Why Sex and the City still sucks me in…

May 30, 2008

Considering the storylines of Sex and The City, perhaps “sucks” should never be in a headline describing the upcoming movie. Or perhaps it’s oddly appropriate.

Either way, the headline stands. I’m a cliché of a girl who purchased an advance ticket for the SATC premiere. I’m meeting gal pals (friends and frenemies per Carrie Bradshaw) for cosmos. I *may* wear an oversized flower. And don’t count out the possibility of some faux Manolos.

I’ve read countless pieces deriding this movie as being analogous to comfort food, detrimental to the psyche of the average women, overhyped fluff, etc. It may be all of the above, but I don’t regret snagging my ticket and planning a night out.

I could make a case that this movie represents four strong women whose types are not often seen on the big screen. I could argue that this film takes a strong stance for maturing women as the fab four are in their 40s and 50s.

But, quite truthfully, the reason I’ll be waiting in line tonight is Miranda Hobbes.

In a glitzy show focused on a columnist with a penchant for fashion, a Park Avenue princess (my apologies to Charlotte fans for the simplification) and a man-eating publicist, the creators of the show thought to add a character who couldn’t quite manage fashion nor a relationship, but excelled at her career.

Not a man-hater nor a sharp-tongued shrew, Miranda’s character was a developed professional female role – something sorely lacking in today’s entertainment landscape.

Thus after imbibing a few pink drinks, I’ll critique Carrie’s fashion, love the banter between Samantha and Charlotte and enjoy the NYC scenery. But most of all, I’ll wistfully hope for more well-developed characters like Miranda.