You’re wearing that?

The “Sex and the City” movie (motto: “Like watching four episodes back-to-back”) is shooting in where-else this month, and not many days go by without one of the gossip rags or websites featuring a photo taken on-set. The good news (I guess): Nothing really changes. Carrie isn’t wearing jeans and polos, or even sweats with an Hermes-scarf-as-halter-top. But it’s a good thing this is a movie, because you’re going to need one wiiiide screen for this getup.

The other day the NYPost reported the crew was shooting the Big/Carrie wedding scenes at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, which I forwarded to Amy, because if there’s anything that brightens an orthodox Catholic’s day, it’s news that the One True Church has allowed a production celebrating guilt-free, non-marital fornication to use one of its most famous North American cathedrals as a location.

But we may have to get the Pope involved, after all:


I’m thinking a papal bull condemning stylist Patricia Field is called for here. She has plainly lost her mind.

Never mind the propriety of dressing a woman on the far side of 40 in a dress last worn by the 20-year-old Princess Diana — this is a cathedral wedding, after all. Never mind the horror it makes of SJP’s bony, chicken chest. What is that thing on her head?

I told Amy it was either a Bride of Frankenstein riff or else an abstract representation of the Holy Spirit. Your guess is as good as mine.

Posted at 3:51 pm in Movies, Television |

7 responses to “You’re wearing that?”

  1. brian stouder said on October 4, 2007 at 4:02 pm

    I think it is a metaphorical parachute, symbolizing how she is bailing out of her former lifestyle (not to say that marriage = no more ‘sex in the city’!)

    154 chars

  2. LA mary said on October 4, 2007 at 4:22 pm

    All of the photos I’ve seen of the getups Carrie wears in the movie seem to play up the age inappropriate qualities of her wardrobe. This is not to say I didn’t covet the high heeled oxfords I saw in one picture, but they wouldn’t really work on me.

    249 chars

  3. Carmella said on October 4, 2007 at 6:31 pm

    I agree with everything you say…and I am SO THERE!!!!!

    56 chars

  4. alex said on October 4, 2007 at 9:25 pm

    Sex and the City is just Boyztown dumbed down (for lack of a better verb) to middle-class American hetero sensibilities. Boyztown is nothing but age-inappropriate dressers having lotsa recreation with others who are their equals in terms of age and fabulously unaffordable lifestyles until they either find themselves kept by the old troll of their dreams or become one themselves. Just substitute the equivalent overpriced menswear brand for Manolo Blahnik and there you have it.

    The movie? Well, that’s just the same chick flick fantasy as all the girlz and boyz have, only repackaged a new way.

    601 chars

  5. Julie Robinson said on October 5, 2007 at 7:47 am

    Once again our lack of cable has prevented me from ever seeing an episode of Sex in the City, but I’ve read enough about it to know that as a curmudgeon I’d have no interest.

    I’ve come around to the opinion expressed by my mom after I had gushed about The Bridges of Madison County and asked if she had read it yet: “Why? It’s just another story about infidelity.”

    371 chars

  6. Michael said on October 5, 2007 at 10:37 am

    I hate it when I read something so funny I involuntarily snort out loud and my wife asks me why I’m not working.

    I don’t even remember what brought me to this blog in the first place, but my hopeless addiction has made me curse that unfortunately long-forgotten misfortune.

    Curse you, Nancy Nall!

    302 chars

  7. Howie said on October 5, 2007 at 10:51 am


    Your blogroll link to Amy needs to be updated for her new address.

    76 chars