Vox Nova at the Movies: Sex and the City
I am not going to do a review on this movie for the simple reason that I despised the series and, therefore, will not be wasting my money on the actual movie. As a woman, I am actually offended by the theme of the series, which is continued by the movie itself based on what I have heard on the radio. What bothers me the most about the theme of the series is how women are portrayed, its emphasis on the shortcomings of marriage and committal relationships, and its promotion of false femininity.
What I find rather sad is that the movie is promoted by the media as being about “love and relationships”. Really? What kind of “love and relationships” are we talking about exactly? Just as Friends and other TV shows that showed people who really didn’t work and just had a good time hanging out on a coffee shop all day made some people think that was somehow real life, it does not come as a surprise that many women live similar lifestyles that the four characters from Sex and the City live. Any kind of emotional trauma and attachment that may result from casual sexual adventures can always be fixed with a new pair of shoes. How is that real? For some reason, based on anecdotal evidence, some women truly believe this and try to live it out. Being promiscuous and used by men is somehow “cool” and perhaps “chic.”
Truly free? I don’t think so
In better words than mine, Fr. Raymond Desouza in his article titled “Oversexed, Underloved” rightly outlines the myth behind Sex and the City:
These are women who are assertive and confident, but are constantly fretting about men. These are women who have more sex than your stereotypical frat house, but are achingly searching for love. These are women with money and professional success, but who find their lives incomplete. These are terribly insecure women. They are fragile. These are not women little girls want to grow up to be. And that’s not me talking, but Hollywood.
“They say nothing lasts forever, dreams change, trends come and go, but friendships never go out of style,” purrs Carrie in the movie trailer.
Actually, friendships mature as people do. But the Sex and the City girls are stuck in perpetual adolescence, still talking about the cutest boy in class, and wondering if he has noticed them, and not yet having figured out that the trampy girls get attention, but little respect.
A slap in the face
I am still puzzled by how some Catholic and Christian women do not see a problem watching this movie or even buying the DVD series. Yes, this goes to you, my Catholic friends who are very excited about watching the premiere tonight. Not surprisingly, Catholic News Service rates the movie “Morally Offensive”. I rate it as a “real slap in the face for women who believe and live out their true femininity”. It is not only a slap in the face for women but also for those men who respect women and treat them accordingly. It is also a slap in the face to families and married couples who truly live out their vocation in sacrifice and respect for one another. Here are some excerpts from CNS’s Movie Review:
Conscientious themes of forgiveness and reconciliation as well as a generally positive view of marriage are swamped, in writer-director Michael Patrick King’s adaptation, by errant materialism and an approach to human sexuality at once immature and indiscreet.
To sump up, I do find the argument of Fr. De Souza compelling in that Sex and the City is actually an honest admission of Hollywood of the consequences of living the lives that these four characters live:
Sex and the City told the story of women who adapted themselves to this world, but found no happiness there. That’s a big admission from Hollywood. The movie is apparently about marriage and motherhood, a rather more ancient and wiser path in the pursuit of happiness.
Comments are closed.
Amen!
What a piece of cultural junk.
What, you don’t love freedom?!!?!?! Without sex, how is there freedom? And we must all live in cities…
Seriously, this kind of cultural output should be viewed as an outcome of the “liberal American experiment” (liberal, in the classical sense).
Seriously, this kind of cultural output should be viewed as an outcome of the “liberal American experiment” (liberal, in the classical sense).
Absolutely! Our emphasis on other individual freedoms can and will always backfire on moral issues.
Our emphasis on other individual freedoms can and will always backfire on moral issues.
This is precisely how the 18th and 19th papal encyclicals and bulls read. At the time, these Pontiffs were viewed as archaically minded and traditionalistic. As I return to the likes of Gregory XVI, Leo XII and Pius IX, I realize how prophetic they actually were! Situation ethics, commodification of the body, hypertrophied liberty…all the by-products of iiberal democracies.
I really reallly really can’t stand this show! I’ve asked some female friends why they like it and they talk about the difficulty of finding a genuine relationship in today’s world when men are so shallow and immature. Valid issue. But that is not what Sex in the City explores. Rather, it responds by having the women become as shallow and as immature as the men they complain about, and adopt exactly the same superficial standards– looks, height, wealth, and even size of various body organs (ugh!).
This is an argument I have been having for years: these women (and they are representative, I know many like them) want to have their cake an eat it: they want to men to be more committed and less superficial, while retaining the right to be superficial themselves.
I really do have sympathy for women in their late 20s – mid 30s who have come to the realization that radical feminism is a destructive lie. Men rise and fall to the expectations of women. If “alpha” men can get away with acting like tomcat cads, they will! In their wake, and in the seperation of intimacy from reproduction, is a wave of heartache and wreckage.
This article really stuck with me:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/single-marry
I REALLY love this show and will go watch it and report back to you all!
Henry, Katerina, Poli,
This is a bit confusing:
“Seriously, this kind of cultural output should be viewed as an outcome of the “liberal American experiment” (liberal, in the classical sense).”
I mean, yes, it obviously is an outcome of the liberal American experiment – but it’s not like this stuff doesn’t exist in other cultures. Saying it is an outcome of the liberal American experiment is to say it’s the result of free human choices, which is to say it’s the result of original sin. We live in a fallen world. This type of trash exists in every culture.
And although this trash is produced by the culture, it does not follow that the American system of government isn’t a good one.
We should realize that other systems that don’t allow freedom of expression, systems that illegalize this type of material, do so by coercion – by power. And that type of control over individual action has led to horrible, incomprehensible crimes against humanity. (the 20th century comes to mind)
We have the great freedom in this country to ignore this trash – to be examples of Christian virtue – to promote the Gospel over this pollution. What a great gift! If enough Christians took the Gospel message of avoiding temptation and sin seriously, this would not exist in our culture.
I mean, yes, it obviously is an outcome of the liberal American experiment – but it’s not like this stuff doesn’t exist in other cultures.
Not necessarily. Let’s not downplay the role of the U.S. in influencing the worldwide culture through the media. Although independent films and “native” film production are becoming increasingly popular, Hollywood keeps spearheading the industry and affecting its audience.
When I lived in Venezuela, we didn’t watch Venezuelan movies. We watched the same movies and the same sitcoms everybody watches here. We wore the same clothes that people wear here. Latin America, sadly, is becoming increasingly secularized due to European and American influences. That is not to say that in Venezuela it would be OK to present something as Sex and the City as normal behavior. I’m sure people are going to watch the movie in Latin America, but the customs showed in the movie are actually considered a scandal.
Katerina,
Certainly America has a big influence on other cultures. I did not mean to downplay it. But those other cultures absorb American culture freely – nothing forces them to do so.
And of course this type of trash doesn’t have to exist in other cultures – it doesn’t have to exist in the American culture either – this is simply what people want.
Hence the universal necessity for constant conversion and evangelization!
I mean, what should we do? We can’t take the technological revolution back. I’d say, really just as in any other time or place, we are called as Christians to condemn the trash and celebrate and promote the good.
by coincidence, i was reading an interview with a german psychologist this morning about the evolving role of women in sexual relationships. the interview was triggered by some recent bestsellers in germany that portray women as taking a very active part in sexual relationships and, expressing their desires explicitly, and, by-and-large, adopting what others in this thread would probably characterize as male-chauvinistic behaviour.
the contrast couldn’t be bigger. here, a general tone that life is about more than sexual adventures (to put it benignly and giving everybody the benefit of the doubt), there, the message that women are taking emancipation to the next level by becoming truly equal.
you may rightly suspect that i have more sympathies for the latter, though, i certainly do agree with the principal of there being more to life than sex. but shows and flics like sexandthecity, as superficial as they may be, are reflective of this trend toward equality between male and female. do they overshoot? yes, it’s hollywood after all. but give it a break precisely for that reason. it’s supposed to be entertainment that caricatures through exaggeration.
the struggle to find true love and partnership, meanwhile, seems to be getting more difficult for women and men. maybe it is because we are all becoming more demanding in what we expect from life, including sex. but when you finally find the true love that is a perfect match in every aspect, shout hooray, and offer many prayers. while you’re still searching, maybe you take some comfort in seeing other people in a similar situation.
having said that, i will probably give this movie a miss. the main character is a tad bit too annoying for my taste. but my wife is eagerly waiting for her best girlfriend to come to town and hit the movies with her. i’m sure they’ll have lots of fun.
I’ve never watched a whole episode of SITC, but once or twice as I’ve lingered on the show just long enough to try and “get” what it was all about, it struck me as an expression of terrible loneliness, which the characters tried to soothe with compulsive buying/materialism and “strangers in the night” -style sexual adventures. Just deeply sad.
I might also add – the loneliness of the characters in the show is endemic in American society. It’s probably worth asking what some of the causes of that loneliness might be.
t struck me as an expression of terrible loneliness, which the characters tried to soothe with compulsive buying/materialism and “strangers in the night” -style sexual adventures. Just deeply sad.
This is exactly right! That is the underlying theme.
There is no question that spending the evening with a good book and a cup of herbal tea is of infinitely greater spiritual benefit than turning on the television set almost any day of the week. Generally speaking, it is not spiritually beneficial to watch any kind of graphic violence or sexuality.
And yet, I did watch enough of SATC to be able to talk about the characters and themes with other mothers at my children’s school, who were enamored with the series. It seemed like many of them could relate to the characters … and talking about the show provided a measure of safety/detachment. I found that the fact that I could speak the language (watching a few minutes was usually sufficient) enabled me to join in the discussion in a way that I could not otherwise have done. (When the bedroom doors shut, I just turned it off.)
I agree with a previous commenter that there is a terrible kind of loneliness that pervades in our society, even among those who are married with children. Finding these points of connection can make a difference.
For those who are interested, I posted about the series on “Mommy Monsters” here: http://mommymonsters.blogspot.com/2008/05/sex-and-city-microcosm-of-real-life.html
Thanks for the link Heidi! Great blog by the way…
You bring up a good point… Why is it that women, especially, are so addicted to this show? How married women even can relate to this kind of situation? Hmm…
Zach
Here’s a brief, unsystematic answer to your question. It’s also a very rough response, but has the kernel of what I would say if I were to write this out in length. I’ve discussed aspects of liberalism and conservatism both and the problems of each in various conversations on here, so it really isn’t anything new (both sides are problematic and Catholics must work to transcend that dualism, avoiding the errors of each).
You might not understand American history has worked to introduce in reality a radical notion of freedom, building upon but even going beyond the notions in the Enlightenment and Romanticism. It is one which even many of the Americans (like Adams) did not approve, but has become the way in which our culture developed and agreed to. Thus, we really have developed and followed the Jeffersonian and Paine vision of America. But it even transcends them because both Jefferson and Paine would have accepted notions of natural law and its ability to override aspects of individual freedom. Instead, America now has the notion of “if it harm done, do as thou wilt” kind of freedom, ignoring, of course, what kind of harm one can be doing even if you don’t know what harm you are doing. And yes, the American culture and this tradition of “freedom” (vs true freedom, as I discussed in a previous post about radical feminism) has influenced the world to follow libertine notions and to engage relativism as the moral principle de jure. While you can cite examples of modern societies as depraved as American culture in regards to its sexual mores, you will find what earlier thinkers complained about would look mild compared to what we see today. In other words, it is only after the influence of American culture and its media (Hollywood, for example) that you must factor in when looking to what other cultures have or have not and to see if, as was mentioned here, this comes from American influences. You will see it does.
Interestingly enough, Jeffersonian America is more democratic, Adams is not. And this is the reason for why Jefferson is more libertine than Adams. Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict points out that “Relativism” is “a precondition of Democracy” in Values in a Time of Upheaval, 53. And this relates, as Policraticus mentions, with the social encyclicals of 18th and 19th century Popes against liberalism. This is not to say all aspects of democratic reform are problematic, but, as Benedict makes clear, there are true conditions by which a society can exist, and one is that rights require responsibilities, and morality cannot be dismissed by the idolatrous invocation of the word “freedom.”
Very interesting, Henry. Thanks for the answer.
During the hey-day of “Sex in the City”, HBO actually entertained the idea of producing international versions of the show.
Could you imagine? Do we really need a “Sex in the City London” or “Caracas Style”?
Good grief! :)
Henry,
Thanks for the response. Would you mind if I were to discuss your response in a future post of mine? I would like to discuss this topic in detail because I think this particular subject is illuminating.
But for now, here is my unsystematic, hastily concocted response to your thoughts.
I understand your concern with blind partisanship – you are right when you note we have no ultimate allegiance to any political system or philosophy – only an allegiance to the truth.
I am less inclined to subscribe to your understanding of the tradition of American liberty. You are right when you say that the Founders of America did not subscribe to the sort of radical libertarianism or individualism you describe. When they spoke of freedom, they were speaking of political freedom, i.e. freedom from tyranny and servitude. But I do not agree that the culture largely followed this trend. While there is certainly a dangerous tradition of radicial individualism that haunts the American experiment, I do not think it is the dominant force in our culture. But it is there, and certainly we ought to fight it. But we should also recognize that Americans have deep, abiding social concern. Even a superficial review of our political culture would suggest this much.
So what’s going on here?
I think the best American diagnostician was Tocqueville, and so we ought to look to him to help us understand American culture.
I think a distinction between political culture and popular culture is necessary here. Tocqueville saw that the progress of history was the unstoppable desire towards more and more equality. This desire for equality, according to Tocqueville, overrides all other concerns – even our desire for political freedom, our freedom from servitude. I think this is the dominant tendency in our political culture.
And on the other hand, our popular culture is indeed poisoned by the radical individualism you speak of. Hence you get the relativity of values and libertinism masquerading unchecked in the public square.
I think these two tendencies are related. As we lose control of ourselves, we want the government to take control. This is why the Founders (Tocqueville too!) thought that religion was essential to democracy. I think the American experiment in self-government will fail if people, the individuals themselves cannot self-govern.
I think this conclusion points not to the failure of the political constitution of the United States, but a failure of human nature. Which is to say that, no system is perfect, because every system is a group of human beings, and human beings are imperfect.
Such is life.
I think in America, we have intellectual and philosphical resources to fight these problems – I’m thinking here of the natural law tradition embedded in the American founding, which is largely neglected by academic culture, but at least partially believed by the culture at large. We should mine it for what it’s worth.
As you would say, we need to conserve what is good in our tradition and reject what is bad. I don’t think it’s prudent to just reject the tradition in its entirety, especially since it really has done so much good for the world, and isn’t going anywhere even if we reject it theoretically.
This turned into a very long rant – I hope it at least interested you / makes some sense. I would like pursue this conversation in the future if you are interested.
Well, Friends is actually one of my favorite T.V. shows, but not because I actually thought it represented real life.
As for Sex and the City, I think I only saw one episode of it. It didn’t impress me much. From what Fr. Raymond said above though, it seems that it shows what happens when people reduce their desires to something finite. Even if they have money and power, they are incomplete because if something satisfies you but does not totallty satisfy you, there is a hole, a sadness, that you will experience.
And the question of freedom is relevant here. I think that the notion of freedom is very crucial when it comes to Sex and the City, communion to pro-abortion politicians, and especially in our daily lives. That is, when were the moments were we truly free? an exprience of freedom that was totalizing?
Finally, I think that this show tells us what happens when we lack certainty. They never know what will happen with their partners, their relationships, etc. And that’s why they are incomplete and sad.
Zach
I will try to say more later. However, I would ask — did you read my early series last summer dealing with utopias? If not, you might want to read it. You will find some more elements of my thought there.
However, to be clear on one point I am consistently making: conservative and liberal must not be seen in light of 21st century partisan politics, but the greater tradition of the two, conservatism with its tendency to see humanity as basically evil and needing to be controlled through law, liberalism as humanity is good and only situations turn people bad. This explains the content of 19th century criticism of the political situation by Popes. It also explains the response to liberalism by the right — i.e., Burke, Maistre, Pobedonostsev, etc. Indeed, I think a far better critique of America is one who was able to see it for a century, and able to respond not just in theory but historical example, which is why I would highly recommend Pobedonostsev’s criticims of the left/liberal tradition. Again it is not because I agree with everything he says, but rather, to give both sides of the coin, instead of everything just following the liberal tradition, creating rival liberal schools of thought.
Henry,
I will check out your series on Utopias, although I am interested in why you think it might be relevant to this conversation?
And I understand what you are trying to say – I don’t think I understand “liberal” and “conservative” just in light of 20th century politics. Do I give that impression? If so, how?
Again, I don’t mean to be rude, but I don’t think the greater tradition of liberalism and conservatism is as simple as you describe it. In the first place, conservatives, including Burke, don’t really think humanity is evil. Liberals (following Rousseau), on the other hand, do really think humanity is good and corrupted by society.
And I’m not sure you meant to say this, but Tocqueville is not a thinker who simply follows the liberal tradition by any stretch of the imagination. He is a great critic of liberalism. I cannot recommend him highly enough.
That being said, I will look into this Pobedonostsev you speak of.
Oh and sorry to bother again but – do you mind if I use your comments in dissecting this conversation more deeply on my own blog?
“conservatism with its tendency to see humanity as basically evil and needing to be controlled through law”
1) Where did Burke indicate this? If so, I missed it. This is a rather crude characterization that might possibly be inferred in that he was against abstract utopian projects that refused to take culture and history into social organization, but I’m not sure where you could find a clear articulation of your characterization.
2) Burke is very much a part of the liberal Enlightenment project. And while it’s fair to call him a grandfather of Conservative Party politics, there are furious debates about his place in small c conservatism. Richard Weaver and about half of the early NR crowd would disagree Burke was what we might call the Right; Russell Kirk thought him as the key figure of his thought.
Jonathan
I gave a very rough response — and you need to look before Burke to Hobbes. And yes, Burke is related to the Enlightenment, and yes the left thought he was on their side (at one time), but then he wrote on the French Revolution and the right became quite interested in him. So he is not exactly the “right” but he is one of the influences in what would become the right (and I would point out left/right are both modern and right is a response, in many respects, to the left, just like fundamentalistic Christianity is modern and not ancient).
Zach
1) Burke is not all there is for the right. He is influential but not the only source.
2) Pobedonostsev was able to see, just like Pius IX, much of what had come out of the liberal tradition; he was one of the most gifted critics, of course, for a purpose (trying to prevent its influence in Russia).
3) My series on utopias explores the response against the democratic tradition — both from outsiders, but also from insiders.
4) And as I pointed out to Jonathan, the right is a response to the left, and is a part of the Enlightenment coin. A major influence which helps explains their position is Hobbes. My series on Maistre, for example, explores that aspect as it relates to Maistre, but then Maistre is quite representative of the 19th century right.
5) I did not know what to think when you mentioned “partisanship”; it’s typical of how people like to 21st century American politics.
6) What I wrote here in the comments section has been very rough versions of things I’ve discussed in greater detail elsewhere on the blog. Feel free to discuss them but mention they were rough characterizations for the sake of a comments section. But again, I would also suggest looking into my series on Utopia, Maistre, and even this comment from a previous discussion: http://vox-nova.com/2008/05/08/brazil-keeps-abortion-illegal/#comment-21316
I also wanted to add, although I see the need to go beyond the right/left of the Enlightenment, I have pointed out many times there is good from both sides. Indeed, although I have significant criticisms of them, both Maistre and Pobedonostsev are quite influential in my own thought and political development. I really like them despite all their foibles.