More whining, complaining, hair-splitting and over-criticizing / reviewing of SATC.

Did it ever occur to ANY of you four, successful, young or young-ish (??) career women to focus instead of how strongly feminist the making of this film actually IS? A woman Executive Producer and is she/ isn't she also the director? Four female stars & the introduction of a new one (Jennifer Hudson), the entire story line revolving around FEMALE friendships & lives, and no doubt, many females on staff garnering nice-sized salaries. The making of this film is as much as triumph for women producers and actresses as is the wonderful Masterpiece series (all the Jane Austens, plus this new Cranford, etc.) done for PBS by women E.Ps, both in England and in Boston, female directors, staff members at every level, and of course, STARS.

And all you can do, instead, is sit around & whine about the clothes & the materialism. Meghan O'Rourke's oversensitivity to the line where Carrie says she felt like she'd been hit with a bullet has got to be the 'ne plus ultra' of critical irrelevance; hint to O'Rourke: The Iraq War has not affected everyone's lives as idrectly as previous wars due to the lack of a draft -- really, Meghan, it's OK for people to still say they felt like they've 'taken a bullet.' People DIE in the streets of NYC, LA, Houston, Dallas & Chicago, every day, Meghan, by taking bullets. Why the gratuitously over-dramatic, overly PC reference to the War on Iraq? As one of the other participants pointed out, in times like this, people NEED a break from hard times & grim realities. Remember it was during the Depression & pre-war hard times of the 1930s that so many of our great GREAT Hollywood comedies & musicals flourished.

Btw, your discussion is hardly original; other media outlets have already revealed that Mr. Big does indeed marry Carrie. Also, your piece reads like Manohla Dargis's snarky NYTimes review of the other day, just divided up into four slices.

Rock on, Carrie, Samantha, Miranda, and Charlotte York MacDougal Goldenblatt !! Rock ON...may this film be a huge success, financially. Its women creators deserve it, and its largely female (my guess) audience is happy to make that happen.

More good things for women in the audience to celebrate: Kim Cattrall, aka Samantha Jones, now FIFTY-ONE years old, not only 'lets it all hang out' in all her "boy-"chasing glory in the film but also, IRL, is seriously dating a Canadian chef, Alan Wyse, who is all 28 years old.

Take THAT, Michael Douglas, Harrison Ford, Robert Duvall, et al. (About damn time with a nod of the Slate hat to trendsetter Demi Moore...)

And Miranda aka Cynthia Nixon, battling breast cancer, is currently volunteering as a spokeswoman for the Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure,

Kristin Davis ("Charlotte"), 43, works hard on behalf of Oxfam (international anti-poverty, anti-hunger group) in Africa and other needy places.

And Executive Producer / star Sarah Jessica Parker ("Carrie Bradshaw") is breaking box office records and no doubt, laughing all the way to the bank as she plans a possible sequel.

"Payback is sweet," indeed. Or as the Murphys & Scott Fitzgerald said, "Living well is the best revenge."

Can't wait to see it, myself and will go with, most likely, three or four girlfriends. :-)

"More whining, complaining, hair-splitting and over-criticizing / reviewing of SATC...."

My sentiments exactly! This piece reveals more about these annoying, exacting reviewers than it does the movie itself.

Lord, it's not supposed to be War and Peace! Nonetheless, I found SATC moving and laughed throughout. Whether the correct pc stance was captured or not doesn't concern me as the acting was superb and tended to make one forget about the politics of it all. And I not only took a film course in college, a damn good college, but have a lifetime of experience watching the best films under my belt! So I know a good movie when I see one.

Maybe now Hollywood will start producing my chick flicks and re-use all those wonderful actresses (Bette Midler, Meryl, Goldie, Blythe, Rene Russo, and on and on and on) who had the temerity to age past 40!

Great reply, thanks. You know, I almost signed off with "It isn't supposed to be 'War and Peace'," how funny.

And you are so right about the under-utilized actresses over 40 or 50; add the splendid Jessica Lange & Gena Rowlands and the wonderfully quirky Diane Keaton to the list, too. Holly Hunter, too. I always had hoped that Streisand would keep on producing & funding films and would give these actresses and more like them, some great roles but I guess she is doing other things now. Of those we have mentioned, only Gena Rowlands & Meryl Streep work regularly in film; I think the theatre is keeping most of them going. Jessica Lange was fairly eloquent about this issue recently on The View. I wish Jane Fonda would direct some of her considerable funds to this end but she is busy doing wonderful things for under-privileged young women in Atlanta, where she lives now. Thanks again for your post, Redhead.

Those are some interesting points, and I agree that it doesn't have to be War & Peace, but at the same time, isn't the show held up as some sort of feminist classic, and not just brainless entertainment, at least in some circles? Is doing what amounts to copy edits (career equality, younger bfs) enough to offset the questionable behaviors that pervade the movie? I mean, these things are significant, but are they just window dressing?

I'm a guy, so I'm usually told I don't get an opinion on whether something's feminist or not, but I know for me, at the end of the series, I shook my head, because I couldn't believe she'd go back to Big. The guy routinely mistreated her, but he represented some silly archetype and so she just kept going back for more. I'm sad to see the movie doesn't help things.

I certainly believe there's a place for entertainment that reflects how women really think and really behave, for women to watch a show and think, "this show gets me." But I think it's dangerous to conflate that with aspirational entertainment when it may not apply.

I believe that Mr. Pelosi & I would like to see this film, regardless of the negative critical opinions expressed by these four writers. "Thank you for your support."

The Speaker

If anyone watched the TV series or movie looking for more than entertainment then they get whatever they deserve from it. If you want more read a book, take a class. Do not watch TV and movies looking for great depth, it’s not a great place to find it.

FEMINIST? First, people bitch that we shouldn't analyze the movie, it's just entertainment, but then in the same breath, they say it's this great feminist piece of work. Which is it?

Calling this movie or the show feminist insults me. For the record, I'm a 32 year old woman in a wonderful relationship with an amazing man and I live in LA.

I find these women to be needy, simpering, and materialistic. I fail to see anything strong or feminist in them. The only woman who actually displays any independence is Samantha and if she wants to be materialistic, let her - it's her money. As pointed out in the article, when do these women treat their relationships as real partnerships? Instead, they just run around, behaving like inexperienced-in-love 20-something women, refusing to compromise, bitching to each other and putting each other first. I'm sorry, but Miranda has got a husband and a child. Family first, friends second.

I want to see women in a better light. I want to see women who know how to balance independence and partnership. I want to see women who have something to talk about other than men. I want to see women who can take care of themselves, who can compromise, and for god's sake, who care about more than D&G bags and huge apartments.

I'm fine with accepting this movie as just fun entertainment. It's when you start throwing the word feminist around that I have a very big problem.

writing your own book, long-running TV series & successful movie yourself instead? It's admirable that you "want to see women in a better light," so why not do something about it?

The discussion here is about the MAKING of this film, and farther back, of the very successful TV series by a woman, Sarah Jessica Parker. You have missed the point of the entire thread, it seems to me, much of which is about economics. Why shouldn't the top poster and others use (not "throw around") the word 'feminist' in regard to a movie that is all about women, executive-produced by a woman and that stars and employs many women? IOW, a film that will enhance not only the bank accounts & prosperity of MANY women but may, we can only hope, increase their future employability in a tough, competitive industry.

Last, one has to wonder how closely you have watched the TV series? To characterize Miranda, a successful attorney who has reached Partner status on her OWN terms as a young mother ... as "needy, simpering and materialistic" is, clearly, not to have watched the program.

Sorry, but I don't think you have a gripe here. If you are a 32-year old woman who is claiming the term 'feminist' for yourself, please think again. (At my age, I have to say, that thought causes me some hearty laughs.) This movie in no way insults YOU. Go read a best-selling well-crafted novel by Jane Smiley or Barbara Kingsolver, contribute to the economy by purchasing same and vote for a female candidate. Then we can discuss your feminist credentials beyond being all of 32 y.o., living in LA and having a lovely boyfriend. OK? (While you're at it, please do have a couple of children whom you are trying to take care of, while maintaining your place in the work world, as well.)

"Thank you for support." (Btw, some of my younger, female staffers contributed to this reply...)

The Speaker

On this same topic, please see my reply to poster Nokooru (or whatever) below, thank you. There are economic issues at work in this discussion and regarding this large-budget film. "Thank you for your support."

for responding; I guess I'm of mixed emotions here. After all, SATC is fiction, a point which many readers seem to keep missing as they continue to make (unrealistic?) idealistics demands of the film, as well previously, of the TV series.

I am surprised that you shook your head that she would "go back to Big." I had hoped all along that she would do exactly that -- especially, I had hoped / "knew" at some level that Carried would NOT make it with the horrendously needy, selfish and self-absorbed Russian artist played (quite well) by Mikhail Baryshnikov. I don't think that Mr. Big just represeted an archetype to Carrie; I think their relationship was, indeed, 'the real thing.' (As much as one can be represented on the TV or film screen, that is)

I thought the ending of the television series was perfect -- that Mr. Big finally had made a real commitment and was going to live up to it ... and that they would make a real life together.

But then I am only ONE woman and I dare not speak for all. What do you mean by "aspirational entertainment," I am curious?

Thanks again for a thoughtful reply, spackle.

Speakernancy - the idea that the people creating and profiting from a show nullify all criticism of its content is tough to buy into.

And the idea that someone can't criticize a piece of entertainment without producing something better is ridiculous. That would mean nobody here, perhaps including you, could ever say anything is sexist/racist/homophobic/what have you. And nikooru may very well buy the Jane Smiley books you recommend, but they have nowhere near the cultural impact of SATC, which is cause for lament.

Now please log out of Speaker Pelosi's account and get to school.

I have to agree with spackle. Just because a woman makes it does not mean that the content is off-limits for criticism, and just because I don't make movies does not mean that I have no right to analyze the movies that are made and marketed to me. Thinking critically about popular culture is important--I don't want to be the kind of person who mindlessly absorbs the messages broadcast to me. SATC is a huge phenomenon, and I think it's fair to ask why, and what version of femininity, relationships, friendship, etc., it portrays. And it's also fair to ask whether that version is one I agree with or want to emulate or think is healthy.

Why not do something about it? LOL For all you know, I am. And as Kit-Kat said, I'm not allowed to have an opinion or criticize something unless I do it myself? Sorry, but pop culture is fair game for all.

So all that matters is the economics, no matter what you use to get there? I can't give credit to a team of women if they made something that I see as setting women back. This show perpetuates ridiculous stereotypes, IMHO.

"Why shouldn't the top poster and others use (not "throw around") the word 'feminist' in regard to a movie that is all about women, executive-produced by a woman and that stars and employs many women? IOW, a film that will enhance not only the bank accounts & prosperity of MANY women but may, we can only hope, increase their future employability in a tough, competitive industry."

I criticized the throwing about of the word feminist because in every review I've read, the word has been applied to the SHOW and the characters and the storyline, not to the women behind it. And I think it's a bit um... far-reaching to go on about enhancing the bank accounts and prosperity of many women.

I watched the show closely. I watched every episode during it's first run and the occasional re-run. I'm not denying the entertainment value. But I am entitled to my opinion and overall, I found the women portrayed to be needy, simpering, and materialistic. I did, in fact, watch every episode, and Miranda made me cringe just as much as the next, particularly during those "single years."

Wow. I think it's a bit arrogant to tell me I can't claim the term "feminist." You don't know me, and I'm as entitled to air my opinions here as anyone else. I don't need to make personal attacks or tell everyone here what they are or aren't to do it. Feminism and what it means is personal for everyone and not so clearly defined, no matter what any self-proclaimed "feminist" might think. Feminism, to me, means being able to balance your independence with partnership. From what I've seen, these women are not capable of engaging in true partnership with the men in their lives.

And yes, I am entitled to watch something, form an opinion, and decide whether or not I feel insulted by things I see portrayed. Is that your younger staffers speaking - the lines where you tell me I'm not able or allowed to feel the way I feel about this bit of pop culture?

Now, *I* am not allowed to claim the word "feminist" for myself, but you can, I suppose. Which I find ironic after that other line about how I should have a couple of children. If I'm correct in what I know about the "proper" definition of feminism, then women aren't to be defined or judged as less of a woman for not having children, no? Children are not the only big challenge a woman can face in her life, or in the work world.

Again, I might caution you not to make too many personal judgements about people whose lives you know very little about on these discussion boards. It's one thing to argue the points and opinions, it's quite another to make random judgements about the person voicing them.

Regarding what Kit-Kat wrote - Right on, sister! ;) But seriously, I second that. Pop culture is a reflection on society, especially one, as you said, that is as huge a phenomenon as SATC.

And especially one where it seems to seriously upset women if you make the mistake of saying a negative word about it. This show has clearly hit a nerve.

And I absolutely love that someone will argue the finer points of feminism with me and end their argument by telling me to go have a baby. LOL!!! So, we are not valid human beings with valid struggles and valid lives or anything worthwhile to contribute to this discussion unless you have a child. If Miranda didn't have a baby, would you feel the same about her and her "accomplishments?" Is Samantha less of a person to you because she hasn't pro-created? And then I ask you, what does THAT say about feminism?