Along with millions of other Americans, I am looking forward to seeing Sex and the City: The Movie this weekend. I am a dude, in case that fact needs pointing out. And — get this! — my girlfriend isn’t even forcing me to see it. Now, I don’t think any of this is particularly newsworthy. But judging by some of the articles I’ve read about SATC this week, you’d think I discovered life on Mars or something. There’s a weirdly ubiquitous meme out there that SATC is a "women’s movie" that will somehow face special box-office challenges for that reason — the assumption being that no men, or at least no straight men, could have the slightest interest in seeing this film. Why is this weird? Because I don’t think anyone would ever dream of raising similar questions about a movie where the main characters are all male. Huffington Post columnist Melissa Silverstein wrote a great column about this yesterday. Last year’s Wild Hogs, she noted, was correctly seen as mass-appeal entertainment for moviegoers of all genders, even though it was all about four aging guys. And do you remember anyone ever wringing their hands over whether traditionally "male" action flicks like Transformers could get women into multiplexes? There are plenty of other legit reasons to wonder about SATC’s box-office prospects — it’s rated R, it’s really long, it’s about a very specific mileu of wealthy urban professionals, etc. But the gender thing just strikes me as fishy.
Meanwhile, you’ve got commentators like Best Week Ever’s Paul F. Tompkins and MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. They’re both generally smart, enlightened folks, but last night Tompkins dropped by Olbermann’s show so they could snicker their way through a "Sex and the City survival guide for men." (Check it out below.) The premise, of course, was that no so-called real man would ever want to see a movie about three-dimensional, adult female characters. (The TV show also featured plenty of well-rounded, interesting male characters over the years, by the by — Steve, Aidan, Trey — but we can ignore that inconvenient fact.) Quipped Tompkins: "If you’re with a woman who is insisting that you go see this movie, I think it’s time to maybe date someone else. Because men are not meant to see this movie with women." Way to police those restrictive gender roles, bro! Olbermann replied to this bon mot by quoting a Family Guy gag which referred to the SATC quartet as "three hookers and their mom" — classy. Are we in junior high here? Or perhaps the early 1950s?
None of this is a comment on the content of the movie — which, for all I know, could end up being terrible. But at least I’m comfortable enough to find out for myself. Anyone else scratching their heads at the assumptions surrounding men and Sex?
Comments (1-30) of 86 Add your comment
I think the knee jerk reaction is to make fun of SatC for it’s focus on the fairer sex. But the larger issue is romantic comedies in general and how they’ve failed to attract men in recent years specifically BECAUSE of the effect Sex and the City has had on the culture. Men are an accessory in their universe. Something to obtain along with The Job, The Shoes, The Happiness, etc. I’m not saying action movies aren’t guilty of doing the same thing to women. But romantic comedies USED to be about uniting the sexes and since Sex in the City, there has been significantly less romance in romantic comedies.
Oh, please, Family Guy making it to MSNBC makes it all worth it.
Now if Olbermann would refer to Creationists as more mentally impaired than the mentally handicapped…
I’m married to a Jewish woman…so sex is not that much of an issue anymore!
Amen, Simon!
While I know there’s a lot riding on SaTC’s box office success, I’ve been more concerned about the distinct hostility some men seem to have towards this movie. It’s not just the MSNBC clip – I’ve read multiple reviews (inevitably by men) snickering at the anticipation for this film and wondering why anyone would be interested in seeing a movie about 40-somethings and their sex lives. Are they saying we as women aren’t interesting or worth any value after a certain age? Or that we aren’t allowed to experience the same fanboy joy and excitement they have over a movie like Star Wars?
And don’t even get me started about the “fanboy” reaction on sites like Ain’t It Cool. One review on the website actually had the headline “Massawyrm Has SEX AND THE CITY And Leaves It Bleeding And Crying On The Mattress!” Must they evoke rape imagery towards a series that helped women embrace (and feel empowered by) their sexuality? Ugh, it’s infuriating.
It’s a silly assumption. I’m sure that the studios weren’t wondering whether or not I’d love Iron Man (which I thought was one of the coolest movies ever), so why should they worry about whether my boyfriend would love Sex and the City? He does, by the way–and did far before I ever met him. He saw it as sort of an instruction guide to women. He even drinks Cosmos.
Don’t know about the mainstream assumptions, but I (a female) personally never cared for Sex and the City. But my ex-boyfriend watched it ALL THE TIME. Wouldn’t be surprised if he saw it in the theater. I doubt I’ll ever see it.
It IS infuriating and insulting. I’m a woman who loves to go to superhero/sci fi/action movies, etc… AND love Sex and the City. Why can’t men do both too? Or, more to the point, why can’t the media understand that men can do both?
Following off of Tom B’s comment…I don’t think most men have an aversion to women in starring roles in movies, but it might be that they have an aversion to THESE women (or these TYPES, as Tom points out) who at first glance seem incredibly shallow and materialistic. Never watched the show, so I’m sure there are more facets to the characters than these, but because of this strong negative first impression (as well as the sneaking feeling that after the movie I’d feel like I just watched a 2+ hour long commercial for whatever fashions and accessories Madison Ave. wants to push this summer), I know I’d have no interest in checking this out.
I agree that discounting men all together is a bit of a mistake, and manly men like Olbermann probably do watch the show but are too afraid to admit it. I’m going to make a sweeping generalization here, but if this movie/tv show had different actresses in it, men would be more inclined to watch. Most guys I talk to don’t find the actors attractive, and for my guy friends, that would be a big draw. If Jessica Alba or someone like that were on the show or in the movie, guys would be all over it. I’m sure that’s not true of all guys, of course, just seems to be the consensus among those I talk to.
Considering I’m a single, thirtysomething woman who lives in a big city, you’d think I’d be all about this movie. But I’m not–I’ve reached my limit just with the total media saturation this flick has received. I won’t be seeing it in the theater and probably not on DVD. I’m tired of the materialism and shoe obsession, too, and resent the way it seems to have influenced real-life young women in that regard. So how can I blame any men for not wanting to see this, when I don’t either?
Also, I consider myself a feminist, but I think the “three hookers and their mom” line is kind of funny. So sue me.
Also, Kristin Davis is about 1000 times more beautiful than Jessica Alba will ever be, so if Nose is correct, I dispair at the terrible taste of men.
It’s pretty cool that this issue was written about. Being a more consious male goes hand in had with being a more open minded male. A result of this, not the incentive to this, is that most men will get more tail – gay or straight. Or if not tail, a deeper connection with whoever you’re sharing your life with.
The difference between SATC and Wild Hogs is that Wild Hogs had huge movie stars in it (Travolta, Allen, etc) and the “stars” of SATC are, well… tv stars. Also, the expectation that men will not go is based on the demographic performance of “Devil Wears Prada” (the producers themselves have said this) which attracted about 4 women for every one guy.
Oh, and Oberrman is an idiot, so, who cares what he thinks.
All i know is that the media coverage of this film release is so overarching, I have NO interest in seeing it anymore. Yeah, I said it: I’ve had enough Sex and the City!
BFD
I hate the assumption that if you are female you must want to see this movie. I am female and I really can’t stand Sex and the City or most romantic comedies.
The fact is that when it comes to any form of entertainment, there is an entire set of rules that have been endorsed by the media that detail what each person SHOULD be interested in and should be embarassed about being interested in (e.g. the creation of the phrase “guilty pleasure”) based on their demographic. It extends from movies into television, music, books, and beyond. It’s the most restrictive for males: they’re not allowed to like pop music, romance, or anything to do with fashion. The rule also exists with the critical community’s perpetuation of “high-brow” vs. “low-brow.” Anyone who is even moderately educated should feel just as embarassed about liking a gross-out comedy or broad sitcom as a straight man who wants to see SATC should be. None of these rules have any basis in what people actually enjoy but rather how they think they want to be perceived by others.
I’ve been thinking about that all week! I don’t really get it. I could say it’s because a hugely hyped movie, in which the main characters are all women over 40 and they’re not dealing with menopause and trying to get their children married off, is a rarity in Hollywood. Personally, I feel the same way about the marketing of action movies. I don’t know how many reviews I read about “Iron-Man” and “Transformers” being a 19-year-old-boys’ wetdream. I’m a 26 year old black woman and I was just as excited about those films as the anyone else!
Sex and the City can be quite a polarizing show, most men hate it, most women love it. But I’m going with my two friends and they’re husbands (who aren’t being forced to go, but they crashing our girls’ night out), so there’s enough fabulousness for all.
I think we should stop reading the reviews and the articles and the spoilers because they skew everything. The movie is fun. The movie is really good. I saw it last night. I loved the series and it is what it is suppose to be. A cinematic continuation of SATC. It is everything the series was, so if you liked the series, you should like the movie, if you don’t like the series, why even bother reading the articles. I am a man by the way.
It’s just like Brokeback. A bunch of guys making themselves feel more secure about the masculinity by taking cheap shots. In my mind, by the way, this behavior always makes their heterosexuality claims a little bit suspect.
Jelana, I agree completely. There are dozens of male-focused movies that come out every summer, but I don’t hear women whining about that. I can’t believe the utterly juvenile reaction some men have to the very existence of movies like SATC and Brokeback. And that they feel the need to proclaim VERY loudly that they would never, ever see these movies. It’s ridiculous.
Personally I’m more puzzled by the assumption that because I’m female and not interested in the movie that I’m some kind of a freak. I’m sick to death of hearing about this damn movie.
i do want to see SATC b/c i did enjoy the series, but i can see why men would not want to watch the film. even i, a black 20 y.o. female sometimes get sick of the materialism and general whorishness the show often strays into, and also, would it have killed the producers to have one nonwhite main character (the inclusion of jennifer hudson as an assistant doesn’t count.) and honestly, to comment on what Nose said, the women on the show are not really attractive, with the exception of kristin davis. they all look kind of wierd.
I couldn’t care less about clothes & my guy has more shoes than me. The show has never been about “that” to me, it was just witty & genuine in it’s depiction of relationships & friendships.
Keith O & his increasing insecurity/mild misogyny is starting to dull his shine. This Simon Vozick-Levinson is sounding more interesting all the time though!
My wife did not like the tv show I do not like the tv show and i want my money back for the SATC dominated issue of EW. Mna I pulled that crap off trashed it and saved the rest.
BJ, totally with you about that issue a few weeks back. I get that it’s a cover story, and that’s fine, but EVERY ARTICLE that issue was about S&TC. Why? Didn’t we get that when the show went off the air?
And no, Jessica Alba would not make me want to see this movie either. She’s a pretty face, and not even that pretty, and her acting sucks.
The series may have been about women with deeper traits than fashion obsession and self centered-ness in relationships, but I sure didn’t see it in the few eps I watched. And from the reviews I’ve read, the movie is more of the same X 1000.
Sorry, but ‘Three hookers and their mom’ sums this up for me. Funnier than any episode of this dreck I’ve ever seen.
to BJ – If EW pulled the plug on every hyped event someone didn’t like, there wouldn’t be a magazine to print. If you don’t like it. Don’t read it. As for the movie, I am looking forward to it. I’m single, 36, and – thanks to SATC – I’ve learned to really appreciate myself in a society that goes out of its way to degrade women by posing them as mommy replacements or eye candy. I found the show to be well thought out about the various subjects it touched on ranging from the light hearted (the rabbit episode) to the heart wrenching (Sam’s cancer battle).
I (a man) don’t think that men not wanting to see SATC has to do with it being about women. I happen to enjoy TV shows like Grey’s Anatomy and Gossip Girl, and enjoy a good romantic comedy, which are all skewed more towards women. I think the reason that most men don’t like sex in the city is because we are smart enough to realize that it’s not funny. We don’t get distracted by all the pretty clothes, and stylish locations, and all the upper-crusty New York lifestyle that most of us are not accustomed to. I’ve been forced to watch a couple of episodes, and I don’t think I ever laughed once. This wouldn’t be a problem except that the show is supposed to be a comedy. When I think of women watching the show, all I think of is a bunch of cats hypnotized by the red dot of a laser-pen flying around the room.