There was a wonderful personal essay in the NYT this week about "Sex and the City"; the piece is better than the actual show.
The writer asks, How can I be a straight man in his early thirties with a fierce attachment to this particular tale? (It's all about the initial idea. When you have an idea like this, the story writes itself.)
The writer, Roonan, admits that the pain of a college breakup led him to SATC; he felt better as he watched Carrie's suffering. I know precisely what this means. I still think about Carrie tripping on a runway. I sometimes think about her when I say too much; I recall the moment when she can't help but point out that Berger's use of the term "scrunchie" is wrong. Right now, I'm obsessing about whether a shirt I purchased is sized correctly; this takes me right back to Charlotte's outfit/self-image issues, as she prepares for her first day of work.
Roonan goes on--in a brave way--to point out that SATC is a rare work of new popular culture that is both for adults and focused on real adult subject matter. It's not a show about medieval swords and thrones. It's a show about a corporate lawyer who must give a sponge bath to her senile mother-in-law.
Finally, Roonan makes two strong points about the show's setting. The NYC of SATC is a bit like Disney World--but, come on, who doesn't love Disney World? Additionally, "NYC is fascinating because of the potential for great success and deep hurt. And the latter is survivable--and even thrilling--because of the friends who help you through it."
I couldn't say it better myself.
Comments
Post a Comment