In certain rural areas of the US, it is expected that whenever one writes of SJP’s boobs, one is to add as many periods as possible to the post for added emphasis, just as SJP’s boobs add emphasis to any scene they appear in.
You know, you guys aren’t being fair.
You may not think she’s all that funny - I don’t either - but you can’t judge a comic actor by their looks. Take Seinfeld for instance: the most popular comedy of the 90’s starred the three least attractive males on primetime television, and did anyone complain? I smell a double standard here.
Checking out her page on ImDB, I see she’s been in a fairly large number of films I’ve enjoyed…*Flight of the Navigator; Honeymoon in Vegas; Ed Wood; Mars Attacks; * etc…many more films than, say, Adam Sandler, or Jim Carrey…so I’m fine with her.
No comment on her physical attractiveness or lack thereof. I’m also a big fan of Boris Karloff.
I never got the SJP is hot thing either, with the exception of Ed Wood. That woman looks gorgeous in black and white. Her performance didn’t stick out in my mind though.
I’m too young for Square Pegs and have too many Y chromosomes to watch Sex in the City though I have been known to watch the opening to the latter. Thank you, blesséd bus and puddle.
Hijack: What the hell is she wearing during that opening? Is that a dream? Did someone seriously put that on at one point? If so I’m glad I missed the ballet fashion fad.
Alessan, yes, but Seinfeld was actually funny. The only reason to watch Sex in the City was to gawk at Charlotte and the red-head.
My wife and I often metion that clip.
She’s hideous! We have no idea why she’s famous.
I find that she commands my attention in the same way as the hideously disfigured and I used to think she was a hotty when she had some meat on her.
Agreed. I would have left out “slightly”, as she looks like she should be running in the Derby. Oh, and you left out the part about smelling like an ashtray.
I think she looks like Ann Coulter. They both look like horses and have bony faces. Blecchhhh.
At least the media wasn’t constantly shoving down our throats that those men were attractive and sexy.
AS I said, I don’t think she’s attractive but I don’t think she’s butt-ugly either.
Well, if it helps her case by giving her the credit she deserves, remember she’s also a Broadway actress/singer. She was in the original production of Annie, as well as the revivals of How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying and Once Upon a Mattress.
She was also nominated for a Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Actress in a Play for Sylvia. So no matter what your opinion of her looks is, you can’t deny she has talent. Hollywood may let anybody with money or a pretty face on TV, but here on Broadway we weed those talentless bitches out.
I don’t remember Jason Alexander’s GAP ads or Michael Richards’s cologne. To the best of my knowledge Jerry Seinfeld never posed “alluringly” in a speedo.
They weren’t held out as sex symbols, she is.
If she were presenting herself as a comic, then we would just judge her comedy (which isn’t good. She was by far the weakest member of that cast). But she’s being sold as a beautiful woman, as a sex symbol - and so, we judge her on that scale and many people find her lacking there as well.
Not that Im an expert, but there are probably a lot of “Broadway stars” who are not also major film and television celebrities. Broadway has a strong but relatively small audience, compared to film and television. Being big on broadway does not justify mega celebrity.
My wife keeps telling me that its Sarah’s homliness that makes her appealing to women. Kind of like Oprah. Mabey Sarah should have her own talk show and self help books.
I think her appeal is in the “attainable hottie” class. She is no classical beauty, but especially before Sex and the City, she had a great figure and her face was not as drawn and lined as it has now become. I thought she was funny in whatever Steve Martin movie she was in about ten years ago. I guess some guys like her because, in their minds, she is attainable, and some women like her because she is attractive without necessarily being physically perfect. Now she is too much of a Hollywood lollipop for me - skinny, big head, but still pretty nice boobs.
I agree, that’s why I said “give her the credit she deserves”, not “she’s the greatest star of all time”. I was mainly referring to the people who thought she had absolutely no talent at all.
That was actually one of her tamer outfits, too. I used to watch the show and get the screaming meemies at some of the god-awful outfits she was put in.
I’m not a big fan of SJP in general, but interviews with her make her seem pretty approachable and a good mom, so that’s OK by me. I also think it’s pretty cool that she and Matthew Broderick have been together for 10 years, in this, the age of the Show Business drive-by marriage.
So you prefer more actively-aggressive bitchiness?
Sex in the City, while entertaining, is an essay in four psycho-woman archtypes:
Carrie (Parker) - Emotionally immature neurotic flake
Charlotte (Davis) - Spoiled princess
Samantha (Katrell) - Unapologetic “maneater” (and probably the most well adjusted of the 4)
Miranda (Nixon) - Bitter career woman
The show can be frustrating at times as each tries to find happiness by repeating the same disfunctional behavior over and over. Kind of like trying to cure a headache by banging your head against the wall repeatedly. Carrie who repeatedly ruins decent relationships because she needs to be with that Mr Big douche. Charlotte and her need to marry into WASPy old money wealth, Miranda and her relentless focus on her career. Carrie (IOW, SJP) is probably most hated because unlike Charlotte and Miranda who find happiess by going against their nature (one who marries a short, fat, bald Jew and the other who has a child with a bartender) and Samantha who just lives her life the way she feels is right for her, Carrie never changes or grows. She just ends up with the same ambivalent jerk who has been her fair-weather boyfriend since Season One.
So if you hate Sarah Jessica Parker, it’s probably because you’ve come to associate the actress with her dislikeable Carrie Bradshaw character. And it doesn’t help that she continues to play the neurotic single gal unintentionally hurting people she cares about with thoughtless acts of selfishness in movies like The Family Stone and Failure to Launch.
Women like her, not because she isn’t physically perfect. She’s still hotter than 90% of women out there. It’s because one some level they relate to her flawed personality. Most beautiful TV women are played as if they are totally in control and irresistible to all men. IRL even beutiful women have fears and doubts and relationship issues and I think that’s what women connect to.
Kim Raver from 24 also suffers from “scarecrow face”
I thought she was brilliant in LA story, and decent in Ed Wood. With the exception of Sex in the City, she has always been a non-descript reliable supporting actress who turns in a decent, but never superior, performance.
SitC, on the other hand, shoves her into a lead actress role for which she has never been suited. This combined with the whiny, passive-aggressive, doormat character she plays, is really putting her in a bad light as an actress.
I’m not too young to remember “Square Pegs” and, as a result, my (generally positive) image of Sarah Jessica Parker was mostly formed by that show. I remember thinking at the time her be-speckled brainy plain Jane character was actually quite attractive but I have a thing for smart girls.
As for “Sex and the City,” I’ve never watched a complete episode mainly for the reason you stated. Perhaps if I had (and had never first gotten acquainted with SJP through “Square Pegs”), my opinion about her appearance would be closer to the OP’s.
And you are right about Kristin Davis easily being the best-looking actress in the cast.
Exactly. Before SATC, the fact that she came across as an “attainable hottie” was the key to SJP’s appeal (especially in her role in Honeymoon in Vegas). She didn’t give off the air of being so stunningly beautiful that she’d be unapproachable to most mere mortals. However, since playing Carrie Bradshaw, her image has definitely changed. I think to many males she now gives off a “DANGER! HIGH MAINTENANCE!” vibe that considerably lessens her attractiveness. To them, she’s not pretty enough to be worth all the trouble.
I can’t understand why there’s so much abject hatred for Sarah Jessica Parker out there. This sort of conversation is what needs to be explained, not the imagined popularity of Sarah Jessica Parker.
Sex in the City was a very entertaining - albeit admittedly shallow and self-indulgent - TV show. That was pretty much the peak of Sarah Jessica Parker’s popularity or cultural relevance. She played the main character on a popular television show, which explains why she became a raher popular celebrity. What, exactly, needs to be explained about that?
The strange thing to me is that, while I don’t think Sarah Jessica Parker is particularly great-looking, it’s never been clear to me exactly why so many people seem to feel the need to point out how hideously ugly they find her. I have yet to see anyone push her as a “sex symbol”, and she certainly isn’t in the habit of attempting to show her nipples and labia to everyone within reach of the media, as some female celebrities are. Far as I know, she hasn’t posed in Playboy or even its tamer “men’s magazine” cousins. The closest she’s come to anything like that is doing a couple commercials for The Gap, which basically played to her status as a bit of a fashion icon, again mostly related to her appearance on Sex and the City, and also to what she wears on award shows and public appearances. (She’s rather hit-or-miss as a fashion plate, in my opinion, but she certainly beats out the average celebrity when it comes to style (not least because of her aforementioned modest restraint from attempting to corral random passersby into giving her gynecological exams.)) If the point being made is that she’s too ugly to be allowed to do TV commercials, I guess I disagree.
Um, when? Where? By whom? Is there some rule I’m not privy to that only the astonishingly gorgeous are permitted on TV commercials? This has always struck me as a bit of a logical problem; why on earth would anyone take fashion advice from a supermodel or a gorgeous actress or some seventeen year old who doesn’t even remember what it was like to eat carbohydrates? A while back Julianne Moore was advertising some makeup line - who cares what makeup Julianne Moore wears? She’s always had a perfect complexion. Her skin looks like it was carved from marble. Doesn’t it make more sense to take advice on such things from someone like Sarah Jessica Parker - who is frankly still better looking than most people will ever be, but still looks something like a real person?
And again, that’s the closest I’ve seen to any representation of Sarah Jessica Parker as a sex symbol; she only really counts as one if you make the assumption that only “sex symbols” are permitted to advertise clothing. If we break away from the notion that the only women allowed on TV are those who are either etherially beautiful or else the butts of jokes, perhaps people will be able to live with the notion that Sarah Jessica Parker might be able to play the main character in a TV series without also undertaking the (apparently pretty demanding) role of “sex symbol”.
I actually don’t ever remember her wearing anything quite as ridiculous as that tutu on the show itself (remember when Lara Flynn Boyle wore one to the Oscars? :eek:) but yeah, there were some real low points sometimes. But in my opinion she usually perched herself somewhere on the line between fashionable and daring, and times she stepped over it entirely were fairly uncommon.
That’s kind of the joy of the show; they laughed, they cried, but they never really learned and they didn’t do all that much growing up either. I could never really tell how serious the show’s creators were, but trying to imagine that the characters were supposed to represent “modern women” and be something to aspire to is peculiar at best.
But then, I guess I’ve never particularly felt the need to try to imitate the people I see on TV.
She has a weirdly long face, but I always thought she was reasonably cute in spite of it.
She was the only woman in the cast who was particularly attractive at all, at least by TV standards.
Damn I’d hate to see what you people think of Kathy Bates.
I’m going to agree with Excalibre here. I never got the impression SJP was being “sold” as a sex symbol. And I think she’s pretty (not in all scenes, but definitely in a fair number of them). I haven’t seen all of Sex, but I’ve seen enough to understand her character and I’d say I like it. I don’t have a problem with her.
And how nice it was, I think, for them to have not been portrayed by four incredibly gorgeous women (no offense to them, of course). Makes it seem more like it reflects the real world, doesn’t it?