Wednesday, January 26, 2011
My Own Blog? Why, Thank You!
So, here I am, starting my very own blog. The posts preceding this one are all re-posts of entries I contributed to a site aimed at a Millennial audience last year. Since that venture either went belly-up or in a new direction, depending on whom you talk to, I thought it was time to take things into my own hands. Stay tuned for thoughts on, well, most anything! Until I've got something new to offer enjoy the recycled goodness below.
A Gleek Who Doesn't Like 'Glee'?
c. October 2010
I want to like Glee. I really do. In fact I should love Glee, be a diehard ‘Gleek’, if you will. As a former High School theater devotee and chorus member who loves musicals I’m part of the show’s target audience (the rest of the target being tween girls). So I tune in most weeks, but usually watching feels more like a chore than a treat. Watching the antics of The Breakfast Club version 2.0 characters has become something done by rote with the hope that this time will be different. More often than not, I am disappointed and after tuning in to the first two episodes of season 2 I’ve realized that I need to let it go. I just can’t help but feel like this show is practically made for me, so what’s the problem?
I have come to realize that my overarching aversion to the show is the very thing that should be the highlight: the singing. The standard argument against musicals, heard, primarily, from straight males, is that the singing is too random. “No one breaks out in song like that in real life.”, they argue. Well, true enough, but at least when a character breaks out in song during ‘Oklahoma!’ or ‘West Side Story’ said song compliments the plot and, importantly, sounds natural. It works because the action and progression of the plot don’t come to a grinding halt while a song is sung and, most likely, a dance is done. Instead the story continues and is furthered by the musical interlude.
On Glee it seems the exact opposite is true. Sure, every once in a while the musical selection is poignant or meaningful to the plot, but more often than not it isn’t. The performances are jarring speed bumps come upon at random intervals over the course of the hour. Worse, the show uses auto-tune like it’s going out of style, which, to my ear, in this application, makes the musical selections sound so fake and overproduced that I am not able to enjoy what should be the most enjoyable part of the show.
So, with a twinge of remorse, I’m erasing the Glee season pass from my TiVo. Sure, I’ll miss Sue Sylvester and Kristin Chenoweth’s boozy guest spots, but I can’t take another season of hollow, forced Glee. Besides, I’ll always be a ‘Gleek’ at heart.
I want to like Glee. I really do. In fact I should love Glee, be a diehard ‘Gleek’, if you will. As a former High School theater devotee and chorus member who loves musicals I’m part of the show’s target audience (the rest of the target being tween girls). So I tune in most weeks, but usually watching feels more like a chore than a treat. Watching the antics of The Breakfast Club version 2.0 characters has become something done by rote with the hope that this time will be different. More often than not, I am disappointed and after tuning in to the first two episodes of season 2 I’ve realized that I need to let it go. I just can’t help but feel like this show is practically made for me, so what’s the problem?I have come to realize that my overarching aversion to the show is the very thing that should be the highlight: the singing. The standard argument against musicals, heard, primarily, from straight males, is that the singing is too random. “No one breaks out in song like that in real life.”, they argue. Well, true enough, but at least when a character breaks out in song during ‘Oklahoma!’ or ‘West Side Story’ said song compliments the plot and, importantly, sounds natural. It works because the action and progression of the plot don’t come to a grinding halt while a song is sung and, most likely, a dance is done. Instead the story continues and is furthered by the musical interlude.
On Glee it seems the exact opposite is true. Sure, every once in a while the musical selection is poignant or meaningful to the plot, but more often than not it isn’t. The performances are jarring speed bumps come upon at random intervals over the course of the hour. Worse, the show uses auto-tune like it’s going out of style, which, to my ear, in this application, makes the musical selections sound so fake and overproduced that I am not able to enjoy what should be the most enjoyable part of the show.
So, with a twinge of remorse, I’m erasing the Glee season pass from my TiVo. Sure, I’ll miss Sue Sylvester and Kristin Chenoweth’s boozy guest spots, but I can’t take another season of hollow, forced Glee. Besides, I’ll always be a ‘Gleek’ at heart.
Desperately Seeking Employment
c. August 2010
Reading the business section of the newspaper is enough to depress anyone these days. If you happen to be looking for a job, you may want to avoid it altogether to avoid the urge to go back to bed and hide. If you do look, you’ll see that nearly 15 million Americans are out of work, job growth is weak and no one knows when things will truly get better.
If you’re a Millennial, the news is even worse. Unemployment rates among 18 to 29-year-olds is near 20 percent, a high not seen for three decades. Our generation is graduating from college and entering the workforce with lots of debt, few prospects and loads of competition. An unjust reputation for being spoiled, coddled and lazy sure doesn’t help, either.
Some have searched for years for a steady job and now researchers are concerned about the implications, both financial and social, of prolonged unemployment for an entire generation. So what’s a job seeker to do?
First, align expectations with reality. A recent NYT article reported that 41 percent of recent college graduates have turned down a job offer. Reactions of shock and horror abound, but if you’re fortunate enough afford to be jobless then you can, and should, be choosy. I have been through two looooong periods of joblessness and have turned down jobs each time. Luckily, I was able to decline a sure-to-be soul-crushing gig.
However, you may need to bite the bullet and take a job that doesn’t thrill you. Whether that means waiting tables, folding sweaters or taking an entry-level job, you need to support yourself and gain some independence. No one wants to exhaust the good graces of others or get into a pile of debt they don’t have the means to repay. Plus, once you’re in that job you weren’t so thrilled about, you never know what opportunities may arise.
If you’re truly better than that entry-level position you can use it as a platform to shine and make your supervisors see you’re capable of handling a bigger position and you can always keep looking for a better fit on the QT.
Second, treat your job search like a job. Be methodical and devote adequate time to the search. It sounds corny, but make job search ‘office hours’ for yourself. It is easy to be distracted by Facebook, cleaning, trips to Target, laundry and repeats of the “Kardashians.” Putting a little structure around the process makes all the difference.
Third, think outside the box. One great way is to look for job postings with companies you like. Love your local museum? It may have a job opening that’s just right for you. Enjoy kayaking and spending time outdoors? There may be a great eco-tour company that would snap you right up.
Fourth, and finally, sell yourself. Take time to craft a cover letter that’s specific to the job. If you have a personal connection to the organization, that always helps. It can be something as simple as enjoying a product made by the company or as substantial as having interned with the organization.
Once you secure an interview, make the most of the opportunity. Dress appropriately, have a firm handshake (seriously, the floppy wrist is a proven non-starter), be prepared to answer common interview questions and be friendly and enthusiastic. No one wants to hire a wet blanket. Also, be sure to send a paper ‘thank you’ note. People love that.
Now, as I embark on my third post-grad job hunt, let’s see if I can follow my own advice…
Have you been looking for a job? Have you had success in finding one?
Reading the business section of the newspaper is enough to depress anyone these days. If you happen to be looking for a job, you may want to avoid it altogether to avoid the urge to go back to bed and hide. If you do look, you’ll see that nearly 15 million Americans are out of work, job growth is weak and no one knows when things will truly get better.
If you’re a Millennial, the news is even worse. Unemployment rates among 18 to 29-year-olds is near 20 percent, a high not seen for three decades. Our generation is graduating from college and entering the workforce with lots of debt, few prospects and loads of competition. An unjust reputation for being spoiled, coddled and lazy sure doesn’t help, either.
Some have searched for years for a steady job and now researchers are concerned about the implications, both financial and social, of prolonged unemployment for an entire generation. So what’s a job seeker to do?
First, align expectations with reality. A recent NYT article reported that 41 percent of recent college graduates have turned down a job offer. Reactions of shock and horror abound, but if you’re fortunate enough afford to be jobless then you can, and should, be choosy. I have been through two looooong periods of joblessness and have turned down jobs each time. Luckily, I was able to decline a sure-to-be soul-crushing gig.
However, you may need to bite the bullet and take a job that doesn’t thrill you. Whether that means waiting tables, folding sweaters or taking an entry-level job, you need to support yourself and gain some independence. No one wants to exhaust the good graces of others or get into a pile of debt they don’t have the means to repay. Plus, once you’re in that job you weren’t so thrilled about, you never know what opportunities may arise.
If you’re truly better than that entry-level position you can use it as a platform to shine and make your supervisors see you’re capable of handling a bigger position and you can always keep looking for a better fit on the QT.
Second, treat your job search like a job. Be methodical and devote adequate time to the search. It sounds corny, but make job search ‘office hours’ for yourself. It is easy to be distracted by Facebook, cleaning, trips to Target, laundry and repeats of the “Kardashians.” Putting a little structure around the process makes all the difference.
Third, think outside the box. One great way is to look for job postings with companies you like. Love your local museum? It may have a job opening that’s just right for you. Enjoy kayaking and spending time outdoors? There may be a great eco-tour company that would snap you right up.
Fourth, and finally, sell yourself. Take time to craft a cover letter that’s specific to the job. If you have a personal connection to the organization, that always helps. It can be something as simple as enjoying a product made by the company or as substantial as having interned with the organization.
Once you secure an interview, make the most of the opportunity. Dress appropriately, have a firm handshake (seriously, the floppy wrist is a proven non-starter), be prepared to answer common interview questions and be friendly and enthusiastic. No one wants to hire a wet blanket. Also, be sure to send a paper ‘thank you’ note. People love that.
Now, as I embark on my third post-grad job hunt, let’s see if I can follow my own advice…
Have you been looking for a job? Have you had success in finding one?
Life After Sports
c. July 2010
Thursday night, LeBron James will share his future NBA plans with the world in a one-hour ESPN special at 9 pm. The announcement can’t come soon enough for the countless people who have spent untold hours speculating on his future. It seems that everyone from President Obama to Betty White to T.I. has weighed in on the situation (personally, I’d love to know what Paul the Octopus predicts). There’s a lot on the line for LeBron, the team he chooses and, by extension, its fans.
America is a sports-loving country and even non-sports fans pay attention to stories that involve lots of talent, money and potential. Unending media coverage and endorsement deals make big stars hard to miss, but while we’re focused on today’s superstars, why don’t we worry more about the players of yesterday?
I’m talking about the guys who don’t end up in the Hall of Fame and never had contracts that rival a small country’s GDP. It isn’t unheard of for great players who earned substantial money in the pros to fall on hard times.
The Boston Globe recently profiled a former Celtics player who now lives out of his car. Ray Williams gave the NBA the best years of his life and was well compensated for his contributions to professional basketball, but he became a lost soul when he left the hardwood. No one prepared Williams and others like him for the reality of life as an average guy. No job training. No financial literacy courses.
There are organizations that help former pro-athletes through tough times, although to be fair it sounds like Williams has exhausted their good graces. I’m not saying that professional athletes deserve more of a helping hand because they have excelled in a sport. Some players leave the pros primed for success in another field or have managed their money well enough that they don’t have to work again.
Ray Williams living in his car, however, makes me think that teams and leagues should devote more resources to prepare athletes for life off the playing field.
Former NFL coach and NASCAR powerhouse Joe Gibbs recently coordinated a financial education seminar for Washington Redskins players and veterans. In 2009 Sports Illustrated reported that a stunning 78 percent of NFL players are overwhelmed by financial woes or succumb to bankruptcy just two years after leaving the league. If Gibbs and other leaders within the sports community would advise players in a range of professional sports, they’d be doing a terrific service.
Let’s face it – no professional sports team drafts a player for his business savvy. A team wants someone who knows the sport and can play it well. While being a pro athlete is a dream for many young athletes, it has a limited lifespan. An injury can take a player out of the game permanently and bodies can only perform at a high level for so long.
Many players carry their success forward, becoming coaches, entrepreneurs, commentators, or police officers. Those are all worthy second careers. I think everyone can agree that making it to the pros is an achievement that should not be diminished in retirement.
Do you think professional sports leagues and associations should provide more guidance about life after sports? Do you think the burden falls more on the athlete to manage his/her finances?
Thursday night, LeBron James will share his future NBA plans with the world in a one-hour ESPN special at 9 pm. The announcement can’t come soon enough for the countless people who have spent untold hours speculating on his future. It seems that everyone from President Obama to Betty White to T.I. has weighed in on the situation (personally, I’d love to know what Paul the Octopus predicts). There’s a lot on the line for LeBron, the team he chooses and, by extension, its fans.
America is a sports-loving country and even non-sports fans pay attention to stories that involve lots of talent, money and potential. Unending media coverage and endorsement deals make big stars hard to miss, but while we’re focused on today’s superstars, why don’t we worry more about the players of yesterday?
I’m talking about the guys who don’t end up in the Hall of Fame and never had contracts that rival a small country’s GDP. It isn’t unheard of for great players who earned substantial money in the pros to fall on hard times.
The Boston Globe recently profiled a former Celtics player who now lives out of his car. Ray Williams gave the NBA the best years of his life and was well compensated for his contributions to professional basketball, but he became a lost soul when he left the hardwood. No one prepared Williams and others like him for the reality of life as an average guy. No job training. No financial literacy courses.
There are organizations that help former pro-athletes through tough times, although to be fair it sounds like Williams has exhausted their good graces. I’m not saying that professional athletes deserve more of a helping hand because they have excelled in a sport. Some players leave the pros primed for success in another field or have managed their money well enough that they don’t have to work again.
Ray Williams living in his car, however, makes me think that teams and leagues should devote more resources to prepare athletes for life off the playing field.
Former NFL coach and NASCAR powerhouse Joe Gibbs recently coordinated a financial education seminar for Washington Redskins players and veterans. In 2009 Sports Illustrated reported that a stunning 78 percent of NFL players are overwhelmed by financial woes or succumb to bankruptcy just two years after leaving the league. If Gibbs and other leaders within the sports community would advise players in a range of professional sports, they’d be doing a terrific service.
Let’s face it – no professional sports team drafts a player for his business savvy. A team wants someone who knows the sport and can play it well. While being a pro athlete is a dream for many young athletes, it has a limited lifespan. An injury can take a player out of the game permanently and bodies can only perform at a high level for so long.
Many players carry their success forward, becoming coaches, entrepreneurs, commentators, or police officers. Those are all worthy second careers. I think everyone can agree that making it to the pros is an achievement that should not be diminished in retirement.
Do you think professional sports leagues and associations should provide more guidance about life after sports? Do you think the burden falls more on the athlete to manage his/her finances?
Don't Get Burned
c. June 2010
There are lots of signs that herald the arrival of summer. Floral blossoms turn into blooms, bathing suits appear in store windows, summer seasonal brews hit the pubs, and every woman’s magazine on the newsstand has a feature on skin cancer.
There’s good reason for concern. Cases of skin cancer are on the rise in the US and a growing number of doctors say that tanning can be addictive as drugs, alcohol or cigarettes. Tanning beds and booths are especially concerning to dermatologists.
A recent study showed that anyone who has ever used a tanning bed is 74 percent more likely to end up with melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.
Over the past two decades the indoor tanning business has exploded into a billion dollar industry. During the same period skin cancer has become the most common form of cancer for 25-29 year olds.
“I’m just going to get a base tan” has become our generation’s “I can stop smoking whenever I want”. Many people don’t want to hear it, but the reality is there is no such thing as a ‘safe tan’. Any darkening of skin tone is an indicator that damage has been done to your skin.
Tanning beds and booths are particularly damaging. If you need further proof, last year a group of international scientists determined that tanning beds are carcinogenic. That puts them in the same category as asbestos, tobacco and arsenic.
Owners of tanning salons, as you can imagine, are upset by that study and others like it. The negative reports are also taking a toll on their bottom line. The health care bill passed in March includes a provision that mandates a 10 percent tax on sessions involving ultraviolet rays effective July 1st.
So-called ‘sin taxes’ are already levied on alcohol and tobacco in most states (some at higher rates than others), and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation projects the tax will raise $2.7 billion over 10 years.
Worship of the actual sun, rather than a glowing tanning bed, isn’t 100 percent safe, but, like alcohol, sun exposure brings health benefits along with the potential risks. The key, as with oh so many things in life, is moderation.
So while it’s probably fine to walk the dog without sunscreen a few times a week, you probably shouldn’t go lay on the beach from 10 am ‘til 2 pm with just a thin coat of 8 SPF.
As someone with fair skin, a family history of skin cancer and bad sunburns in my past I know I need to be careful. My approach to fun in the summer sun includes lots of SPF, scheduling an annual visit to the dermatologist for a ‘spot check’ and trying to worry just enough–but not too much–about the skin cancer horror stories in last month’s Glamour.
Do you worry about too much sun exposure but can’t stop using tanning beds? What’s your go-to SPF?
There are lots of signs that herald the arrival of summer. Floral blossoms turn into blooms, bathing suits appear in store windows, summer seasonal brews hit the pubs, and every woman’s magazine on the newsstand has a feature on skin cancer.
There’s good reason for concern. Cases of skin cancer are on the rise in the US and a growing number of doctors say that tanning can be addictive as drugs, alcohol or cigarettes. Tanning beds and booths are especially concerning to dermatologists.
A recent study showed that anyone who has ever used a tanning bed is 74 percent more likely to end up with melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.
Over the past two decades the indoor tanning business has exploded into a billion dollar industry. During the same period skin cancer has become the most common form of cancer for 25-29 year olds.
“I’m just going to get a base tan” has become our generation’s “I can stop smoking whenever I want”. Many people don’t want to hear it, but the reality is there is no such thing as a ‘safe tan’. Any darkening of skin tone is an indicator that damage has been done to your skin.
Tanning beds and booths are particularly damaging. If you need further proof, last year a group of international scientists determined that tanning beds are carcinogenic. That puts them in the same category as asbestos, tobacco and arsenic.
Owners of tanning salons, as you can imagine, are upset by that study and others like it. The negative reports are also taking a toll on their bottom line. The health care bill passed in March includes a provision that mandates a 10 percent tax on sessions involving ultraviolet rays effective July 1st.
So-called ‘sin taxes’ are already levied on alcohol and tobacco in most states (some at higher rates than others), and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation projects the tax will raise $2.7 billion over 10 years.
Worship of the actual sun, rather than a glowing tanning bed, isn’t 100 percent safe, but, like alcohol, sun exposure brings health benefits along with the potential risks. The key, as with oh so many things in life, is moderation.
So while it’s probably fine to walk the dog without sunscreen a few times a week, you probably shouldn’t go lay on the beach from 10 am ‘til 2 pm with just a thin coat of 8 SPF.
As someone with fair skin, a family history of skin cancer and bad sunburns in my past I know I need to be careful. My approach to fun in the summer sun includes lots of SPF, scheduling an annual visit to the dermatologist for a ‘spot check’ and trying to worry just enough–but not too much–about the skin cancer horror stories in last month’s Glamour.
Do you worry about too much sun exposure but can’t stop using tanning beds? What’s your go-to SPF?
Un-reality TV
c. June 2010
My approach to ‘bad TV’ is similar to my approach to dietary indulgences. Every now and then, I treat myself to a small taste so I don’t feel deprived and binge. That means I’ll stop at Chick-Fil-A for an original crispy sandwich once every month and a half or so and, in that same vein, I devote about one hour a week to some trashy TV.
We all have our guilty pleasures when it comes to TV; shows we’ll talk about with our friends but wouldn’t bring up while having lunch with the boss.
Such indulgences could include Desperate Housewives, The Real Housewives of New Jersey, Jersey Shore, anything featuring Pauly Shore. . . but with some guilty pleasures, especially those in the genre of reality TV, the pleasure can come to an abrupt end and leave us with guilt alone.
If you wonder where sexting came from, why some kids are such bullies that their victims escape the torment with suicide or how in the world a thirteen-year-old even knew the C-word, look no further than reality TV.
There are plenty of bad apples in the bunch (and good ones too), but let’s look at The Real Housewives of New Jersey. The show, a voyeuristic escapade at best, is one that I got sucked into and, for the most part, have not felt too guilty about watching. Recently, the show has devolved into a chronicle of apparent mental illness, bad behavior and bullying.
One ‘wife’ has a sex tape out, another faces bankruptcy and they all use language that could make a sailor blush as they rehash petty slights to grow mountains where there wasn’t even a molehill.
Believe me when I say I don’t think these shows are intended to provide role models. I’m not naïve enough to think they’re actually real. I do, however, think it’s gross and depressing that a show centering on family, even in the most superficial way, has devolved into such a hot mess.
Do I think the housewives, or reality TV in general, are to blame for all of society’s ills? Of course not, but it certainly isn’t helping. Like all train wrecks, The Real Housewives series may be hard to avoid, but I’m canceling my season pass.
Have you been turned off by a guilty TV pleasure you formerly enjoyed? Any suggestions for a replacement guilty pleasure to fill the void in my DVR? Preferably something that won’t make me want to shower after watching…
My approach to ‘bad TV’ is similar to my approach to dietary indulgences. Every now and then, I treat myself to a small taste so I don’t feel deprived and binge. That means I’ll stop at Chick-Fil-A for an original crispy sandwich once every month and a half or so and, in that same vein, I devote about one hour a week to some trashy TV.
We all have our guilty pleasures when it comes to TV; shows we’ll talk about with our friends but wouldn’t bring up while having lunch with the boss.
Such indulgences could include Desperate Housewives, The Real Housewives of New Jersey, Jersey Shore, anything featuring Pauly Shore. . . but with some guilty pleasures, especially those in the genre of reality TV, the pleasure can come to an abrupt end and leave us with guilt alone.
If you wonder where sexting came from, why some kids are such bullies that their victims escape the torment with suicide or how in the world a thirteen-year-old even knew the C-word, look no further than reality TV.
There are plenty of bad apples in the bunch (and good ones too), but let’s look at The Real Housewives of New Jersey. The show, a voyeuristic escapade at best, is one that I got sucked into and, for the most part, have not felt too guilty about watching. Recently, the show has devolved into a chronicle of apparent mental illness, bad behavior and bullying.
One ‘wife’ has a sex tape out, another faces bankruptcy and they all use language that could make a sailor blush as they rehash petty slights to grow mountains where there wasn’t even a molehill.Believe me when I say I don’t think these shows are intended to provide role models. I’m not naïve enough to think they’re actually real. I do, however, think it’s gross and depressing that a show centering on family, even in the most superficial way, has devolved into such a hot mess.
Do I think the housewives, or reality TV in general, are to blame for all of society’s ills? Of course not, but it certainly isn’t helping. Like all train wrecks, The Real Housewives series may be hard to avoid, but I’m canceling my season pass.
Have you been turned off by a guilty TV pleasure you formerly enjoyed? Any suggestions for a replacement guilty pleasure to fill the void in my DVR? Preferably something that won’t make me want to shower after watching…
The Girls Are Back in Town
c. June 2010
When I was newly married, I moved thousands of miles away from my family and friends with my new spouse. My husband was in the military and would frequently be gone for weeks at a time. Nights — when I found myself alone in my new city — could be isolating.
When I found myself feeling a bit homesick and craving a night out with my friends I knew what would make me feel better – spending the night with the girls: Carrie, Charlotte, Miranda and Samantha.
My initial affection for the girls of “Sex and the City” blossomed after I graduated from college and moved in with my dad and stepmom. My stepmom was already a devoted fan and we bonded through discussions of the drama and fun of the series and by talking about the fashion, a shared love.
The fashion in the show was enough to draw anyone with even a passing interest in the sartorial. Carrie’s style choices were mesmerizing and bold; the character had a fearless approach to getting dressed that was inspiring even when she hit an off note (anyone else remember the scene in which she rocked a fanny pack?).
However good the clothes, shoes and bags may have been (and they were fabulous) they weren’t enough to captivate an audience on their own. “Sex and the City” was a hit with generations of women because of the relatable characters and their relationship with one another.
Even though the girls are decades older than I am (my mom is actually younger than Samantha) I, like many women, find elements of each of their personalities easy to relate to. Carrie and I both enjoy writing, I share Charlotte’s love of tradition, can relate to Miranda’s skeptical nature, and I also admire Samantha’s fierce devotion to her girlfriends.
Most appealing of all, though, is the friendship and bond these four women share. I came to love the show at a time when my life was in flux and my dearest friends and I were embarking on futures that would scatter us across the country. The four women taking New York by storm have served as a model for the friendships I hope to nourish, sustain and enjoy through the triumphs and challenges of my own life.
The four Cosmo-sipping women are a family unto themselves, and the idea of creating a family of choice is one that appeals to our generation.
Our notion of family has changed and evolved in America to the point where we routinely consider anyone we love to be family, regardless of whether we’re related by blood or marriage (Lord knows it can sometimes be a challenge to love the people we do share blood with).
When you stop and think about it, the “Sex and the City” gals are a younger, better dressed version of “The Golden Girls” or a chicer, urban version of “Designing Women,” earlier quartets of TV women who helped redefine our definition of family, feminism and friendship.
Given my affection for the girls, I was sorry to see the series end … and thrilled when the first movie debuted. But a week after seeing it, I still haven’t decided if I liked “Sex and the City 2″ or not. I went with low expectations for the plot and was ready for lots of over-the-top camp — that’s about what I got so I wasn’t terribly disappointed.
Some of the scenes are so lavish and over-the-top they’re worth the price of admission on their own (I laughed so hard I was almost crying at the scene featuring Liza). Plus, between the clothes and the sets, it is a visually stunning movie.
There were definitely disappointments – some of the dialogue, especially in the opening scenes, sounded forced and the plot relies on lame stereotypes for laughs, especially in the Middle East scenes.
Ultimately, though, I still enjoyed seeing the girls together again.
Since I’m torn, I think a second screening is in order. Regardless of where I land on my opinion of this movie, I’m confident I’ll ultimately be singing the same tune as Megan Molnar, and hoping for a third movie.
If I’ve learned nothing else from the girls, I have learned that more is more.
Has “Sex and the City” been a part of your life? How so? Do you relate to the characters like I do, and were you happy to see them come back in “Sex and the City 2?”
When I was newly married, I moved thousands of miles away from my family and friends with my new spouse. My husband was in the military and would frequently be gone for weeks at a time. Nights — when I found myself alone in my new city — could be isolating.
When I found myself feeling a bit homesick and craving a night out with my friends I knew what would make me feel better – spending the night with the girls: Carrie, Charlotte, Miranda and Samantha.
My initial affection for the girls of “Sex and the City” blossomed after I graduated from college and moved in with my dad and stepmom. My stepmom was already a devoted fan and we bonded through discussions of the drama and fun of the series and by talking about the fashion, a shared love.
The fashion in the show was enough to draw anyone with even a passing interest in the sartorial. Carrie’s style choices were mesmerizing and bold; the character had a fearless approach to getting dressed that was inspiring even when she hit an off note (anyone else remember the scene in which she rocked a fanny pack?).
However good the clothes, shoes and bags may have been (and they were fabulous) they weren’t enough to captivate an audience on their own. “Sex and the City” was a hit with generations of women because of the relatable characters and their relationship with one another.
Even though the girls are decades older than I am (my mom is actually younger than Samantha) I, like many women, find elements of each of their personalities easy to relate to. Carrie and I both enjoy writing, I share Charlotte’s love of tradition, can relate to Miranda’s skeptical nature, and I also admire Samantha’s fierce devotion to her girlfriends.
Most appealing of all, though, is the friendship and bond these four women share. I came to love the show at a time when my life was in flux and my dearest friends and I were embarking on futures that would scatter us across the country. The four women taking New York by storm have served as a model for the friendships I hope to nourish, sustain and enjoy through the triumphs and challenges of my own life.
The four Cosmo-sipping women are a family unto themselves, and the idea of creating a family of choice is one that appeals to our generation.
Our notion of family has changed and evolved in America to the point where we routinely consider anyone we love to be family, regardless of whether we’re related by blood or marriage (Lord knows it can sometimes be a challenge to love the people we do share blood with).
When you stop and think about it, the “Sex and the City” gals are a younger, better dressed version of “The Golden Girls” or a chicer, urban version of “Designing Women,” earlier quartets of TV women who helped redefine our definition of family, feminism and friendship.
Given my affection for the girls, I was sorry to see the series end … and thrilled when the first movie debuted. But a week after seeing it, I still haven’t decided if I liked “Sex and the City 2″ or not. I went with low expectations for the plot and was ready for lots of over-the-top camp — that’s about what I got so I wasn’t terribly disappointed.
Some of the scenes are so lavish and over-the-top they’re worth the price of admission on their own (I laughed so hard I was almost crying at the scene featuring Liza). Plus, between the clothes and the sets, it is a visually stunning movie.
There were definitely disappointments – some of the dialogue, especially in the opening scenes, sounded forced and the plot relies on lame stereotypes for laughs, especially in the Middle East scenes.
Ultimately, though, I still enjoyed seeing the girls together again.
Since I’m torn, I think a second screening is in order. Regardless of where I land on my opinion of this movie, I’m confident I’ll ultimately be singing the same tune as Megan Molnar, and hoping for a third movie.
If I’ve learned nothing else from the girls, I have learned that more is more.
Has “Sex and the City” been a part of your life? How so? Do you relate to the characters like I do, and were you happy to see them come back in “Sex and the City 2?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)