ReportWire

Tag: Sex and the City

  • Sarah Jessica Parker on More ‘Sex and the City,’ ‘Hocus Pocus 3’ and Calls ‘The Family Stone’ Sequel a ‘Bittersweet Quandary’ Following Diane Keaton’s Death

    Sarah Jessica Parker isn’t saying no to anymore “Sex and the City,” but it doesn’t sound like she’ll be reprising Carrie Bradshaw anytime soon.

    SJP told me Tuesday at the Golden Eve gala in Beverly Hills that she’s up for reprising her beloved fashion-obsessed character, but it all depends on one person and one person only – “Sex and the City” creator Michael Patrick King.

    “I hear lots of very original ideas, all lovely and well intentioned and often very clever, but the only thing that really matters is what excites Michael Patrick King. And right now he’s just not thinking about that,” Parker said.

    Parker made a rare appearance on the West Coast to be honored at the starry Golden Eve dinner and awards ceremony with the Carol Burnett Award. She hit the carpet with husband Matthew Broderick and their actor son James Wilkie Broderick before reuniting with “Sex and the City” costars Kristen Davis, Evan Handler and David Eigenberg.

    Parker also offered an update on the much-anticipated third installment of the “Hocus Pocus” franchise. “They’re working on it,” Parker said. “Where Better [Midler] goes, I go. Bette is like a 13-year-old girl with a new bike. She’s like, ‘I have wheels, let us travel.’”

    And then there’s the ongoing efforts to make a sequel to “The Family Stone,” which co-starred the late Diane Keaton.

    “I’m so excited…but it’s a rather bittersweet quandary given the loss of Diane Keaton,” Parker said. “But it was a very special group of actors, and prior to Diane’s passing, there had been conversations with everybody, so I hope that we’ll be able to. The hardest thing is everybody’s schedules.”

    Golden Eve also presented the Cecil B. DeMille Award to Helen Mirren.

    The evening was filmed for a primetime special airing Thursday, Jan. 8 at 8 p.m. ET/PT on CBS and streaming on Paramount+ in the U.S. The 83rd Golden Globes will air on Jan. 11 at 5 p.m. PT/8 p.m. PT on CBS and stream on Paramount+ in the U.S.

    Marcmalkin

    Source link

  • To Her (And Most Women’s) Detriment, RAYE Goes Especially Retro on “Where Is My Husband!”

    After the success of her debut album, My 21st Century Blues, in 2023, the music industry was pretty much immediately itching to see what RAYE would do next. And what she’s decided to do with her sophomore album, evidently, is take the Amy Winehouse approach to things (even more than before, and maybe even more than Lola Young on I’m Only F**king Myself). Except, in contrast to Winehouse, the sound she’s wielding for her fusion of doo-wop and Motown influences, doesn’t exactly contain “modern” lyrics in the way that Winehouse’s did (e.g., “Don’t make no difference if I end up alone/I’d rather have myself and smoke my home-grown/Oh, it’s got me addicted/Does more than any dick did”).

    Instead, as though to reflect back the state of the world and its reversion to a time when a woman’s primary goal in life was to get married, RAYE makes the central focus of the song all about her desperate search for a man who will marry her (begging the question of whether or not she might as well name this album My 20th Century Blues). So it is that she delves right into the “despairing” chorus, “Baby, where the hell is my husband?/What is takin’ him so long to find me?/Oh, baby, where the hell is my lover?/Getting down with another?/Tell him if you see him, baby, if you see him, tell him/He should holler.” Those of a more literal-minded nature might, of course, take RAYE’s question to mean she’s wondering where her actual, “already-in-existence” husband is, as though she already has one and wants to know his physical, in real time location. This further compounded by RAYE singing another verse that literal-minded listeners would infer to mean her “actual” husband is cheating on her when she says, “I only fear he taking time with other women that ain’t me/While I’ve been reviewin’ applications/Wait till I get my hands on him, I’ma tell him off too.”

    But, of course, anyone with even half a brain can comprehend that RAYE is essentially saying what Charlotte York (Kristin Davis) already did in the season three episode of Sex and the City, “Where There’s Smoke…” Her frustration expressed while hungover and irritable, Charlotte demands of her friends, “I’ve been dating since I was fifteen. I’m exhausted. Where is he?” It’s Miranda Hobbes (Cynthia Nixon) who then incredulously clarifies, “Who, the white knight?” Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall) quickly adds, “That only happens in fairy tales.” Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) then chimes in, “Charlotte, honey, did you ever think that maybe we’re the white knights, and we’re the ones that have to save ourselves?” Charlotte immediately writes such a “novel” thought off as “depressing.” As RAYE probably would based on the lyrical content of “Where Is My Husband!” Content that mirrors the retro visuals of the video, directed by brothers Will Reid and Ed Reid a.k.a. The Reids.

    With the help of these two brothers, RAYE takes the retro concept to the full visual extreme, starting with the fact that the video is introduced with a Looney Tunes-esque set of circles in black and white featuring the text (with each phrase stacked atop the next), “RAYE Presents Where Is My Husband The Sound is Retro-Pop.” Obviously, it’s not just the sound that’s retro though. It’s the entire belief system that would have a woman of the present singing, “…how long he kept me waitin’, anticipatin’/Prayin’ to the Lord to givе him to my lovin’ arms/And despite my frustrations/And he must need mе/Completely/How my heart yearns for him/Is he far away?/Is he okay?/This man is testin’ me/Uh huh, uh huh, uh/Help me, help me, help me, Lord/I need you to tell me/Baby/Where the hell is my husband?”

    After the title card sets the tone for the “throwback” feel, the black and white color palette continues as RAYE finds herself in the middle of a hallway in an apartment building looking quite confused about where the fuck she is (almost like David [Tobey Maguire] and Jennifer [Reese Witherspoon] after entering Pleasantville in the movie of the same name). In the distance, however, she clocks the silhouette of a man who seems to be getting ever farther and farther away from her. Especially the more that she chases him. This, of course, serving as a metaphor for how, the more you try to find/get something (or someone) you’re after, the more likely it (or, in this case, he) is to slip through your fingers as a result of “forcing it.” This is the running (pun intended) motif throughout the video, which then alternates between rich “Technicolor” (thereby fully showcasing the vibrancy of RAYE’s red sequined dress) and B&W—almost like an unwitting way to accent how schizophrenic a song like this feels in the present era. Or so-called present era.

    The time we’re supposed to be in is further called into question when two of RAYE’s backup singers appear on the proverbial sidelines waving signs to “cheer her on” in her thus far abyssal “love search.” These signs assuring, “Love Will Find You” and “Your Husband Is Coming!” (which, frankly, comes across as really fuckin’ ominous). In a scene soon after, RAYE keeps running around in her black and white version of the world (you know, like a 1950s version of it) frantically looking for a man who isn’t really there. Finding herself in a random room, she encounters a bridal-outfitted mannequin placed next to a groom.

    After approaching it, she pulls the veil off the mannequin’s head before turning to see the live (read: non-mannequin) priest holding up not a bible (as it might appear), but some kind of legal history book that, for whatever reason, has a chapter on the Forestry Act of 1945 (perhaps an unintentional allegory intended by the marriage between government and increased control over the management of land [read: forestry]). Written over that text is RAYE’s attempt at making this entire song feel slightly more modern: “Find yourself & love will find you!!” In other words, don’t try to be someone you’re not in a fruitless bid to attract the “perfect person.” Because, of course, somewhere down the line, revealing the “real” you to the one you “lassoed” under false pretenses will only lead to pain on both sides.

    And yet, what leads to pain primarily for the listener who can’t stomach such a gender-conventional/supporting-of-gender-conventions song is how much this “little ditty,” as “sweet” as it’s intended to be, even undoes something as “progressive” as Beyoncé’s “Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It),” which is equally as “where is my husband”-centric. Not to mention as reinforcing of how materialistic women make themselves out to be when it comes to weddings and the trappings thereof. Hence, Bey’s taunt, “If you like it, then you should’ve put a ring on it.” Her desire for this material symbol of love being something she tries to backpedal on later in the song when she adds, “Don’t treat me to these things of the world/I’m not that kind of girl/Your love is what I prefer, what I deserve.”

    RAYE claims the same, yet also reverts to babbling on rather passionately about a wedding ring, singing in an ultra-fast manner, “I would like a ring, I would like a ring/I would like a diamond ring on my wedding finger/I would like a big and shiny diamond that I can wave around/And talk, and talk about it.” So it is that RAYE, “catchy tune” or not (courtesy of co-production from Sabath, who also, along with RAYE, greatly contributed to JADE’s recent debut, That’s Showbiz Baby) only ends up reiterating a tired message about women and their “desires” (/main goals in life) at a moment in history when it’s extremely perilous to do so.

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • From ‘Sex and the City’ to ‘Summer I Turned Pretty’: Why Paris Is Rarely Ever a Good Idea for Romantic Heroines

    Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: Boy meets girl, girl seeks adventure in Paris, then girl’s complicated feelings for said boy ultimately taint her ability to actually enjoy the city of love. That scenario factors into the plot of both The Summer I Turned Pretty’s final season and the newly released Netflix rom-com The Wrong Paris—although this time, our heroines, played by Lola Tung and Miranda Cosgrove respectively, make it to Paris—and get to stay, at least for a while.

    On The Summer I Turned Pretty, Belly defers her acceptance to study abroad in Paris for premature marriage with Jeremiah (Gavin Casalegno). She then comes to her senses, calling off the wedding and moving overseas, where she fights through homesickness and language barriers to build a nice little life for herself. Of course, that independence will soon be interrupted by Belly’s ex Conrad (Christopher Briney), seen buying a plane ticket to Paris in the show’s penultimate episode. But at least she was given the opportunity to test out both versions of her future before making a choice.

    That’s also true of The Wrong Paris, a silly rom-com about a Bachelor-esque reality dating show that contestants are led to believe will be filmed in Paris, France, only to learn it’s actually Paris, Texas—population 25,000. Our heroine, Cosgrove’s Dawn, takes the twist in stride, vowing to compete on the show—not for love, but some prize money to fund studying at a Paris art school. “I don’t hate this,” she says of her hometown, “I just hate that this is the only thing I’ve ever known.” Then a cowboy named Trey (Pierson Fode—also, has anyone ever actually met a cowboy named Trey?) and his comically sculpted abs waltz in. “You ain’t gonna find no man like me in Paris,” he drawls, to which she replies: “Yeah, that’s the point.” Surprise, surprise, Dawn and Trey do fall in love and later strike a bicontinental compromise—she’ll finish school, then presumably come back to Texas.

    Hepburn and Astaire, near 30 years in age between them, leave Paris as husband-and-wife in Funny Face.LMPC/Getty Images

    Paris has long been a place for lovers onscreen. Casablanca (1942) famously ends with Humphrey Bogart’s Rick telling Ingrid Bergman’s Ilsa that they’ll always have their time in Paris, even if they can’t end up together. The European city has gotten in the way of a whole lot of love affairs ever since. Perhaps no one was more familiar with this than poor Audrey Hepburn, who starred in six films set in the City of Light throughout the 1950s and ’60s, most of which end with the idea that her lovelorn character would presumably rather return to the United States with a man twice her age than walk along the Seine solo. (Case in point: Hepburn choosing Bogart in 1954’s Sabrina—a frequent reference on The Summer I Turned Pretty, and then Fred Astaire in 1957’s Funny Face—which has been repeatedly mentioned on Netflix’s Emily in Paris.)

    Somewhere along the way, Paris became the go-to plot device standing in between a single woman and her love interest. The city represented female independence and agency—a culturally rich alternative to the happily ever after established in fairy tales.

    On ’90s to early aughts TV, Paris became a surefire tactic for injecting drama into long-running “will they or won’t they?” couples. Shannen Doherty’s Brenda flees her dramatic on-again-off-again dynamic with Luke Perry’s Dylan on Beverly Hills, 90210 for a summer study-abroad program. Sarah Jessica Parker’s beret-clad Carrie Bradshaw now famously hurls a McDonald’s “le Big Mac” upon learning that “Big is moving to Paris,” in Sex and the City season two. Then her own Parisian journey with Frenchman Aleksandr Petrovsky (Mikhail Baryshnikov) is cut short in the series finale once Big (Chris Noth) shows up to bring her back home. On another hotly anticipated final episode, Jennifer Aniston’s Rachel Green considers moving overseas with her toddler-aged daughter for a fresh start working at Louis Vuitton after years of across-the-hall pining for David Schwimmer’s Ross. But these flights of fancy don’t last long—a brief layover on the way to domesticated bliss right back where they started.

    Savannah Walsh

    Source link

  • Caught Stealing: Darren Aronofsky Might Call It a “Love Letter” to New York, But It’s More Like a Requiem (Not for a Dream)

    It’s been three years since Darren Aronofsky proceeded to break audiences’ hearts with The Whale (written by Samuel D. Hunter, and based on his 2012 play). In that time, of course, the world has only become a darker place. And so, with that in mind, perhaps there was a reason Aronofsky felt compelled to go “back in time” (that is, to “a simpler time”) via Charlie Huston’s screenplay adaptation of his own novel, Caught Stealing (released in 2004, ergo having a fresher perspective on the 90s after the decade had just ended). For yes, it appears that Aronofsky is actually at his best when directing someone else’s material (in other words, there aren’t many “fans,” per se, of Requiem for a Dream or mother!). Accordingly, Caught Stealing signals a marked tonal shift for Aronofsky.

    For, although the material is still quite, shall we say, heavy at times, Caught Stealing has “probably more jokes in the first ten minutes of this than in my entire body of work,” as Aronofsky told The Guardian. Plus, as a native New Yorker, Aronofsky has a certain kind of nostalgic slant to bring to the distinct period he’s depicting: late 90s on the Lower East Side. And, to immediately indicate this is “B911” (Before 9/11) epoch, a shot of the Twin Towers, in all of its romanticized glory, is proudly displayed at the beginning of the film. This being a seminal downtown view belying the seedy goings-on at a joint like Paul’s Bar (which is actually the Double Down Saloon on Avenue A, near the corner of Houston). The joint where Henry “Hank” Thompson (Austin Butler) makes his way in life as a bartender subjected to such jukebox picks of the day as Smash Mouth’s “Walkin’ on the Sun.” The type of bop (or is it the type of MMMBop, in this case?) that can now put the bar at risk thanks to Rudy Giuliani’s “quality of life” campaign that extended to outlawing dancing in bars without a cabaret license (and, of course, most bars weren’t trying to shell out for something like that). Yes, that’s right, Giuliani “Footloose’d” NYC bars starting in 1997—this being just one of many harbingers of doom that his mayorship heralded. Yet another portent of the unstoppable gentrification that Giuliani further aided in opening the floodgates for.

    To be sure, the late 90s was arguably the last time anyone can remember truly seeing some glimmer of what they call the “old” New York. This being why the fall (to put it mildly) of the Twin Towers in 2001 further demarcates a “before” and “after” period for the city and what it once used to “mean.” Thus, Aronofsky and Huston’s organic wielding of these types of details, like Hank telling customers to stop dancing (lest the bar get shut down and/or fined), lends further insight into this period. And it’s part of what makes Caught Stealing feel authentic to the time. 

    Indeed, this form of Giuliani shade-throwing was used even in the era when his “sweeping changes” (read: implementation of a police state) went into effect. One need look no further than the first season of Sex and the City for proof of that (with Miranda [Cynthia Nixon] being the most prone to insulting Giuliani). In fact, it could be said that the season one “look” (a.k.a. how it actually looked in New York at the time) of SATC served as a kind of “mood board” for cinematographer Matthew Libatique, another New Yorker on the crew who has been with Aronofsky since his 1998 debut, Pi. A film that, per The Guardian, “he says could almost be his parallel-universe first movie, given that it’s set in 1998, around the time he was shooting his actual first film on the same East Side streets” (back when Kim’s Video didn’t have to be added into the set design, because it was still there).

    Caught Stealing, instead, has a much greater sense of “levity,” even amidst all its darkness. That “dark aesthetic” of the city, however, is still there. And further aided by the fact that bartenders (and other assorted “shady” characters) live by night. But, more than anything, it seems that with this dark cinematography, Aronofsky aims to more than just subtly convey how much grittier the city used to be. And, as Caught Stealing makes quite clear, that grittiness was most palatable within the crime and corruption sector. With every “organization” from the Hasids (or Hasidim, if you prefer)—played by none other than Liev Schreiber and Vincent D’Onofrio—to the Russian mob to the cops to Bad Bunny (playing the Russians’ “Puerto Rican associate,” Colorado) thrown into this blender of “antagonistic forces” who all suddenly have it out for Hank after his British, cantankerous punk rocker of a next-door neighbor, Russ (Matt Smith), leaves for London in a hurry. And sticks Hank with his equally surly cat in the process. (On a side note, viewers detecting some major overtones of Quentin Tarantino-meets-Guy Ritchie [the latter being an obvious acolyte of the former] stylings wouldn’t be incorrect in making that comparison.)  

    Needless to say, the greater sense of levity in this particular Aronofsky film is supported almost entirely by the presence of this cat named Bud (played by a Siberian forest cat named Tonic). From the start, Hank makes it known he “prefers dogs for a reason.” Luckily for him, Siberian forest cats are described as having a “dog-like” temperament. But it takes his girlfriend, Yvonne (Zoë Kravitz), encouraging Bud’s stay for Hank to fully get on board with the unwanted task. As for Yvonne, a paramedic (hence, her and Hank’s work schedules being perfectly aligned), it’s obvious from the outset that, even apart from her profession, she has a thing for rescuing people.

    And no one is in more need of being saved from himself than Hank, who, much like Henry “Hank” Chinaski (a.k.a. Charles Bukowski), has an alcohol problem. Albeit one that stems from trying to outrun the demons of his past, which, at the time, seemed to foretell an impossibly bright future. Back then, when he was still in high school, Hank thought he would be a shoo-in to play for his favorite baseball team, the San Francisco Giants (because, as it should go without saying, the title Caught Stealing has a baseball meaning too). This very possibility marveled at as he drunkenly drove through some backwater roads of Stanislaus County while his friend and fellow ball player, Dale (D’Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai), rode shotgun, talking up this future before Hank swerved the car at the sight of a cow and wrapped the car around a pole, launching Dale through the windshield and killing him instantaneously. 

    Hank’s own fallout from the accident, apart from a guilty conscience, was injuring his knee so badly it was never going to be good enough for the major leagues. And so, what would a California boy running away from his problems and looking to forget about his past do but move to New York?—the antithesis of his home state on the other side of the country. The irony being, of course, that his beloved Giants moved from NYC to San Francisco (not unlike the Dodgers moving from Brooklyn to LA). In any case, Hank runs as far as he can from the scene of the accidental crime (/car crash) without leaving the country entirely—that will come later. In the meantime, he thinks he’s going about his business, living his life as “minimally” (read: with a disaffected “90s slacker chic” aura) as possible, only to have every heavyweight of every crime organization on his ass in the wake of Russ’ departure. 

    With no one else to harass/beat to a pulp for answers, Hank is left holding the bag. Or rather, the key. A key he finds in a decoy piece of shit in Bud’s litterbox (this after dealing with another human’s shit in his own toilet since, again, the Sex and the City [de facto, And Just Like That…] connections to Caught Stealing abound). Considering his discovery occurs after two scary Russians (always the Russians, n’est-ce pas?) land him in the hospital for two days, Hank is unsure what to do with the newfound item. Worse still, while at the hospital, doctors removed his kidney because the Russians fucked him up so bad that it ruptured. Which means that, now, alcohol—the one thing that was getting him through it all, holding everything together and making New York seem like the nonstop party it really isn’t—must be off the menu. Otherwise, it’s at his own health risk to imbibe. And certainly a risk to do so with same intensity he did before. 

    Alas, all that resolve, all those promises to Yvonne (and the cat, for that matter) that he has it in him to quit cold turkey, go out the window when he walks into Paul’s Bar to show his boss, the eponymous Paul (played by a man considered a “New York institution,” Griffin Dunne) the key. Walking into the bar as Madonna’s “Ray of Light” resounds through the space (because it was the song of ’98), it’s apparent that Hank is doomed to go down a rabbit hole. The kind that happens after he experiences the adage, “One drink is too many and a thousand never enough.” From the looks of it, as the night goes on, Hank does seem to have very well close to a thousand, getting up on the pool table to sing along with another prime tune of the day: Meredith Brooks’ “Bitch.” This moment amounting to his version of Kat Stratford (Julia Stiles) in 10 Things I Hate About You drunkenly dancing on the table at Bogey Lowenstein’s (Kyle Cease) party to Notorious B.I.G.’s “Hypnotize.” 

    Saddled with “picking him up” is Yvonne, who quickly loses her patience or sympathy for him when he starts drunkenly ranting about how everything in his life is garbage (by the way, yet another band that gets played on the soundtrack), and that he used to have it all. Everything ahead of him. So much promise, so much potential. The dramatic irony here is that the same can be said of New York, seeing it through the lens of the present as compared with the past. This late 90s past, so evocatively shown in Caught Stealing

    Of course, there are literally millions who will swear up and down that the New York of the present remains just as viable, as “vibrant.” More so than ever, they’ll insist. Take, for instance, when Taffy Brodesser-Akner told Vulture, in an article discussing the issues of filming Fleischman Is in Trouble in a manner that would make it look like 2016, “The New York you live in now is the best version of New York. You have to keep out the noise from people like me lest you come to think you missed the whole thing by arriving so late—either by being born or moving here more recently than the person you’re talking to.” But no, she’s wrong…and so are all the others who try to maintain their “positive outlook” (a.k.a. daily application of denial) about “the greatest city in the world.” The New York you live in now is patently not the best version at all. 

    And, perhaps as a testament to how effective a job it does as a “period piece,” Caught Stealing is sure to remind viewers who still cling to, er, live in New York (and even those who never have) that such a statement simply isn’t true. Sometimes, the reality is that it really was better before. This is one of those instances. Even so, it doesn’t stop Regina King (as a cop named Roman), meant to be existing in one of the city’s primes, the 90s, from delivering a beautifully bitter monologue that details how she won’t miss anything about New York other than the black and white cookies once she makes her escape. Because “escape from New York” isn’t just a movie, but a wise person’s motto. Besides (barring that traitor, Joan Didion), Californians like Hank never really commit to New York, eventually turning it into just another base stop on the way home.

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Charlotte York: Not Necessarily the OG Practitioner of Shrekking, But Definitely the Most Successful Example of the Intended Result

    Like “delulu” or “skibidi,” there seems to be no shortage of unexpected and (brainrot-inspired) slang words cropping up in the mainstream (and hell, even being added to the dictionary) in 2025. So it is that yet another word no one expected to crop up as “a thing” this year is “Shrekking.” Because, after all, it’s not as though Shrek 5 is out until next year. In any case, it’s a term that provides yet another testament to just how dire, how desperate dating (if it can even still be called that) has become in the post-swiping era. Not solely in the “straight” world either. Though that’s most assuredly, as Sabrina Carpenter would attest, where the male pickins are slimmest. 

    For those who couldn’t guess, the meaning behind the newly popular term is meant to indicate when someone is “dating down” a.k.a. lowering their expectations in the looks and personality (and, of course, etiquette) department in the hope that, because of said person’s glaring deficiencies, they might at least deliver in terms of treating you nicely instead of like shit. Alas, as Miranda Hobbes in Sex and the City said in the pilot episode, “I’ve been out with some of those guys. The short, fat, poor ones. It makes absolutely no difference. They are just as self-centered and unappreciative as the good-looking ones.” In other words, just as dickish and horrifying on the behavior front. 

    And, talking of Sex and the City (which is probably less tiring than talking of And Just Like That… or its series finale), it isn’t Miranda who is most known for “dating down,” despite that infamous line in the pilot, but rather, Charlotte York (Kristin Davis). More specifically, it’s her beloved dynamic with Harry Goldenblatt (Evan Handler), the “Shrek” of the relationship, that serves as at least part of the reason why women remain convinced that going for a guy who is less attractive than them will result in their thus far elusive “happily ever after.” Because, yes, ultimately Harry does turn out to be “living proof” (even if only in fictional form) that Shrekking can work. 

    Granted, more concrete, real-life examples of women doing so have not proven nearly as successful, with perhaps the first “prototype” in the land of the famous being Marilyn Monroe. And although it’s Arthur Miller’s appearance in comparison to hers that are called out the most (see: “Egghead Weds Hourglass”), Joe DiMaggio wasn’t exactly a looker either. In any event, Marilyn seemed to set a precedent for future hot girls (both famous and “civilian” alike) to lower their standards in the “aesthetics department” as well, all in the hope that there was something to this idea that uglier men surely must be nicer. Often times, however, it seems the uglier the dude, the crueler he actually is. Not so with Harry though…

    But back to the real-life examples of women who “dated down” and, unlike Charlotte, did not have the same fairy-tale ending. There was Princess Diana with Prince Charles (married for fifteen years, though living separate lives for a large bulk of that time), Christie Brinkley with Billy Joel (married for nine years), Julia Roberts with Lyle Lovett (married for just under two years) and Drew Barrymore with Tom Green (married for all of nine months). Shockingly, it was the latter who filed for divorce from her, though both cited irreconcilable differences. Much the same that Charlotte would with Trey MacDougal (Kyle MacLachlan) thanks mostly to her inability to reconcile with his erectile dysfunction. Even though it’s his mother (as usual), Bunny (Frances Sternhagen), who is the one making things feel so irreconcilable most of the time. This ramps up in the season five episode, “Plus One Is the Loneliest Number,” when Bunny traipses into “Charlotte’s” apartment one morning after the latter had just finished, shall we say, vetting her next Prince Charming, Justin Anderson III (Peter Giles). But it doesn’t take long for Bunny to chase him away by announcing that Charlotte is still married to her son. Sure, technically. Even though they’ve been separated for ages by now. 

    Bunny’s “pop-up” appearance, however, is what ultimately sends Charlotte straight into the arms of her true Prince Charming, initially mistaken for mere “Shrek” in the season five episode, “Critical Condition.” This is the first time Charlotte encounters her ogre, so to speak, after realizing that 1) she needs a lawyer to get Bunny off her dick about the apartment belonging to the MacDougals and 2) the lawyer she’s currently consulting with on her would-be messy divorce from Trey is too hot to be herself around. Or, as Carrie phrases it in a voiceover, “Charlotte realized she could never be as ugly as she needed to be in front of a man she considered so handsome.” It’s at that very moment that “gross” Harry, the other partner at the firm, walks in to grab a bagel and starts eating with all the grace of, well, a beast (with Charlotte and Harry at another point being described by Carrie as “the bachelorette and the beast”). Suddenly, Charlotte sees the potential in being able to speak freely about Trey—to get as “ugly” as she wants—with Harry. Thus, “And just like that, Charlotte changed lawyers.” And, in the process, would end up finding her Prince Charming as a result of quote unquote lowering her standards. 

    Of course, Harry’s “style” (sartorially, hygienically and otherwise) still takes some getting used to for Charlotte. And if it weren’t for the “hot s-e-x,” as she spells it out to Anthony (Mario Cantone), she might not be so easily enticed to go for the Shrekking maneuver before it had this name. But, in the next episode after meeting Harry, “The Big Journey,” he manages to turn on all the charm long enough to seduce Charlotte into bed (it doesn’t hurt that the bed in question is inside a very cheesy—but “hot”—bachelor pad he’s conveniently offered to show Charlotte as a way to help her find a new apartment). Out of nowhere, and much to her dismay, she finds herself falling for Harry’s line about her “perfect pink lips” and how he can’t stop fantasizing about them.  

    In the wake of the tryst, Charlotte confesses to Anthony at a gay club, “He’s my divorce lawyer and I don’t even like him,” in addition to, “I don’t wanna date him. He’s not very attractive.” And, as Charlotte made clear from the outset of the series, her criteria for Mr. Right not only includes a certain kind of job and “pedigree,” but also a certain kind of look (read: Ken doll handsome). Probably not just because Charlotte is vain, but also because she’s genuinely thinking about the “right” biological combination that will make her kids look attractive as well. 

    With Harry, however, all that staunch “logic and reason” of Charlotte’s goes right out the window along with her panties. For, by the time the finale of season five, “I Love a Charade,” rolls around, she can’t deny that not only is it “the best sex of her life,” but that she really does like Harry. That still doesn’t make it easy for her to totally ignore his general uncouthness or hairy back, but, in the end, she can’t deny that Shrekking actually paid off in a big way for her. Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall) certainly couldn’t say the same about The Turtle (Timothy Wheeler) in the season one episode of SATC titled “The Turtle and the Hare.” Because, while The Turtle was willing to go along with all of Samantha’s “fixer-upper” ideas for him, Harry—a true Shrek through and through—did well to never much bother trying to alter his “crass” ways or physical appearance for Charlotte. Except a botched attempt at trying to get his back waxed for her in “I Love a Charade” (something that evidently “took” in subsequent seasons, for his hairy back never makes a cameo again). 

    In fact, it would turn out to be Charlotte making all the personal changes in her life for Harry, going so far as to convert to Judaism so that he’ll ask her to marry him (this plot, too, hits its rough patch in the sixth season, but eventually resolves by episode six, “Hop, Skip and a Week”). And while every other relationship in SATC can never manage to stand the test of time, it’s Charlotte and Harry’s that keeps on going strong, even in And Just Like That… (“zany”—read: non sequitur—as their plots are in these “later years” of their marriage). 

    Alas, Charlotte is among the rare examples to have gotten such a great relationship out of her Shrekking endeavors (which is probably why it’s fictional). And while many (especially women) are willing to try Shrekking, most end up only getting “Shrekked.” In other words, deigning to let someone less attractive have the privilege of accessing their body only to still end up being disappointed and/or getting their heart broken by the Shrek of the hour.  

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Alex Consani’s Declaration, “Being in a Relationship is Fun, But, Like, So Much Work,” Is Indicative of a Much Bigger Zeitgeist in Dating and Monogamy (RIP)

    Although Amelia Dimoldenberg has had many guests on for Chicken Shop Date this year, among the most memorable still remains Alex Consani. Not just because she has the blasé “audacity” to say she’s from California so she doesn’t know geography (a.k.a. California is the only geography worth knowing in the U.S., or at all), but because, despite the overall “premise” of Chicken Shop Date (tongue-in-cheek or not) being about Dimoldenberg’s bid to find “true love”—or at least a “steady” someone—Consani disinterestedly declares, “Being in a relationship is fun, but, like, so much work.” 

    This statement might seem “innocuous”/intended to be “cute” enough, but it’s telling of something larger. Particularly amongst those in Consani’s generation (Z, in case you couldn’t guess). And that is, of course, that the pervasive sense of entitlement/a “me first” philosophy/narcissism in general has reached such a zenith that most people of “dating age” really don’t see the point. And besides that, why bother when everything is on demand at the touch of a button (or swipe of a screen)—dick and pussy included? Hence, Consani has effectively announced what has been quite evident for the past several years, which is that Gen Z, and even many beyond that generational boundary, are rejecting the notion of what a “conventional” relationship used to mean. And yes, to a certain extent, what Consani is saying isn’t exactly groundbreaking or “revolutionary.” In fact, Whoopi Goldberg already said it all with her 2016 quote, “I’m much happier on my own. I can spend as much time with somebody as I want to spend, but I’m not looking to be with somebody forever or live with someone. I don’t want somebody in my house.” 

    It was that final line in the quote that launched a thousand memes, with many of them including the text, “Whoopi Goldberg on Marriage: ‘I don’t want somebody in my house.’” Goldberg herself is a baby boomer, and her feelings about “needing” a man (or rather, not needing one) have also become increasingly common within a generation that represents one of the heights of what was once considered “traditional values.” But for an increasing majority of women, particularly those who are within a certain income tax bracket, the “point” of a relationship has only diminished in value over time. 

    Here, too, it can be argued that Candace Bushnell was the first modern “revolutionary” to put a spotlight on this reality in her “Sex and the City” column, writing, “For the first time in Manhattan history, many women in their thirties to early forties have as much money and power as men—or at least enough to feel like they don’t need a man, except for sex.” And no, that comment is certainly not specific to Manhattan. What’s more, it seems that, increasingly, men are scarcely “required” even for sex, what with the many advancements in the world of self-pleasure and fertility. Moreover, men most definitely have their pick of ways and means to get what they want out of a woman (ersatz or otherwise) without ever having to “date” her (see also: the rise of sex robots). 

    At another point in one of Bushnell’s columns, she quotes one of her friends saying, “Love means having to align yourself with another person, and what if that person turns out to be a liability?” To be sure, the number one way that a person can be a “liability” to someone else is financially. Think: romance scams. Then, of course, there’s a different kind of investment that occurs when one attempts being in a “traditional” relationship: an emotional one. 

    And when, often inevitably, that sense of emotional attachment/investment goes bust, it can leave the person who got more burned in the relationship kicking themselves for putting so much time and effort into nurturing something that didn’t “pan out.” Something that couldn’t last. Indeed, more and more, it appears as though younger generations are having the spell of “forever” broken not only by cold, hard reality, but the virtual absence of the same steady diet of rom-coms that were once fed to previous generations, including millennials. Without such propaganda to “promote the lie” anymore, it has become even more of a challenge to convince people that “true love” or “eternal love” is actually “a thing” and not a “capitalist conspiracy” (one that Beyoncé and Jay-Z are still working hard to sell). 

    To boot, someone like Consani is the epitome of what happens when a person grows up entirely on and with the internet. The concept of “real life” or ever being “turned off,” performance-wise, is, thus anathema. A concept that makes it even more difficult to fathom a person’s ability to ever get to know someone in a truly “real” (read: offline) context. In addition to this, there are some who posit that, despite Gen Z being the “loneliest” generation (again, blame the internet) and the one most likely to be single, it isn’t all doom and gloom with regard to the changing face of what a relationship means. As a “generational expert” commented to Newsweek, “[In the future], we’ll [probably] see more communal living, chosen families and alternative relationship structures that align with Gen Z’s values of autonomy and mutual respect. If older generations want to blame Gen Z for killing relationships, maybe they should ask themselves why young people don’t see relationships as a safe or beneficial investment anymore.” 

    Ah, that ugly term again: investment. A word that connotes just how much relationships have come to be seen more as work and less as something rewarding and romantic by sheer virtue of not having to be alone all the time. However, gone are the days when being alone was seen as an undeniable stigma (as further evidenced by the recent series finale of And Just Like That…). In truth, you’re probably more likely to be looked upon as a freakshow in the current climate for being in a committed, monogamous relationship than you would be for “flying solo.” The “work” of the former far outweighing the “fun” of it, as far as Consani’s kind is concerned. 

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Party of One: With the And Just Like That… Series Finale, Michael Patrick King Gives Carrie the Ending He Always Wanted To—Albeit Poorly Executed

    As has been Michael Patrick King’s wont throughout the third and final season of And Just Like That…, there have been a lot of callbacks to previous scenarios in Sex and the City. Whether this is truly intentional or not—or just a matter of not “remembering” the similarities (like not remembering that Lisa Todd Wexley’s [Nicole Ari Parker] dad had already died in season one)—the fact remains that the overall effect makes it seem less “calculated” and more like King and co. were out of truly fresh ideas. 

    With the supposed final chapter on Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) closing (though, based on past occurrences, viewers know that Bradshaw always has a tendency to “reanimate”), her conclusion is not only somewhat forced—a means to repair the ending that she was given for the series finale of Sex and the City—but also a redux of SATC’s season five episode, “Anchors Away.” In it, the running motif is based on something Charlotte York (Kristin Davis) tells her friends, including Miranda Hobbes (Cynthia Nixon) and Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall): “Everyone knows you only get two great loves in your life.” She then spells out, without thinking, that Big (Chris Noth) and Aidan (John Corbett) were Carrie’s, leaving her somewhat flummoxed about what that’s supposed to mean for her romantic future. However, another running theme, one that’s always been there in this particular show, is that the city of New York is her great love. Or, as she cheesily puts it to the others, “You’re never alone in New York, it’s the perfect place to be single. The city is your date.” 

    That doesn’t mean the city still won’t make you feel like shit for being “alone,” as it does when Carrie, in her bid to have a little date with herself, de facto New York, ends up caught in a rainstorm after realizing the Guggenheim is closed on the day she wants to visit it (so much for being a seasoned New Yorker). Even though, at present, the Guggenheim is open seven days a week. In any case, as a result of the closure and bad weather, she’s led to Café Edison (another now defunct NYC institution); never mind that, geographically speaking, it wouldn’t have been possible for her to just “stumble into it” a few blocks from the Guggenheim, seeing as how it was about a forty-five minute walk to do so (Carrie instead describes it as a mere “several wet blocks later”). But then, SATC has never prided itself on a sense of realism—so how could anyone have expected that And Just Like That… would? 

    However, one thing that both shows undeniably have in common is parading the question that King brought up on Kristin Davis’ Are You a Charlotte? podcast, the question that has been at the core of the narrative from its inception: “Am I enough? Am I enough alone?” In “Anchors Away,” it seems as though, for Carrie, the answer is still no. In fact, she’s disturbed from the outset by her experience at Café Edison, when the proprietor barks, “Singles at the counter!” Carrie tries to push back with, “Oh, I was hoping to get a table—” “Singles, counter!”

    At said seating arrangement, Carrie is further horrified by a glimpse into her future via the other woman at the “singles counter,” Joan (played by Sylvia Miles, a New York fixture until her death in 2019), who begins gabbing with her immediately. Taking a shine to Carrie because she sees something of herself in this person, Joan announces of the singles counter at the café, “We single gals gotta have a port in the storm, am I right?” Carrie doesn’t look so convinced of that being true as she observes Joan crushing some white powder on her plate. Joan explains, “Lithium. I like to sprinkle it on my ice cream. You ever try it?” Carrie says she hasn’t and, when further questioned by Joan about what “mood elevator” Carrie is on, the latter tells Joan she isn’t “on” anything. Joan smiles, saying she used to be like Carrie until she broke up with some guy named Morty in ‘82, adding, “Thought somebody better would come along. Never happened.” Obviously, Carrie feels the sting of that comment, having recently ended things with Aidan for what was then the second time. 

    What’s more, the question of the week for her column is whether or not, “when it comes to being carefree single girls, have we missed the boat?” For Carrie, the idea of losing her ability to be single without judgment a.k.a. being single while also being “of a certain age” is what scares her the most. More than being single itself. Which is why, later, at the Navy party (with Fleet Week also being a through-line of the episode), Carrie takes a look around at the goings-on—including Charlotte flashing a tit to one of the Navy officers—and realizes this kind of scene isn’t for her anymore, informing Samantha, “I was right. This ship has sailed. And, tragically, I’m still on it.” 

    In the so-called final episode of And Just Like That…, “Party of One,” Carrie is met with a similar feeling in the opening scene, which itself echoes the one when she’s at the “singles counter” with Joan. Only instead of having a live “seat mate” this time, And Just Like That… aims to show just how far Carrie has been thrust into the future—apart from the robot servers and digital menus—with a Tommy Tomato stuffed toy (sure to become a real thing after this…then again, maybe not). This is the “creature” she ends up sitting across from at the restaurant. Of which she tells the host, “I was walking by. It looked so interesting.” A comment that sounds borderline racist in that an Asian restaurant would be described as “interesting” to her at this juncture of her existence in NYC. Or the fact that, also at this juncture, she should be surprised by a menu presented to her on an iPad, where she selects the items she wants via the screen. Treating it as though she’s never seen one before at another restaurant, Carrie goes through a whole “I’m so naïve” bit before the host that seated her presents her with the abovementioned Tommy Tomato, beaming at Carrie as she explains, “You don’t have to eat alone.” 

    This time, she’s even more horrified/affronted than she was when she got saddled with Joan at the singles counter. And also this time, the geography of where Carrie ends up eating totally doesn’t match the reality of where she would be. For the location it’s shot at, Haidilao Huoguo, is in Flushing. Oh sure, Queens might have come up in the world, but definitely not to the point where Carrie Bradshaw would fuck with it on a whim. Though that isn’t to say she wouldn’t shlep to the Brooklyn Botanical Garden, which is where it looks like she, Charlotte, Lisa and Seema (Sarita Choudhury) are when they attend a bridal fashion show. Before entering said show, Carrie recounts what happened to her: “Ladies, they put a boy doll across from anyone eating alone.” Not exactly great publicity for Haidilao Huoguo, but oh well.

    What’s more, gone are the days when, as in the season two episode, “They Shoot Single People, Don’t They?,” the relative “lack of technology” didn’t make such an experience feel all the more sad and bleak. And yes, at the end of said episode, Carrie has the same epiphany about an “okayness” with potentially being alone forever, delivering the voiceover, “Instead of running away from the idea of a life alone, I’d better sit down and take that fear to lunch.” She does just that, and, since phones weren’t pervasive in 1999, when the episode aired, she didn’t even have that as a crutch for sitting alone at a restaurant either, proudly declaring, “So I sat there and had a glass of wine…alone. No books, no man, no friends, no armor, no faking.”

    This constant exploration of what it would mean to be truly alone, perennially single is the North Star of the SATC universe (in addition to the four friends being each other’s true soul mates). Coming up repeatedly every time Carrie found herself, yet again, in the position of being an “old maid” (another trope that arises in the season five episode, “Luck Be An Old Lady”). In AJLT, with the realization that both Big and Aidan, her “two great loves,” as Charlotte once put it, are no longer options—seeing as how Big is dead and Aidan is overused (which is really saying something considering how overused Big once seemed to be)—Carrie, for the first time, doesn’t appear as though she’s holding out hope for someone to be her “other half” in the future. 

    As she tells Charlotte during their “walk and talk” after the bridal fashion show, “Who will I be alone? Yes, I know I’ve lived alone a lot, but I’ve never lived alone without the thought that I wouldn’t be alone for long.” She then concludes, “I have to quit thinking: maybe a man. And start accepting: maybe just me.” Charlotte, of course, refuses to give credence to the idea that being single at Carrie’s age is acceptable (just as she refused to accept it back when they were all “spring chickens”). Or that it might be a genuine possibility, which is why she decides to invite Mark Kasabian (Victor Garber), the art gallery owner that employs her, to Thanksgiving at Miranda’s, hoping Carrie will see that there are, in fact, still plenty of non-jank fish in the sea. Even at “their age.”

    Carrie, of course, isn’t having it, mainly because she’s never been even remotely attracted to nice guys (this, too, was part of why Aidan never really “did it” for her—granted, he showed himself to be a true asshole later on, which was, funnily enough, when she was most committed to the relationship). But Carrie isn’t so quick to get on board with Charlotte’s plucky attitude about “male prospects” for the future, with even Duncan Reeves (Jonathan Cake), the British bloke she finally slept with after a season of flirtatious energy, not panning out as a viable suitor. 

    All of which leads Carrie—and the viewer—back to what she had said at the end of the SATC series finale, “An American Girl in Paris (Part Deux)”: “The most exciting, challenging and significant relationship of all is the one you have with yourself.” As King reminded, “That was the sort of mission statement of Sex and the City. The interesting trick to it is Carrie then answered a phone call from a man who was coming to be with her [Mr. Big]. [But] it was always in my mind, ‘What happens if there’s no phone call?’ How strong of an individual do you have to be to make that same sentence when there’s no one on the horizon?” With Carrie adding to that sologamist line while answering Big’s phone call, “And if you find someone to love the ‘you’ you love, well, that’s just fabulous.”

    But in And Just Like That…, with Big dead, Aidan insufferable and Carrie being “too old” to have as many options on the dating scene as before, it appears King saw the opportunity to give his ultimate main character the ending he wasn’t bold enough to back then. The ending he didn’t think viewers would accept back then: “The woman realized she was not alone. She was on her own.” This being the “dazzling prose” Carrie chooses to conclude her 1800s-era manuscript with, despite the recommendation her agent gives her about how this would be a tragedy, especially for the time period. 

    And yes, viewers would have been ready to accept this conclusion—if only it hadn’t all been delivered so poorly…and so randomly, to boot. Complete with the much talked about clogged/overflowing toilet scene, which has absolutely no relevance or use to the episode. It can’t even be argued that it offers “comic relief” value. It’s just full-stop disgusting and basically mirrors the belief that this entire series was a turd that kept floating up. Until now. For that was it, the end. Finito. No more. And, by playing the SATC theme song during the credits, it just goes to show that King and co. were fundamentally trying to signal that all they wanted was to do their best to give the original Sex and the City the ending they thought it deserved. The more “courageous” ending for Carrie. For, as King also told Davis on her podcast, SATC was always about “the anarchy of saying single people are enough, being single is enough.”

    However, the way Carrie makes it look in these final scenes of AJLT, it doesn’t come across like that at all. Not even with the contrived musical selection of Barry White’s “You’re The First, The Last, My Everything” (which, by the way, is still much too easily associated with Ally McBeal—the eponymous character of said series, incidentally, ending up “alone” as well, perhaps proving it was more avant-garde in its day than SATC). 

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Every Subject That Nobody Wants This “Illuminates” Already Happened on Sex and the City

    Every Subject That Nobody Wants This “Illuminates” Already Happened on Sex and the City

    As though to prove a point about Sex and the City’s long-lasting impact, Megan Thee Stallion recently appeared on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon to tell him, despite other things she had to promote, that she had only just started watching the show and couldn’t believe how long she had slept on it. It would seem that the creator of Nobody Wants This, Erin Foster, might have been banking on people (like Megan Thee Stallion) to continue sleeping on said show—otherwise why borrow so many tropes from it? Not least of which, of course, is that its female lead, Joanne (Kristen Bell), would have to convert to Judaism in order to be with Noah, a rabbi who she encounters at a dinner party hosted by her friend and “PR gal,” Ashely (Sherry Cola). Which is where the SATC comparisons already start to flicker in. Because while, sure, Charlotte York (Kristin Davis) didn’t have to convert to Judaism for Harry Goldenblatt (Evan Handler), it was an integral part of the storyline in terms of “making their relationship work” (in addition to Charlotte having to overcome how much less attractive Harry was than her).

    But, obviously, Joanne’s character is much more in line with Carrie Bradshaw’s (Sarah Jessica Parker) “breed.” For, like Carrie, Joanne is something of a “sexual anthropologist,” using her dates as fodder for her podcast, called, naturally, Nobody Wants This (on a related note: to “update” Carrie’s column shtick for the present, she does get a podcast on the SATC “sequel series,” …And Just Like That). The difference between her and Carrie (apart from sartorial bombast) is that Joanne “co-researches” the dating scene with her sister and best friend, Morgan (Justine Lupe). It is Morgan who serves as the three-in-one sounding board—embodying the Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte characters all at the same time—for all of Joanne’s dating woes/horror stories. And this is something we’re given insight into from the moment the show starts and Morgan comes to collect Joanne from a bad date that the latter ditches out on because the guy keeps talking way too much about his grandma and the tragedy of losing her when he was twelve.

    The shit-talking of the first scene segues into the podcasting (and continued shit-talking) of the second scene, wherein Morgan not only expositorily informs Joanne that they’ve recorded one hundred and nineteen episodes, but that, throughout each one, she has revealed the same thing over and over again: “When you find a nice, normal guy…you find fault with him.” Case in point: “Grandma Guy.” Morgan further proffers that maybe Joanne doesn’t even want to find a real relationship, a theory that of course has truth to it since, without “bad date inspiration,” she’ll end up like Carrie in the season five episode, “Unoriginal Sin,” lamenting, “I’m not getting laid. Therefore…I’m getting laid off” (though, ultimately, she wasn’t).

    This “deliberately self-sabotaging” epiphany comes for both women. That’s right, even blind-to-everything Carrie is forced to have this epiphany about herself after a bad breakup (the first one, anyway) with Mr. Big (Chris Noth). The “breakthrough” occurs when her friends make her see a therapist named Dr. G (Anne Lange), who has another patient named Seth (Jon Bon Jovi) that Carrie keeps flirting with in the waiting room. It’s only after the two finally have sex that they each understand why there were attracted to one another. For Seth, it’s because he immediately loses interest in a woman after sleeping with her. For Carrie, the according revelation is, “I pick the wrong men.”

    As for Joanne, she’s more open about the joy of picking the wrong men for the sake of “the story” a.k.a. her podcast, which has started to gain enough traction to become considered as worthy of being a corporate acquisition. This almost “willful” choosing of the wrong men is done in a similar vein as Carrie, who relies on not just her friends’ relationship horrors, but her own in order to come up with a weekly column called, what else, “Sex and the City.” It is in this headspace that Joanne gleefully accepts Ashley’s invite to a dinner party where all the male guests “sound terrible.” Including a rabbi named Noah Roklov (Adam Brody, perennially resurrected, if one will pardon the Christian allusion). Except that Noah turns out to be the man she’s instantly attracted to upon entering the space. Only she doesn’t know he’s the rabbi because he doesn’t come out and admit it, instead going along with her mistaken assumption that it’s another guy at the party with a beard.

    When she does get the big unveiling of his identity, the reaction is that there is no romantic future whatsoever. But, of course, that’s what makes the allure all the more prominent. Which is how she ends up walking into his temple soon after (such Carrie behavior) to exchange a “witty repartee” also in the style of “flirtatious” Carrie when Noah jokingly asks, “Are you a member of this temple?” She replies, “You guys do memberships? Is there a gym?” Ho-ho-ho-har-har-har.

    In “Either Aura,” the third episode, Joanne spends the majority of it dissecting a text and the lack of response it gets the way Carrie would spend entire brunches and lunches dissecting something Big or [insert name of some other asshole here] did and what it “means.” Then there is the kind of spiraling she does in the season three episode, “Drama Queens,” wherein it takes Aidan (John Corbett) ignoring her for her to suddenly comprehend that losing his interest would be the worst thing ever. That’s the same kind of spiral Joanne is on throughout “Either Aura,” waiting for Noah to respond to a text that her sister tells her was “weird” (the text being: “I think I’m pregnant” in regard to how good their first kiss was).

    At first, Noah’s availability is almost a detriment to his “desirability.” Because, as Carrie says in “Drama Queens,” “I’m used to the hunt and this is just…effortless. It’s freakin’ me out.” Charlotte eventually has to interject, “I don’t believe this! Now we’re dumping guys for being too available!” The prospect of Noah not being available (you know, for other reasons besides being a rabbi) is equally as terrifying to Joanne, prompting her to wonder (or being unable to “help but wonder”) if she’s a “good” person. As in, morally decent enough for a rabbi.

    All of this making “her stomach flip all on her own” (another Carrie quote from “Drama Queens”) plays into Carrie’s pondering for her column: “When things come too easy, we’re suspect. Do they have to get complicated before we believe they’re for real? We’re raised to believe that course of true love never runs smoothly. There always have to be obstacles in Act Two before you can live happily ever after in Act Three. But what happens when the obstacles aren’t there? Does that mean there’s something missing? Do we need drama to make a relationship work?”

    If that’s genuinely the caveat, then Joanne and Noah are destined to be together (and predictably do end up that way for the season finale). Their density of “obstacles” are further compounded by Noah essentially acting ashamed to be with her in the fifth episode, “My Friend Joanne.” Needless to say, this smacks of the “Secret Sex” episode of SATC in season one. The allusion to it, whether “intentional” or not, is already made in the first episode of Nobody Wants This, when Morgan mentions a guy named Greg who wouldn’t be seen with Joanne in public. But this thread picks up again when Noah takes her to a Jewish youth camp in Ojai and suddenly acts the opposite of a loving boyfriend when he realizes his boss is going to be there and, thus, introduces Joanne to a colleague as a “friend.” It takes some of the teen girls at the camp to spell it out for her: he introduced her as his friend. Hence, they’re definitely not together as solidly as she thinks.

    To be sure, as Noah tells his brother, Sasha (Timothy Simons), “I’m not ready to face the whole ‘I’m dating a shiksa’ thing” in public. In fact, he’s convinced he won’t have to because Rabbi Cohen (Stephen Tobolowsky) won’t be there…or so he thought. But when the big boss shows up, Noah fully fathoms just how much is at stake for him, career-wise, in dating someone as non-Jewish (read: totally white bread) as Joanne. Who also happens to be coming across as Carrie-level clingy in this episode, whining to Noah when he tells her they have to cancel their Carmel trip because of his unexpected work commitment, “What am I supposed to do? Just stay at home alone?” Yes, bitch, that’s exactly what you’re supposed to do. In addition, apparently, to being unavoidably disgusted when a man is too “nice.”

    Or, in Noah’s instance, too “sniveling.” Specifically, to Joanne’s parents, who he meets in the sixth episode, titled “The Ick.” And, what do you know, it’s an episode that speaks exactly to what Sex and the City already did in season six with “The Ick Factor.” Centered on Carrie’s “steady” of the moment, Aleksandr Petrovsky (Mikhail Baryshnikov), being way too over the top—therefore, “icky”—with his romantic gestures, Carrie struggles vis-à-vis how to deal with someone so cringingly saccharine.

    Much the same as Carrie, Joanne can’t “digest” a man who brings flowers “for respect” and says obsequious things that end up involving him doing a bad Italian accent (specifically, so he can utter the word “Prego”—as in the nasty sauce brand—when Morgan says she found an old Prego jar to put the flowers in). Morgan, attuned to her sister in ways that no one else is, clocks the look on Joanne’s face when taking in all of the icky things going on with Noah in this scenario. When Morgan calls her out about having the ick, Joanne tries to deny it—to which Morgan warns, “You can’t fight the ick, it’s like a Chinese finger trap: the harder you pull, the stronger it gets.”

    But naturally, as it happened for Carrie and Aleksandr, Joanne is able to surmount her icky feelings thanks to being candid with the object of her ick about it so that said object can work to remedy being so “icky.” However, if Aleksandr’s eventual fate is something to go by, Noah isn’t totally out of the woods in terms of redeeming himself as Joanne’s “forever person” (besides, that wouldn’t make for “compelling television,” n’est-ce pas? Gotta leave viewers on their toes).

    The grand denouement of Nobody Wants This is the bat mitzvah of Noah’s niece, Miriam (Shiloh Bearman), who grudgingly goes along with the Noah’s mom/her grandma Bina’s (Tovah Feldshuh), desired theme: “Miriam Takes a Bite Out of the Big Apple.” A more than slightly traitorous choice in L.A., but perhaps Bina is aware that the Jewish population in NY is larger, with L.A. coming in second in the U.S. after it for having largest population of Jewish people.

    To the point of New York versus L.A., it must also be said that, as Sex and the City’s “fifth character” is New York, Los Angeles plays a key supporting character in Nobody Wants This (even if it additionally betrays L.A. by having what can be called a “Philip Roth book cover font” for its title card).

    What’s more, much of Sex and the City was rooted in a “Jewish undertone” (apart from just Carrie bandying “keywords” like “mazel tov” so annoyingly) precisely because it was set in New York (see also: Charlotte’s wedding episode in season six, “The Catch”). Indeed, that was pretty much the extent of the “ethnic diversity” that the show “allowed” for. With Nobody Wants This, there’s about that same amount of “diversity” despite the narrative taking place in a city as racially varied as L.A. And yet, the show appears to count on the glamoring distractions of familiar storylines from Sex and the City—whether it relates to overbearing mothers, awkward situations with vibrators, emotionally distant men or fundamental incompatibility. And maybe part of that reliance stems from Foster underestimating just how many viewers can still cite Sex and the City episodes like scripture.

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Doreen Savage Gives Marty Mendelson A Run for His Dolls

    Doreen Savage Gives Marty Mendelson A Run for His Dolls

    On July 9, 2000, a theoretically small role in the “No Ifs, Ands or Butts” episode of Sex and the City left an indelible imprint on anyone with a phobia of dolls (a.k.a. pediophobia…not to be confused with pedophobia [fear of children])—not mention an imprint on anyone who can’t unsee and unhear the part of the narrative where Samantha (Kim Cattrall) dates a Black guy. However, perhaps even worse than dolls in and of themselves is dating someone who happens to be obsessed with them. Naturally, it would be unlucky-in-love Stanford Blatch (Willie Garson) who would end up in such a bizarre scenario. And this after so generously playing Cupid to Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) and Aidan Shaw (John Corbett) by making her go to his furniture store after seeing him splashed across The New York Times Styles section.

    And what does Stanford get for his good deed? A so-called meet-cute with Marty Mendelson (Donald Berman) at the same furniture store where Aidan’s dog, Pete, does all the heavy lifting for Carrie in terms of “aligning” them (by humping her leg). While Carrie is crushing hard and things seem to be going well (until Aidan realizes she’s a trashball smoker), it’s immediately clear to Stanford that his would-be Prince Charming is some kind of freaky. And not in the good way. This discovery made after Marty suggests they move their makeout session into his bedroom, whereupon Stanford is met with the eyes of seemingly hundreds of dolls staring back at him judgmentally (and yes, this was long before anyone had an inkling of Prince Andrew’s teddy bear fetish).

    Marty unabashedly approaches the bed, throws up his arms and proudly announces, “These are my dolls.” He then gushes, “I’ve been collecting them for years.” Stanford does his best not to seem creeped out as he smiles, “I had no idea.” Because, obviously, if he did, he wouldn’t have come over. Worse still, Marty asks him to help clear the dolls off the bed. Which he really shouldn’t have…considering how particular he is about the way his dolls are touched, moved and arranged. This, let’s say, fastidiousness (or “fagtidiousness,” as an edgier SATC writer might have punned) is what leads Carrie to say in one of her voiceovers, “Stanford wondered if he was enough of a queen to make love to a queen who collected queens” (most of his dolls being from Madame Alexander).

    Turns out, he is. Or at least tries to be the next time he goes over to Marty’s apartment, determined to do away with the boner-killing ritual of having to individually remove each doll from the bed. To this burst of devil-may-care carnality, Marty at first screams, “No wait, the dolls!” But Stanford gets the better of him, and Marty lets his guard down long enough to allow for one of the dolls to fall off his bed thanks to Stanford’s churlish ways. Thus, the dolls put a stop to their union before it can even start because “to Marty Mendelson, a broken face was a deal breaker” (side note: the entire episode is centered on various deal breakers in relationships). For Charles-Haden Savage’s (Steve Martin) younger sister, Doreen (Melissa McCarthy), in the seventh episode of Only Murders in the Building’s fourth season, it’s not that much of one. Especially if it means she might get a little action from Charles’ friend and co-podcaster, Oliver Putnam (Martin Short).

    Along with Mabel (Selena Gomez), Oliver has found himself at Doreen’s house in Patchogue, Long Island because it’s the “safest” place Charles can come up with after they’re threatened yet again by whoever Sazz’s (Jane Lynch) killer is. From the moment they arrive at Doreen’s, it’s apparent to Oliver and Mabel that she’s more than slightly eccentric—though Charles bills her as being “spontaneous.” And if her bombastic appearance and comportment wasn’t an instant tipoff, then her vast collection of dolls is. Hence the episode title being “Valley of the Dolls” (indeed, SATC probably would have titled the Marty episode that were it not for the fact that they had already titled a season one episode “Valley of the Twenty-Something Guys”). Carrie is, of course, sure to make use of that reference in a voiceover instead, narrating, “Meanwhile, back in the Valley of the Dolls, Stanford decided there was something even more rare than a porcelain French face: his passion.”

    But it’s Doreen who will be the passionate one in the Only Murders permutation, with Oliver, the non-doll-collector (therefore theoretically in the Stanford role) unwittingly turning her on by making the Psych 101 assessment, “So I guess you replaced your children with dolls, huh?” For the rest of the episode, filled with its eclectic backdrop of life-size and baby dolls alike, Doreen will try to make something happen with Oliver, who is mercifully spared by the sudden appearance of Loretta (Meryl Streep), his long-distance love. And yet, that still doesn’t stop Doreen from expressing her over-the-top ardor with gusto, even using one of the life-size dolls’ set of braids to fashion pigtails on her short hair in the style of Loretta.

    All of which is to say that doll collectors—if Marty and Doreen are anything to go by—definitely seem to share a particular characteristic: sexual hang-ups, limitations and perversions that make actually having sex with one of them all but impossible. Not that Stanford or Oliver really wanted to in the first place…especially not after they saw all those dolls. Thus, it would appear that, in addition to the term pediophobia, there ought to also be one for a phobia of people who collect dolls in the extreme (no shade to those who do in moderation, one supposes). For it can make for a very harrowing attempt at a sexual encounter. Regardless of whether the collector in the scenario cares about any potential damage done to their dolls during the tryst or not.

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • On Carrie Bradshaw Developing the Idea for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

    On Carrie Bradshaw Developing the Idea for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

    Although it’s easy to shit on Sex and the City in the present, there are occasional moments in the show when one realizes how truly visionary it was for its time. You know, going to a tantric sex workshop and vaguely acknowledging white privilege while you’re getting a pedicure—things like that. But one thing Sex and the City rarely gets credit for is providing the kernel of the idea for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. This occurred in season four of the series; specifically, episode six: “Time and Punishment” (the same episode where Charlotte York [Kristin Davis] was shamed for having “free time” instead of working). Which aired three years before Eternal Sunshine… was released in 2004.

    But back in July of 2001, when “Time and Punishment” first aired, Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) had the sudden “revelation” that cheating on Aidan Shaw (John Corbett) back in mid-season three was the worst mistake of her life—or at least her romantic life (which, in truth, embodies one hundred percent of Carrie’s existence). Therefore, narcissist that she is, Carrie obviously believes it’s within her power to get him back…just because she decides on a whim that’s what she wants. And apparently, she’s not wrong in her assumption, wearing Aidan down with her seduction methods (however stalker-y) until he concedes that, sure, he wants to get back together.

    But before that glorious (for Carrie) moment, Bradshaw gives us one of her signature voiceover “insights” from the column de la semaine she’s writing, ruminating on a person’s inability to forgive if they can’t really forget. So it is that she tell us: “Later that day, I got to thinking about relationships and partial lobotomies. Two seemingly different ideas that might be perfect together, like chocolate and peanut butter. Think how much easier it would all be if there was some swift surgical procedure to whisk away all the ugly memories and mistakes and leave only the fun trips and special holidays.” Yes, Carrie is perfectly describing what Charlie Kaufman would call “Lacuna Inc.” in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Minus the part where even the fun trips and special holidays are remembered. For, in Carrie’s ideal version of relationship memory erasure, you still at least remember the person existed in your life prior to the “procedure.”

    Kaufman and Michel Gondry did that concept one better by making it key for all traces of the person to be forgotten. Even though it only set up someone like Clementine Kruczynski (Kate Winslet) and Joel Barish (Jim Carrey) for the trap of gravitating right back toward the person they ended up finding toxic in the first place. Which is also something that Zoë Kravitz’s Blink Twice addresses in a more ominous way. But what Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind prefers to do is position the inevitable “re-attraction” between two people who were already unable to make it work before as something with a more hopeful tinge. Not just more hopeful than what Blink Twice does with the concept, but also with what ends up happening to Carrie and Aidan by the end of season four (hint: total emotional catastrophe/an even more painful breakup than the first time around).

    However, before the reasons for their first breakup are proven yet again (and tenfold), to conclude her thoughts on the matter of “forgiving and forgetting,” Carrie adds, “But until that day arrives, what to do? Rely on the same old needlepoint philosophy of ‘forgive and forget’? And even if a couple can manage the forgiveness, has any[one] ever really conquered the forgetness? Can you ever really forgive, if you can’t forget?” In Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, there’s no need to forgive because all has been forgotten.

    As for setting up the premise for “Time and Punishment,” the episode that precedes it, “Baby, Talk Is Cheap,” also refers to the “unforgettability” (therefore, unforgivability) of what Carrie did to Aidan. An egregious sin he feels obliged to remind her of when she has the gall to come to his door late at night and plead her case for getting back together. None of her “logic” trumps the fact that, as Aidan screams, “You broke my heart!” But Carrie sees that only as a “minor detail” when presenting him with the “argument,” “Look, I know that you’re probably scared and I would be too, but it’s different now. Things are different. I-I’m different.” She then tries to prove it by taking a pack of cigarettes out of her purse and declaring, “Cigarettes, gone.” Of course, if they were really “gone,” they wouldn’t have been in her purse in the first place.

    Nonetheless, Carrie continues to insist that this “new” her was clearly not responsible for the actions of the old her and, thus, shouldn’t be punished by being denied another chance. She assures Aidan, “Seriously, all bad habits gone. This is a whole new thing because I miss you. And I’ve missed you.” As though her desire for him alone should be enough for him to want to forget about all the pain she caused him. And when Aidan screams the aforementioned line at her audacity, Carrie displays the kind of immaturity and embarrassing behavior she’s known for by simply running away instead of staying to face the firing squad, as it were.

    Ultimately, though, she gets what she wants: for Aidan to submit to her. Granted, not without an initial bout of passive aggressive behavior in “Time and Punishment” that finally prompts Carrie to say of the co-worker he’s been openly flirting with, “Why don’t you just fuck her, then we can both be bad.” When he comes to her door at the end of the episode, Carrie tells him, “I know that you can’t forget what happened, but I hope that you can forgive me.” But she was onto something before in her column—the idea that no true forgiveness can be attained without forgetting. Ergo, her wish for a Lacuna Inc.-like enterprise that wouldn’t “exist” until three years later…perhaps after Kaufman caught sight of Carrie’s column. And while Carrie might not have been the first to wish for this form of a “relationship lobotomy,” she was the only one to say it out loud in such a crystallized way before Eternal Sunshine… came along to perfect the notion.

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • The Boons and Banes of Memory Erasure in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Blink Twice

    The Boons and Banes of Memory Erasure in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Blink Twice

    Romy Schneider once said, “Memories are the best things in life, I think.” But are they, really, if some of them serve only as a brutal, triggering source of trauma? In both Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Blink Twice, that’s the main type of memory being dealt with, therefore suppressed. But while one is a “rom-com” (Charlie Kaufman-style), the other is a horrifying thriller with a #MeToo slant. Both, however, do center on “the necessity” of memory erasure as it pertains to the relationship between men and women.

    Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, of course, is much “lighter” by comparison. Even though, in its time and its place, it was considered just as “bleak” as it was “quirky.” It’s also more hyper-focused on one relationship in particular, in contrast to Blink Twice speaking to the overall power dynamics between men and women as it relates to sex rather than “romance.” More to the point, the power dynamics between rich men and “regular” women. In Michel Gondry and Charlie Kaufman’s narrative, the main “sufferers” (or beneficiaries, depending on one’s own personal views) of select memory loss are Clementine Kruczynski (Kate Winslet) and Joel Barish (Jim Carrey). But it is the former who “brings it on both of them,” as she’s the one to initially enlist the memory-erasing services of Lacuna Inc., run by Dr. Howard Mierzwiak (Tom Wilkinson). Joel merely follows suit after comprehending what she’s done, deciding that she shouldn’t be the only person in the relationship permitted the luxury of forgetting about all that they shared together. Good and bad.

    So it is that he, too, undergoes the procedure, briefed on the ins and out of it by Mary Svevo (Kirsten Dunst), the receptionist at Lacuna, and Dr. Mierzwiak before opting to excise Clementine from his brain as well (in a scene later to be repurposed by Ariana Grande for the “we can’t be friends [wait for your love]” video). Of course, this isn’t to say he’s not extremely hurt by her “whimsical” decision to “remove” him. Alas, by way of explanation, Dr. Mierzwiak can only offer, “She wanted to move on. We provide that possibility.” One can imagine that Slater King (Channing Tatum) tells himself something similar about his own nefarious operation on a private island that might as well be referred to as Little Saint James (a.k.a. the former “Epstein Island”).

    Sex and the City, incidentally, provided something of a precursor to the Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind “idea kernel” (de facto, the Blink Twice one) in the form of the season four episode, “Time and Punishment.” This due to Carrie’s (Sarah Jessica Parker) theme for her column of the week being whether or not you can ever really forgive someone if you can’t forget what they did (to you). The answer, in both Eternal Sunshine… and Blink Twice, seems to be a resounding no. Though, in the former, there appears to be a greater chance for redemption even after the couple remembers everything that happened between them (and still decides to give it another shot). This courtesy of Mary, who not only unveils the truth to all of Lacuna’s clients (or “patients”), but also unearths her own bitter truth vis-à-vis memory erasure: Howard did it to her (per her request) after the two had an affair. And yet, just as it is for Frida (Naomi Ackie) in Blink Twice, it’s as though we are doomed to repeat the same behavior/gravitate toward the same toxic person regardless of whether the slate (a.k.a. the mind) is wiped clean or not.

    In Blink Twice, Zoë Kravitz’s directorial debut (which she co-wrote with E.T. Feigenbaum), that gravitation proves to be much more harmful for Frida, who drags her best friend, Jess (Alia Shawkat), along for the ride after infiltrating Slater’s fancy benefit dinner for his requisite “foundation.” Although the two are initially working the party as cater waiters, Frida has them both switch into gowns (which scream “trying too hard” while still looking embarrassingly cheap). Naturally, Slater invites them to accompany him and his entourage back to the island where he’s been sequestered in order to “work on himself” as part of a grand performance of a public apology for “bad behavior” past (there’s no need to get specific about what that might have entailed, for there’s a whole range of bad behavior [typically, sexual abuse/harassment-related] that female viewers can easily imagine for themselves). Though, usually, if one is truly working on themselves, they do so by not buying a private island to retreat to. By actually trying to exist in and adapt to the world around them, rather than creating an entirely new one that fits their own “needs.” But that’s the thing: Slater and his ilk don’t want to adapt, don’t want to acknowledge that things have changed and so, too, must their old ways. Instead, they’ve set up a “paradise” for themselves that happens to be every woman’s hell.

    The only requirement to keep them there? Scrubbing any memories they have of being sexually assaulted every night on the island. In lieu of Lacuna, Slater needs only a perfume called Desideria, conveniently crafted from a flower that’s only found on that particular island. It’s, in many ways, a slightly more implausible method for making someone forget a traumatic experience than all-out memory erasure through a “scientific procedure” like Lacuna’s. But, for Kravitz’s purposes, it works. Those purposes extend not only to holding up a mirror to the ongoing and new-fangled ways that men, even post-#MeToo, still manage to behave like barbarians, but also to the ways in which women “self-protect” by conveniently “removing” memories that are too painful to deal with, especially when it comes to men and their egregious comportment. This, in part, is why the Desideria is so effective. There’s a sense that the women of the island are only too ready to forget/ignore what horrors befell them the previous night.

    In the abovementioned Sex and the City episode, there’s a scene at the end where Carrie repeats (seven times) to Aidan (John Corbett), “You have to forgive me” in different “Oscar-worthy” manners. Just as Slater repeats, “I’m sorry” in different dramatic ways until he then askes Frida if she forgives him yet. Seeing (and expecting) that she definitely doesn’t, it only serves to prove his point that, no, you cannot forgive without forgetting (though, to be fair/in this case, maybe just don’t act like women owe you unfettered access to their bodies/treat them like disposable objects designed solely for your amusement and there won’t be any need to forgive).

    Thus, he considers himself in the right (or at least that he “had no choice”) for doing what he did in order to get what he wanted out of her and the other women he lures to the island with his charm (and, of course, the allure of his wealth). In Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, there is also a belief, on Clementine’s part, in being “in the right” for willingly expunging her own memories without any man needing to do it for her. In this sense, one might say that Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is all about the importance of agency in having certain aspects of your memories erased for the sake of self-preservation.

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Cheri Oteri Joins the Third Season of And Just Like That…

    Cheri Oteri Joins the Third Season of And Just Like That…

    Photo: Christopher Polk/Variety via Getty Images

    Simmer down now! Cheri Oteri is joining the cast of And Just Like That… for the the Max show’s third season, which just began shooting this week. While the Saturday Night Live alum’s role is still unknown, Oteri broke the news of her involvement on Instagram, posting photos of herself on set with creator Michael Patrick King. “I’m in New York and just finished shooting And Just Like That… and it was so much fun,” Oteri said in a video taken after filming in Lincoln Center Plaza. She also shared photos on set with stars Mario Cantone (Anthony) and Sarita Choudhury (Seema), giving us some fodder to speculate about who she’ll be playing and just how much she’ll appear. We can only hope she’ll be in every single scene of every single episode.

    Oteri is the latest casting to come out as the show begins shooting its new season. Most recently, Rosie O’Donnell also announced her casting via Instagram, revealing that she’ll be playing a character named Mary, and gets to wear a wig. With series regulars Sara Ramirez (Che Diaz) and Karen Pittman (Dr. Nya Wallace) exiting the show, there’s plenty of room for fresh faces to join the rotation cycling through Samantha’s vacated fourth seat. And while we’re on the subject, when will Molly Shannon and Amy Sedaris finally get to reprise their roles as Carrie Bradshaw’s two powerhouse book publishers?

    Tom Smyth

    Source link

  • Candace Bushnell Still Wants You to Be Your Own Mr. Big

    Candace Bushnell Still Wants You to Be Your Own Mr. Big

    Candace Bushnell is still showing women a different way to think about themselves. Courtesy Candace Bushnell

    More than once, Observer has called Candace Bushnell the ‘real Carrie Bradshaw,’ but by now everyone should know that her Sex and the City alter ego is only a small part of the ‘real Candace Bushnell.’ The fiercely feminist Bushnell is, in no particular order, an international best-selling author, celebrated novelist and successful producer. Her critically acclaimed one-woman stage memoir, “True Tales of Sex, Success and Sex and the City” opens at the Café Carlyle tomorrow (April 23) for a limited run after stints at the Daryl Roth Theater and in theaters around the world.

    Bushnell’s “Sex and the City” column, of course, originated in 1994 at this very publication (then the storied New York Observer broadsheet) before quickly morphing into a book, an HBO hit starring Sarah Jessica Parker, the first of two motion pictures and, eventually, an unstoppable cultural phenomenon.

    Candace Bushnell Performs At Richmond Hill Centre For The Performing ArtsCandace Bushnell Performs At Richmond Hill Centre For The Performing Arts
    Bushnell in her one-woman show, “True Tales of Sex, Success and Sex and the City.” Photo by Jeremychanphotography/Getty Images

    On a warm day in April, I met Bushnell off Madison Avenue for tea at the Carlyle’s Gallery. So much talent and so many stars have moved through its art deco halls, it seemed like the perfect spot to chat with the glamorous and witty OG Carrie Bradshaw. Bushnell, true to fashion form, was sporting a black blouse with elegant shoulder ruffles, black leather pants with silver zippers, yellow heels and a hot pink handbag. Not only was it thrilling to interview one of my feminist heroes, but as a former sex columnist for the Observer myself, I’d always felt I had big stilettos to fill. (Yes, she still wears Manolos.) And just like that…after actually meeting Bushnell, those shoes felt even bigger.

    How did you end up with your iconic column in the New York Observer?

    When I first came to New York at 19, I wrote a children’s book. I wrote for anybody and everybody I could write for. This is all part of my show, “True Tales of Sex, Success and Sex and the City.” Then I wrote for women’s magazines, which was the precursor to “Sex and the City.” I was already writing about my Samantha, my Miranda, probably back in the eighties, but I always wanted to write a column. I had a column in Mademoiselle for probably a month or two months, and then the editor left or got fired or something, which was always happening. I started writing for the New York Observer and doing profiles for them, and the profiles were really, really popular. Everybody was talking about them. Then the editor-in-chief asked if I wanted to have my own column, which just put a frame around work that I’d already developed. I’d already developed my voice, and I’d already been writing professionally for 15 years when I got the “Sex and the City” column.

    What was it like working with Peter Kaplan, the legendary editor-in-chief of the New York Observer?

    It was a very male-oriented, Ivy-League-mentality kind of place. There was a lot of hazing and people were tough—they threw phones. Kaplan didn’t do that, but other people did. Publishing was a slightly violent business. But Peter was brilliant, and he would just say these things that you just realize, “Wow, that’s really it.” In those days, being an editor was a creative job. He felt like it was his job to somehow get the story out of the writer. It was a different mentality.

    A woman wearing a tight black dress made of feathers smiles for the cameraA woman wearing a tight black dress made of feathers smiles for the camera
    It wasn’t long before Bushnell’s New York Observer column became a book. Fadil Berisha

    How quickly did your column “Sex and the City” take off? You became a star.

    It happened right away. Again, I talk about that in the show. I think after I’d written five columns, I sold it to Morgan Entrekin [publisher of Grove Atlantic] as a book. Then the column was really like a serial book, which was obviously what I’d been wanting to write my whole life—a book. People faxed [the columns] to their friends in LA, so from the beginning I had Hollywood calling. ABC wanted it, HBO wanted it, Fine Line, New Line, some other probably movie company that doesn’t exist, and I flew out to LA. It was exciting.

    What was it like navigating that?

    I didn’t know anything about that business at all. It took me a while to sell it to Darren Star. They say publishing is or used to be a little bit of a gentleman’s business. There’s not that much money to be made. But in TV and entertainment, there’s a lot of money. When there’s a lot of money to be made, people are not, in general, equitable. Nobody gives you a good deal out of the kindness of their heart. The goal is to give as bad a deal as you can get away with, and that’s business. If you’re in it, you understand it, you know how to negotiate it, and you have power. Otherwise, if you’re an outsider, you don’t have that kind of insider access.

    And it was sexist.

    Back in 1995, women did not have the same kind of power that they have now in Hollywood. It was very different, and there’s a bit of an attitude of—I mean, the whole world was like that, right?

    I read that you consulted on the HBO series “Sex and the City” up until Mr. Big got married, and then you felt you no longer related to Carrie. Why is that?

    I tell that story in the show, too. At the end of the second season, Carrie and Mr. Big have a bumpy relationship. They break up, they get back together again, and then Mr. Big dumps Carrie and marries somebody else. Somebody he thinks is marriage material—meaning more conventional and less trouble, which is exactly the same thing that happened in my real life. I thought that that was maybe the end of the series, and it fit with my thesis that guys like Big come and go, but your girlfriends are always there for you. But then it’s not over, and they want to make another season, so they have Carrie have an affair with her now-married ex-boyfriend, Mr. Big. And as I say, that’s when a part of me “un” became Carrie Bradshaw because to me it wasn’t feminist. I’m sort of the opposite of that.

    Let’s talk about “True Tales of Sex, Success and Sex and the City.” How did the show come about?

    I met David Foster and his manager, Mark Johnson, and then we had a meeting. Mark said, “Why don’t you try to do a one-woman show?” I was like, “Why not? What do I have to lose?” I wrote it at the beginning of  2020, and then I started working with [director and choreographer] Lorin Latarro. He found there were Broadway people who were interested, they raised money, and we ended up workshopping it at Bucks County Playhouse. And then we brought it Off-Broadway to the Daryl Roth Theatre, which seems crazy to me. Like what?! Then it closed because of Covid.

    Have you always had an interest in acting?

    I had some interest in it, but it was kind of brief, and it was a long time ago. When I first started doing [the show], it was more like doing a dressage test than writing a book or an article. It’s performative. It’s choreographed, you say this here and say that there, but then there’s another aspect of being creative within that medium, which is an interesting thing to explore and figure out. There are timing aspects, certain ways that you say certain lines, and it’s very physical. It’s not just me standing up with a microphone. There’s a set. There are little props. There are little tiny skits. I fall off the couch, and it’s fun to do. I actually love doing it.

    Sex and the City just came out on Netflix. How do you think it resonates with today’s 20-something audience?

    I can only speak from my experience, which is that I have so many young women come up to me as they have been doing for the last twenty-five years saying that Sex and the City saved them, inspired them and changed them, but mostly gave them a different way to look at their lives. And I’ve had women from all over the world say this to me. For a lot of young women, it’s like a rite of passage to watch it when they go to college. These 20-somethings are watching it on Netflix, but there was a whole generation before them of 20-somethings that watched the DVDs with their new friends in college.

    A woman in a voluminous white shirt and tight black pants smiles powerfully for the cameraA woman in a voluminous white shirt and tight black pants smiles powerfully for the camera
    Fans tell Bushnell SATC saved them, inspired them and changed them, but mostly gave them a different way to look at their lives. Courtesy Candace Bushnell

    I feel like Sex and the City made talking and writing about sex less taboo and more mainstream. 

    I didn’t write about very much sex at all. There were some things in there like threesomes, but it wasn’t graphic in any way. I always felt like I was writing about power structures between men and women and heterosexual relationships. I thought I was really being much more of a social anthropologist.

    On a panel, you said that Sex and the City is feminist because it’s like, “Hey, you know what society? We are single women in our thirties and guess what, we’re getting on with it, we’ve got our friends, we made a different kind of family… there isn’t something wrong with us because we don’t want to follow the narrow prescriptive life of what society tells women they can and should do.”   

    The women were pretty courageous [back then], I have to say. I knew a lot of single women, and there was a real camaraderie. We had to look out for each other. It was a man’s world, but also New York City was a place where—and here’s why I wrote Lipstick Jungle which I always thought was the next step after Sex and the City—ambitious women make it. There are a lot of really successful women here, and that to me is the most interesting thing. That was what was edgy. Now that there are more successful women, there’s a freedom and you’re allowed to be ambitious. Whereas before you couldn’t. It was like Martha Stewart and Anna Wintour and Tina Brown, but people wrote horrible things about them all the time. If you were a woman and you were successful, you were also going to be punished.

    Why do you and SO MANY people today still love talking about Sex and the City?

    I don’t talk about it, but a lot of other people want to talk about it, and that’s great. I talk about my new work, the show that I’m doing, feminism, being your own Mr. Big and all the things that drive me as a writer, performer and a creative person in the world to do what I set out to do from the beginning, which was to try to show women a different way to think about themselves and their lives outside of the patriarchy. That’s been my mission since I was a kid. It still is.

    I think that we’ve all been sold the fairytale of the knight in shining armor, and that’s problematic.

    It’s problematic because being with a man can be physically dangerous for women. There are some really unpleasant truths about heterosexual relationships that we don’t acknowledge. And I think going for the guy who’s going to take care of you or the rich guy—this guy who’s going to be in love with you—can happen if you have the right circumstances, but if you don’t have a lot of the right circumstances, it’s maybe not going to happen. And so instead of spending your time investing in something that ultimately you can’t control because you can’t control how somebody feels about you or what they’re going to do for you, but you can control, hopefully, who you are in the world and, hopefully, the ability to make money and look after yourself. There’s a lot of pride in that.

    But then there’s also the pay gap. The system is rigged against women.

    If you look numerically at the 1%, only 3.5% of the 1% are women who made their own money. And to be in the 1%, you need to have a net worth of $11 million. Think about how many billions [that is]—think about all of the men who have more than $11 billion. Okay, so 96.5% of the women in the 1% are married to a rich man or inherited the money. That is wrong to me.

    A woman in a black leather biker jacket and blue bead necklace turns for the camera, swinging her blonde hair aroundA woman in a black leather biker jacket and blue bead necklace turns for the camera, swinging her blonde hair around
    The writer and producer considers herself a social anthropologist. Harold Mindel, courtesy Candace Bushnell

    You’ve chronicled NYC’s rich and powerful. I get the sense that you have a bit of a love-hate relationship with the rich. I certainly do. 

    New York is filled with rich people. There’s huge income disparity. I feel like it’s a problem. And it’s certain business practices that have been allowed in the last thirty years. I mean, there have been legal changes to how you can do business, and I think as a journalist you’re supposed to turn a little bit of a questioning eye towards the rich. You’re not really supposed to be one of them.

    Like Truman Capote.

    Truman Capote, Dominick Dunne, Tom Wolfe’s Bonfire of the Vanities. These are classic topics for journalists. Of course, now we live in a different time. That was a time when people kind of revered the written word. There was a real status to that. Now there’s a real status to being an influencer. Our value system has changed. We live in an attention economy where it’s really all about getting attention. I mean, Carrie Bradshaw today would be Emily in Paris.

    It’s not easy being an artist in the City.

    It really isn’t. I mean, that’s sort of the tricky thing about New York. It needs to be a place where if you have a lot of creativity and artistic ability, you can still live here and you don’t need a zillion dollars. When I moved here in the late seventies, it felt really expensive, but somehow you believed you could inch up the ladder and kind of get there. Now it feels like a lot of these places are way out of reach. It’s a big difference if something is $2 million and something is $20 million. So many people came to New York in the late seventies and early eighties—like Cynthia Rowley. She was like, “I just made clothes out of my tiny studio apartment downtown.” She sewed clothes, and then a store said they wanted them. When I first moved here, you had to be creative and interesting, but you didn’t feel like, “Oh, I need to live in the best place” because everybody lived in a crappy place.

    Finally, tell me about performing at the iconic Café Carlyle.

    So many legendary people have done shows here; it’s incredible. Also, it’s just a very, very New York thing to do. I’ve been on stage and also in the audience, and it’s a super intimate experience—one that you really can’t get anywhere else. It’s just a really special room, and it has the original wallpaper. It has a really, really small stage, and people are right here. You feel like you’re in somebody’s living room. That’s kind of what New York is all about, isn’t it? These one-of-a-kind, one-time experiences.

    Candace Bushnell Still Wants You to Be Your Own Mr. Big

    Jasmine Lobe

    Source link

  • Olivia Rodrigo’s “Obsessed” Is Essentially the Plot of Sex and the City’s “Three’s A Crowd”

    Olivia Rodrigo’s “Obsessed” Is Essentially the Plot of Sex and the City’s “Three’s A Crowd”

    Taking a gamble on assuming that anyone could ever forget Mariah Carey has a signature song called “Obsessed,” Olivia Rodrigo has opted to release a single of the same name from the Guts (Spilled) edition of her sophomore album. Although she’s already been performing it on her Guts World Tour, the official release of the track has also been heralded by an accompanying music video directed by Mitch Ryan (known mainly for his Rosalía videos). Though, clearly, Rodrigo is still stuck in her Petra Collins phase here, complete with the prom queen aesthetic that Courtney Love already ripped Rodrigo a new asshole for when she used it during her Sour Prom era. Indeed, “Obsessed” feels like Rodrigo can’t quite leave her high school days behind, swapping out a prom for an “exes ball” (or “gala”) instead so as to be able to still wield her prom queen look. 

    While that might not include any tiaras this time, it does involve gowns and sashes—and trophies…oh my! Thus, the event is seemingly equal parts beauty pageant and cotillion. A parade of all his exes branded with different labels on their sashes, including Miss Focus on My Career, Miss Put Him in Therapy, Miss Summer Camp 8 Years Ago, Miss Thought She Was the One, Miss Long Distance, Miss Freshman Year and Miss 2 Summers Ago, among others. (Olivia herself is, naturally, Miss Right Now.) Obviously, the guy Olivia is with is both much older (a seemingly new fetish of Rodrigo’s after her Joshua Bassett debacle) and a total himbo. However, despite the video’s plot in terms of featuring many, many exes for Rodrigo to obsess over, it still channels the season one episode of Sex and the City called “Three’s A Crowd.”

    As the title suggests, it’s all about when one, as the current girlfriend, feels like the odd person out in her relationship thanks to the looming, spectral presence of the ex. In Carrie Bradshaw’s (Sarah Jessica Parker) case, that looming presence is Barbara (Noelle Beck), Mr. Big’s (Chris Noth) ex-wife. As episode eight (featured, funnily enough, right after the episode titled “The Monogamists”), it was to serve as a turning point for whether or not the Carrie and Big relationship would endure or crumble under the pressure of Carrie’s expectations for such an emotionally unavailable man (to be sure, that does sound a lot like Rodrigo). So emotionally unavailable, in fact, that he only thought to tell her he was previously married when she happens to ask if he’s ever done a threesome. To which he replies, 1) “Sure, who hasn’t?” and 2) that the person he did it with was his wife.

    Needless to say, this sends Carrie into a tailspin as she assumes that they were probably always having “wild sex” together while, now, he and Carrie are only having “sweet sex” ever since settling into comfortableness with each other. This presumption about Barbara being more adventurous in the boudoir plays right into the bridge of “Obsessed” that goes, “Is she friends with your friends?/Is she good in bed?/Do you think about her?/No, I’m fine, it doesn’t matter, tell me/Is she easy-going?/Never controlling?/Well-traveled? Well-read?/Oh God, she makes me so upset.” 

    As Barbara does Carrie. Even more so after the latter actually meets her, arranging a sitdown with “Barb” after finding out that she works in publishing. This kind of obsessing, indeed, puts Rodrigo’s to shame. For, in the modern era, all a Miss Right Now has to do is stalk an ex-girlfriend’s social media from the safety of her own bedroom rather than actually meet up with her in real life under false pretenses. That level of obsession is far more suited to the verse, “If I told you how much I think about her/You’d think I was in love/And if you knew how much I looked at her pictures/You would think we’re best friends.” Carrie, however, is much too narcissistic to lay claim to the following declarations in “Obsessed”: “‘Cause I know her star sign, I know her blood type/I’ve seen every movie she’s been in, and, oh god, she’s beautiful/And I know you loved her, and I know I’m butthurt/But I can’t help it, no, I can’t help it.” 

    And what Carrie can’t help is being irritated by Barbara’s good looks and ostensible good taste when she immediately tells Carrie, “I’m a huge fan of your work.” This speaks automatically to Rodrigo’s vexed tone when she sings, “She’s talented, she’s good with kids/She even speaks kindly about me.” Having come face to face with “the enemy,” Carrie tries to remove the encounter from her thoughts, giving the voiceover, “That night, I thought I could put the whole Barbara thing out of my mind. After all, Mr. Big was with me now.” That he is, as Carrie lies in bed with him trying to get into some hanky panky before she imagines Barbara “supervising” the whole thing and berating, “Nibbling his earlobes? How sweet. Let me show you how it’s really done.”

    This makes Carrie feel hopeless and “lesser than” anew as she instantly recoils from Big and turns to face the other way, musing inwardly, “So I guess you couldn’t avoid a threesome. Because even if you’re the only person in the bed, someone has always been there before you.” Such an assessment is in line with Rodrigo’s chorus, “I’m so obsessed with your ex/I know she’s been asleep on my side of your bed, and I can feel it/I’m starin’ at her like I wanna get hurt/And I remember every detail you have ever told me, so be careful, baby.”

    Big, not so clueless as to ignore her strange mood, prods, “Hey, what just happened? Where’d you go?” She shrugs, “I was preoccupied.” “No kidding. About what?” Carrie’s internal voice then replies, “Your ex-wife’s breasts, your ex-wife’s lips, your ex-wife’s long legs.” Damn, talk about obsessed. In such a way that also applies to Rodrigo’s self-referential lament, “​​She’s got those lips, she’s got those hips/The life of every fuckin’ party.” These two lines giving a nod to both “all-american bitch” (sarcastically announcing, “I’m a perfect all-american bitch/With perfect all-american lips/And perfect all-american hips”) and “ballad of a homeschooled girl” (“the party’s done and I’m no fun”—hence, she herself is no life of the party). Rodrigo adds to that, “And I know you love me, and I know it’s crazy/But every time you call my name, I think you mistake me for her.” This being an inverse allusion to her role in “deja vu.” Like Carrie, Olivia knows that, technically, “You both have moved on, you don’t even talk/But I can’t help it, I got issues, I can’t help it, baby.”

    When Carrie manages to get a few more details out of Big, he quickly closes the “ex file” (a term Carrie will later use on Jack Berger [Ron Livingston] in the season six episode, “The Perfect Present”) by saying, “Let’s not talk about the past, please.” Carrie then allows herself to be held by him, but still imagines Barbara in bed right next to her as she narrates, “What Mr. Big didn’t realize was the past was sleeping right next to me.” Rodrigo clearly has some of those same sentiments. 

    Co-written with St. Vincent a.k.a. Anne “Annie” Clark and Dan Nigro, one has to wonder if either of the three parties watched “Three’s A Crowd” at any point during the song’s creation. For it so perfectly sums up Carrie’s dilemma in this episode. And now, Rodrigo’s in “Obsessed.” However, the takeaway that Rodrigo doesn’t seem to glean is the one Carrie comes up with by the end: “I realized the real appeal of the threesome: it was easy. It’s intimacy that’s the bitch.” Of course, this reinforces the monogamous heteronormative belief that a person can only have “true intimacy” with one other person. A philosophy that Rodrigo, in her bid to graft 90s and 00s-era pop culture for everything she does, is only too ready to perpetuate.

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • Lily Allen and the “I Can’t Be An Artist Because I’m A Mother” Backlash

    Lily Allen and the “I Can’t Be An Artist Because I’m A Mother” Backlash

    The topic of being a mother and the sacrifices that come with it is never an easy one to discuss. But it becomes even more of a political hot potato when the additional topic of being an artist is thrown in as well. In more recent years, it’s become a conundrum more philosophically analyzed and scrutinized in literature and pop culture alike. As for the former, Sheila Heti wrote an entire book (title, what else, Motherhood) about her decision not to become a mother precisely due to her fear of compromising her art. Some women truly feel/believe that one cannot exist without sacrificing the other. Lily Allen is clearly one of them—and maybe she’s not wrong. But it still seems that Allen has a bit of resentment/guilt about giving up on a key aspect (nay, the main aspect) of her artistic life: being a musician. That much was made clear during a promo interview for The Radio Times Podcast in honor of her own upcoming podcast (yes, it’s super meta) series, Miss Me?, co-hosted with lifelong friend Miquita Oliver. 

    It was during this amuse-bouche for Miss Me? that Allen remarked, “I never really had a strategy when it comes to career. Uh, but yes—my children ruined my career.” Oliver then looks at her in disbelief over how real she’s being as they both laugh about her decidedly British candor/sense of humor. Allen doubled down by adding “I mean I love them and they complete me [Jerry Maguire much?], but in terms of, like, pop stardom, totally ruined it. Yeah.” Oliver commends Allen’s honesty with, “That is such a good answer. I’m so happy to hear someone say that. Everyone’s like, ‘No, of course not!’” Allen quickly confirmed, “Does not mix. It really annoys me when people say you can have it all because, quite frankly, you can’t. And, you know, some people choose their career over their children and that’s their prerogative, but, you know, my parents were quite absent when I was a kid and I feel like that really left some, like, nasty scars that I’m not willing to, you know, repeat on mine. And so, I chose stepping back and concentrating on them and I’m glad that I’ve done that because I think they’re very well-rounded people.” Of course, when Allen’s children, Ethel and Marnie, grow old enough to hear about this little pull quote, it might leave its own nasty scar on them—realizing they were the direct cause of stifling their mother’s musical freedom and depriving the world of more Lily Allen records. 

    Then again, Allen hasn’t “full-stop” quit, with hints at her return coming as recently as this year, when she responded to a comment on Twitter (never to be referred to as X), “Please when are you making a follow-up to your best LP, No Shame?” with “I am making it now, I don’t know how long it will take, but you will be able to hear some things soon.” So clearly, Allen hasn’t “retired” from music if she can still find time to write a new album whilst “focusing on her kids.” Nor has it prevented her from other time-consuming creative endeavors like starring in a West End theater production (both 2:22 and Pillowman) or a TV show (Dreamland). Or, of course, making a podcast series with Oliver. But it would seem these things are more noncommittal than the rigors of putting out an album (Rihanna would appear to feel the same way, having taken a musical hiatus well before her post-children era and seeming to be spurred to maintain that hiatus after giving birth to two kids). Especially when a musician actually chooses to tour it. Yet Allen did do both of these things in 2014, when her daughters were three and one, respectively.

    Maybe, indeed, it was going on the Sheezus Tour that gave Allen a wake-up call about the “artist’s lifestyle” not entirely mixing with motherhood (mind you, this was also the period during which she admitted to having sex with female escorts out of sheer loneliness and depression—having her second child the year before had left her with a bout of postnatal depression, to boot). Because after that, Allen wouldn’t release a record for another four years, 2018’s No Shame. This album, like Sheezus with “Take My Place” (about the stillbirth of her first child with Sam Cooper in 2010), would also explore the complexities and heartbreaks of motherhood, namely on track nine, “Three,” which speaks from the perspective of her daughters as they watch her leave for tour or various other musically-related publicity blitzkriegs. Hence, sadness-filled lyrics like, “You say you love me, then you walk right out the door.”

    It was that line that perhaps provided Allen with the seed of the revelation that would come after touring No Shame in 2018-2019, coming to grips with the idea that maybe she had already missed so much of the early years and it was time to “settle down.” The timing of that epiphany seemed to coincide perfectly with meeting David Harbour in 2019, marrying him in 2020 and becoming a Carroll Gardens mom (second only to the similarly annoying Brooklyn cliche of a Park Slope mom). So it is that we haven’t seen any new music from Allen in six years. For context, her longest break between albums before that was the five-year period it took her to release Sheezus after It’s Not You, It’s Me

    And, talking of that sophomore album, her present comments about motherhood (in terms of “being there” in a way her own parents weren’t) and artistry are a sharp about-face from her last interview with Oliver in 2009, as It’s Not Me, It’s You was being released. During it, she told Oliver, “My childhood was tricky, but so is everyone’s I think. So, um, yeah. It affected me and made me the person I am today and I think I’m okay. Now.” If Allen were still to go by that, then perhaps she would keep making music and touring under the conception that absenteeism as a parent builds character. Raises children who are “tough” and imaginative. 

    Her one-eighty stance, alas, caused a backlash that was strong enough for Allen to retweet a defense from Charlotte Elmore saying, “Context for those going wild over a Lily Allen headline ⬇️ Let’s normalise not ✨having it all✨ and take the expectations down a notch?” But this is in direct contrast to everything the “modern woman” has been told, starting somewhere around the era of Baby Boom starring Diane Keaton. Yet, by the end of that film, viewers are ultimately left with the impression that “having it all” still requires some significant sacrifice/compromise (not to mention a boyfriend or husband). In short, a total reassessment of priorities.

    Then there was someone like Madonna, who actually leveled up after having her first child, releasing an album (arguably still her best: Ray of Light) inspired by the occurrence of transmogrifying into “Mother” (beyond just the gay definition of that word). And in a recent interview with Mary Gabriel about the biography she wrote on the Queen of Pop, the author argues that part of what makes Madonna so unique, so punk rock (when she’s not appearing in bank commercials) is her continued ability to be unapologetically an artist after becoming a mother. Specifically, she told MadonnaTribe, “When Madonna became a mother, she rescued older women from the exile that motherhood often imposes upon them. In 2000 when she wore her shirt with Rocco on the front and Lola on the back, she showed what a forty-something mother looked like. Jumping around the stage at the Brixton Academy, she exploded the idea that a woman of a certain age—especially a mother of a certain age—couldn’t be gorgeous, fun, sexy, strong and enjoying a career. At a time when companies didn’t promote women with children because they feared the woman would be too distracted, Madonna showed motherhood wasn’t a distraction, it was empowering.”

    Of course, here it bears noting that Madonna undeniably had plenty of hired help to aid in this process (speaking on that reality frankly with the “American Life” rap, “I got a lawyer and a manager, an agent and a chef/Three nannies, an assistant, and a driver and a jet/A trainer and a butler and a bodyguard or five/A gardener and a stylist, do you think I’m satisfied?”). Something Allen could technically afford to invoke as well, but has perhaps since thought better of it than the days when she was still releasing new music and touring circa 2014 and 2018. 

    Or maybe, as a Brooklynite, she found herself reading 2021’s Nightbitch by Rachel Yoder for added confirmation of her decision to “stand down,” as that book is all about the struggle for a female artist to keep working at her art after having a child, eventually turning that struggle into performance art (with the child incorporated into it). Also recently added to the culture of this mother-or-artist conundrum, Halsey’s If I Can’t Have Love, I Want Power (like Nightbitch, also released in 2021) explores the territory of motherhood/womanhood when it comes to continuing to pursue art post-childbirth. Halsey appears to be conflicted on the matter as well, with lyrics like, “Go on and be a big girl/You asked for this now/You better show ’em why you talk so loud” and “I just wanna feel somethin’, tell me where to go/‘Cause everybody knows somethin’ I don’t wanna know/So I stay right here ’cause I’m better all alone/Yeah, I’m better all alone.” Described by Halsey as a concept album (Allen has, incidentally, said that’s what her next album is going to be, too) centered on the specific “horrors of pregnancy and childbirth,” it’s apparent that Allen isn’t the only female artist with some very mixed emotions on the matter of motherhood. Especially as it relates to continuing to be an artist at all. 

    During Allen’s formative years as a millennial, it was Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall) who further corroborated the idea that women could “have it all” in the season three Sex and the City episode, “All or Nothing” (which first aired in 2000). A title that unwittingly speaks to what Allen is saying about choosing between one thing or another: artistry or motherhood (some would say artistry is the “all,” while motherhood is the “nothing”). And, lest anyone forget, Samantha was more of a perennially single, “non-mother” type than Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) herself, so maybe it was easier to make such a declaration. 

    And so, if Allen can confirm that, sooner or later, a choice must be made (or it will be made for you) about art or motherhood, it certainly doesn’t make the latter sound any more appealing to those women who do view their art as their true child. Besides, does any kid really want to be referred to as “Mommy’s favorite mistake” once they see in adulthood that they stymied their mum’s creative output?

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • ‘Sex And The City’ Gets Premiere Date On Netflix

    ‘Sex And The City’ Gets Premiere Date On Netflix

    It’s not an April Fool’s joke – Sex and the City is bowing on Netflix on April 1.

    The series is one of HBO’s most important library titles and has a modern spinoff series in And Just Like That… The latter remains exclusive to Max.

    Deadline revealed last June that Warner Bros. Discovery struck a deal to license a number of titles to Netflix, including Insecure, Ballers, and Six Feet Under.

    Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos has signaled that he is looking for more licensed content.

    “I believe because of our distribution heft and our recommendation system that sometimes we can uniquely add more value to the studio’s IP than they can,” Sarandos told investors last year. “Not all the time, but sometimes it does, and we are the best buyer for it. I am thrilled that the studios are more open to licensing again, and I’m thrilled to tell them that we are open for business.”

    Sarandos reminded investors of the success licensed shows have had on Netflix. “I guess I’d call you back to that history again and just say we’ve got a rich history of helping break some of TV’s biggest hits like Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead. Even more recently with Schitt’s Creek,” he said.

    “We can resurrect the show like Suits and turn it into a big pop culture moment and also generate billions of hours of joy for our members. I think you’re good to remember the studios have always been in the business of selling their content to others, including direct competitors, for years.”

    Sex and the City aired on HBO from 1998-2004, starring Sarah Jessica Parker, Kristin Davis, Cynthia Nixon, and Kim Cattrall as four friends navigating love and life in New York City. The series spawned two movies and Davis, Jessica Parker, and Nixon reunited for And Just Like That

    A sanitized version of the series previously had been licensed co-exclusively to TBS, and subsequently E!/Style, and sold in broadcast syndication to Tribune.

    Bruce Haring

    Source link

  • Frances Sternhagen, Tony-Winning Actor Known for ‘Sex and the City,’ Dies at 93

    Frances Sternhagen, Tony-Winning Actor Known for ‘Sex and the City,’ Dies at 93

    Frances Sternhagen, the Tony Award-winning stage and screen actor known for playing memorable matriarchs on Sex and the City and Cheers, has died at age 93. Her son, John Carlin, announced on social media that she was in her New Rochelle, New York, home at the time of her passing on Monday, November 27. “Fly on, Frannie,” he wrote, “The curtain goes down on a life so richly, passionately, humbly and generously lived.”

    Instagram content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    Sternhagen won a pair of Tony Awards for roles in 1973’s The Good Doctor (a Neil Simon comedy) and 1995’s revival of The Heiress, in which she starred as the widowed Aunt Lavinia opposite Cherry Jones. Over the course of her Broadway career, Sternhagen earned seven Tony nominations and became known for playing major roles on stage that would later become immortalized on film: characters in On Golden Pond, Driving Miss Daisy, and Steel Magnolias that were played in the movies by Katharine Hepburn, Jessica Tandy, and Olympia Dukakis, respectively.

    When asked in 1992 if she was disappointed about being passed over for the film versions of some stage projects, Sternhagen said: “Absolutely. As you say, it’s marquee value, and it’s money. I mean, making a movie is a very expensive proposition, and if they can get Katherine Hepburn, they’re going to take Katherine Hepburn.” She added, “It hurts a little, but I’ve gotten very used to it, really.”

    Born on January 13, 1930, in Washington, DC, Sternhagen found renown onscreen for playing maternal figures on popular TV shows. She played Esther, mother of John Ratzenberger’s Cliff, on Cheers; Gamma Carter, grandmother of Noah Wyle’s John on ER; and Willie Ray, mother of Kyra Sedgwick’s LAPD Deputy Chief Brenda, on The Closer. She received three Emmy Award nominations—two for Cheers and one for arguably her most infamous role as the meddlesome WASP Bunny MacDougal on Sex and the City.

    With her invasive VapoRub techniques and habit of casting harsh judgment on Kristin Davis’s Charlotte York, Bunny quickly became one of the worst women on the HBO series and mother to one of the more debatable men (Kyle MacLachlan’s Trey MacDougal). “Anytime I got to work with Frances Sternhagen was a joy because the situations that they had us in as mother and son were so uncomfortable,” MacLachlan said in 2018. “There was one scene in particular when I’m taking a bath and she’s sitting on the toilet smoking a cigarette and we’re having a conversation. And Charlotte comes in, and of course, Kristin Davis has got the greatest look on her face of shock and disgust and, ‘Now what do I do?’ That was a particularly fond memory.”

    In the same interview, MacLachlan praised Sternhagen’s ability to shape-shift into the role, which she would play across three seasons of SATC. “She played this Upper East Side matron and she would come to work in Birkenstocks and jeans and a blouse and straw hat. She was very bohemian,” he said, “And then she would transform into this fantastic character from the Upper East Side.”

    Of her performance, Sternhagen told the Los Angeles Times in 2002: “I must say it’s fun to play these snobby older ladies. It’s always more fun to be obnoxious. I have known women like that, and I can imitate them, I guess.”

    Sternhagen also appeared in movies including Starting Over, Independence Day, Misery, Julie & Julia, and Bright Lights, Big City. Her final onscreen appearance was 2014’s And So It Goes, opposite Diane Keaton and Michael Douglas.

    After starring in multiple theater projects together, Sternhagen married fellow actor Thomas Carlin; they were married until his death in 1991. Sternhagen is survived by their six children.

    Savannah Walsh

    Source link

  • Sarah Jessica Parker’s Mismatched Shoes Are a Tribute to Carrie Bradshaw

    Sarah Jessica Parker’s Mismatched Shoes Are a Tribute to Carrie Bradshaw

    Sarah Jessica Parker continues to take style inspiration from Carrie Bradshaw. For the New York City Ballet’s Fall Fashion Gala on Oct. 5, the actor wore a fabulous ensemble influenced by the character in more ways than one. Her balletcore dress from Carolina Herrera featured a dramatic tulle skirt and an off-the-shoulder top, and she finished it with a large bow accessory and a pair of mismatched heels from her own collection. She wore a satin black sandal with a crystal buckle on one foot, and an identical pale-pink version on the other.

    Though mismatching footwear has become Parker’s signature over the years, it was initially seen on Carrie in a season three episode of “Sex and the City.” In one memorable scene, Carrie wears a ruffled floral dress with Christian Louboutin sandals in distinctly different colors, pink and blue, as the crew head to Los Angeles after the writer breaks up with Aidan. Though there were many theories surrounding the intentional fashion choice, in 2019, Parker shared the reason was simple. “[Patricia Fields] and I chose to do 1 of each,” she wrote in the comments of an @everyoutfitonsatc post. “Perhaps because both were so delicious in color and seemed in harmony with the dress.”

    In real life, Parker was first spotted mismatching her shoes at the 2016 Met Gala. Wearing a Monse jacket and capris for the gala’s technology theme, she wore satin blue heels from SJP by Sarah Jessica Parker, featuring two different buckle details. She tried out the look again at the NYC Ballet’s fashion gala in 2019, where she wore a showstopping fuchsia gown from Zac Posen with complementary footwear: one hot-pink sandal and one gold one.

    You might remember the mismatched-shoe trend had a moment in 2017, with fashion houses and street style stars incorporating different-colored shoes and interchangeable straps. Though its popularity has since declined, it’ll likely always be a style cue in Parker’s book. See more photos of the actor channeling Carrie’s shoe mishap ahead.

    Yerin Kim

    Source link

  • When Carrie Bradshaw Shamed Women With “Free Time,” Or: In Defense of Charlotte York’s “Retro” Decision to Not Work 

    When Carrie Bradshaw Shamed Women With “Free Time,” Or: In Defense of Charlotte York’s “Retro” Decision to Not Work 

    Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker), who has hardly ever been what one might call a “women’s advocate” (see: defending sexually predatory behavior), once famously shamed Charlotte York (Kristin Davis) for willingly becoming one of those women. You know, the ones who have the kind of free time for self-enrichment that allows them to take pottery classes in the middle of the day. Well, not a class, per se, so much as a jaunt into Color Me Mine, a real place that probably reached its pinnacle around the same time the episode in question, “Time and Punishment,” first aired in 2001. Because this was also the height of the Petroglyph era in California. Commercializing and mass-marketing pottery and ceramics classes perhaps in an avant-garde bid to teach something like mindfulness in an evermore mercilessly capitalistic world…long before the pandemic forced (some) people to slow down and reflect. The irony being, of course, that you still have to pay to be “mindful.”

    In fact, that’s precisely what Charlotte wants to do with her newfound freedom when she quits the gallery in season four: glaze a motherfuckin’ pot at Color Me Mine. But, to Carrie, that’s deemed somehow frivolous, purposeless and, for some reason, not “artistic” enough. It seems, however, that part of the reason Carrie exhibits such judgment about it (granted, as she does about many things) is because it probably hits too close to home. This idea that if you’re not working a “real job” that comes complete with an office space or “stationing” within some kind of edifice beyond your own abode, then you’re not actually working (which means, technically, going to Color Me Mine should count as a job). For Carrie, deep down, must have felt some level of “pinch me” guilt for being able to translate her sexual exploits/party girl ways into something like a regular paycheck (though, as it has been pointed out many times, certainly not the kind of regular paycheck that could afford Carrie her haute couture-drenched manner of living). 

    Because yes, many a “single gal” before and after her has tried to do the same (and do it better), only to be met with no such financially tantalizing offers for detailing their “rock n’ roll lifestyle.” Thus, perhaps mocking Charlotte for wanting to become a woman who glazes and lazes is a reflection of the underlying belief that “being a layabout” posing as an artist is, in actuality, what Carrie is doing too. That is, in her role as a “writer” a.k.a. sex columnist. Because even the most “legitimate” (whatever that really means) of writers struggle frequently with severe bouts of impostor syndrome. Especially ones who are entirely dependent on the lives of others for their “inspiration” (read: material). Which Carrie very much is, what with her vanilla predilections in the boudoir. Shit, even Charlotte comes across as more adventurous in the long run, almost becoming a rug muncher before Samantha in season two’s “The Cheating Curve” and kissing the hot gardener as a married woman in season three’s “What Goes Around Comes Around.” Carrie would never (mainly because she’s more classist than she lets on). And, obviously, Samantha is the primary source of fodder for Carrie’s column drawing so many eyes (or rather, so many eyes for a local rag). 

    Yet even Samantha, for all her “progressiveness,” gives Charlotte flak for her announcement, assuming, “Did you get a better offer from another gallery?” and, later in the conversation, “Well, be damn sure before you get off the Ferris wheel because the women waiting to get on are twenty-two, perky and ruthless.” As for Carrie, her thinly-veiled harsh words come in the form of, “Sweetie, if I was walking by [Color Me Mine] and I saw you in there, I’d just keep on walking.” The implication being that, unlike Charlotte, she sees no “nobility” or “value” in art for art’s sake. Or doing anything, really, that doesn’t have some specific “purpose” (even fucking has a purpose for Carrie: her column). This being such a New York outlook on life that it practically makes one want to vomit over how many people living in that city share such a view. In contrast, Charlotte previously tells her friends of spotting a so-called deadbeat/kept/unemployed woman, “Sometimes I’ll walk by one of those Color Me Mine pottery places and I’ll see a woman having just a lovely afternoon glazing a bowl.” 

    When Charlotte is met with nothing but crickets and blank stares, she feels the need to further justify “not working” (this phrase always designed to diminish the things one does and actually enjoys doing for no money). To do so, she also assures them, “And I wanted to volunteer at Trey’s hospital. And help raise money for the new pediatric AIDS wing.” Upon hearing that, Carrie “indulges” her friend’s “whim” by encouraging, “The cooking and the AIDS stuff is great…” only to gut-punch Charlotte with the aforementioned insult about “just keeping on walking” if she saw Charlotte glazing a bowl at midday. 

    Of course, that’s just called jealousy. For all working people are fundamentally derisive and judgmental toward those who “don’t work” (a.k.a. are just doing things that make them happy without placing a monetary value on it). Wishing they, too, could live such an unburdened, unbrainwashed life. But even Charlotte can’t deprogram from the idea that she has to be “useful” in some alternate fashion, like child-birthing. Continuing a new generation of Worker Soldiers who will also believe in the religion of Capitalism. Whether they’re forced to (by circumstance of birth) or not (also by circumstance of birth).

    Oddly, though, Charlotte chooses to take out Carrie’s judgment on Miranda by calling her the next morning and saying, “You were so judgmental at the coffee shop yesterday. You think I’m one of those women.” Genuinely confused, Miranda asks, “One of what women?” Charlotte snaps back, “One of those women we hate, who just works until she gets married.” The guilt over being “indulgent” enough to quit her job and take a risk on pursuing something less “directed” than working as an art curator/dealer has clearly gotten to her. And it’s not because she herself is questioning the “choice she chooses,” but because the lack of support from her friends, to her, signifies the lack of societal support for any woman who would dare to quit working. This, in effect, shows how far capitalism—not feminism—has come in indoctrinating people of all genders to believe that their primary value is in the amount of money they can bring home. So while Sex and the City disguises this as a mark of how the tables have turned on homemakers being the “freaks” instead of the working girls, it’s actually more telling of how women have been as subsumed by capitalism as men. Entirely taken with its seductive tenets, the top of the list being “independence.” By becoming a slave to whoever employs and underpays you. 

    At the end of “Time and Punishment,” Charlotte remains slightly ambivalent about her decision, snapping at the girl she’s hired to take over for her by barbing, “You’re twenty-two, what do you know about life?” Realizing her temper got away from her, she apologizes and explains, “I’ve been working my whole life, this is a big transition.” The twenty-two-year-old replacing her finally justifies her action by remarking, “If it’s any consolation, my mother worked all the time. It would have been nice to have her home.” Nonetheless, when Charlotte first told her replacement she was quitting to focus on motherhood, the girl looked at her with just as much horrified incredulity as Carrie (who, again, was way more judgmental than Miranda, despite the episode quickly centering the yin and yang “rivalry” between single women who work and married women who don’t on Miranda and Charlotte). So it is that Charlotte adds, yet again, her claim of being very focused on pediatric AIDS research. Because a social cause is better than no cause at all…if you have to confess to “not working.” A phrase that, to reiterate, not only belittles artists, but also domestic labor that is billed as somehow “lesser than” the non-“pink collar” jobs of this money-grubbing world. 

    And yet, what Charlotte ultimately proves by walking out of the job anyway, despite all the glares lobbied against her, is that nothing “tastes” as good as “not working” feels. Plus, it makes capitalists so very uncomfortable, something they ought to experience far more often than they’re made to. The dichotomy being that Charlotte has the luxury of being the most anti-capitalist of her friend group perhaps precisely because she’s benefited the most from capitalism via her inherited wealth.

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • ‘And Just Like That’: Michael Patrick King Knows When the Audience Turned on Che Diaz

    ‘And Just Like That’: Michael Patrick King Knows When the Audience Turned on Che Diaz

    Then because of the circumstances we knew, it had to be very limited and had to be a phone call because of time and schedules and and desires. That I just thought, okay, she couldn’t get there ’cause of the fog and she gets to do one thing—which is such a small piece—Annabel Bronstein. And that’s the one that came into my mind. I was like, if you know this show, this is, this is ground zero, Samantha. It’s fabulous. It’s ridiculous. It’s refusing to back down to a lie. So I wanted to touch one moment. And say, remember? She’s still Samantha from Sex and the City, even though she’s on and just like that. And that’s why we fueled in the Sex and the City theme under it. There’s something about Carrie and Samantha. They’re spectacularly together.

    Speaking of a couple that might not be spectacular together, we sort of saw the dissolution of Che and Miranda in a real way. This season we really saw different sides of Che. They became fleshed out in some positive and negative ways. so can you talk a little bit about Che’s arc and the ending of Miranda and Che?

    I think the trick with season one of And Just Like That was the math equation. You’ve known Miranda 20 years, and you’ve known Naya 20 minutes. You’ve known Carrie 20 years. You’ve known Seema 20 minutes. The volume of investment was so stacked against the new characters just because who are they? Why, why aren’t they talking to the people that I know?

    So when you bring in a character like Che, who was by design was supposed to be cocky—people are like, ‘I don’t like Che.’ And I go, ‘You don’t like standups.’ That’s it. Any person who stands on stage and says, ‘I’m the art’ is gonna be off-putting in real life. And, you know, they have to be dynamic. They have to be sexual because that was what we wanted to do with Miranda, was awaken that part of herself by this giant Niagara Falls of being pulled to this darker personality for what she’s used to. I mean, put Che against Steve and it’s like dark versus light, you know?

    That’s what was troubling and exciting about the first season. People made a snap judgment about Che based on their cockiness, their arrogance, and I think ,quite frankly, their sexuality. I think it was all fine until Che fingered Miranda in the kitchen, while Carrie was peeing in the Snapple bottle.

    That was an iconic moment.

    First of all, what I love about it is you’ve never seen that anywhere. That combo plate you’ve never seen anywhere?

    Not since either.

    As I look at it, I think that freaked the audience out so much that they went into some sort of seatbelt mode with the first season. Like, what’s gonna happen next if that happened? They were terrified. Che was great the first couple of episodes. And then once the finger happened and the marriage split, Che became a villain. I also think what’s interesting about Che is whenever a character is new—not seen before—it’s like ‘What? No.’ 

    People reject things they don’t know or understand or haven’t seen.

    One of my, my battle cries for this season was et them to see more of Che. Write more sides. So you had a whole evolutionary chart of Che from insecure in LA to cocky again buying an apartment. [laughs]. You guys with the Hudson Yards shame… it really made me laugh. It really made me laugh because I made sure it was Hudson Yards because of what that represented, which is new money, garbage, no soul. 

    Chris Murphy

    Source link