May 30, 2008, - 2:25 pm

Would You Let Your Underage Daughter See Filthy “Sex & The City” Flick?

By Debbie Schlussel
If you have a daughter under the age of 17, and you have any sense of parenting, I hope you will read my review of the movie, “Sex and the City,” before deciding whether to let your daughter go see this trashy movie. No straight boys (or men) want to be caught dead at this flick, so I’m not addressing their parents.
The movie is filthy and disgusting and extremely explicit.
Unfortunately, Tim Warner Inc’s New Line Cinema–the studio that made this trash–is heavily marketing it to underaged girls. And it’s all the rage. Phony “wholesome” “Hannah Montana” star Miley Cyrus, of sexy-photos-with-Dad fame, is a huge fan, comparing it to her show marketed at young girls. That’s very sad, given the uber-racy and disgusting content of the movie. And that’s aside from it’s anti-male message.

sexandthecity2.jpg

More on the dilemma and on the sad appeal these four sleazy, middle-aged sluts have with young girls:

The season’s biggest female event is also generating buzz in a group that isn’t supposed to see it: girls under 17 years of age.
The situation — and the tricky marketing challenge it poses for Time Warner Inc.’s New Line Cinema — reflects the fact that a lot has changed for Carrie Bradshaw and her friends since the original HBO series had its finale in 2004. On HBO, the series was known for using bawdy sexuality and frank language to chronicle the night-crawling lifestyle of four Manhattan women.
But for the past few years, a sanitized version of the show has been in heavy rotation on Time Warner’s TBS network, and it has drawn the under-18 crowd, who now make up 10% of the audience. A new survey by the marketing consultant Intelligence Group indicates that “Sex and the City” is one of the most anticipated summer movies for teen girls, right up there with “Indiana Jones.” Miley Cyrus, the 15-year-old star of the Disney Channel series “Hannah Montana,” has called the show “her favorite” and compared the sexy series to her own show.
Teen girls are drawn to the show’s nonstop fashion parade, led by its star, who last year launched Bitten Sarah Jessica Parker, a budget clothing line that routinely sells dresses for less than $10 and appeals to teenagers. “I love Carrie’s style: the way she is confident and wears things that are crazy and doesn’t care,” says Rachel Nyberg, a 16-year-old from Minneapolis who plans to see “Sex and the City” as soon as it opens. . . .
The studio did, however, purchase ad time for “Sex and the City” on TV programs that turned out to have substantial teen audiences, including some in which more than 35% of the viewers are 17 or under, according to Nielsen Co. . . . The studio always recognized the potential of drawing a younger audience. . . .
[Director Michael Patrick] King says he deliberately crafted a story that would have multigenerational appeal. He added a 20-something character who plays Carrie Bradshaw’s assistant to appeal to younger viewers, he says. . . .
Mr. King — who invited his 16-year-old niece to the film’s New York premiere this week — notes that much of the marketing is built around adult brands like Mercedes-Benz and Skyy Vodka. “The reality is that most of the marketing is very grown-up, but that’s OK — it’s supposed to be aspirational,” he says. . . .
“Sixteen is the new 20,” adds Shelley Zalis, CEO of OTX, a consumer research firm that tracks film demographics. “Sixteen-year-olds want to see films with more adult subject matter.” . . .
Melissa Benjamin, a 16-year-old from Chappaqua, N.Y., says that her three best friends got advance tickets to see the movie Friday because they watched the show for hours in middle school. “We’d come home at 3:30 p.m. and watch until 9 o’clock on HBO on Demand,” she says. “We’d like to say which character we all thought we were most like. Secretly,” she confides, “I really relate to Carrie, but my other friend wanted to be Carrie.”

Guh-reat. They relate to a major ho in nicer clothing. I love how this movie is “supposed to be aspirational.” Aspirational to what–herpes incubation?
If you are a responsible parent, you will tell your young daughter she is above this trash and ask her to rent a better movie, instead.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly




11 Responses

And in the 1950s girls that age were reading Silas Marner & House of Seven Gables in school, and moves like A Man Called Peter were coming out. Unfortunately, the parents of these kids were born in the late 60s themselves, and went through all the garbage of the 70s & 80s. This is the third halfwit generation; it will take years to reverse all of this, even if we start now, which I don’t expect to happen.

c f on May 30, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Why is the winner of the Kentucky Derby, Brown Bag, doing on the movie poster?
I could be wrong, but I think this movie will be a one week hit only. Really, this series was always much more hype as it was only on HBO.
I think it’s just a bunch of generated buzz from Hollywood and the girly man media. It will be #1 for a week and quickly die off.
Really, I think as much as the media wishes, this movie has very limited appeal.

Jeff_W on May 30, 2008 at 3:30 pm

These cynical washed out losers will market anything to kids for the filthy lucre. They target them because they are the future audience. The trouble is that it’s difficult to convince a 16 year old..or younger..that this is empty trash. They actually want empty drivel because that’s all they know….they have been brainwashed by MTV et al into a hypnotised fascination with the trivial. TV poisons the mind and a rabbi once said that it’s like having an open sewer running through your living room.The men and women in suits who run these corporations are morally bankrupt worms who are ruining our civilistaion.

johndoe on May 30, 2008 at 3:44 pm

sounds like debbie is little pissed off that she wasnt invited to the red carpet like she was in rambo.this is the kind of movie you slip into the exits to watch for free. who wants to see a naked 60 year kim catrell anyway NOT ME!!!!!!!!!!!
[PNAM: ACTUALLY, THAT WAS "ROCKY BALBOA." AND FYI, FOR THIS, THEY HAD A PINK CARPET IN FRONT OF THE THEATER. NO LIE. DS]

PNAMARBLE on May 30, 2008 at 3:47 pm

You’re not alone, Debbie. Before you start thinking it makes you unpopular with the arts crowd, Lauren Hutton has come out and said the same thing you said in your review about the movie. And no – if I had a teen daughter, I wouldn’t want her to see it. She has more worth than she would ever get by shedding her clothes. And that’s not the way a woman wins the respect of a man in this world. Hutton said the following on the USA Today show:
“It’s written by guys, who happen to be gay, who are sluts. That’s what I think. Let’s face it most men are sluts.
“That’s what testosterone is supposed to do. As a hunter, if you stayed alive after 30, nature wanted your genes out there.
“Women were just trying to get the best sperm to make a masterpiece.
“You have a bunch a guys who are sluts, writing for women and telling them they are supposed to act like this.”
Amen! Women are not supposed to act like men. God made them different! But that’s so politically incorrect to say these days. At least there’s a celebrity, of whom I don’t really think much, who agreed with what Debbie Schlussel wrote about “Sex And The City.”

NormanF on May 30, 2008 at 5:02 pm

In my last post, I meant I don’t think much of celebrities in general. Most of them sound vapid to stupid to downright condescending and don’t have anything really intelligent to say most of the time.
Lauren Hutton is one of those rare exceptions who says something without insulting people’s intelligence. I applaud her for what she said about the movie.

NormanF on May 30, 2008 at 5:08 pm

“”Sixteen is the new 20,” adds Shelley Zalis, CEO of OTX, a consumer research firm that tracks film demographics.”
16 is the new 20! What the @#$%!!! So does that make 13 the new 18?! 10 the new 16?!
Perverts!
All the more reason to replace Hollywood. Even more of a reason for most parents to get a spine and stand up to pop culture!

bhparkman on May 30, 2008 at 8:42 pm

Debbie I swear I almost puked on my keyboard just now when I heard Miley Cyris in the same breath as sex and the city.
I guess if 8 is the new 2, then the death busters have won against us freedom fighters in this society.

Squirrel3D on May 31, 2008 at 12:14 am

well, Cassie and Jessica want to go to Sex in the City tomorrow night and so I asked me Mom and I can go.. so I will have to see how bad it is LOL…
I do value Debbie’s opinon tho.. so I will have to Persuade Jessica on some things…

PrincessKaren on May 31, 2008 at 12:36 am

I have been saying in various forums for years that the next logical step in “sexual liberation” is the legitimization of pedophilia. The “16 is the new 20″ comment is simply further proof of this.

DocLiberty on May 31, 2008 at 9:12 am

A close-up shot of a woman’s pubic hair sticking out of her bathing suit, and another woman defecating in her pants–THAT makes it sound interesting, but as you rant on, i realise it’s the Okrah Wingfry show…and like “Friends,” i can’t even watch the commercials for it!!!
As for whether or not i’d let MY daughter see this klan-krap, IF i wanted to introduce kids to Amerikkklan sexuality, i’d show them the Penthouse documentary “Caligula,” because THAT captures the essence of what y’all really up to:)

EminemsRevenge on May 31, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field