Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Sex and the Muslim City: A Review

New York’s favorite four women of upper-class privilege and material indulgence have returned for a second helping of licentious adventures in romance, traveling and unforgiving product placement in "Sex and the City 2," the latest movie based off the popular HBO series.

In the sequel to 2008’s blockbuster hit, Samantha (played by the eternally fabulous Kim Catrall) takes her gal pals on an all-expenses paid trip to Abu Dhabi to pursue a job offer in the growing UAE hotel industry. Throughout their trip to what Samantha questionably dubs “The New Middle East,” the ladies of Manhattan embark on a mildly enjoyable romp complete with cultural insensitivities, hints at the superiority of Western-White Feminism and, of course, plenty of puns and sex.

Once the quartet of friends arrives in Abu Dhabi, they are luxuriously spoiled by the nation’s finest hotel. Although this is not necessarily new to a show that's always told one socioeconomic narrative of women's lives, it isn’t much of a plot, either.

Most of the movie simply showcases the girls’ extravagant stay at the opulent and highly exoticized hotel. As guests, they barely attempt to learn about the UAE or its culture (other than Miranda, who seems to only do so to gratify her rigid, type-A personality), and prefer to eat fancy breakfasts and shop to maximize some kind of tourist self-fulfillment. As a result, the stereotypical idea that all Americans (particularly American women) are greedy shopaholics and cultural imperialists whose main ambitions include material comfort and familiarity is only strengthened and reinforced.

Furthermore, when the girls aren’t relaxing at the hotel’s pool or calling for their individually assigned butlers, they are often mocking the Muslim culture for comedic effect. Samantha, while told several times by Miranda to wear less revealing clothing and discuss sexual matters less explicitly, continues to flaunt her understanding of what is appropriate behavior without even considering the cultural barriers she has crossed. She constantly forgets to cover her cleavage, makes out with a man in public, and even stares at a woman eating French fries under her veil as if she has found the most unusual animal at the zoo. In general, she flat out ignores the cultural norms of her current home of hospitality.

The other women of the Empire State don’t seem to fare much better. At one point, while having a discussion about why men are intimated by powerful women in the U.S., Miranda claims American men “want us eating French fries under our clothing, too,” rendering the Muslim culture inferior. None of the film’s stars recognize, at least not legitimately and respectfully, the cultural importance of maintaining a private sexuality in the Muslim world. Even when cautioning Samantha for her inexcusable ignorance, the group seems to collectively assume that Muslim women are, comparatively speaking, less free.

True, later in the film the ladies meet a bunch of Muslim women who reveal their beautiful clothing underneath their religious attire, providing them an opportunity to admire, not condemn, these women of another culture. However, instead of trying to understand why Muslim women wear such clothing and what that might mean for their multiple cultural identities, Carrie, Miranda, Samantha and Charlotte gawk foolishly and are suddenly able to relate via similar interests for high fashion and Suzanne Sommer’s literature on menopause (the Muslim women seem to really like the same things as them; they just kept them hidden). It’s as if the movie’s conveys a message of the Westerner in all of us – particularly in women – just itching to get out and breathe that “freedom.”

Eventually, in a painful-to-watch performance, this inability to cross-culturally communicate culminates in Samantha throwing a handful of condoms up in the air at an Arab market during the call to prayer when her bag breaks and screaming “I HAVE SEX” at the top of her uneducated lungs.

Unfortunately the worst part about this scene isn’t that Samantha has yet to be punished for her outrageous behavior; she’s subsequently kicked out of the hotel. Samantha seems to have paid for her indelible insensitivity. No, the worst part is that when the film employs such methods of cultural ignorance as tools of humor, the significance of each character’s Americanized and Westernized stupidity is lost almost entirely.

In the end, "Sex and the City 2" is like most sequels out there – much worse than its predecessor. In addition to focusing on glamour and visual eye candy rather than story structure or character development, the movie seems to equate a complete disregard for cultural constructs of femininity, feminism and female sexuality with humorous misunderstandings and silly mistakes.

21 comments:

  1. http://fuckmeimnotfamous.tumblr.com/

    You can read my response from my blog lol.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Okay, hopefully I can recreate my original reply, because I felt it articulated my opinion clearly enough, but here goes for my own sequel (part I):

    -Essentially, I want to agree with you on one of your main objections to my critique: it doesn't make sense, nor would it be fitting, to have the characters act in such a way that is completely different from their personality on the show. In other words, what gives me the right - an individual with a clear ideological stance - to discredit Samantha for doing what she's always done: express her sexual needs and desires as loudly as possible.

    Well, under certain circumstances, I think your reaction would be valid. Why should the characters change dramatically just to make me "feel better?"

    However, the choice of environment for this movie is anything but typical to the show. As we know, it's called Sex and the City for a reason. The women are clear products of the wealthy Manhattan lifestyle, and that's fine, because it is the culture in which they have grown and developed their own values and understandings of the world. High fashion and troubled relationships have always been some of their top concerns, and discussions on issues of multiculturalism have rarely been touched upon.

    This all makes sense. This IS Sex and the City. But "Sex and the City 2" transforms the atmosphere dramatically. The women go to the UAE - the Arab world, the Muslim world, whatever you want to call it, it's an environment very different from NYC. And so, it is perfectly reasonable to expect the characters to utilize that environment differently than they would at home.

    As an audience, we absorb the imagery of these four leading ladies and their interactions in a culture very dissimilar in many ways to what they call home. And when a film presents these women in almost the EXACT same way in an environment that counters and challenges their understandings of sexuality and womanhood, they should not be acting in the exact same way.

    No, they should not have arrived at their destination ready to breathe in a new cultural conceptualization of the way the world works. However, they should not have been as socially inept in their cultural world as they were. The different world and cultural environment could have served as a place for personal growth- and that's neither far fetched nor incapable of operating within the same style Sex and the City as a franchise has always employed.

    Samantha could have learned about her own sexual needs through this different world without sacrificing her character's familiarity. The same goes for the other characters, pretty much all of whom had not viable storyline (that's for later).

    By assuming that characters and in this case, Western women, can stay the exact same and never even question their behavior in an atmosphere that is very different and demands cultural readjustment, this film is conveying the idea that it's okay to assume superiority in a culture. These women were not expected to adjust or reexamine their identities. You seem to think so, too. Because they've always been "that way," a new cultural environment with different expectations seems to mean nothing to you, and the four women of Sex and the City.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's a dangerous, popular message in many Western films about traveling.

    And furthermore, I am perfectly allowed to judge Western values as harshly as I have. I AM a Westerner. Because of my experience, I believe I am fully justified in critiquing my culture (and ONLY my culture in this way) because of my experience and understandings I have gained from it.

    To move on to more plot matters, the storylines were horribly underwritten and underplayed. Carrie's encounter with Aiden was short-lived and anti-climatic. Charlotte's infatuation with the big-breasted, Irish nanny was merely an interruption when the plot slowed down, and Miranda's storyline was over before a quarter of the film was.

    In general, it wasn't awful. It was funny at times, but it took a risk with great responsibility in its new location, and, for the most part, pretty much failed....

    It's not that I'm only using one tool in my box; I'm aware of how to use the other ones. But this film set itself up in a position that requires us to use one tool more carefully and with caution. If they are going to put more nails in the board, our hammer will need to be exercised more, if that makes ANY sense. I suck at metaphors....

    In general, though, this film was very different by operating in an external cultural context, and it did not do so respectfully, interestingly, or well....’

    I think it’s sad that my request to see Westerners take an unfamiliar (in this case, one that is often ridiculed based on ignorant and misguided U.S. foreign policy) culture seriously and/or differently from their own….but apparently that’s preposterous, which speaks volumes about cultural and Western imperialism and their small-scale role in film entertainment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Correction:

    And when a film presents these women in almost the EXACT same way in an environment that counters and challenges their understandings of sexuality and womanhood, we seem to think this culture is either silly or unimportant enough for the characters to change or alter their behavior in almost any way - as if this culture is even "worth" the worry.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Also, please answer this question: What gives the ladies the right to go to the Arab/Muslim world? Why is it necessary?

    If it isn't, then maybe the film could have avoided an entire mess in culturally incompetent antics - antics used for laughs and hardly any post-Carrie thought...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Given that you began your post with a concession of sorts... I shall extend the same courtesy. I must say that I do agree that the decision to take the film abroad was unnecessary - especially to an area like the UAE. I personally, would have found somewhere like Paris or Milan more fitting if they insisted on doing the overseas thing - but my personal preference for location is relatively irrelevant.

    I will also agree that the Carrie/Aiden thing wasn't done very well and it was even advertised as being more than it actually was - which I found frustrating. I do think that Carrie's struggle with the social construction of relationships was nice and interesting to me on a few levels - though I dont think it was explored enough.

    I will disagree with you on Charlotte's storyline. I feel like her real plot was rooted more in the troubles of motherhood - the climax of which was her conversation with Miranda. The cheating w/ the nanny thing I feel was more comic relief.

    I will also disagree with you assessment of Miranda's storyline. While it is true that her DIRECT storyline was done early (when she quit her job), but I think the point of the film was to show her letting loose - as was shown throughout the whole film. I also feel like her bonding moment with Charlotte was significant due to the fact that they are often portrayed as opposites during the show - Charlotte is usually more overly optimistic and idealistic while Miranda is a more cynical realist. Having these two women both come together and having Miranda be the one to help Charlotte through her the troubles of her ideal world was significant to me on a level that maybe only a long-time fan of the series can appreciate or even identify.

    Overall I also thought the plot was spread out more evenly among the women than in the 1st movie when it was primarily Carrie and Miranda. Though there was likely some depth sacrificed... I think they relied more heavily on the fans using their knowledge of the characters and their history to get more/pull more out of it than was presented. Then again... I could just be connecting unintended dots to fulfill some fanboyish need to see something positive.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As far as the political aspect of your critique is concerned...

    "And furthermore, I am perfectly allowed to judge Western values as harshly as I have. I AM a Westerner. Because of my experience, I believe I am fully justified in critiquing my culture (and ONLY my culture in this way) because of my experience and understandings I have gained from it."

    That is the quote that I interpreted as you saying we have no right to critique other cultures. Since you say you can "ONLY" critique your culture in this way because YOU ARE a westerner. So it would logically follow that since I am not middle-eastern, I cannot critique their culture - and neither can anyone else. You don't mention motivations or anything here... (I just wanted to show you where I got this from so you didn't think I pulled it out of thin air in our text convo).

    Back to the movie...

    My argument is rooted in the fact that the behaviors displayed by the women in the film are similar to how an average American woman of their background and interests would behave. Not necessarily saying that it is the best way to behave, or that it is the only way that these women could have behaved while still staying in the realm of realism... but I believe that while it may be reasonable for these women to utilize their setting differently and use their new environment as a hotbed for personal growth and development of a cultural awareness etc... It is not as LIKELY a response as simply indulging and enjoying your time - in a very western fashion. When most people travel they do so to simply enjoy themselves and "treat" themselves - especially if they were invited abroad on an all-expense paid luxury vacation! I think there is a certain kind of person who travels to experience the new culture in a way that will cultivate some kind of personal growth, awareness, and understanding through interaction with a foreign setting - but this person is not your average American. And definitely not your average American who is as tied to the materialism and "fabulousness" that are a part of the "wealthy Manhattan lifestyle" that these women are a part of.

    After this point, I think it does boil down to our previous discussion on who people are responsible to. I am guessing you feel as though Michael Patrick King is responsible for presenting the women in the way you described due to his choice of Abu Dhabi as his setting. I argue he has no responsibility. While it would be nice if he took this as an opportunity to create a film that is in tune w/ academic discourse on the issue and adheres to the standards set by anti-western, culturally sensitive people like yourself, he can choose not to. He can choose to create a movie that is in tune w/ HIS vision of HIS characters - who have always been self-indulgent and self centered and have never really shown any interests in multicultural affairs.

    ReplyDelete
  8. In addition to that, I do not think his portrayal of the characters created a situation where the "culture is either silly or unimportant enough for the characters to change or alter their behavior in almost any way - as if this culture is even "worth" the worry." The women were brought there under the premise of indulgence beyond their imagination - an appeal to their western nature in the highest form. So to have them arrive there under that premise and expect them to act contrary to that is kind of a bizarre standpoint from my perspective... but it sets up a situation where they are going to experience the virtues of their own culture to another level. Their lack of change isn't rooted in the disrespect and dismissal that you describe. I believe they didn't change because change was not inherent in the trip - in fact, change would be contrary to the premise of the trip. They were invited to indulge themselves - that is what they did. Samantha came there to create a PR campaign to make the extravagant hotel more appealing to tourist who want to indulge in material and vice.

    I suppose if Samantha was invited to promote a hard-hitting documentary about the culture of the area and the experiences of the women and people around them and they still ignored the culture in the way they did and refused to change, perhaps it would be as you describe it. But given why she was there and the premise under which the girls were invite, they were only following the same tunnel vision that led them there - money, materialism, and the pursuit of the fabulous. None of which have anything to do with experiencing the native culture or its values. None of which have to do with any personal growth or change. It is a reinforcement of the familiar.

    In conclusion, I am not saying that what you propose is unreasonable. I just feel as though given everything... it is unlikely.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well of course it's unlikely! I'm not arguing that what happens in the film isn't an accurate depiction of what many Americans, or Westerners in general, would probably end up doing in a foreign country such as the UAE.

    I think where we differe is our understanding of this depiction and its role in society. Because it is a realistic enough portrayal of how many American individuals in a similar situation would act, and because it lines up enough nicely with the show's style and characters, you find this acceptable, or at least, not worth the kind of critique I presented.

    I disagree. We obtain our understanding of the world (not entirely, but certainly partially to a significant degree) from the media. Even if the gals from Sex and the City have always had their usual lifestyle and carefree lack of a cultural consciousness (which we both decided was understandable considering the setting of their show), they did not need to change considerably to be more considerate or present a less self-important cultural superiority through indulgence and explicit ignorance...I think you seem to think the only way I would see an improvment is by a compelete 180 - a movie where the girls learn about Muslim culture by the day and go to Quran training session before their trip. This is, in fact, not what I would expect.

    But a director can perfectly justify his or her characters adapting to a new enviornment differently without sacrificing their preconceived character flaws and idiosyncracies.

    Our biggest difference is you realize, perhaps, that this is definitely possible, but is not a well visited idea in the mass media movie industry today. Thus, because it isn't common or likely to happen, it must be okay that it didn't happen.

    I am simply saying that Sex and the City 2, like all of its equally forgettable predecessors with the same ambition to make buckets of money with a flimsy storyline and American-indulgence at all cultural costs, is worth the criticsm. Not because it's necessarily especially bad. Sex and the City 2 could easily be compared with hundreds of other movies that commit to the same tasteless standards, but once again, I think we differ because you see this as the standard, the "reality," and thus, acceptable. I completely disagree. We can't begin to change the reality if we don't critique it for what it is: imperialism on a small-scale.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think Sex and the City 2 is another example of a problem within the media and how we present ourselves, our own culture. Therefore, in order to begin questioning or challenging this culture, we need to see films, along with TV shows, plays, songs, etc. that challenge or paint a different narrative of what we as Westerners are capable of changing or challenging.

    Also, I think I was just defensive earlier because I must have interpreted that you didn't find it right for me to critque the West so harshly. I wasn't saying that I had the right to ONLY critique the West, but rather the right to do so with such passion and inhibition because of my personal connection.

    ReplyDelete
  11. In general, this goes back to our definitons of reality: yours is what we as a society (although it's usually instead those in power, not all of us) created.

    My reality is what we prevented, distorted, destroyed or hid from the world in order to adhere to a "reality" convenient for powerful structures of inequality and heirarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Also, I think we're arguing for different reasons altogether. I'm not necessarily advocating for actual edits to the film's script or final presentation. I realize this would have never been done. But I think we can learn from the critique, even if the film itself did things no differently than many films...

    think of it like our view on capitalism, which we've discussed extensively. Because it's pervasive, the "reality" and unstoppable (or uncommon/unlikely to be challenged effectively), you seem to embrace it for particular self-interests.

    I find the critique, the rejection and the constant denial of capitalism as a sound economic system as a better route to take...I never really would have expected Sex and the City 2 to fully satiate my need for better filmmaking (though I still argue it could have done a lot better without changing Sex and the City's style or fans' expectations too dramatically). I think it's worth the critique, however, rather than accepting these characters, like capitalism, simply because they are the norm...

    ReplyDelete
  13. I do think that the factors that you have isolated did play a role in the discussion. Ultimately, I must say that neither of them are at the heart of our disagreement.

    I must say that I believe that our disagreement can be more accurately boiled down to... what I would very crudely describe as my individualistic perspective v. your collectivist perspective.

    My entire reply was a defense of Michael Patrick King's individual right to create a movie that is in line with reality, the decade of character history, and his own personal creative vision. In retrospect I also believe that my hammer metaphor could have been a "stab" at the restriction that I have previously described in our conversations as being associated with your perspective of choice.

    I also think It has something to do with the hypodermic needle model v, reflecting pool model of media influence. While I have not fully committed to stance on this issue (a constant struggle brought up again by this debate)... I argued from the perspective that movies are a reflection of society and thus it is appropriate and acceptable for them to create movies that depict the current state of affairs - even if they may be unsavory.

    I also think you missed the most important contributing factor...

    I just like disagreeing with you lmao hahaha

    Anyways... nice epic chat. Can't wait to do it again!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Really? Your second point (not the individual vs. collective, but the reflection pool) is something I believed I somewhat touched on, albeit perhaps not clearly.

    I said your definition of reality seems to be what we as a group currently live in, and that feeds into your idea that media should be a reflection of that reality, right?

    I would say media is complicatedly intertwined with our society and there's no way to say one directly influences the other, but to me, saying media must simply reflect what we do is not only a way to avoid a critique of those(often) unsavory depictions, but is also sometimes very untrue (think of the type of bodies typically shown that are representative of the population, the extravagant lifestyles constantly showcased on MTV and the likes that only represent a small portion of the country who have such wealth, etc, etc.)

    I think the individual point makes sense, but to me it's not about the individual doing something as just that - an individual, but rather the responsibility.

    I agree that King had every right to continue his "creative" vision (I think one our main points constantly missed is that this movie just wasn't that good and had lazy writing), but I think his responsibility is for the community, not his individual self. Others are the bottom-line rather than self-interest, although he has every right to cultivate his own individual creativity and visions, etc. I think we disagree on what he should be assesses when individually crafting this vision.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Also, I think you have too much faith in his desire to actually extend some vision of the ladies, when in actuality, I'm sure it was mostly pressure from the studio to make another blockbuster hit to make lots of money.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Also, one last point: I think this community-oriented creativity/individual craftsmanship actually enhances the world because it is more collectively beneficial. Perhaps in a way it might put a certain cap on an individual's talent, if that talent would have been exploited for individual self-interest and maximized profits, but in a way, I see that as a benefit, too.

    It's kind of like when we were comparing the motivations of corporations and how they make their products vs. a local business that takes into account the needs of the community. I still believe that using the community rather than the market or some other financial measurement is a better motivation that yields a stronger and healthier living environment.

    ReplyDelete
  17. So... you are right, you definitely did address that - just a little more subtly.

    As far as your conceptualization of the relationship between media and society is concerned, I agree. Despite my notion of reality, the media influences us as a people in just as many ways as we dictate media messages (it is integral in the creation of our reality... but I digress).

    In my reply, I was using the dichotomy as a means of pointing out the fact that I believe that this portrayal of the women's' behavior abroad was more of a reflection of how American tourists tend to behave, as opposed to a message on imperialism and western cultural superiority - not that i believe it HAS to be one way or the other. I believe that this difference in perspective is rooted in our seemingly polarized positions on the broader topics surrounding this issue (such as multicultural sensitivity and international relations).

    When it comes to this...

    "His responsibility is for the community, not his individual self. Others are the bottom-line rather than self-interest, although he has every right to cultivate his own individual creativity and visions, etc"

    I do not agree. That is, and probably always will be, a distinct point of contention between us. I believe there are too many assumptions and fallacies involved with that kind of thinking - as I have described during several of our conversations. It almost comes off to me as its own brand of imperialism of some sort... but again lol I digress.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oh... and please believe me when I say that I am not naive to the creative constraints inherent in writing for a blockbuster sequel. I am sure that King's vision was skewed to a certain degree by big business interests- a fact very likely connected to the relative decline in quality and depth you describe. The difference is, I believe that while it is true that this "pressure" constrained King's perspective, it did not completely replace it as you seem to suggest. I do believe that a lot of the movie is in line with the creative vision that he has labored to create over the years - these are HIS characters and for better or worse this is HIS story. Just because an artist does a piece as a request... it doesn't make it any less his. It doesn't make the paint on the canvas any less of an expression of himself and his creativity. It just has been channeled in this case... and is less free, but it is still there and still dominant.

    ReplyDelete
  19. To respond to your final point... Outside of the fact that I support the rights of the individual and I believe that shackling oneself to the world is limiting and restricting, I still disagree with your assertion. I think in theory that kind of thinking and action could be good and beneficial, but as I have argued before I believe that it is impossible to fully understand the needs of anyone outside of yourself - and possibly not even your own needs. Given this, effective community oriented thinking is impossible. It is inherently idealistic. Therefore it cannot be effectively applied.

    I would continue... but I believe that it will only spur conversation outside of this discussion and take away from the neat conclusion of this conversation that is slowly coming together...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Side Note: It is funny because it is apparent in my writing that this is slowly winding down to the isolation of a few key differences that prohibit agreement. With each response, I find myself trying to more carefully choose my words because its coming down to the finer points lol

    ReplyDelete
  21. hahaha! You two are too much! As usual, I would have to side with Chris on this issue.

    Chris articulated most of my feelings well.

    But a few points- If they are redundant, I am sorry.

    -Sara
    1. Chris, I was thinking the same question.
    What gives them the right to be there? In the movie it seams like such a loss that they have to leave, and that it is so terrible that the UAE wont open its arms to the overly and outwardly sexual Samantha. Well, get out. These spoiled girls have lost the concept that visiting a foreign country is a privilege, not a right, and if they don't like it, then they should go back to "the land of the free" which is what Carrie calls it in the end of the movie.

    2. Why was it that when the girls visited mexico in the first movie the country was MUCH less sexualized in comparison. In fact, in the Mexico trip they hardly left their rooms. Of course, I am sure there are several misrepresentations there as well. Why did the trip to the UAE have to be, as Chris so nicely put it, like a trip to the Zoo. The culture and religion of the UAE was stripped of meaning in the show. By showing such meaningful practices without practical explanation (such as the call to prayer) and then having each cultural moment be mutilated by the horny Samantha or gawked at by the interested Miranda. Not sure what is worse, blatant insensitivity or false interest.

    Wow, that was a long ramble when the whole point was

    If they had to travel to the UAE, why couldn't it be more like the trip to mexico?

    3. Ricky, I know you are going to disagree, but I think that the producer, directors, and actors in a movie have a responsibility to the community to correct blatant inaccuracies.

    At one point Miranda says some word, then says "thats how you say yes in arabic" NO ITS NOT! Flat out wrong! So, the script writer messed up... but why didn't any other person involved in the production fix that? Wouldn't you think that if you are doing a show with large amounts of arabic in it, you would have someone who speaks the language on set, just to make sure its alright.

    Honestly, it has been a while now since I have seen the movie, but I remember that there were more inaccuracies.

    ReplyDelete