There are two handsome, successful men chasing me. Whichever one will I choose? Then they walk into the bar at Pastis and discover: 150 single women, 50 gay men, 50 straight married men and 25 single straight men, but it\u2019s so loud that it\u2019s impossible to talk to anyone anyway.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And finally, for a female perspective, there is Karina Longworth<\/a>, who seems to agree with Smith\u2019s basic point:<\/p>\n In any case, the pubic hair jokes in the trailer get the biggest laughs, and this gets me thinking about the split between what we might as well call Sex and the City<\/i> fangirls, and the kind of person we usually refer to as a fanboy. I imagine a 22 year-old boy who\u2019s really into comic books, who, as I was sitting next to the pink martini ladies, was maybe lining up to see Iron Man<\/a><\/i>, maybe for the second time. When I think of that boy, I imagine that he understands that a billionaire industrialist is not really going to build his own indestructible suit and rescue the innocent people of Afghanistan.<\/p>\n But Sex and the City<\/i> exists on just as deep of a fantasy plane as any comic book world, and when I think of a Sex and the City<\/i> fan, I imagine a 22 year-old girl who really believes that she\u2019ll someday be rescued by a billionaire (industrialist or no). Am I just being unfair? I don\u2019t know. I do know that during the brief Q & A session, the majority of questions asked by members of the audience had to do with the overlap between the real-life Sarah Jessica and the character of Carrie Bradshaw, with whom the actress has become synonymous, as if there\u2019s something crucial about sorting out where fantasy ends and reality begins. It played as a managing of expectations and aspirations, as if each woman was really asking, \u201cBest case scenario\u2013\u2013how much of this fantasy is attainable?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So, okay, point made: Sex and the City<\/i> is a fantasy and its fans need some perspective, and they could maybe even take tips from Trekkies and the like on how to do so. But I am particularly intrigued by the way Catholic blogger Barb Nicolosi<\/a> approaches this issue in her basically positive write-up on the film:<\/p>\n Everybody is talking about rampant materialism in SATC<\/i> as manifested by Carrie\u2019s and her friends\u2019 800 or so costume changes (yes, I\u2019m exaggerating, but it really seems like there are that many fashion moments in the movie). Really, this didn\u2019t bother me, and in fact, this was one of the \u201ccinema of attractions\u201d elements that I really enjoyed in the film. The clothes in Sex and the City<\/i> are like the CGI special effects of a planet getting nuked in a male-oriented action flick. I mean really, why are shots of a super dress with great accessories more ominously bad for the culture than a bunch of dudes whooping it up at a visually clever rendering of an 18 wheeler bursting into flames?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is an interesting comment, I think, because often, when I am watching an action film, I find myself thinking about the fact that these films are \u201cspectacles of consumption\u201d. They exist partly to say, \u201cHey, look! We were able to buy all this stuff \u2014 all these cars, all these sets, all these props \u2014 for the express purpose of destroying it!\u201d And sometimes, in the case of James Bond films especially, the items that are destroyed for our entertainment even come with brand names. Expensive<\/i> brand names.<\/p>\n (Say what you will about Star Trek<\/i> and Star Wars<\/i>, but they at least take place in worlds where modern corporations don\u2019t seem to exist any more. True, real-life corporations do make lots of money off of the movie-related merchandise \u2014 and everyone from George Lucas to Gene Roddenberry has been accused of putting things in their movies and TV shows simply for their merchandising potential \u2014 but at least there is no place to put a brand name or corporate logo on the screen<\/i> in those films and TV shows.)<\/p>\n So, okay, the \u201cmaterialism\u201d in Sex and the City<\/i> might not be all that different, after all, from the \u201cmaterialism\u201d of a supposedly male-oriented action flick. Point taken.<\/p>\n Finally, there has been a bit of a kerfuffle over the review of Sex and the City<\/i> that was posted by one of my colleagues at CT Movies.<\/p>\n Camerin Courtney<\/a> gave the film three stars for \u201cspeak[ing] to the complexities of relationships in a postmodern age\u201d, among other things \u2014 and her basically positive appraisal earned howls of outrage from various CT Movies readers<\/a> and from Ted Slater<\/a>, editor of Focus on the Family\u2019s Boundless<\/i> magazine, who called on CT\u2019s editors to \u201crepent\u201d of their \u201cGod-dishonoring promotion of this vile movie.\u201d<\/p>\n Along the way, Slater makes a couple of statements that I cannot help but reply to \u2014 and I am speaking simply for myself here, and not on behalf of CT, which is simply one of several outlets for which I write on a freelance basis.<\/p>\n First, he accuses those who watch the film of \u201cogling at\u201d the nudity in the film. And no doubt some viewers do do that.<\/p>\n But is it really fair to imply that every<\/i> viewer is doing that? Such an accusation is far, far too reminiscent of that outrageous review of Monster\u2019s Ball<\/a><\/i> (2001) that appeared in \u201cDr.\u201d Ted Baehr\u2019s Movieguide<\/i> several years ago; in that review, Baehr\u2019s critic went so far as to accuse Roger Ebert of \u201cogling the naked breasts of Halle Berry\u201d, even though Ebert had actually critiqued<\/a> the film for dwelling too much<\/i> on Berry\u2019s nudity. Do we have any reason to believe that Slater\u2019s use of the word \u201cogling\u201d is any less presumptuous?<\/p>\n Second, both Slater and at least one of CT Movies\u2019 readers make the point that CT Movies gave Sex and the City<\/i> three stars while giving The Chronicles of Narnia:<\/a> Prince Caspian<\/a><\/i> only two-and-a-half stars.<\/p>\n But these reviews were written by two different people \u2014 Camerin wrote one review, and I wrote the other \u2014 and presumably these reviews reflect two different perspectives. At any rate, I myself have not even seen Sex and the City<\/i> yet, so I couldn\u2019t compare the two movies even if I wanted to; and I have no idea whether Camerin has seen Prince Caspian<\/i>, so I have no idea whether she would be able to compare them either.<\/p>\n What I do<\/i> know is that the film version of Prince Caspian<\/i> loses a lot of what made C.S. Lewis\u2019s original book so spiritually and mythically interesting in the first place, so I think it\u2019s ridiculous for any Christian pundit to assume that that film must<\/i> be worthier of a good review than any other given film. There are a number of reasons Prince Caspian<\/i> got the rating that I gave it, but I would think that anyone who had actually read my review, instead of merely glancing at the number of stars I gave it, would at least be open to the possibility that the low rating reflects the film\u2019s relative spiritual tone-deafness.<\/p>\n To really understand a review, you have to go deeper than the star rating; you might even have to read<\/i> the review. And to really understand a film, you have to go a little deeper there, too; you might even have to see<\/i> the film.<\/p>\n And if you haven\u2019t<\/i> seen the film, then you certainly aren\u2019t in a position to go around demanding that other people \u201crepent\u201d for having their own opinions of it.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" No, I still have not seen Sex and the City \u2014 though I might, some day. There is only one other film that made over $100 million domestically within the past decade that I have not yet seen, namely The Pacifier (2005), and I do try to stay on top of stuff like this. But […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1116,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-820","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n