Lots of chino-wearing Hollywood types are eating humble pie after Sex and the City's barnstorming debut at the box office. Despite lukewarm reviews and the fact that no straight male will admit to buying a ticket (my visit was purely in the interests of research), the flick did $55.7m in its opening weekend, knocking Indiana Jones off the top of the charts.
Industry analysts have been required to, as Alan Partridge says, take a knife and fork to their words, having predicted that it would struggle to break the $40m barrier.
Received wisdom, recorded by the film industry bible Variety has it that: "female audiences, particularly over 25, can't fuel a big opening or go up against a male-driven summer tent-pole."
The way I see it, though, the SATC film-makers played a blinder. Out here, SATC was only aired in its full, unedited form on the paid-for network HBO. Its relatively small audience also reflected the fact that the rest of America saw it as very much a "New York" show. So what do they do to compete with Indy?
Shift a dollop of the film's action to Los Angeles (appeal to the West Coast crowds), another dollop to Mexico (get Hispanics to buy a ticket) and, more controversially, introduce the show's first substantial black character, in the winsome shape of Jennifer Hudson (pictured at the New York premiere), who plays Carrie Bradshaw's new assistant, Louise.
Some commentators have rolled their eyes at the appointment. Helena Andrews, writing on The Root accused the film-makers of tokenism, suggesting that while Hudson's appearance should be applauded, her character's servile role ("to help Carrie get her crap together") is wearily predictable.
The crowd down my local joint seemed to endorse that view: plenty of cocktail-sipping parties of middle-class white Santa Monicans, several members of the local Hispanic population in their high heels, but not a black face in the house.
As to the flick, it's 45 minutes too long, the chemistry between Sarah Jessica Parker and the alleged love of her life, Chris Noth, is non-existent, and the jokes feel pretty tired after all these years, but otherwise it passes muster.
Who knows how well SATC might have done if they'd produced a properly brilliant film, and made more than a token effort at reaching out to the black dollar?
(Photo: Reuters)
here is your sex:Samantha dumps Smith and moves back to NYC. Charlotte has her dumb baby. Miranda leaves Steve after he cheats on her, but they eventually reconcile. Big leaves Carrie at the alter after Miranda and Steve's drama proves to him how marriage always changes things. However the get married in the end in a civil ceremony with all the girls present. the end.NOW CAN WE STOP TALKING ABOUT THE GOLDEN GIRLS MOVIE? AND GET BACK TO INDIANA JONES?A REAL FILM
Posted by: Shirley | Wednesday, 04 June 2008 at 12:23 PM
Popularity does NOT mean quality.
How to be popular? Make a silly women's film that will get the girlies in (and dragging their men to maybe to) - like bridget jones or this piffle - escapist, asperational, emotional porn for women.
Women probably feel the same about science-fiction - star wars etc. Proof, if needed, that men and women have different brains from birth.
In 5 years this will be utterly forgotten - indiana will not. Evidence? Mrs Miniver was a massive movie during world war two - coz all the women went to see it (and several times) yet it was just escapist fluff and emotional porn for lonely women. It's in the top ten highest grossing films in the UK ever.
Men have sex porn; women have emo-porn. Accept. I do.
Posted by: mitterrandy | Wednesday, 04 June 2008 at 01:32 PM
Interesting. Does criticism have a partiality for male self-fascination?
If you looked at all the 'Top 100 Movies' lists and removed those examining
1) masculinity
2) the male ego
3) male bonding
4) the violence caused by masculinity, male bonding and the male ego
5) the existential isolation caused by the latent aggression inherent in masculinity, male bonding and the male ego
.. you'd probably be left with 'Persona'
Or 'Herbie Goes Bananas'
Posted by: Urban Ospreys | Wednesday, 04 June 2008 at 10:20 PM
How to be popular? Make a silly women's - oops I mean "MAN'S" film that will get the girlies - oops I mean "BOYSIES" in (and dragging their men oops, I mean women, to ) - like bridget jones - oops I mean "SPIDERMAN" or this piffle - oops I mean "IRONMAN" - escapist, asperational, emotional porn for women - oops I mean MEN.
Posted by: anon | Thursday, 05 June 2008 at 06:42 AM
Film is essentially a male medium - because one needs a hero, who goes through struggles, and survives or doesn't. (Read Aristotle's poetics.)In other words he has to DO things, take risks, try and chieve a goal, not sit roung gossiping and bitching. That is why m ost films are 'male' - as are most directors and fim writers too. NOTHING to do with any imaginery sexism. To do with innate human instinct.
TV, on the other hand, is, especially these days, very female - all soapy, relationship based, with multi-stranded storylines AND mostly female viewers AND mostle female producers who decide what gets made: but make some soapy crap and you'll get the girly audience and your commissioner will be happy.
Male and female brains are different as are male/female instincts and interests. That is why there were no men in the audience for this silly, pointless, profitable, girly film. Now where's my sopranos box set...
Posted by: Fanda | Thursday, 05 June 2008 at 09:11 AM
This Golden girls movie made me itch-the only"carrie" that will be "hip" is Carrie Fisher(Miss Leia Skywalker to you) and "carrie white"(played by Sissy Spacek)
Indiana Jones is "the " film to see
Screw this Golden Girls flick.
Posted by: Trent | Thursday, 05 June 2008 at 10:09 AM
Wow. Why so much hostility to SATC? I’m a man who grew up watching Indy over and over. I’ve seen maybe two episodes of SATC and I don’t expect to see the movie. Sure I prefer Indy to SATC but that doesn’t mean my preference is better than another. There is room enough in multiplexes for both films and both audiences. Stop being hostile to something that other people may enjoy. After all, each movie is simply entertainment.
Posted by: TK | Thursday, 05 June 2008 at 06:53 PM
Its freedom to express hostility over something one feels is sub par and does finacially better-get over it.
I do not plan on giving these rotweilers my money either.
I fear i may catch an STD from their all their sex talk alone.
Opinions are like buttholes-everyone has one,However i am with the detestment of the"golden girls" movie
Indiana Jones all the way!!
Posted by: Raven lequerre | Friday, 06 June 2008 at 02:05 PM
This chick flick written by dicks is sucking big time at the local theatres in my area-Indiana Jones is making far more money after 2 weeks,even Ironman still performs well-the hype is warner bros-who already exaggerated the numbers on their craptastic films last year and earlier this year.
I am not giving my money to these four old tarts in any shape or form.
I have heard more women complain about getting an "itch" after watching this..yikes and some men complained about their butts itching too..yikes this flick is an STD!!
Posted by: Greta | Saturday, 07 June 2008 at 12:44 PM
I have to laugh at the Brouhaha over SATC. Listen up people, complain all you want..SATC surprised a lot of people. Go ahead, trash it, as you are finding out, you are crying out into the wilderness as SATC trumped Indiana BIGTIME.SO?
It is entertainment. I don't care for violence, but you don't see my whining over saw, hostel. I am legend etc.
And let's not compare the two...it's apples and oranges. And to the remark about Indie being a "REAL" film -Aliens?? Really, how REAL is that!?
Like SATC It is escapist-one with whips the other with fashion.
The only common theme here I see, and I am VERY pleased at, is that the ladies and the heros are getting older and people are flocking to see the movies...yay for experience!
Posted by: Telgar brekke | Tuesday, 10 June 2008 at 03:53 PM