criterionforum.org

Napier wrote:

domino harvey wrote: because I'd be anything but flattered were I in her position and offered this film.

Do you know some behind the scenes info Domino. Exactly what position was Ms. Grey in, when offered the film? :-k

You're making poor jokes too easy there.

knives wrote:

Napier wrote:

domino harvey wrote: because I'd be anything but flattered were I in her position and offered this film.

Do you know some behind the scenes info Domino. Exactly what position was Ms. Grey in, when offered the film? :-k

You're making poor jokes too easy there.

Did I miss something in the rules thread knives. Are poor jokes out of vogue on the boards now?

I doubt that it was this position.

That link is most certainly NSFW. Just letting people know.

kaujot wrote:That link is most certainly NSFW. Just letting people know.

Good lord. Does she normally wear that much eyeshadow in her porn films? Nice to know that she's a natural brunette, though. Anyway, how is the film using her image against her? I haven't seen the movie, but why would Soderbergh (consumer critiques of the film aside) use her against herself?

The character is a vapid nothing floating by on her moderately good looks and cold but willing sexual interactions

domino harvey wrote:The character is a vapid nothing floating by on her moderately good looks and cold but willing sexual interactions

That certainly makes sense. But since she's just a porn star isn't that like shooting fish in a barrel? I'm not trying to denigrate her talents, but if the point was to get a vapid actress to play a vapid character then what was Soderbergh trying to prove? Stunt casting? Maybe it's a good thing she's got a new (certainly promising) career as a hipster now.

I think it's one of the reasons the film doesn't really work: The Erotic Connoisseur's brittle rebuff of Grey's character is accurate and perceptive, even in its vulgarity, but it doesn't exactly bring anything new to the table. I thought the trainer boyfriend was far more interesting (especially during the argument scene where it was like acting against a brick wall), but his none-too-subtle self-prostitution of sorts to help the Vegas guys didn't really work and the film isn't particularly interested in a character who willingly, exclusively dates an escort without exchanging money-- though really, isn't that the far more interesting story here?

but if the point was to get a vapid actress to play a vapid character then what was Soderbergh trying to prove?

That's not the point, or at least I don't think it is. Grey and Soderbergh are smarter than that. There is some self-reference in the casting in that Grey is a fairly driven and single-minded personality exploiting film/Hollywood/the porn scene in an attempt to quickly earn cash and promote her name, but the vapidity of the character addresses a larger issue.

When we see Sasha with her customers, she adopts an distant, uncluttered, and uninterested tone. Gradually we become aware that she is a blank slate and it is her customers who are projecting their desires onto her. She need not do anything more than turn up to her appointments and exist as a screen for these projections to take place. In return for whoring out her body, Grey gets business advice or financial assistance. She clearly gets something in return for her time, like every other modern professional.

We get the sense throughout the film that Sasha's clients--all businessmen and well off personalities--turn to her to escape the uncertainties of a fluctuating economy. For them, she becomes a comforting teddy bear. The irony is that in embracing Sasha, these men are clinging to the very thing they're running away from. The "hyper-sweetness" of the final scene (lonely Jewish jeweler hugging Sasha like a wounded child) shows that prostitution has become comforting and tender in comparison to the brutality of capitalism. It is no longer a dark and corrupt enterprise (think Eyes Wide Shut), but a warm and cosy escape for all those involved, whilst also simultaneously being a symptom of extreme desperation.

A prostitute is paid to embody a fantasy for her client?!

The only element worth noting is the style of "acting" that is employed. Like Bubble, Soderbergh achieves a level of "acting" far above most films ever made. This, to me, is the sole reason these films even exist, to showcase this style. And it's an achievement that is extremely underrated. Beyond it, both films are fairly empty, especially Girlfriend and really not worth being talked about.

P.S.
For the most part, I thought the music detracted from the film. Especially when the drummer/singers were not seen.

Tark wrote:Soderbergh achieves a level of "acting" far above most films ever made.

That's quite the sweeping generalization.

Fiery Angel wrote:

Tark wrote:Soderbergh achieves a level of "acting" far above most films ever made.

That's quite the sweeping generalization.

Just my thoughts, my man/woman.

Tark wrote:

Fiery Angel wrote:

Tark wrote:Soderbergh achieves a level of "acting" far above most films ever made.

That's quite the sweeping generalization.

Just my thoughts, my man/woman.

Mine too, man/woman.

domino harvey wrote:A prostitute is paid to embody a fantasy for her client?!

I somewhat agree with you in the sense that I think The Girlfriend Experience is a throwaway film. Why Soderbergh continues to try and juggle blockbusters and "art movies" when he's not interested in putting any real effort into his smaller and more personal pictures is beyond me. I do think there is some value in the way it portrays New York City at a specific point in time though (as the user Ted Todorov said earlier).

I will agree with that, and more specifically one of my initial thoughts was that it's the best apartment porn film since Melinda and Melinda

Apartment porn?

I'd like to hear someone's invented reason for why the "action" was out of focus about half the time.

If I remember correctly, more accurately something in the foreground was in focus in the periphery of the screen-- a wineglass, &c. I'm sure a valid symbolic reason could be conjured

domino harvey wrote:If I remember correctly, more accurately something in the foreground was in focus in the periphery of the screen-- a wineglass, &c. I'm sure a valid symbolic reason could be conjured

Not always, sometimes the background was in focus.

Here's one: It looks cool.

The way you said quote unquote action I thought you meant sex scenes, which would then provide a clear motive for using focus in adding a bit of subtlety.

CRM-114 wrote:The "hyper-sweetness" of the final scene (lonely Jewish jeweler hugging Sasha like a wounded child) shows that prostitution has become comforting and tender in comparison to the brutality of capitalism.

That's an interesting take on it, completely different from my own. I didn't get that he was in any lonely. My favorite part of the film --

Spoiler

When Chelsea visits the Jewish jeweler guy, he tells her: "You should vote for John McCain" and "It is very important to preserve the state of Israel", and then moments later, with his hand on her bare ass, he prematurely ejaculates...

WTF! Seems like you could read a lot into that final shot, if you're so inclined. Hilarious! I wonder what Godard would make of it.

Yeah, just barely saw the film and have to agree with what my friend told me earlier, that the last shot is almost at a Boogie Nights-level of perfection. Loved the film, and definitely didn't find the last shot to be "hypersweet" or anything at all-- quite the contrary, I found it to be chilling and cast the film in a darker light. So while it's unlike the Boogie Nights shot in that respect (which was more celebratory and optimistic), it still packs the same punch and is so poetic and perfect in many, many ways.

I would say it is in a far better league then Boogie Nights, but I don't like much of BN so my opinion on that might not matter.

Wow, I can't imagine what it's like to be of that sort of mindset. The Girlfriend Experience better than Boogie Nights? Really?