The critics may natter on about it, but let’s get real: “
Sex and the City” is the Movie of the Moment.
I’m not sure what that says about ‘the moment’ or about the state of movies, but this chick flick has proved that a film can be a box office phenomenon without pretending to be a vid game that appeases the ‘
zitgeist’.
It’s not just about the numbers, though they were more than boffo. ‘Sex” blew away Indiana Jones (in its second week) with a weekend gross of $55.7 million, the best ever for an R-rated comedy (The Devil Wears Prada was thrilled with $27 million). More intriguing, “Sex” is the pop culture event that people are arguing about at Starbucks or in the blogosphere and the arguments are downright delicious.
Witness the shrill critical contradictions being hurled at each other by two journalistic doyennes. “A movie for grownups of all ages,” enthuses Carina Chocano in the Los Angeles Times. “Vulgar, deeply shallow and totally ‘ick,’” rants Manohla Dargis in The New York Times.
Last week the prevailing view among Hollywood’s distribution mavens was that “Sex” would not push beyond its chick flick quadrant and hence would be a one-week wonder. By the end of the weekend, however, they were giving the movie a second look. There were older women in the theaters along with gay guys and - the big surprise - dating couples who were out to see what everyone was talking about.
OK, I’ll admit it: I liked the movie a lot and admired its equal-opportunity brand of humor. Some jokes play to the girls, others to the gay boys and still others to the straights. It’s hard to remember another movie that dealt out different laughs to different demos.
And if there was an award out there for sheer tenacity, I’d pin it on Sarah Jessica Parker. Her determination got the movie made after a ten-year struggle and her zeal also generated the marketing muscle. She’s been downright ubiquitous on the interview circuit and has stayed on message. This is not merely a chick flick, she has insisted. I sat across the aisle from her on an American Airlines flight to Hawaii not long ago and I saw her reading to her little boy. I had to take a peek: No, she wasn’t reading him marketing reports about her movie – it was actually a children’s book.
Sarah’s not “deeply shallow,” nor is her movie. In fact, I think any critic who uses that expression needs a better editor.
Subscribe to Peter Bart's Blog Feed
Dargis is the best critic working in US. Her opinions are sharp, bright and intelligent im my humble opinion. Sorry of her thoughts aren't more, let's say, mainstream. But I agree 100% with her.
Posted by: Andrew | 6/4/2008 12:39:21 PM
Has anyone looked at the Dargis review carefully? With one exception, she never refers to anything specific about the film. The very idea of it is what riles her.
Posted by: Herman Scobie | 6/3/2008 1:33:48 PM
Right on Peter! Once again you have hit the nail on the head. So many people wanted to dismiss this film as a chick flick. It will be interesting to see how the movie does in weeks ahead. I was not a huge fan of the show but did watch it on occasion and I simply loved the film.
Posted by: pearsosl | 6/3/2008 10:28:19 AM
Sorry if I sound ignorant, but is it "zitgeist" on purpose and not "zeitgeist"?
Interesting column, keep up the good work!
Posted by: lanfear | 6/3/2008 9:54:06 AM
Manohla Dargis is just mad she matters way less than Manolo Blahnik when it comes to this movie ... also, carrying the straight male banner, I have no probs with this movie. It had tons of nudity, woman talking dirty, and the hottest character of the four pooped her pants on screen. Sign me up ...
Posted by: Big Bomb | 6/2/2008 6:51:38 PM