Sarah Jessica Parker covers this week’s People, with zero mention of Kim Cattrall (update)


**File Photos**

Update by CB: The full story in the print edition does include a mention of Kim Cattrall and how “hurt” SJP was by her. Go here to read.


Last fall, when the first, big public eruption came out regarding Sarah Jessica Parker and Kim Cattrall, it was a big deal. I was surprised by how big of a deal it was – those stories got tons of comments here, and nearly every gossip outlet covered it. Maybe it’s because the show was so beloved, maybe it’s because we (as a society) love “catfights,” or maybe it was because it was a fascinating story about the veneer of female friendship and how fraught those relationships between women really can be. My point? It was a BFD. And it continues to be a BFD, especially when Kim Cattrall chewed up and spat out SJP over the weekend, taking her down in an Instagram post, calling Sarah Jessica a “hypocrite” and burning the bridge down completely with this: “You are not my family. You are not my friend. So I’m writing to tell you one last time to stop exploiting our tragedy in order to restore your ‘nice girl’ persona.”

SJP has yet to respond directly to Kim, because SJP has never responded directly to Kim – SJP always gets her friends and the tabloids to do her dirtiest work against Cattrall. And with the “restore your ‘nice girl’ persona” diss still ringing in our ears, Sarah Jessica Parker has decided to go all-in with restoring that fake-ass persona, and she got People Magazine to help. SJP covers this week’s issue of People, and there is not ONE SINGLE MENTION of Kim Cattrall. Which is gossip-journalism malpractice. It wouldn’t have been that difficult for People’s editors to do a turn-around cover story on the SJP-Cattrall feud. Kim posted her IG on Saturday, and People Magazine likely doesn’t commit to their print issue until Monday. They obviously made SJP the cover subject over that same period of time, and so this comes across like a major entertainment-gossip outlet taking sides. They’re siding with SJP’s fake ass.

As for the actual cover story, you can read it here. SJP talks at length about the strength of her marriage, how she knew Matthew Broderick was “The One,” how her kids are growing up and how she makes time for herself. It’s a classic “nice” cover profile for one of People Magazine’s favorites, like something they would do for Julia Roberts or Jennifer Aniston. But People usually gives those covers to Aniston or Roberts when they have a movie to promote or something specific to shill for. What’s SJP shilling for? Her HBO show, Divorce. Her other side projects. But mostly, she’s shilling for her Nice Girl Persona. Are you buying it?

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty, cover courtesy of People.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

49 Responses to “Sarah Jessica Parker covers this week’s People, with zero mention of Kim Cattrall (update)”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Loopy says:

    whats BFD?

  2. Carrie1 says:

    Let her have it. Kim Cattrall wants SJP to stop using her so I’m glad there’s no mention of Kim in this. I’m really happy for Kim that this bullying is at an end. It took a public statement from Kim because SJP made it public. That’s on SJP.

    On balance, I much prefer Kim’s work to SJP’s work. Kim isn’t fake. SJP reigning in the fake stakes is perfect fit for her. I don’t read People.

  3. pwal says:

    Big f^cking deal, maybe?

    • Pix says:

      Definitely. It is a BFD that she has the cover of People this week to sell her fake niceness. It means she’s in serious damage control. It means her people are reading the comment sections and are scared that her image is taking a beating. This is a crisis for her and i think it’s misplayed. She should have skulked away and not said a word about this “feud” ever again. The heavy eyeliner and smiles on the cover of People smells of a “please like me again” desperation.

      • Imqrious2 says:

        That cover pic!! Whew (and not in a good way!)!! As they say, you get the face you deserve by 50. All that ugliness on the inside is just sleeping out of every pore. All I see is anger, desperation, and narcissism.

      • Babs says:

        She looks like a handbag.

  4. Talie says:

    I’m honestly surprised Divorce survived to a second season…I genuinely know no one who watches it!

    • JG says:

      I do! I really like it. Thomas Haden Church is fantastic. No interest in this feud or a SATC movie, however.

    • JP says:

      Seriously? You geniunely know everyone in the whole f*ing world? C’mon. I watch it. Other people watch it. HBO is in the business of making money, not giving handouts. But so much for facts right? Let’s just use hyperbole to bolster our vicious opinions about people WE DON’T ACTUALLY KNOW.

  5. Robert Boyd says:

    it stands for Big F****** Deal, like this whole supposed fued.

  6. A Croatian says:

    No, I don’t buy it. She is Carrie, all the way. That show was her. Literally.
    And Carrie is really not all that nice. She is selfish and immature, and an egomaniac.

  7. Frida says:

    Did you see SJP on 2 Dope Queen’s HBO special? It was cringeworthy. She clearly didn’t want to be there and was a terrible guest.

    • Surely Wolfbeak says:

      Ha! I didn’t see your comment! So yeah, I think that speaks for itself. See below:

    • mia girl says:

      OMG Yes! You could feel how uncomfortable she was. She just kept talking, (about their hair right?) trying to find a groove to the point where I was like, “Girl, stop!”

      But what really made me laugh was my husband said, “Wow, I feel like I am watching her character in the dinner table scene in The Family Stone. She just keeps talking and she’s about 30 seconds away from saying something really offensive without even realizing it”

    • lucy2 says:

      Oh no. I love 2DQ and am happy they got an HBO show, but now I really don’t want to see that episode! I wonder why they had her of all people on? She’s on a real PR push, isn’t she?

      • Frida says:

        The rest of the episode is good. 2DQs are really good at choosing not-yet-discovered comedians. But yeah, SJP was clearly only there because of her show, and was ill-prepared and not engaging at all.

  8. Jaded1 says:

    Don’t worry. US Weekly online today has the headline story about SJP and her pain from the fight, etc. So her PR work is getting done.

  9. Digital Unicorn says:

    It must have killed her NOT to have talked about Kim and the 3rd SATC movie, esp as its all she’s talked about for the past 6 months.

    I’d bet money that the mag was told to edit out any reference to Kim.

  10. Surely Wolfbeak says:

    Did anyone else catch her on 2Dope Queens? It was cringey.

  11. Jillian says:

    I recently started watching SATC and Carrie is so exhausting. She’s a brat.

    What pisses me off is how mean she is to Big’s wife. Natasha did nothing wrong.

    • Zapp Brannigan says:

      I am starting to think that episode where she won’t take “no” for an answer and keeps contacting Natasha to apologise for cheating with Big was pure SJP, not Carrie. The lines where the character begins and the person ends are very blurred.

      On the upside after all these stories I have started to watch Sensitive Skin and it is great.

  12. Ariel says:

    Not buying it. Will always love girls just want to have fun and footloose, and la story.
    Kind of bristle at sjp now.
    I’m taking a side, it’s Ms Cattrall’s.
    Happy Valentine’s Day to all at celebitchy.

  13. Hmm says:

    She’s a mean girl just like Julia Roberts & Jennifer Aniston. Bunch of fakes.

    • Ginger says:

      As someone who works in the industry, I’ve heard plenty of tea on Roberts’ meanness, but I’ve never heard a bad word spoken about Aniston.

  14. Umyeah says:

    People and Us weekly covers, girl is trying hard to do some damage control. Kim just suffered a massive loss in her life, SJP needs to take a seat and let her mourn

  15. heh says:

    maybe it’s because we (as a society) love “catfights,”….THIS
    also, we (as a society) love rich white people with problems. see: soap operas

    • anne says:

      This is not a catfight. This is SJP being a bully and KC standing up for herself after 20yrs of working in a toxic environment. Don’t belittle women’s grievences

  16. BJ says:

    Like Andy Cohen said there is no catfight or feud if only one person is fighting or feuding.
    Pay her dust,SJP.

  17. stephka says:

    I’m seeing Louise Linton and SJP side by side on my screen. They look remarkably alike!

  18. Bridget says:

    Are we really criticizing People for leaving Kim alone while she’s grieving?

  19. m says:

    She doesn’t mention Kim if that isn’t a sign of the apocalypse i don’t know what is!

  20. minx says:

    OMG SJP looks terrible. I’m sorry, she just does.

    • Shambles says:

      Yep. She’s completely unattractive, and that’s the nice way of putting it. *shrugs* I would feel bad saying that if she had any redeeming qualities as a person, but she’s just a sh!t human and I kind of hate her now so I don’t care.

    • Imqrious2 says:

      She was never conventionally “attractive “in any sense of the word, but with the inner ugliness coming out, it just acerbates it. She also chooses hair and makeup that emphasises that. Definitely Team Kim here.

  21. Betty Whoo says:

    Oh my the 2nd photo.. my o my

  22. Taylor.cyn says:

    I can’t believe in this climate we are talking about her face. If you don’t like her personality fine …. but to criticize the way a person looks is not appropriate. Its on par with fat shaming and commenters need to be a little more aware.

    And other articles I’ve read criticized her for commenting on kim and said she needs to stop. Now there’s an article with no mention and all I see are complaints. Make up your mind.

    • Sullivan says:

      I agree. There sure are a lot of disparaging remarks about her looks. Her looks aren’t the problem.

  23. noway says:

    You need to think about the timeline here. The article came out in print today. There is no way this is a reaction to Kim’s comments last weekend, magazines don’t publish this fast. Now maybe Kim’s people did send some notice to SJP’s people about not talking about the feud over SATC though, cause honestly I can’t see why SJP wouldn’t mention it and try to make herself look good as she always does. Or maybe she finally decided to act on Kim’s public comments and shut up about it, even though she spoke about Kim’s brother’s death. Which may have been too big of a thing for SJP to pass up, because she’s always trying to make herself look good. It is odd this wasn’t mentioned at all, and I don’t think that makes it all friendly article for SJP. Cause it’s weird. This is the most publicity SJP has gotten in years, and not sure why she wouldn’t at least try to defend herself. I just don’t see her shutting up. I’m thinking Kim’s people had something to do with this, and it kind of explains Kim’s tweet. Granted Kim has every right to say what she did, but she had been pretty calm but direct before and her tweet is not. Just seemed like there was more to it, and I just didn’t think it was anything publicly we have seen from SJP that would upset Kim that much to just unload all the dirt.

    • LAK says:

      Actually, weeklies lock their content on monday for the wednesday publishing so there is enough time to rush out a cover story like this in the timeframe of Kim’s comments which were late saturday evening / early sunday morning.

  24. formerly known as Amy says:

    “good girl” persona rehab
    1. Send people to talk shit on KC. US weekly.
    2. Appear on People saying nothing about KC.
    Same shit different day. Like she used to smear KC on DM then come out like the nice girl on interviews.
    ByeBye SJP the jig is up. Find a new PR move