Your Prejudice is Showing

Remember when Sex and the City 2 came out, and everyone screamed that it was racist because it showed the citizens of Abu Dhabi in a "bad light"? It was full of "stereotypes" such as women wearing niqabs, and men who disapprove of slutty Americans committing lewd acts in public.

Just as well they didn't go to Saudi Arabia; they'd have 
been driving cars or something. Outrageous!

Of course, calling these depictions of Arabian people "negative" means that actually, you're the one who's racist. Saying that the film is guilty of "characterizing Arab men as religious zealots" assumes that in non-movie reality, citizens of Abu Dhabi are just as liberal as we are. (Apparently it never occurs to us egocentric Westerners that they might be perfectly happy to be portrayed as being strict adherents to Muslim law, and what we call "Islamaphobic stereotyping" might be their idea of a great example for us to follow.)

I can't help thinking that a similar mindset fuelled the rabid mouth-frothing criticism of Benefits Street, which lit up the tabloids as well as the TV schedule with its portrayal of a Birmingham community where work is scarce. People complained that the residents of the street were filmed in an unflattering way, called the show poverty porn and signed a petition to ban any more episodes being shown. If you think Benefits Street was "insulting" to low-income families, then maybe you're the one who's being snobby. An alternative perspective is that it showed a heart-warming sense of community in James Turner Street, as well as the helplessness of people who are desperate to work but just can't catch a break, and the bleakness of life when you're dependent on handouts.

One of the most memorable characters was Fungi, an oddly lovable ex-drug addict and current alcoholic who fitted neatly into the stereotypical "homeless guy" look, which helped when he was scamming the public with fake Big Issues. As well as nicking anything that wasn't nailed down, he lived off odd jobs given to him by his neighbours. Although he's since called White Dee "two faced" they appeared close on the show; she accompanied him to his scary hospital appointment as well as providing comedy gold when she asked him about his first crime. (Armed robbery. Where? McDonalds.)

When his fresh-out-of-prison friend Danny got arrested, Fungi's little face was so sad it was like watching Lady and the Tramp when Lady gets nabbed by the pound.

One thing that passed almost without comment was Fungi's admission that he's been on Diazepan since he was 16 because of childhood abuse. (It later emerged that he'd been raped.) White Dee also mentioned being on anti-depressants, although in the follow-up discussion show Benefits Britain: The Debate, Daily Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson pointed out that Dee's energetic, take-charge attitude was at odds with someone claiming to be clinically depressed. Unlike Fungi, Dee could easily find a job if she wanted one. But you could also argue that taking care of everyone else's appointments, translating government communication and acting as mediator between feuding mothers was a full-time job in itself.

She wasn't the only busy bee on the street; you could see that Fungi and Danny considered shoplifting a legitimate day's work. Morals don't come into it – in their world, stealing is just something you have to do to survive. Meanwhile Smoggy showed his entrepreneurial spirit by buying drinks and cleaning products and then distributing the contents across little paper cups to sell for 50p a pop. It was an encouraging reminder that people actually want to earn a crust. As Dostoyevsky said:"Deprived of meaningful work, men and women lose their reason for existence; they go stark, raving mad."

And that's why I find it so irritating when people accuse the show of being anti-benefits propaganda. Arguing that "it's probably all staged / they've edited it to show the worst bits / most people on benefits are either disabled or pensioners..." is denying the truth: that this depressing, hand-to-mouth existence is the reality for some unfortunate people. And it's for their sake, not the taxpayers', that we need to change the way jobseekers are treated.

The government doesn't care if you're wasting your life away in a routine of Jeremy Kyle marathons and junk food. As long as levels of unemployment don't rise above a certain threshold, it's not their problem. In the "debate" Richard Bacon asked if anyone thought it looked fun to be on benefits – obviously expecting the answer to be no, although Dee jumped in with "Of course they will!". It was a "Shall I tell her or will you?" moment – living on benefits looks GRIM. I have no idea why people get all indignant at the idea of anyone "sponging" – do they imagine that a life of playing computer games while drinking lager and chain-smoking is a wonderful, joyful existence?

Whether you're a pop singer or a postman, human beings find satisfaction in knowing that they're making a contribution to the world – and no matter what your employment status, you can pitch in to your community. Maybe that's why life on Benefits Street involved leaving your front door ajar for friends to pop in, and socialising, hairdressing and playing all took place out in the street. It was like a 1950s utopia.

The only difference was the fruitiness of the language.

Another bone of contention was that Channel 4 lied to the residents: "They told us it was about living as a community and how we all got along. But the actual programme doesn't show any of that... They tricked us."

As always, lesson one is "Never trust a TV crew". But did they really lie? The show DOES show a close-knit group of neighbours who rally around and help each other through everything from domestic rows to cancer scares. It also showed that some of them indulge in illegal activities, defraud the benefits office or express shock at the idea of getting a job and thus being "different from everyone else". Both sides of the story reflect the reality of life in Britain.

I stopped buying the Big Issue a few years ago when I read an issue which featured interviews with a bunch of sellers. They asked each one how long they'd been selling and the majority of them had answers of ten years or more. (Another question was "Do you think Britain does enough for the homeless?" and several of them answered "Yes".) I had naively believed that selling the Big Issue was a stepping stone to rehabilitation, not an alternative; I now prefer to give my money to the shelters which will help people to get back onto their feet, find a home and get a job. Giving someone just enough money to get them through the day, without making any attempt to help them change their lifestyle, is a rubbish way to treat people, but it's echoed in the benefits system.

The only way we can fix the situation is by acknowledging that we have a problem. Is anyone listening? 

I am woman, hear me roar...

It would be impossible to review SATC2 without talking about the response to it; review the reviews, as it were. Even though the movie was deemed "critic proof" (well, duh! Of course we're not going to take your word for it!) and cleaned up at the box office, it's generally agreed to be a limp, witless version of its former self. As Carrie would say, I couldn't help but wonder.... is this fair?

The first film was miserable – not in quality but in subject matter – it was truly a dark journey for Carrie. For some reason, when commentators decide that the characters are now bimbos, they will write very bizarre and untrue appraisals; Hadley Freeman, for instance, wrote that "Carrie's response to having been jilted at the altar was: 'How am I going to get my clothes?" (However, this is the same "journalist" who felt qualified to write a review of the second film on the strength of having seen the trailer. Guess whose opinion I have zero respect for?)

The word on the street from the beginning was that the sequel would be much more light-hearted, a "romp", if you will. (I was tempted to send a dictionary to one magazine who took this to mean there would merely be lots of sex.)

Bizarrely, the same media which complains that there are "never any decent roles for older women" gripe that the actresses look haggard and old. Make up your mind!

In between the first film's depiction of Carrie's mind-numbing depression, I did enjoy the sparky little fashion vignettes and, of course, the stony beauty of New York. Indeed, if the city is the 5th character and fashion is the 6th, they both featured pretty well.

So what was the wisdom behind NY barely being given a cameo in this sequel? The film's makers chose to move the location to the Middle East in order to show opulence that would not fit into post-credit crunch America, and it has the added benefit of removing the women from their domestic set-ups as well as putting the famously "liberated" ladies in a country where kissing can actually get you arrested.

As I expected, the film was a little over-long. But this is merely my point of view as a cinema-goer; if this is the last instalment of the girls as we know them, then I can see why the producers wanted to get their money's worth out of them. But has SATC jumped the shark? Mark Kermode described it as "ghastly" and "consumerist pornography." However, I enjoyed it; like most people who went to see the film, I am a fan and my loyalty is guaranteed.

True to form, the movie opened with a grandiose gay wedding, complete with Liza Minelli and a somewhat toe-curling cover of Single Ladies. But it's SATC, so we can forgive some minor lapses in judgement. At least the jokes were a reminder of a wittier time on the show.

I loved the 80s flashbacks – I had been looking forward to them since seeing the "leaked" pictures. I would have liked more, but I appreciate why these scenes needed to be a) short and b) shot from a distance. (SJP has claimed she will find it hard handing the part over to a younger actress if they decide to make a prequel. As Miley Cyrus has been cited as a possibility (please, God, no!) SJP would get my vote every time.

The premise of SATC being the crimes and misdemeanours of four single women, it was always going to be tricky to keep the drama going when they settled down.

However, these ladies each have their own cross to bear. While Samantha is dealing with menopause, Carrie is finding married life with Big not half as exciting as the dating days; Charlotte is a mother (who finds this lifestyle difficult although she is a full-time mom with full-time help) and Miranda has to balance work and life. (Thus the first accusations of SATC "selling out" – for daring to suggest that a woman's life might be more enjoyable if she didn't work a 70-hour week, and occasionally saw her children.)

Charlotte has acquired a nanny who is attractive and doesn't wear a bra, creating typically bawdy humour. The writers were evidently so proud of their joke about the "Jude Law" (the one against hiring beautiful nannies, of course) that not only did everyone laugh hysterically, they also referenced it later in the movie, with Carrie explaining her quip "I just had to go for it". I miss the old days, when witticisms were so commonplace that they were woven seamlessly into the conversation and nobody reacted, because it was taken for granted that the conversation would sparkle.

Their arrival in Abu Dhabi feels uncomfortably like a promotional video. Much has been made of the affluence displayed, and I must admit, it is staggering. But it's meant to be. People enjoy seeing richness beyond their means (it's why TV's Cribs is popular, after all). I might add that nobody ever complains that James Bond has too many fancy gadgets, or that his suits are too expensive... Why should "boy's films" have all the fun?

What's more, money and swanky parties were always part of the set-up. Samantha runs her own successful PR company, Miranda is a lawyer, Charlotte is a Park Avenue princess whose wealth only increased with each husband, and Carrie only struggled for money because she spent $40,000 on designer shoes – not exactly a welfare case, is she?

The women have a short discussion on the wearing of veils and burkinis at the pool. Is this racist? Are they gawping at these women in an ill-mannered, judgemental way? Well, perhaps. But merely showing how the culture is different in another country is hardly offensive. Their conversation touches upon the fact that bellydancers somehow slip past the "modest dress" rule – "Oh, those clever religious men!" (It's a fair point....) The much maligned "burkini" scene also features a men's sports team who take advantage of the double standards in place to prance around in budgie smuggling speedos.

Character development is pretty much limited to Carrie's adjustment to marriage and the revealing discussion between the two mothers in the film. I honestly feel that the film makers were trying to SAY something with this piece of celluloid. There is one scene which I still can't quite believe really happened; the karaoke rendition of a popular 1970s feminist song, which 40-something women would have grown up with, just as today's ten year olds sing along with Rihanna's Rude Boy. (There's nothing like hearing a pre-pubescent girl merrily belting out "Can you get it up? Is it big enough?" is there?)

I've never been a huge fan of the idea (so often repeated by our media) that women's liberation = promiscuity = freedom, (indeed, some would argue that it is merely a different form of servitude) but I do think it is vastly preferable to having entirely different laws for men and women.

The issue of being "sexually liberated" women in a Middle Eastern country with what we might call "old fashioned" values, leads to a climax which many have deemed ridiculous and racially insensitive. Samantha's defiance towards men who are quick to judge may be over the top ("Yes, condoms! I have sex!") but what's the betting that this scene was immensely satisfying for women who live in oppressive cultures? (If they were able to see it.)

Carrie also throws caution to the wind when she emulates Claudette Colbert's leg flashing antics to get a cab (so shocking in 1934); perhaps Samuel Johnson was right when he said "Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little." Right about the first part, anyway.

SATC always set out to be honest about the issues facing women today. Are we less valid as human beings if we never marry or have children? (We certainly get fewer presents.) Can a woman's career suffer when her sexual escapades become common knowledge? Is there ever a good time to have a baby? This film forces us to revert to old school feminism when the questions are about basic women's rights such as the ability to make decisions for themselves.

But are we really any further along the road to equality than other cultures? Miranda points out "Men in the US pretend they're comfortable with strong women, but really a lot of them would prefer us eating French fries behind our veils."

A strong theme is that of female solidarity; from a nanny who can be supportive without being a threat, to the universal love of fashion or understanding of the menopause.

The fact (apparently little known among film critics) is that women in the UAE actually DO wear beautiful designer clothes under their burkas. Andrew O' Hagan wrote a scathing piece for the Evening Standard in which he lambasted the scene in which the women remove their robes; patronisingly assuming their love of labels meant they were trying to be "American" like Carrie.

I actually think there's something rather sweet about women of certain religions dressing modestly and covering their hair in public so that their husbands are the only ones who see them as nature intended – if that's what they've chosen for themselves. Perhaps it really is the girls who feel the need to hoist themselves into wonderbras and stilettos every day who are being controlled by a male dominated society?

The internet is heavily censored in the UAE, illustrated by Samantha's inability to get hold of her menopause herbs. But does the film represent the residents of Abu Dhabi badly? Er, no. The film is a reflection of the women as tourists. They gawp at burkas, may not be the sharpest customers in the market, and, without men running their schedule, can barely catch a flight by themselves. In contrast, the residents are shown to be hard-working and honest, with a hardline attitude to sex. Samantha is reported for being overly friendly with a man in public, which may seem draconian to those of us familiar with programmes like "Holiday reps in Faliraki woohoo!" but it is a realistic depiction of life in the UAE. Far from insulting the strict codes of conduct, I think many residents would approve of this demonstration that chastity and respect of morals are expected by both citizens and visitors.

As Kim Cattrall points out,"We've been doing Sex And The City for 14 years, we've been upsetting people for 14 years. We're kind of used to it, that's what the show is all about."

Helen Reddy was right; we really do have a long, long way to go. We tolerate oppression under the guise of "respecting" other cultures. Meanwhile, in the year 2010, women are still being arrested for wearing trousers.

While we pontificate about whether showing women wearing burkas in a film set in Abu Dhabi is indeed "racist" or not, there are still places in the world where women can be beaten and raped by their husbands with the full blessing of the law, where they cannot legally obtain birth control, and genital mutilation is rife.

Now, that really is offensive.