The image depicts Times Square in New York City at night. It is filled with bright lights, large billboards, and advertisements. Several notable signs include those for "Wicked," "The Phantom of the Opera," "Jersey Boys," "Rock of Ages," "Conan O'Brien," and "Express." The streets are bustling with yellow taxis, cars, and pedestrians, capturing the vibrant, busy atmosphere of this iconic location.
Times Square, New York City

SocietyJune 22, 2024

The Sunday Essay: Can NYC ever live up to the hype? 

The image depicts Times Square in New York City at night. It is filled with bright lights, large billboards, and advertisements. Several notable signs include those for "Wicked," "The Phantom of the Opera," "Jersey Boys," "Rock of Ages," "Conan O'Brien," and "Express." The streets are bustling with yellow taxis, cars, and pedestrians, capturing the vibrant, busy atmosphere of this iconic location.
Times Square, New York City

After three decades of inhaling American-dominated, disproportionately New York-based media, Sharon Lam’s first time in the city became a traipse through a collage of movie sets rather than any real place.

The Sunday Essay is made possible thanks to the support of Creative New Zealand.

‘Excuse me, how do I get to 9/11?”, a tourist asks Liz Lemon in an episode of 30 Rock. When I was watching I laughed, but last week, when I went to New York City for the first time, I was barely any better. While walking around with my flatmate, I point at a stoop. “That’s just like Carrie Bradshaw’s apartment.” I point at a rubbish bin. “That’s just like Oscar the Grouch.” I point at another stoop. “That’s just like the video where the guy goes ‘and they were roommates’.” I point at some steel girders. “That’s just like what they used to eat lunch on up in the sky.” My flatmate has now unwillingly found themselves on a week-long New York City Tour of Stuff Sharon’s Seen on TV. Outside 30 Rockefeller Plaza, “that’s 30 Rock”, I immediately identify. When I see some vaguely tall buildings in the distance I gesture towards them and state matter of factly, “Don Draper”. At any large set of steps, “xoxo, Gossip Girl.”  On the subway I go, “This is just like Broad City.” “The Warriors.” “Spiderman 2.”  

I could not stop seeing references. Everywhere read as some fictional character’s house, workplace or origin. After three decades of inhaling American-dominated, disproportionately New York-based media, my first time in the city became a traipse through a collage of movie sets rather than any real place. After all, this was the Big Apple, the titular city of Sex and the City, the city that never sleeps, concrete jungle where dreams are made of. All these songs, TV shows, movies – I could not separate New York as polis from mythos. Never had a place been so built up in my imagination before. They say to never meet your heroes. But what if your hero was a place? And that place was where they filmed Heroes?

It wasn’t that my expectations of the city were particularly glamorous; New York is not necessarily over-romanticised in its portrayals. Yes, you have your When Harry Met Sallys and You’ve Got Mails,  but you also have your Dark Days and Taxi Drivers. I’d been strap-hanging in London and Hong Kong for six years now and was familiar with the various everyday urban detriments that are more or less the same wherever you are in a capitalist world – packed subway cars, packed buses, living cheek to cheek in an unjust society while trying not get dripped on by aircon water. I ran no risk of Paris syndrome. In fact, I had no hard expectations. All I wanted was to feel a little bit closer to the stories I’d seen on screen.  

As I walked around the city, never running out characters that could have walked down the same streets, I couldn’t help but wonder how much of my American media consumption was my own decision. I had put the reasoning down to having grown up on island nations (Singapore, New Zealand) that didn’t have enough local output to fill all the hours of scheduled television. Pre-streaming, American imports were unavoidable, especially considering the frightening amount of TV I watched. After school: Arthur, The Simpsons, Friends. After dinner: Survivor, America’s Next Top Model, Desperate Housewives. American accents became the default audio for television and movies. But it was also a conscious choice – whenever something local came on, I would cringe and flick to another channel. Even the Saddle Club with their Australian accents was too close to home (also, the horse girls at school freaked me out, but that’s another story). My whole life I have watched TV to escape, to go somewhere else, not somewhere that could be down the street. 

And now I had gone to that place of escapism in real life. Everything felt half-real, half-synthetic. I wasn’t sure exactly what character and what show I was in but it started with a walk over the Brooklyn Bridge. There, a film crew were setting up for a Spike Lee film. “So, Denzel’s going to be walking down right here at sunset,” we overheard a crew member saying. Denzel Washington wasn’t seen but the air felt electric, he was in the metaphorical building. The remaining days were filled with a museum carpark lichen walk, an event so niche and so up my alley it turned it into a cul de sac, lemon drops and live jazz, rooms filled with dirt from the 70s, bagels and cheung fun, tamales and latkes. There seemed to be something happening everywhere. Without trying, encounters abound – a sudden parade of dance ensembles, getting shat on by a duck, a THC gummy-triggered run-in with Hugh Jackman. Anything could happen here! 

Even our isolated hotel, the only affordable one we could find, turned out to be next door to a wildly viral sandwich shop. The sandwich shop, which doubled as a bodega, let customers pick anything to add to their sandwiches. Videos showed customer creations like jelly bean Philly cheesesteaks and chopped cheese sandwiched between Pop Tarts. But mainly they became famous for the modern showman-like way one of the shop’s owners made the sandwiches, with catchphrases like “suuuuuure”, and “never ever ever”. If you know, you know. It really is very catchy. 

We went in one night, and when we paid the cashier asked us where we were from and what we were doing in New York. He’d grown up in the city and could never believe that people came here, from so far away – here there was nothing to do. He always asked visitors for suggestions, the city was boring to him. I didn’t have the heart to tell him that I’d mainly just been gasping at various stoops.

Everything reminded me of the comfort of TV, the promise of a story. And now, I could interact with that world as closely as one could – by drinking coffee out of the same-looking paper cup, by crossing the street under the same yellow traffic lights. In one of my most rewatched New York movies, and one guilty by unanimous verdict of romanticising the city – the aforementioned You’ve Got Mail – Meg Ryan’s character writes to Tom Hanks’ character, asking, “I lead a small life – well, valuable, but small – and sometimes I wonder, do I do it because I like it, or because I haven’t been brave? So much of what I see reminds me of something I read in a book, when shouldn’t it be the other way around?” 

Did I like New York only because everything reminded me of something I saw on TV? Or did I like New York because I was on holiday in a metropolis of distractions and I could forget that in my own city where I live, my life would absolutely never be seen on TV (unless there is a show with no dialogue where the arch nemesis is hard water stains, the enemies-to-friends plot is with the overweight cat down the hall, and the grand quest is the (futile) pursuit of recreating Pret A Manger’s porridge at home.

I left New York both completely satisfied, and with the knowledge that I should probably never live there. Some things need to be kept at a distance to remain special. I needed to maintain separation with the city to keep its magic and more importantly, the fuel to my escapist stream of content. Perhaps one day I will not feel embarrassed by my own existence and not need to suppress the darkness, but until then, as fantasy is not my thing, the fiction of New York is all I have! If I were to live there, I would become the sandwich shop cashier. The grass would no longer be green. The novelty would wear off, I would think nothing of having my coffee refilled at a diner instead of giddily saying yes, I’d walk past Parsons or Mood without saying “Project Runway”, I’d eat a slice of pizza like one drinks water. I would not be able to soothe myself with Nora Ephron triple bills. No, I could not let that happen.

When I came back to London, I found myself rewatching Eyes Wide Shut. Watching Tom Cruise stalk around the city in his pea coat, I pointed at the screen and said “I did that”. The first time I watched it, I understood it firstly as a movie about suppressed, ever-present desire. This time, I understood it much more as a movie about class and money, and the invisible, unshakeable forces that keep society in status quo, strata upon strata. Where would I have appeared in the movie? As a background extra in a coffeeshop. Never interacting with the Harfords, never interacting with Domino. Everyone kept in check. The affluent living in one version of New York at the cost of those living in a version of New York underneath them. Eyes Wide Shut, of course, was never even filmed in New York, but due to Kubrick’s fear of commercial airlines, entirely in England. In fact, some of Tom Cruise’s scenes of him walking despondently around New York City were filmed with a projector and a treadmill, on a film set an hour’s drive from where I live. It’s a small world, after all.

Correction: This article has been updated to state that Stanley Kubrick is the director of Eyes Wide Shut, not Alfred Hitchcock. The Spinoff deeply, deeply, deeply regrets the error.

Keep going!
Image by Tina Tiller
Image by Tina Tiller

SocietyJune 21, 2024

Marriage, civil union or de facto: In 2024, which one should you choose?

Image by Tina Tiller
Image by Tina Tiller

The legal status of each type of relationship is similar, so why opt for one over the others? We spoke to three couples on why they made the choice they did.

After my Sunday Essay was published, exploring what a forever relationship looks like when you don’t believe in marriage, I found myself in lots of conversations about the choice not to get married. Most people were very respectful, but some clearly felt that entering a marriage or civil union is an essential step to securing the future of any relationship. 

They pointed out all of the things I might lack in my life if I didn’t enter some sort of legal agreement with my partner. Much as I disagreed with them and didn’t care for their lack of respect for my choices, I did find myself wanting to be sure, to just double-check: is there a chance I am missing out on something huge here? 

I approached some friends and acquaintances to learn about their journeys to marriage, civil union, or the choice to stay de facto, to understand what the differences between those types of relationships are, and if they’re legally similar, what would make someone choose one over the other.

The first couple were Kim and James, my beautiful (married) neighbours who live in a shipping container house with their two daughters. They made me tea and showed me their book of vows, each page a different illustration of birds which represented promises they were making to each other. It was hard to imagine any argument against marriage, seeing their words and drawings, listening to them laugh and talk about their wedding day, the kai and decorations they made themselves, all the people who travelled from overseas to celebrate them. 

They told me they didn’t get married for religious reasons, but because it just felt like the right next step, and for the ease in explaining themselves to the world. As James put it, “Society tends to know what we mean when we say ‘wedding’, ‘husband’, ‘wife’ – we don’t need to explain to anyone the nature of our relationship.”

Marriage offers that simplicity, the social knowns. To choose something else is to commit to a life less simple, one where you might find yourself explaining your love to friends, colleagues, strangers. 

There are many different ways to honour a relationship. (Photo: Getty)

I spoke to my friends Jess and Ellie who had a ritual to celebrate their relationship, but didn’t enter a marriage (legally speaking, they are in a de facto relationship). They called their ceremony whaiāipo ai: a celebration of everyday love, overlooking the ocean at Whāingaroa. On the day, they promised each other nothing, named what they were letting go of, and then had everyone put little bits of loose leaf tea into a pot, and made each other a cuppa while their family and friends watched on.

To be considered de facto in the eyes of the law, broadly speaking, you need to be living together for three years, or else have a child together (it can sometimes be tricky to determine whether a couple is de facto, though, and of course a lawyer is best placed to advise on any particular situation). It is a commitment based on cohabitation and the intention to build a life together. In that sense, it requires the most commitment of all three: for marriages and civil unions, you could technically marry someone you’ve just met (if you so desire). But de facto relationships don’t have the same social and historical clout as marriage. 

“It felt like a spiritual and political choice,” Jess told me about their decision to remain de facto. “I’m non-binary and so is Ellie, so it felt too that we were rejecting the blueprint that was laid out by cis heteronormative marriage – with its junky power imbalances, crappy labour divisions, and shitty history of property ownership.”

How has this arrangement worked out for them? “So far, our not-marriage has been fucking excellent,” Jess said. “It’s exceeded my expectations, my partner is gold. Life is glorious together.”

What about civil unions? Why get one, especially now that same-sex marriage is legal?

For a lot of people, the answer seems to be, “There’s no good reason”. The number of civil unions celebrated by couples living in New Zealand decreased significantly after same-sex marriages became legal in 2013, according to Stats NZ: between 2005 (when civil unions were introduced) and 2013, there were on average just under 300 civil unions a year. This dropped to just under 50 a year between 2014 and 2023. 

In 2018, for example, there were 20,949 marriages and civil unions, so civil unions represent a very small fraction of that total. Just under one-third of the civil unions from 2014-2023 were same-sex couples.

But between 2005 and 2013, civil unions were the only legal avenue for same-sex couples to formalise their relationships. Karen and Delphine had their civil union in Autumn, 2009. “As a same-sex couple before same-sex marriage was legalised in NZ, this was our only option,” Karen told me. Four events made up their special day, starting with French champagne and macaroons and ending in a private party at the iconic Las Vegas Strip Club in Karangahape Road. 

“We do plan to renew our vows as a marriage so we can further secure our future together,” Karen added, “which will eventually see us move to France.”

What else did I learn? In order of most to least admin, it seems civil unions come with the most paperwork, with de facto relationships needing nothing on paper to be official. Marriage has a lot more connection to the state: you need to apply for a licence to get married, and you need to get a divorce issued to you through family court if you wish to end the relationship. 

For marriage and civil unions, you must be over 18, not related and not already married or in a civil union. You can be in more than one de facto relationship at one time. 

In the case of breaking up, the legal rights between all three are almost the same. Some say marriage makes it harder to break up, as though the looming threat of admin at the weekend will be enough to keep you together, but once you are in a de facto relationship, your property and childcare rights become much the same as if you were in a marriage or civil union.

It was a joy to hear people’s stories – how, even when the law was against them, they still found ways to honour their love. The more I heard, the more I loved their relationships; and the more I knew that not getting married or entering a civil union is still the right choice for me.

From each couple, I understood that whichever they chose – de facto, marriage or civil union – giving their relationship a name and a celebration was what felt most important. For most, it was a way to bring their families and communities into their partnership, as expressed in a beautiful line from David and Bronwyn’s ceremony: Your hurt is our hurt, your doubt our doubt, your hope our hope, your joy our joy.