On Thursday, the Wire brought you ten takedowns
of the new Sex and the City movie, which is being nearly universally
panned. It turns out, even on our list, the vast majority of the
reviewers are men. Richard Drew,
blogging at RemotePatrolled, sees a bit more than coincidence in
this trend. He argues that those "male journalists" who, at the time of the first Sex and the City movie, were astounded by "the idea of women going out to see a movie
on their own" were waiting for the sequel to "sneer, put
down and patronize Sex--and its mostly female fans." (Drew--who hasn't
seen this movie but loved the last one and the show--notes that it "was a veritable lifestyle guide" for some of those fans.)
To support his case, Drew cites a Daily Beast review wondering if "it was possible for a straight man to enjoy [the movie]," Time Out New York's preemptively hostile "How Bad Is It?" headline, and countless comments in the reviews about the women's ages. Says Drew: "the sexism and condescension just ooze of the page." He offers a possible reason for this: "for some reason a lot of straight men feel incredibly threatened by the whole Sex and the City phenomenon--and just love to attack it."
Drew then turns the tables on the straight male critics and their double standards: how is Carrie too old, but Liam Neeson's exploits go unremarked? Why is Sex and the City "superficial" but "another slow-mo fight sequence or endless CGI explosions" are fine?