via Mighty Girl, who has this wondrous blog the linking function of which confuses me not a little:
Anyway, I know that Sex and the City occurs inside that milieu, the Vows milieu, where people attend things, like weddings, operas, and charity benefits, and are served by attendants, who take their keys and coats. I assume that the dialogue on the show is snappy, written by snappy-dialogue professionals, shot with lots of quick edits and good camera work. But I prefer to imagine the show as a black-box play from the 1970s with Beckettian overtones, three women on an empty stage, looking at the audience, speaking in monotones:
1: I doubt I am fecund.
2: I have eaten so little.
3: Where are the men?
1: There are no men.
2: I will pay a woman $40 to caress and decorate my toes with varnish. I will wear shoes that cost more than the weekly wages of a restaurant worker, with tips.
3: What kind of tips?
2: Not on the shoes, for the restaurant workers.
1: I am hungry. I will not marry.
2: Talk about the shoes.
3: The shoes!
Unison: Shoes.
The theme of the show, I understand, is the search for love, love gained and lost, and the means of attaining your ends is consumption: what must I buy, how must I look, what must I become in order to find the community and love for which I yearn? Love is nirvana, a good match is the unattainable goal, the choice of handbag a meditation towards a particular enlightenment.
It's by Paul Ford, one of the fine strange people who write for FTrain, which, you know, I live on [the route of], but he's at the other end in Brooklyn.
Anyway, I know that Sex and the City occurs inside that milieu, the Vows milieu, where people attend things, like weddings, operas, and charity benefits, and are served by attendants, who take their keys and coats. I assume that the dialogue on the show is snappy, written by snappy-dialogue professionals, shot with lots of quick edits and good camera work. But I prefer to imagine the show as a black-box play from the 1970s with Beckettian overtones, three women on an empty stage, looking at the audience, speaking in monotones:
1: I doubt I am fecund.
2: I have eaten so little.
3: Where are the men?
1: There are no men.
2: I will pay a woman $40 to caress and decorate my toes with varnish. I will wear shoes that cost more than the weekly wages of a restaurant worker, with tips.
3: What kind of tips?
2: Not on the shoes, for the restaurant workers.
1: I am hungry. I will not marry.
2: Talk about the shoes.
3: The shoes!
Unison: Shoes.
The theme of the show, I understand, is the search for love, love gained and lost, and the means of attaining your ends is consumption: what must I buy, how must I look, what must I become in order to find the community and love for which I yearn? Love is nirvana, a good match is the unattainable goal, the choice of handbag a meditation towards a particular enlightenment.
It's by Paul Ford, one of the fine strange people who write for FTrain, which, you know, I live on [the route of], but he's at the other end in Brooklyn.