![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
/soapbox time
May. 30th, 2010 11:51 amI read something the other day that, while I found some merit to it, the more I think about it, the more it pisses me off. It was a link to a movie review of "Sex and the City 2" that featured the critic making some comment about how the movie "drips with unexamined privilege." It's not the first review that has focused on the glamour or style of that or the first movie, or the series itself - and it got me to thinking WHY this is.
Let me set this up: The four title characters are all white. They're all well-to-do or wealthy. They're all pretty and svelte. Yes, it sucks that not everybody can live this way. Yes, it is unfair and unfortunate that there are social prejudicial constructs in place that still sometimes make it easier for a white person to catch a break than a non-white person with the same talent and drive. As much as I like these characters and their actresses, I have wished in the original casting that there would have been one or more non-white characters; that would have been refreshing. (I confess I mostly don't think of it; but then again, maybe I was one of the few viewers in the 1980s who didn't watch "The Cosby Show" and think Gee, they're doing well for black folk. I was young enough and it was a time in history where it didn't surprise me to see black people doing well, or even women doing as well as white men. I figured Cliff and Claire had worked hard in their respective careers and reaped the benefits, and it made me - a white girl - want to do the same when I grew up.)
But after this is where I get pissed off: The four title SATC characters are women. And the reviewers I mentioned above are focusing on the setting and trappings of the movies instead of the stories. Yes, they DO have stories; all the episodes did, the first movie did, and I'm sure the second movie does (I haven't made it to the theater yet, something I hope to remedy soon). Please tell me how often critics focus on the setting and trappings of movies where WEALTHY MEN are the title characters, instead of the story. Just because a story is about relationships or feelings instead of war or otherwise blowing shit up does not lessen its definition or importance as a STORY.
For those of you who aren't SATC viewers - of the four women, only one has money because she was raised with it and married well, twice. Another is a newspaper columnist and author; another is a public relations professional; and the third is an attorney. All in New York City, which suggests they all have considerable skill to be able to compete successfully in such a large market and be able to afford their clothing and lifestyles. THIS IS A NOT A NEGATIVE IMAGE TO PROJECT TO GIRLS. These women didn't hook up with some guys in their high schools and start cranking out babies at 17 - they went to college or otherwise worked their way into their careers, and worked up within them, sacrificing the chance to marry and have families early, in order to do this. (The reason, in fact, that Carrie - the writer - has such a quirky fashion look is because as a columnist, she spent her money on rent and shoes and didn't have much left over for clothes, so she bought inexpensive and secondhand/vintage clothes and combined them to create a new look for each piece ... back before she was in a position to have money.) Of these three women, one isn't married, and of the other two who are, one of the women earns more than her husband.
TL;DR: Why is it this series and these movies are singled out for being about privileged people, when nobody levels the same accusation at any movie featuring primarily wealthy or well-to-do white male characters? Is it because those uppity baby factories don't know their place and are out doing fun things with their own income that should only be bankrolled by husbands or fathers? IT IS AN ESCAPIST FANTASY. There was a time that that's what movies were, back before it became essential for them to be "real" and "gritty" and "honest." You paid your few dollars and got to forget your troubles and debts and struggles for two hours. (And don't bring up "The Last Airbender" or "Prince of Persia" to me as being the same, because it's not - those two are based off of exsisting source material that feature many non-white characters, and if the casting is largely white and not reflective of the source characters, it's certainly fair to ask the studios why this is the case. SATC is based on a book written by a white woman about herself and her three best female friends who are also white.)
Let me set this up: The four title characters are all white. They're all well-to-do or wealthy. They're all pretty and svelte. Yes, it sucks that not everybody can live this way. Yes, it is unfair and unfortunate that there are social prejudicial constructs in place that still sometimes make it easier for a white person to catch a break than a non-white person with the same talent and drive. As much as I like these characters and their actresses, I have wished in the original casting that there would have been one or more non-white characters; that would have been refreshing. (I confess I mostly don't think of it; but then again, maybe I was one of the few viewers in the 1980s who didn't watch "The Cosby Show" and think Gee, they're doing well for black folk. I was young enough and it was a time in history where it didn't surprise me to see black people doing well, or even women doing as well as white men. I figured Cliff and Claire had worked hard in their respective careers and reaped the benefits, and it made me - a white girl - want to do the same when I grew up.)
But after this is where I get pissed off: The four title SATC characters are women. And the reviewers I mentioned above are focusing on the setting and trappings of the movies instead of the stories. Yes, they DO have stories; all the episodes did, the first movie did, and I'm sure the second movie does (I haven't made it to the theater yet, something I hope to remedy soon). Please tell me how often critics focus on the setting and trappings of movies where WEALTHY MEN are the title characters, instead of the story. Just because a story is about relationships or feelings instead of war or otherwise blowing shit up does not lessen its definition or importance as a STORY.
For those of you who aren't SATC viewers - of the four women, only one has money because she was raised with it and married well, twice. Another is a newspaper columnist and author; another is a public relations professional; and the third is an attorney. All in New York City, which suggests they all have considerable skill to be able to compete successfully in such a large market and be able to afford their clothing and lifestyles. THIS IS A NOT A NEGATIVE IMAGE TO PROJECT TO GIRLS. These women didn't hook up with some guys in their high schools and start cranking out babies at 17 - they went to college or otherwise worked their way into their careers, and worked up within them, sacrificing the chance to marry and have families early, in order to do this. (The reason, in fact, that Carrie - the writer - has such a quirky fashion look is because as a columnist, she spent her money on rent and shoes and didn't have much left over for clothes, so she bought inexpensive and secondhand/vintage clothes and combined them to create a new look for each piece ... back before she was in a position to have money.) Of these three women, one isn't married, and of the other two who are, one of the women earns more than her husband.
TL;DR: Why is it this series and these movies are singled out for being about privileged people, when nobody levels the same accusation at any movie featuring primarily wealthy or well-to-do white male characters? Is it because those uppity baby factories don't know their place and are out doing fun things with their own income that should only be bankrolled by husbands or fathers? IT IS AN ESCAPIST FANTASY. There was a time that that's what movies were, back before it became essential for them to be "real" and "gritty" and "honest." You paid your few dollars and got to forget your troubles and debts and struggles for two hours. (And don't bring up "The Last Airbender" or "Prince of Persia" to me as being the same, because it's not - those two are based off of exsisting source material that feature many non-white characters, and if the casting is largely white and not reflective of the source characters, it's certainly fair to ask the studios why this is the case. SATC is based on a book written by a white woman about herself and her three best female friends who are also white.)
