When fans were dismayed and saddened by Mr Big’s death in the first episode of And Just Like That (AJLT), the revival of the Sex and The City, Michael Patrick King,the main screenwriter of AJLT asked the eternal question: “Is it better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all?” (SATC Creator EXPLAINS Big’s Death in And Just Like That… – YouTube).
Mr Big was Carrie Bradshaw’s lover during the iconic series Sex and the City. Initially unattainable (Carrie called him “Mr Big” because she felt that he was “a major tycoon, major dreamboat and majorly out of her league”), Mr Big finally marries Carrie in the second Sex and The City movie after leaving her alone at the altar in the first one.
Released seventeen years after the last episodes of SATC, And Just Like That features three of the main characters of the first series: Carrie Bradshaw, Charlotte York and Miranda Hobbes. Samantha Jones’s absence was due to Kim Kattrall’s refusal to play that character again.
Love versus friendship
Many fans were overwhelmed, saddened and appalled by Mr Big’s death. The emotional reaction that all SATC’s fans have had at Big’s death made me wonder whether the relationship between Big and Carrie was actually what made SATC so special. Many assumed that the series relied on the special bond shared by the four main female characters. The intensity of their friendships was epitomized by the famous scene where they promise to be each other’s soulmate rather than to look for male soulmates : Soul Mates – YouTube). It seemed that one of the most important messages conveyed by SATC was that female friendships are essential to make women strong, resilient and powerful, while men can not only hurt women but also be a threat to both those friendships and female independence.
It is certainly still true that when women form a couple with men or get married, they tend to get away from their earlier friendships and personal social life in general. This is one of the many consequences of the sacrifices that women do when they are in couple and, even more so, in a family. The others’ needs often become more important than their own: their career, initial family and friends, hobbies and interests become secondary. This was a decisive reason for my fascination towards SATC: those four women seemed to never give up on their friendships. Men came and went; those friends stayed.
Yet, the widespread emotional reaction to Big’s death in AJLT also reveals that the passionate love story he had with Carrie was as central to the public’s affection for Sex And The City. This would, indeed, go against the feminist interpretations of Sex And The City. Carrie might have been an independent woman and writer, she was nonetheless desperately in love with a macho, self-centered , commitment freak who also happened to be a rich, attractive and successful man. Some fans deplored how she chose Big over the kind and stable Aidan, the other boyfriend she had for a while after one of her many break ups with Big. Was that not at odds with her supposed values ? Many women, even the most independent ones, do seem to fall in love with a Mr Big type of man.
Freedom versus love
Independence seems to be the main value defended by Carrie Bradshaw; and, indeed, when Aidan – the other boyfriend she has during SATC – asks her to marry, she is unable to go for it. However, she will end up marrying Big, once they have both overcome their commitment issues. But, one may ask: can freedom and independence remain when one feels so much for another human being? In other words: are free individuals bound to suffer more in relationships because it contradicts their need for freedom?
In episode one of SATC,when she meets Big for the first time, he can tell that she has never been in love. When she returns him the question “have you ever been in love?”, he replies, with a smile , “absofuckingly”. (Carrie and Big – S01E01 (How they met) – YouTube). Would this be the reason why Big has such terrible commitment issues? He has already been in love before meeting Carrie and has suffered from it.
Carrie did not know yet the harm that love can do. She will learn during her entire on and off relationship with Big that love is not just pure joy. And when , at fifty five, finally settled and married to the man she loves, she finds him dying on their bathroom floor, she clearly understands that feeling.
That night, Carrie decides to go to a Recital played by Charlotte’s daughter Rose instead of going away with Big, as previously planned. While she is enjoying the piano, Big does a hard fitness session on an indoor bike and suffers a heart attack. He falls on the floor, unable to reach his phone. When Carrie comes back, Big is living his last moments. They exchange this last look, she runs towards him, kisses him and he dies in her arms. Why did Carrie not call an ambulance straight away? Why on earth would Carrie not try to save the love of her life? Why would she prefer to hold him while he is going through his last moments? Was Carrie a sadist? The screeenwriter’s willingness to kill Big was done at the expense of coherence with the characters’ feelings and personalities.
Or is it that something untold had been happening between the two characters? Did they both know what was coming? Indeed, knowing Big’s history of heart problems, one may wonder why he was pushing it so hard on his bicycle. Was he just trying to get fitter or was he playing with fire? This might be a bold interpretation but we could suggest that, maybe, he was, deep down, hoping to go before his love, so that he would not suffer the terrible pain of losing her.
The big question
In any case, we see in the next episodes of And Just Like That that, although she is profoundly affected by his death, Carrie does not regret having spent those years with Big. He was, after all, the love of her life (Carrie & Big – On This Side Of Heaven [Spoilers for And Just Like That… 1×01-1×02] – YouTube|). We could wonder whether this would have been his case as well: would he – the commitment freak who tried to escape such a powerful love so many times – have been able to stand the loss if Carrie had gone before him?
This painful dilemma can apply to anyone in love. Loving entails a risk of losing – mildly in a break up or dramatically through death. Yet losing what we love leads to profound suffering.
I am saddened by Big’s death as a fan. But the screenwriter is right : we do need to ask ourselves that question: Is it better to have loved and lost or to never have loved at all? Carrie Bradshaw and Mr Big, despite both being incredibly afraid of commitment, made the most difficult choice: they wanted to love, passionately, for better or for worse.
Food for Thought - Sophie Heine 
Great work Sophie
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks mark !
LikeLike
I really enjoyed reading this – I’ve never watched the show, but the interpretation of someone wanting to go sooner to avoid something seems to extend beyond fiction
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your comment Michael!
LikeLike
Très belle réflexion, chère Sophie, mais être aimé, être pris dans les rêves de quelqu’un ne s’avère-t-il pas risqué, voire contraire à l’exercice de sa propre liberté? Etre aimé s’avère-t-il dangereux, un devenir vulnérable à la relation d’emprise? Le noble octuple sentier de la vie bouddhiste, tout comme la théologie catholique du mariage recommandent la fidélité de l’engagement, et s’opposent donc au théorème libéral qui postule que tout engagement a comme correspondant la liberté de se désengager. Mais aimer/être aimé, c’est ce que Kierkegaard nomme, son troisième stade, le saut dans la foi. Abraham accepte de sacrifier Isaac parce que son Dieu lui a demandé, il a sauté, confiance absolue, dans ce que son aimé lui demandait. Sauter dans l’amour, parfois les yeux fermés? Sauter ainsi, la vérité de l’amour? Un jeu de roulette russe existentielle?
LikeLike
Merci, cher Pierre Ansay, pour ce commentaire intelligent et si bien formulé. Je suis d’accord avec toi qu’il y a une contradiction entre la liberté et l’amour, d’autant plus si celui-ci est passionné. Je souligne cette tension dans le chef des personnages de Carrie Bradshaw et Mr Big. Tous deux obsédés par la liberté, ayant une peur énorme de l’engagement, il leur faut beaucoup de temps pour finalement s’engager l’un vis a vis de l’autre par le mariage. Mais le prix de cet engagement plein et entier est le risque de perdre l’autre; et dans le cas de ces deux personnages, la perte effective. Carrie est devastée quand l’homme qu’elle aime disparait. Et oui cela nous interroge: aimer de facon aussi forte et passionnée n’est pas seulement contraire a la liberte de pouvoir se désengager mais c’est aussi une source de souffrance.Cette souffrance est soit imaginée ou anticipée (la peur de perdre l’autre, qui se traduit parfois par la jaloiusie excessive ou la volonte d’enfermer l’autre), soit réelle, a travers une rupture ou la fin de la vie terrestre (en tant qu’intellectuelle je suis agnostique et ne me prononce pas sur l’existence ou non d’une vie apres; en tant que personne, j’ai tendance a croire qu’il y a un ‘apres’). La question que je me pose est la suivante: quand on aime passionnément, n’a t-on vraiment pas d’autre choix que d’accepter cette perte de liberté et d’en prendre son parti? N’y a t’ il pas moyen de maintenir au moins une illusion de liberté malgré la puissance de cet amour? Mais alors comment faire cela sans faire souffrir l’autre? Ici, le recul, l’humour et d’autres valeurs concretes telles que la famille peuvent aider a ancrer une relation passionnée dans le réel, en poussant le couple a se decentrer et a percevoir leur amour comme quelque chose de plus grand qu’eux ; comme quelque chose qui peut aussi se transformer et subsister apres eux. Ainsi, la famille pourrait alors etre la solution pour calmer et ancrer les passions.
LikeLike