And I can’t help but wonder: What would the show look like without that finale? What if it were the story of a woman who lost herself in her thirties, who was changed by a poisonous, powerful love affair, and who emerged, finally, surrounded by her friends? Who would Carrie be then? It’s an interesting question, one that shouldn’t erase the show’s powerful legacy. We’ll just have to wait for another show to answer it.
I started re-watching Sex and the City because of this article and couldn’t believe how “on it” they were! When i watched it the first time, I really really didn’t understand how they felt.
I don’t think i’ll launch into season 7, though, since a happy ending seems not really in my cards.
Hi bitterbabe! Long time… but thanks for still writing!
Good to “hear” from you again!
Hi — It’s easy to dismiss that show as nothing but an homage to Cosmopolitans and Blahniks, but I would have to agree with the author of that article that it was a dead-on depiction of a very real, albeit narrow, “slice” of Manhattan. (Update the above references to “gin martinis” and “Louboutins” and not much has changed in the last decade.) While SATC was easy on the eye and often funny, almost every episode had a pithy and usually unpalatable truth at its center.
The only part that wasn’t true-to-life was the rescue-by-Prince-Not-So-Charming “happy” ending, although I understand why it had to be so from a ratings perspective. The braver and more realistic ending would have been Carrie ending up alone, independent, with a “family” of her friends. Or, as my own circle of friends and I call ourselves: “No Sex and the City.”