Althouse: "Is there the slightest possibility that SATC2 is actually satirizing the shallow absurdity of its protagonists..."

May 29, 2010

"Is there the slightest possibility that SATC2 is actually satirizing the shallow absurdity of its protagonists..."

"... but a large fraction of its audience has not realized that they are the target of its mockery?"

Answer: no.

18 comments:

Fred4Pres said...: I thought you were talking about the SATs.; 5/29/10, 10:59 AM
Wince said...: No wonder I got such strange looks when I showed-up at the Cineplex to see SATC2 wearing a Roman Toga made out of a bed sheet.; 5/29/10, 11:08 AM
Bob_R said...: So AA, which part do you not consider possible? The satirizing or the not realizing?

I've always wondered if there was an element of "I'm pretending to be self mocking, but I'm deadly serious."; 5/29/10, 11:15 AM
Jennifer said...: Hasn't SATC always been self aware of its "shallow absurdity"? Perhaps not its target audience. But I've always felt the show and the characters acknowledge and often mock this while also exploring less shallow themes. Maybe I see this solely to allow myself to love the show. Which I do. I still rewatch old seasons on DVD when I have nothing else to watch while knitting.; 5/29/10, 11:25 AM
Unknown said...: It wasn't TV, it was HBO. They take themselves absolutely seriously.; 5/29/10, 11:31 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: This show and Friends has been an enormously bad influence on America's yutes.; 5/29/10, 11:42 AM
SteveR said...: Well I hate to think anyone actually takes anything about the show as other than a joke.; 5/29/10, 11:47 AM
Kensington said...: It's a show about...three hookers and their mom?

(Ha ha, I know everyone's heard that, but it still cracks me up! My favorite aspect is trying to figure out which one is supposed to be the mom.); 5/29/10, 12:14 PM
Joan said...: AJ, I think Seinfeld's influence was worse -- it made it not only acceptable but cool to be cynical and downright mean on a continuous basis.

I use the train wreck analogy regarding SATC. It's horrific, but I couldn't look away, at least from the tv series, which, btw, is much easier to take in its TBS sex- and swear-free incarnations. I really never want to see Kim Cattrall, or any of them, having sex, ever again. There was something about its complete wrongness that made it compelling. I kept hoping for some redemption, some sense of normalcy, to reach these characters, but if we ever caught a glimpse of it, it was soon whisked away.

There is a sizable amount of the audience that takes this Diane Fossey-like approach: we have no desire to be like these women, and in fact, we don't know anyone like them, but it can be entertaining to observe them for a while. At least it was. I'm pretty sure the fun has all gone out of it by this point.; 5/29/10, 1:33 PM
Trooper York said...: I thought it was 3 hookers and their horse.

In the grand tradition of "National Velvet" and "My Friend Flicka."

Sarah Jessica Horseface is the epitome of what you get when you are horsing around.

Just sayn'; 5/29/10, 1:41 PM
reader_iam said...: Originally, I didn't bother clicking the link on this post because the subject itself doesn't interest me. However, I AM SO GLAD I FINALLY DID (I'm such an obsessive link-clicker; rarely can I resist), because of this gem:

It has long been informally understand that graphic thrusting and pumping, so to speak, should be limited to two (2) thrusts and/or pumps per one (1) R-rated movie.

Not only did that sentence strike me as hilarious (and literally had me laughing aloud--though, alas, my ass is still with me), especially as written, but I did not know that formal rule/standard existed.

I guess this would be The New Thing I Learned Today!; 5/29/10, 2:40 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Reader:

She that doth protest too much.:); 5/29/10, 4:22 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Joan:
I watched the Seinfeld series before the reruns. Once it was in reruns, I started to wonder where was the humor?; 5/29/10, 4:48 PM
Ralph L said...: Seinfeld was a comedy?; 5/29/10, 6:27 PM
Donna B. said...: One of my daughters saw the movie a few days ago and said it was awful. But there was some kind of big promotion going on and she won a limo restaurant/bar tour.

If the movie was a horrible as the limo -- a pink Mini Cooper, the inside retro disco -- then it was horrible indeed.

For some reason, she and her husband liked the limo. Young people these days!; 5/29/10, 9:01 PM
knox said...: The Big Lie of that series--and its brilliance, in terms of wooing viewers--was that these were "independent" single women, who didn't need men.

In reality, it was a big fairy tale. I read something recently lauding how Carrie had rejected Aidan, and how it proved her independence. LOL. All it did was clear the way for her to marry the "Prince" [read: rich guy] in the end.

Joan, my feelings on the series are almost identical to yours.

I will admit that the clothes were a big reason why I kept coming back. And the Miranda character could actually be somewhat human, at times.; 5/30/10, 8:33 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: "I think Seinfeld's influence was worse -- it made it not only acceptable but cool to be cynical and downright mean on a continuous basis."

Wrong - in the final episode they all end up in jail, specifically for not caring about those they've hurt, and are forced to listen to their own inane nattering for what appeared to be eternity.

SATC, on the other hand, was just a(nother) gay lie that women ate up:

"Carrie Bradshaw is,...selfish, immature, manipulative, impulsive, and, let’s face it, kind of psycho. She gives women, even kooky women, a bad name."

You go, girl!; 5/30/10, 6:08 PM
bagoh20 said...: Some of the most unattractive female characters ever created, if you're a hetero man. This is not something I need to research either.; 5/30/10, 8:17 PM