lvi st rat egy. A com plainer m ust prove t hat A did P P is bad, he she m ust be able t o show
t hat t he com plainee has in fact perform ed or failed to perform t he deplorable act ion. The last st rat egy is Subst ant iat ion. It is im port ant for a com plainer t o be able t o provide
subst ant iat ing m oves in t he form of fact s or argum ent s t o t he effect t hat “ P is bad” , i.e. t he com plainer m ust “ prove” t hat he she is just ified in int erpret ing P as bad for him
her, e.g Trosborg, 1995: 329- 331.
J. Response
A response is verbal or non- verbal act of t he hearer, w hich is perform ed because of t he underst anding by t he hearer of t he m eaning and t he force of t he
speaker’s ut t erance. It count s as a perlocut ionary effect of t he speech act Sbisa in Searle, 1969: 102.
J.L Austin in Searle 1969: 101 m aint ains t hat “ an effect m ust be achieved on t he audience if t he illocut ionary act is t o be carried out ” and he called such effect
upt ake , it m eans “ t he underst anding of t he m eaning and t he force of t he locut ion” . If
t he hearer’s upt ake is necessary for carrying out an illocut ionary act , people should first know w het her an upt ake has been achieved. People can know it from a considerat ion of
t he response verbal or non verbal w hich follow s t he illocut ionary act since each response m akes m anifest how t he hearer has t aken t he speaker’s illocut ionary act
Sbisa in Searle 1969. Therefore, t o give a definit e illocut ionary force t o a cert ain speech act , t he hearer’s response should be t aken int o account .
Richards and Schm idt 1996: 129 present ed com plaint response in five t ypes: 1 apology, 2 denial, 3 excuse, 4 just ify, and 5 challenge.
lvii Boxer 1989 ident ifies response of com plaint s and finds t hat t here are six t ypes
of responses, t hey are: 1 zero response or change t he t opic, 2 a request for an elaborat ion of t he com plaint , 3 joking or t easing, 4 a cont radict ion or explanat ion, 5
advice or lect ure, and 6 com m iserat ion.
K. The Film Theory
The st udy of film cannot be t aken apart from societ y. They have a t ight relat ionship. A m ovie can be a reflect ion of societ y. It m ay int erpret t he condit ion of a
societ y at one t im e. According t o Allen and Gom ery 1993: 154, m ovie reflect s t he desires, needs, fears, and aspirat ions of a societ y. Allen and Gom ery st at e t hat film
m akers are m em bers of societ y and no less subject t o social pressure and norm s t han anyone else and film m aking occurs w it hin som e social cont ext . Furt herm ore, in fict ional
film s, charact ers are given at t it udes, gest ures, sent im ent s, m ot ivat ions, and appearances based on social roles and on general not ions ibid: 158.
From t he definit ions above, it can be concluded t hat film is correlat ed w it h societ y. Bot h of t hem have a close relat ionship. Film can be t he represent at ion of a
societ y w hich has cert ain social cont ext . M oreover, it reflect s t he desires, and aspirat ions of a societ y. A m ovie Sex and t he Cit y for exam ple, represent s t he life of
Am erican w om en in m odern era. The charact ers and t he event s are not real, but t he exist ence of Am erican w om en wit h t heir life st yle, charact erist ics, and relat ionship is
real. In short , t his m ovie can be a represent at ion of t he life of Am erican w om en in m odern era w it h all of t heir problem s and m at t ers of life.
L. The Synopsis of the Film Sex and the City
