Staff Infection

THE BEST SEX AND THE CITY REVIEW SO FAR

 

. . . is from a dunk co-ed, the younger sister of Jezebel Moe. It’s all about the stupidity of SATC’s seriously over-the-top commercial focus, and is argued from a Marxist standpoint, and I’m sure I could tell you more were I not buzzed on champagne and cranberry juice. (Hey, it’s my birthday.) Christina Tkacik writes:

A key component of the film is the use of hired labour to address
all bourgeoisie problems: when, for example, Carrie wishes to have her
possessions from Big, but does not wish to face him in person,
Samantha comments “We can pay people to do that.” These anonymous
servants — be they movers, nannies (see Magda), or the man Carrie
hires to hold the coats at Charlotte’s baby shower — may be paid as
intermediaries for all human contact. Thus the wealthier characters
only further alienate themselves from one another, and become lost
within their own materialistic egos.

I would go so far as to say that this entire component of the film is wholly uneccessary. But my true shudders about the film are in the scene in which Miranda, her nanny Magda and her son clunk through Chinatown looking for an apartment. The women are all “Ew, gross!” until they spot a handsome white man exiting a drugstore with a baby. “Look! A white man with a baby! Follow him!” Miranda shouts, pushing past Chinese people, yes, but people of all origins, really, before leaping into a graffiti-laden apartment building like it’s the best thing ever. Gentrification has never been Sex and the City’s strong point, but this just marked a new uncomfortable low. That and the pun “Mexicoma.”

Tags: , , ,

 
close Reblog this comment
blog comments powered by Disqus
 

© 2007-2008 Seven Days Publishing LLC.