Advertisement
Michael Patrick King Talks About Sex
(Page 2)
MM: Why do you think “Sex and the City” struck such a nerve in pop culture, even years later?
MPK: The main reason is that it was the first voice for a crowd that never had a voice, which is single women. Society had been telling them for years that if they weren’t married, they were losers. “Sex and the City” was the first thing to say, “Hey, maybe we’re great.” Secondly, it had the word ‘sex’ in it, which is always exciting. For me, the great victory was that we turned sex into something pink and fun versus something dark and scary. Even on TBS, where the episodes are completely edited and all the sex is gone, they’re still very compelling. I think that has to do with the idea of eternal friendships and support and love through the rough times as well as the good times.
MM: Do you think the timing between the end of the show in 2004 and the film’s release this spring will be a good or bad thing?
MPK: Oh, it’s perfect. I feel like people actually miss the girls, like it’s palpable. Like they’ve been gone for so long that it’s an event to see them. And the girls still look phenomenal. It was an amazing bonus to have so many people interested in this stunt, this big stunt. I don’t think anyone’s tried to do this before. I guess “The X-Files,” but they had aliens.
MM: Speaking of “The X-Files,” are there any TV-shows-turned-movies that provided a good model for you?
MPK: I can’t name one. Quite frankly, any other television show that was ever made into a movie was not the original. It was many years later and done a little bit like an homage or a parody. No one took the actual actresses who played these actual characters and put them on the big screen as an actual movie. My goal as a writer was to make sure it was a movie and not just a very long television episode.
MM: How was it different directing the movie version versus a single episode?
MPK: To be completely elemental, just the shape of the screen. It went from a square to an oblong. It went from bigger pictures, less talking heads, more visual sweep. I even approached the walk and talk down the street differently. Because I just didn’t want it to be Carrie’s head talking to Miranda’s head. On the big screen it would be absurd. So we explored a lot more framing, the size of the shots, where you go close, where you don’t, the movement of the camera.
MM: Any major differences on the set itself?
MPK: From a design point of view, everything is more real. Carrie’s apartment was redone to be the more realistic dimensions of a New York apartment. It’s subtle, but her hallway is four inches shorter and less wide. We built a coffee shop in an actual building in SoHo versus a television set. So when they’re at the coffee shop, real cars are going down the street. Charlotte’s apartment was redone, the fabrics and everything. It’s all the real thing. It was really important that if it was going to be on the screen, it had to be real.
2 of 3 |
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Del.icio.us
Reddit
YahooAdvertisement
COMMENTS | POST A COMMENT 
- Comment by esther on 6/05/08 at 2:31 pm
Interesting to learn that artistic design/craft preceeds the motivation for earning female dollars.
Good discovery reporting here!- Comment by Sara on 6/11/08 at 6:10 pm
Why focus so much on the “audience”? Why not just write the story? As you have before in the series? Was this a movie just to “please” a specific group of women (not me) and I am one who thought SATC was clever and insightful. The major vehicle you had going for you was Carrie’s writing and her questions (which were timely.) In the movie all this disappeared. Basically, I think the movie was not believable--viewer didn’t buy at all. While, the series, yes, I’d see much into it that was of meaning, value and entertainment. I’m a therapist so perhaps that figures in. But what is most interesting is that I saw a huge incongruence in the series and the movie? Were you afraid to take risks? The kind of risks that make for not just a “feel-good movie” but for a movie that engages and challenges (as often Sex and the City series did.) I have no doubt that you have the talent. I just wonder why you didn’t use it. Any writer knows that once you start focusing so much on “what the audience” (or anyone for that matter) thinks, then complexity and even interest goes by the wayside. Sorry, but I almost walked out and I do think you’re a truly gifted writer. So use your talent. Especially if there is a sequel. Let things happen! Don’t be so afraid. You aren’t usually as far as I’ve seen. But this movie had “holding back” written all over it.
- Comment by Virg on 8/30/08 at 10:26 pm
Loved the movie ... except for the scenes denigrating Mexico with the character of Charlotte, the prissy little white girl, who was so very afraid to eat anything in Mexico. Sure she got her commuppance, but, nonetheless, I sat in the movie theatre bristling and decided to walk out and leave as did the group of women I attended the movie with. So lots to say about that, like subliminally setting up the audience to think negatively of a lovely country with lovely people where Americans continually flock to for vacations and to live. That didn’t pass by thousands of us in the Latin community who are generations-worth of Americans, who will not frequent Michael Patrick King’s movies anymore unless something is written to apologize for this injustice. But what I want to know specifically is, why was that written into the movie? What was the point? That could have easily been eliminated or not witten in at all - no point - no progression in the overall story line. So what’s up Michael Patrick King? What’s your story in this?
.jpg)
This story was published in the Spring 2008 MovieMaker Magazine. The headline was:
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex/Michael Patrick King reinvents Sex and the City for the big screen
Order this issue | Subscribe to MM
Latest from the blog:
Cadillac Records Premiere to Benefit Phoenix House
Every now and then the glitz and glamour of the red carpet gets to be something more than just a flashy excuse for a new outfit or a ride in a limo, allowing the superficial side of moviemaking (pose for the camera!) to become something of substance, something more akin to the reason why a movie is made. With the New York and Los Angeles premieres of Cadillac Records, a period piece centered upon Leonard Chess (played by Adrien Brody) and the lives of the blues and soul artists who were part of his Chess Records label, the red carpet gets to do just that.
Posted 11.21.08 | News/Commentary | No comments yet...
Other recent posts:
In Theaters Now: Twilight, Bolt, Special
Notes from Movieland: Do It Yourself Distribution - Part II
Gotham Independent Film Awards Series Comes to NYC
Posts people are talking about:
SITE DELIVERY OPTIONS
