Sunday, June 08, 2008

Size DOES Matter

...and sometimes bigger is better, and longer can be better, too! Especially when the extra-large, extra-long thing in question is that extended-episode-being-marketed-as-a-movie called -- yes, I'm still on this -- Sex and the City! Yet ANOTHER review has got it all wrong, although at least this time the critic is a man, so maybe he gets a waiver of some sort...YES, SATC is exactly like a super-sized episode -- and that's a GOOD THING, Mr. Anthony Lane of the New Yorker magazine, not a bad thing! And why in heaven's name would be it be anything else, if what the fans want is more of the same? (If it ain't broke, don't fix it!) Does Michael Patrick King fancy himself the new Quentin Tarentino? And did he submit his masterpiece to Sundance and Cannes??? I DON"T THINK SO!!! Film critics, I beg of you, open your over-educated, overly-serious minds to the possibility that this film, as an extension of a (wildly popular and utterly unique)television series, cannot and should not be measured by the same yardstick as arty, effete foreign films, let alone the same standards by which we judge classic literature (WHO THINKS COMPARING SATC TO ANNA KARENINA MAKES ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER? RAISE YOUR HAND!!!....I didn't think so...)

Lastly, and on a Husband-Free note, do not, I repeat, DO NOT criticize these characters as being "obsessed with a ring" and "defining themselves...purely by their ability to snare and keep a man" -- first of all, because this only describes Charlotte, and secondly, because OUR CULTURE IS OBSESSED WITH THIS AND DEFINES WOMEN THUSLY. It is not the fault of Michael Patrick King and the products of his imagination/observation that this is true. Nor is it his fault that -- at least there was some truth in this review -- you [men] are not worth it. Try harder next time, Mr. Lane. Harder can be better, too.

Click here to read Mr. Lane's review

No comments: