That rattling sound you hear is me rolling my eyes at the following ABC News headline: "Sex and the City fiend: Show turned me into Samantha." For the uninitiated, Samantha is the character who provides most of the Sex on Sex and the City, unless you're watching it on TBS. With the SATC movie opening next week, I assume ABC wanted to capitalize on it by running this absurd piece projecting blame. A rapper once famously said you can't turn a ho into a housewife; Sex and the City is now apparently doing the opposite. I can only see this working to my advantage when I buy my ticket on May 30th.
The Sex and the City movie was set in New York City, filmed in New York City, and treats New York City like the oft-touted "fifth character" of the story. But last night, it got its world premiere in London. Controversy over New Line Cinema's decision to debut the film across the ocean from its home town almost overshadowed the debut itself. The question "Why London?" followed the four leading ladies onto the sparkly red carpet. When pressed for a reason, producer and star Sarah Jessica Parker explained that that was where their "bosses" decided to have the premiere. Smooth move SJP, but aren't you sort of one of those "bosses" you're so swift to pass the buck to?
In another article via the Telegraph, Cynthia Nixon offers further explanation, saying that they're just "building to the New York premiere," which promises to be a much larger affair than the "smallish premiere" in London's Leicester Square.
Channeling Carrie Bradshaw for a minute here (and then I promise never to do it again): In reading all this hoopla about choosing London over New York, I couldn't help but wonder: At what point does bad press about a movie premiere overshadow the good buzz about the movie itself?
New Line Cinema and/or Parker should think about coming up with some kind of definitive answer to fans' questions. Perhaps London offered better fashion freebies, or a clueless assistant got "Big Ben" and "Big Apple" mixed up. No matter what the real reason is, all too often the speculation is worse. Rumors are nasty things, and Carrie & Co. should know that better than anyone.
In a recent interview, Kevin Smith said that he thought sex was silly, which is why he keeps making movies about it. But is that the truth? His characters are funny, and they talk a lot about sex, but the actual sex is usually pretty scary or horrifying or emotionally scarring or just plain wrong. Is there no such thing as normal sex between two happy, consenting, breathing people in his films? We decided to take a look at his oeuvre and see if the pattern is as obvious as we think it is.