Dartmouth Cable does not include HBO. Thus, those of us in Hanover missed Carrie's last stroll down a New York street during the opening sequence of the last episode of "Sex and the City" Sunday night. We most likely did not miss, however, the whirlwind of publicity that heralded the end of the edgy cable sitcom. Television tributes, magazine covers, the front page of The New York Times' "Sunday styles" section -- PR that would make Samantha, the predatory publicist played by Kim Cattrall, thrill from the coiffed hairs on her head to the toes of her Manolo Blahniks.
Yet despite the show's lauded impact on our culture, all the fuss seems a little much. After all, the sitcom only aired for six years, and on a cable network that does not reach the majority of Americans. True, all the discussion of what will happen is certainly entertaining; most gossip is -- even if it is about fictional characters. And the show's stars -- Cattrall, Sarah Jessica Parker, Kristin Davis and Cynthia Nixon, are probably more likely to bring ratings to a talk show then, say, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, or even John Edwards and John Kerry. Although, with the recent accusations of sexual misconduct leveled against John Kerry, perhaps he might be as racy a choice as HBO's femme fatales.
The interviews, articles, photo shoots and fashion commentary can be quite riveting -- to the show's audience, at least. Just as the show's frank look at female sexuality proved to be fresh and trailblazing, the discussion of the show's openness can be unique. And "Sex and the City" did influence our culture, at least in superficial ways. It made the names of designers such as shoe maven Manolo Blahnik well-known, and started ubiquitous fashion trends such as flower lapel pins and cocktail rings. But it's difficult to be deep and profound in a thirty-second sound bite, or to analyze how Sarah Jessica Parker's Carrie Bradshaw fundamentally changed the way urban singles interact in a segment sandwiched between decorating tips and movie reviews on a talk show. I'm sure there will eventually be university classes with the same goal -- there are already popular courses on Harry Potter at other schools -- but that does not necessarily justify the current hype.
Those stories not examining the cultural significance of "Sex and the City" focus on its artistic merit, or lack thereof, and complicated plot lines. Did the show "jump the shark," or become unbelievable? Has the quality declined since this character got married or that one changed her hair? Do we love the show because we want to be single and fashionable in New York City? Or do we feel schadenfreude that we are not? The actresses are analyzed and their characters turned into archetypes. Sarah Jessica Parker is alternately reviled for killing the show, or praised for her innovation. The possible fates for the characters are examined in terms of what they mean in contemporary society. The plot lines are treated as if these characters are real, and their actions and fates are attributed a significance beyond the closing credits of the final episode. The protagonists of "Seinfeld" surely did not face this type of scrutiny. Then again, so much more can be said concerning a show about sex than concerning a show about nothing.
Ultimately, however, the media circus with its focus on what the show has meant as a whole misses the foundation of the show's attraction. People watch not because of a greater meaning but because the four main characters seem so alive. Their over-the-top clothes, outrageous sexual escapades and unbreakable friendship make for good entertainment. All this analysis is unnecessary overkill. If people really care that much about the fates of Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda, they can just watch the final episode. Except if they go to Dartmouth, of course. While our lack of HBO may be a good thing for our GPAs, it means that we will have to be content with reading the numerous articles and watching the dissections of the ending that have followed Carrie's goodbye.
