Emily Nussbaum, The New Yorker's TV critic does a great job explaining her opinion on why and how Sex and the City's popularity and interest decreased. After being ranked as one of the best TV shows in the world, Emily is able to explain how such a loved show could lose its good name. The question in debate is very curious though, how could millions fans from all around the world, get so disappointed with it, what has changed since the first season? Nussbaum wrote on how SATC is so much more than just cupcakes, men & Manolos (not taking into consideration the two films.) "The reputation of "Sex and the City" has shrunk and faded, like some tragic dry-clean-only dress tossed into a decade-long hot cycle" Emily comments on how people used to make comparisons whenever other similar series premiered, saying "don't worry, it's no "Sex and the City" that used to be a good thing, not anymore. Emily explains how SATC gave an actual chance for women who were used to seeing almost flawless characters as the protagonists of the series, as role models. In contrast, in SATC, these female spectators could actually see themselves as "a" Carrie Bradshaw (played by Sarah Jessica Parker) as if she were a representation their reality - aggressive, selfish, jagged, and at times a frightening figure; meaning, not always were they perfect little females, they were real women with real problems. They not only mirrored themselves into Carrie but also Samanthha, Charlotte and Miranda (Carrie's best friends) who were a representation of themselves. Sex and the City could portray the spectator's lives as it really was, with flaws, breakdowns, happiness, sadness - not always a fairy tale. But things started to change to the plot and characters (especially Carrie) when Mr. Big showed up, Carrie, despite her flaws , true love turned her into a fake, it was as Nussbaum called it "slow poisoning" it made her anxious, hard to deal with, and, obsessive. But as time passed and Carrie got older, therefore more mature, she got more honest and responsible, became a saner girl friend, but also scarred and prissier. So how could the show still be seen as a set of empty, static cartoons Nussbaum asks? A classic misunderstanding, the thought of anything feminine, explicit and stylized rather than about violence must be inferior, also the clothing label-obsession in my opinion, marked it as unserious. Carrie was the first female anti-hero, which really matters, it makes the show much more real and relatable.
Emily's writing is very persuasive and the piece is smart and very well-observed, she definitely knows what she is arguing. She brilliantly reclaims the legacy and importance of Sex and the City with this must read articl. It is very convincing and supported by facts and examples from the show and spectators themselves. It is very thoughtful and finally a good defense for SATC the original show deeply deserves, since I'm a fan of the show. I think it's unfair how it is nowadays always forgotten when great TV is talked about. Part of the reason SATC used to be so good was its complexity, and it deserves it's credit for it, after all, it did revolutionize television.
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2013/07/29/130729crte_television_nussbaum
No comments:
Post a Comment