Alarming News

October 30, 2007

The one where I blog about TV at 1:30am

“Is it 2002 by you?” Ari asked after I recounted my third or fourth Sex and the City plot of the month.

Yeah, it kind of is.

I’m not particularly girly (no chick lit, no shoe obsession, no navel gazing about feelings) and I hated this show when it was on TV. Despised. Everybody around me watched it and it was unbearable. I hated all the characters. I hated the way they looked and the way they talked. I just found them completely idiotic. I thought they made women look stupid and, being a woman and all, I could not abide that.

And, in reality, I still sort of hate the show. But just like I’m a sucker for the 9pm Sunday hour on HBO, if I’m in the mood for TV, I’m watching 11pm syndicated sitcoms on Fox, TBS and whatever Channel 11 in NY is called these days.

Sex and the City has hit syndication and, only 3 years after its last episode, I’m watching.

I’ve found a sort of appreciation for it. I still find the women mostly ridiculous but I like watching all the different relationships unfold. I also, quite prudishly for me, appreciate that they can only show so much on network TV.

My favorite relationship on the show is Charlotte and Harry. She had a picture in her head of what love would be like and he didn’t fit it at all.

“Harry was bald and he talked with his mouth full. And I loved him anyway.”

I love that. Ok, maybe I’ve got a teensy bit of chick in me.

The character I’d most like to be friends with is Samantha. She’s completely no bullshit and I appreciate that so much in a friend. I wouldn’t be able to stand the graphic sex talk but I would like to take advantage of her on-point advice.

“As far as I’m concerned, the test of a good relationship is if you’re like this (Samantha frowns) or like this (she smiles vivaciously).”

For sure, girlfriend.

I don’t get the Carrie/Mr. Big connection, he’s boring and ostentatious, and I’m not a fan of Miranda with Steve. It just seems like she settled for him because he was nice to her. I love me some Smith Jerrod but the scene where he’s waiting for Samantha, knowing what she did with Richard, I mean, how can a man have any self respect after that?

So, commenters, who was your favorite couple on SATC?

And, completely unrelated exit question: What do you think happened with Jerry and Elaine after they got out of jail?

Posted by Karol at 01:38 AM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

I don’t really follow any particular relationship on that show. It’s the small individual issues and interactions within them that I find either amusing and/or relatable. Like you, I also don’t like the Carrie/Big drama. He is such an arrogant jerk, calls her up at his convenience, and she comes running back every time, which just makes her look pathetic. If anyone can be called the least flawed character on the show, it’s probably Aiden. He was sweet, funny, attractive and emotionally available (lol… did I just say that?) Now that I think about it, he should have gotten involved with Charlotte, who is just as sweet and idealistic as he is. She was my favorite character for this reason… the other women were so jaded and cynical, it was depressing to watch.

Posted by: Yelena at October 30, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Awww, Aiden. :-(
Charlotte grates on me a little bit with all her love rules.
So nobody answered my unrelated exit question! What happens to Jerry and Elaine?

Posted by: Karol at October 30, 2007 at 3:19 pm

Jerry and Elaine went into old age the same as we met them. They slept together every so often, dated others and then they died. I don’t see them as having any great mystery.

Posted by: Ari at October 30, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Also on a sidenote, did you know that Seinfeld’s show philosophy was “no hugging, no learning”? I LOVE THAT.

Posted by: Karol at October 30, 2007 at 4:03 pm

and that explains Dawn’s new tagline.

Posted by: Ari at October 30, 2007 at 4:04 pm

A lot of shows have adopted that philosophy –Simpsons, Married with Children… Noone ever learns and each episode starts from the same point.

Posted by: Yelena at October 30, 2007 at 5:05 pm

The “no hugging, no learning” thing stems from a desire to just do comedy. Not the way most sitcoms do it where there’s usually some moral lesson to be learned because there are kids watching. They never wanted there to be any “On a very ’special’ episode of Seinfeld, Elaine struggles with her decision to abort Puddy’s baby”. It was just all funny all the time.
Married with Children is closest to that philosophy, but the Simpsons isn’t even close. Here’s a quick tip: If you can point to a character on a sitcom as the constant “voice of conscience”, then you have a “hugging and learning” show.

Posted by: Jamie at October 30, 2007 at 5:42 pm

I’m not particularly girly
True.
Ok, maybe I’ve got a teensy bit of chick in me.
Nah.
The character I’d most like to be friends with is Samantha. She’s completely no bullshit
Keep watching the show. You’ll discover that Samantha is COMPLETELY full of shit. By the end of the show, she discovers that her tough and liberated persona is actually a cover for immense insecurities and a deeply feeling heart.
You can draw your own parallels at will.

Posted by: Jamie at October 30, 2007 at 5:45 pm

Never cared for Sex and The City. I always told friends, if I ever met any of them, I would run really fast the other direction. The women make life too complicated. I believe in KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). I hate relationships among people to be complicated, too much to think about. World affairs and learning a new subject can be complicated, I will tackle that. I don’t need motivation for everything or debate about every little thing. I do not want to bother thinking anyone on a personal basis has ulterior motives for everything as they seem to on S.I.C. Heck, a cigarette is just a cancer stick, nothing more.
I say Elaine and Jerry, in the world that never happened, went their own separate ways. I think this is what happens in life. One time in my life I had friends in the way of that show, male and female character. Time moved on, people just disappear for many reasons. Woman friends meet men who they fall in love with and don’t want “that guy” hanging around and they get caught up with each other thus if things broke up, they find themselves elsewhere no where near you. Jerry and Elaine would see each other on the street and not even say hello, but look each other on the internet to see what each are doing.

Posted by: StuLongIsland at October 30, 2007 at 10:30 pm

You can draw your own parallels at will.
What kind of parallels do you mean? I’m not saying I’m like Samantha, just that I’d most likely choose her as a friend of the 4. Also, it’s not about being tough and liberated, it’s about being honest about what you’re feeling. I haven’t seen her be dishonest yet. Being insecure and sensitive doesn’t mean she’s not completely up front.

Posted by: Karol at October 30, 2007 at 11:47 pm

My problem with Sex and the City was always how TERRIBLE those women were about communicating with the men in their lives. So often they felt they couldn’t just say what they wanted to say to the man, and always ran to the other women to say it instead. Many TV shows (especially sitcoms) have plots that work the same way — miscommunication, noncommunication, lying. It creates great drama, but not good role models. Actually, I guess that was my 2nd problem with it: that these women were supposed to be some kind of role models … of what, I’m not sure. (Maybe I’m wrong there; maybe women weren’t looking to them as role models. I certainly wasn’t.) But I found the show very funny anyway, so I watched it.

Posted by: Caryn at October 31, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Post a comment