A New Purse-spective on SATC

I have held back until now from blogging about the Sex and the City movie. Mostly, I refrained, because I was not sure exactly what to say about it. Bottom line: Seeing the four leading ladies is enough for me to say “I loved it,” but the movie itself was not actually very good.

The acting was incredible. I expected it to be, and it surpassed my expectations. The issues and conflicts were relevant. I cried. (A lot.) I laughed. (A lot.)

The fashion was okay. It was not great, it was just okay, and Patricia Fields is not to blame for that. She had to balance the organic product placement (Manolo Blahnik) with the overabundance of artificial product placement (Bag, Borrow, or Steal). Considering the circumstances, she did the best anyone could. Patricia Fields is an artist, and they restrained her, gave her rules, and it showed!

The truth is the movie was bad because they turned it into a Spiderman. A Batman. Except instead of little Carrie action dolls in your McDonald’s happy meal, you got written-in plugs for Bag, Borrow, and Steal and H Stern. You got Samantha driving a Mercedes Bends. (Do you think that the whole reason she lived in LA was so they could have that one shot of her in the car make sense? Don’t kid yourself …its possible!) You got a belt on all four ladies in every shot, and you got a designer label dropped every six seconds.

I care a lot about product placement. It can make a brand huge. It worked for Manolo Blahnik. (It can work for you!) However, this is product placement gone sour. We will never know if the hit series really would translate to the silver screen, because that was not a real attempt.  It was a money-grabbing attempt from any big company willing to pay the big bucks. It was an auction off of camera time. It was ultimately a disappointment.