How is it that Anthony Lane of the New Yorker gets that the film version of "Sex in the City" is meretricious trash...:
Next, we have Samantha (Kim Cattrall). Everyone has Samantha, or had her at some point; so she would like us to believe, and this is where the film of “Sex and the City” begins to part company with the original. The TV show was smart enough to trade on both the sentimentality and the shockability of its viewers, encouraging them to sigh at romantic satisfaction while snickering at the dirty talk that gave it spice. Behind it all, one caught a whiff of stale Puritanism: despite the women’s knowing bid for urbanity, there was an old-school, anti-sophisticated wish to put desire in its proper place, or, better still, to disperse it in a shared public giggle, for fear of where it might lead. Now the whiff has become a blast, and Samantha’s efforts to signal her appeal, which might have seemed languorous on the small screen, are blown up here into an embarrassing semaphore: thudding closeups of her slurping through a cocktail straw or swallowing a mouthful of guacamole. No self-respecting maker of soft erotica would countenance such shots, and, as for the matching dialogue (“Something just came up,” Samantha murmurs over the phone, as her boyfriend stands beside her in bulging briefs), it’s a straight lift from flaccid, mid-period James Bond. In a daring plot development, she buys a dog the size of a child’s slipper; the camera keeps cutting away to it, and guess what—the pooch screws, too! Mirth is unconfined.
More from Lane:
It’s true that Samantha finally disposes of one paramour, but only with a view to landing another, and her parting shot is a beauty: “I love you, but I love me more.” I have a terrible feeling that “Sex and the City” expects us not to disapprove of that line, or even to laugh at it, but to exclaim in unison, “You go, girl.” I walked into the theatre hoping for a nice evening and came out as a hard-line Marxist, my head a whirl of closets, delusions, and blunt-clawed cattiness. All the film lacks is a subtitle: “The Lying, the Bitch, and the Wardrobe.”
So, why is it that a secular reviewer like Anthony Lane can easily discern the moral emptiness at the heart of this film, but Christianity Today thinks it's pretty swell? Excerpt:
Sex and the City is ambitious for all the characters, emotions, and crises it tries to shoehorn into two and a half hours. But the attempt elevates it above most chick flicks and romantic dramedies of late. SATC offers well-developed characters, smart dialogue, interesting plots and sub-plots, and a ton of heart. Not to mention eye-candy galore in the leading men and odd-yet-fabulous fashions.
Focus on the Family is not amused. CT defends itself here. Excerpt:
But to slam us for reviewing the film makes no sense. Our mission statement is to help readers make discerning choices about movies—not to make the choices for people. Our review clearly warned readers of the sinful behavior in the movie, while also noting some of its redeeming factors—like the universal longing for love and companionship, what it means to be a true friend, and more.But some folks believe that when it comes to a movie like Sex and the City, there should be no choice—they've decided that no one should see it, period … at least no one who calls themselves a Christian. They think we should essentially have a three-word review: "Don't watch it!" But that's not what we're about. We trust our readers to make their own decisions; we won't make those decisions for anyone.
As for why we review movies that depict sinful behavior, it's because such films depict real-world truth, and the truth is sometimes ugly. To suggest that one cannot find redemption amidst the muck is preposterous; often the best kinds of redemption come from out of the muck.
But here's another reason for reviewing SATC and other uncomfortable films: It's good to sometimes enter into the minds and worldviews of others, even of those we completely disagree with. It's good to see what the world looks like through the eyes of even the depraved.
I've not seen the film, but I did try to watch the show a few times, and found it appalling, and boring. What seems to have bothered people is not that CT reviewed the film, but that it recommended the film. [Update: A teacher at an Evangelical college e-mails: The question is not whether to review it but why CT seems so desperate to find positive messages anywhere and everywhere in pop culture."] If the movie is anything like the TV show -- and from the reviews in secular publications, it is -- then I really do find it amazing that a Christian publication would recommend SATC. I think the gist of the CT review, which was by Camerin Courtney, that is central to the dispute is this passage:
For years, good churchgoing friends of mine secretly raved about Sex and the City. They told me that I, a 30-something single woman (and a singles columnist to boot), would appreciate the randy little show. I was a late adopter only because I didn't have cable. When the somewhat sanitized version showed up on WGN, I was intrigued. I could've done without the "man-izing"and definitely without the nudity, when I rented the original version. But it was refreshing to have a single woman's sexuality acknowledged. In stark contrast, the last time anyone in a Christian setting spoke to the fact that I'm a sexual human being was in a college church group, where I was blithely instructed that "true love waits." Well, 15 years later, it's still waiting. And it ain't so blithely simple.
There's real pathos in this. Better to have sexuality acknowledged in whatever debased form than denied, she seems to be saying. Well, CT has been there before. Remember the massive foofarah a few years back over Lauren F. Winner's essay talking about having sex as a single Evangelical? Here, in a Beliefnet essay from 2000, is something Lauren wrote about the issue:
But lots are unmarried, and for us sex--or, perhaps more accurately, celibacy--is a big deal. But it's a big deal that evangelicals aren't willing to talk about, except to remind us that True Love Waits. This slogan might work when you're 15. Ten years later, catch-phrases don't really do the trick. So here, in short, is what I propose is the scandal of the evangelical body: the church tells all of us to be celibate outside of marriage, and then turns a blind eye to those thousands of unmarried evangelicals who ignore this injunction. We Christians spill plenty of ink moralizing about sex, but we seem unwilling to talk about it in any honest or theologically engaged way....We shy away from discussing sex because, like most other matters in our highly atomized, individualized culture, we think of it as private, off-limits--all evangelical-speak must be above-the-waist.
But sex is sometimes a community matter too, especially when one's community is the body of God. In Paul's letter to the Galatians, he writes: "Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ."
As the Anglican theologian John Macquarrie observed, "We must avoid the mistake of thinking that because human sexuality is personal, it is also private." Macquarrie went on to say that sex has any number of social ramificiations--sex leads to babies, babies get property, and so on. But Christians have an additional reason to worry about sex--what I am or am not doing in bed affects my relationship with God as much as what I do in church does, and it's the job of my sister in Christ to hold me accountable. The problem isn't that Sarah made my sex life her business. It's that her evangelical vocabulary left her with nothing to say but "whore."
It's not just Evangelicals. When I was a Catholic, I knew exactly what the Church expected of me regarding sexual behavior. I read books filled with incredible wisdom, especially from Pope John Paul II, about the meaning of sexuality and the body. And I prayed, and struggled. But I prayed and struggled largely alone. Priests won't talk about this stuff, by and large. Few people want to deal with it. The attitude seems to be, "If you're a single adult, you're on your own. Keep it to yourself." And, for the record, I've seen no evidence that Orthodoxy is any better at this. I know that I, as a married man and member of a parish, have other things to worry about besides the social and sexual lives of single adults. But I was once a single Christian adult, and I felt completely alone in my parish(es) back then. I ask you single Christian adults reading this who are struggling to be chaste: what could people like me in your churches do to help?
It's hard for the church to talk about sexuality and the single adult (Lauren Winner, who became more traditionalist in her sexual ethic, wrote a long and interesting CT piece about Christian chastity in 2005). While I think CT's review of SATC is regrettable and wrong-headed, I can understand why someone like the reviewer finds a show like that attractive. If you've not had your conscience formed by solid, comprehensive and honest teaching about human sexuality in a Christian context, it's easy to find something as degrading as SATC appealing. There may be more truth about humanity and sexuality in a dirty show like that than in any discussion about sexuality in church circles. Perhaps what Christians who like that show crave is acknowledgement of themselves, within the church, as sexual beings. Not approval of premarital sexual activity, but simple acknowledgement that it exists, and it's hard to manage, especially in today's culture.
I dunno. What do you think?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
A little lost in all this fun is what SATC really is in the first place. It's a drama in which four different, complementary, parts of the female self are given characters in which to deal with the dilemmas of early adulthood.
And it's such a simple scheme- three of the women each represent living dominated by one of the three traditional Freudian elements of the Self. Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) embodies the efforts of Reason to keep it all together.
To many people the show will amount to a Rohrschach test, obviously, of beliefs about the female self. And its development to maturity.
I feel rather sorry for Lauren Winner. Despite all her wishes and assertions to the contrary, the ascetic life and normal body-centered life in mainstream society don't mix. People do live one or the other. And it's good to hear, Rod, that many priests have enough integrity not to make strong claims to the contrary.
Chastity seems to me, ultimately, just a different way of saying that sex properly goes along with real love, which is a modest and humble thing 99% of the time. All the bellyaching and loveless sophistry and vain barrels of ink expended on the subject by American Christians is rather amazing. But I guess it's part and parcel of trying to get an inadequate doctrine of human nature to work.
Just one more note. Someone above said that Christianity Today is owned by Rupert Murdoch. I don't think that's true, but I could be wrong. Why do you think so?
Slightly aside-- I wouldn't bet on Anthony Lane (best and wittiest critic in America, and I second the recommendation of his collected essays, and wish he wrote more on books) is utterly "secular", whatever his venue. After reading a lot of him, and especially reading him on Tolkein, I wouldn't be shocked to find out he was Anglo or even Roman Catholic.
A balanced, insightful, candid discussion--how refreshing! Many thanks.
kinda like the humanness of sullivan's sexuality overriding his christian framework.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.