criterionforum.org

Sorry if this already has a topic just watched this last night(so it's new to me!). I found the film intriguing and a great slow burn b/w Gyllenhaal and Spader but I really feel it feel apart at the end. It was excellent until:

Spoiler

the scene where Lee goes to Spader's office and stays there for three days

Everything after and including that scene totally does a disservice to the rest of the movie. It seemed to feel like the filmmakers were in a mood where they had to hurry the film up and sew up all the loose ends.

One good note, I did finally get to see Maggie Gyllenhaal nekid. I enjoy her acting but I also think she's hot.

Spoiler

I'm a bit inclined to agree with your assessment of the ending and will add one thing I felt was wrong as well. I felt anything that followed his line answering her question about where he grew up, was a bit overkill. That would have been an incredible peak to end at. Instead we get the typical love-and-marriage stuff to follow that.

This film is a bit of an emotional landmark for me. I won't get too in detail as to why, but this should help. Most anything I'd seen in the mainstream concerning films and TV with sadomasochism as part of the storyline, was either used as bad comedy, titillation or a combination of both. This was the first time I'd seen it used as neither, and the first time I'd seen it utilized as character development. That was a big revelation to my teenaged self, and in it's own way made me more comfortable with who I am.

But looking back, on it's own it doesn't hold as much as a cinematic experience. I gather that Shainberg attempted to try and make Gaitskill's story as commercial, without resorting to some of the things I just referred to. For that much, he certainly did the job. But that means it suffers on some levels as well. Elements (particularly the score and some of the visuals) are right out of American Beauty. I'm not saying a story of this scope needs a more ambitious and original voice, but it wouldn't have hurt either.

I always feel like Secretary is a movie that's difficult to divorce from its politics (in a very specific sense of the word, rather than the broader liberal/conservative sense) and within that I'm disturbed by the sense that Gyllenhall in particular is drawn to what she is doing out of something pathological, rather than straightforward taste. On the other hand, it actually does get into some of the allure of that type of relationship, illustrating it in a way that it's intriguing even to those who in real life don't have much of a taste for it- and certainly, it's far beyond most other movies with known Hollywood stars that come to mind in terms of a progressive depiction. Then too, the S&M aspects of (for instance) Videodrome and Crash are certainly depicted as pathological, and that never bothered me, so I'm not sure of why it seems problematic here.

It does seem like it's become a touchstone among the people I know who consider themselves part of the kink community, which always seems like a strong indicator of doing something right.

The pathological angle into why she finds it attractive was a criticism I've read on some of the community websites I'm on. It's one that I share, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't know a few people with similar carnal inclinations as I who had experimented with self-harm and/or had troubled families. But I've met people who had relatively baggage-free lives, and were also genuinely into what they were doing. It's a problem because I can imagine any number of vanilla folk coming out from watching this thinking people who enjoy sadomasochism and Dominant/submissive relationships only have had problems with mental instability or broken homes. In truth, it takes all types.

I don't want to sound like I'm talking down towards Gyllenhaal's character, but I've always found something heartwrenchingly beautiful about how well her character fit into this relationship because of her mental problems. It's a lovely story about someone turning the worst negative in their life into the best positive.

What maybe saves the movie from these criticisms is that montage where Gyllenhaal attempts to find substitutes for the Spader character, but is repulsed rather than compelled by the various levels of debasement being offered. So she has very specific ideas about what she wants and what she doesn't want, something a pathologically compulsive person wouldn't.

I do remember the hilarious 'normal sex' scene - Gyllenhaal's robotic responses to the heaving man on top of her, as well as being very funny, convey the sense that for her this is not only boring but genuinely debasing. Several other moments stick in my mind, but one in particular is the final shot: while I can see where people are coming from with the above criticisms (and on the whole I agree with flyonthewall that cinematically this is a bit of a mixed bag), I think that

Spoiler

the moment after she puts the insect in the bed, and turns to look at the camera, had a really nice ambiguity to it. At first I saw this as a sort of downbeat ending, reminding us that this character was driven to sadomasochism by deep mental illness. But then I thought that look was more daring the audience to judge her - an affirmation of strength, rather than illness, as if she is past the point where her S/M tendencies count as a problem in her life. It has been a good few years since I saw Secretary, but this is an interesting discussion so I just thought I'd throw that in.

Mr_sausage wrote:What maybe saves the movie from these criticisms is that montage where Gyllenhaal attempts to find substitutes for the Spader character, but is repulsed rather than compelled by the various levels of debasement being offered. So she has very specific ideas about what she wants and what she doesn't want, something a pathologically compulsive person wouldn't.

I'd forgotten about that sequence (been awhile since I've seen it), but yeah that does ring true. Speaking as somewhat of an insider (and I do apologize if my insight makes me sound a little snooty), there's a connection you make with certain people doing certain things. And that's something you can't easily replace. For all intents and purposes, Lee could have found someone more even-headed than the perverts she dated in that sequence, but she would still pine for the feeling Mr. Grey gave her. It's my opinion that good BDSM is about good chemistry, personal and emotional chemistry that is found in that headspace.

I just think there were certainly more roads the film could have gone down instead of the typical Hollywood ending:

Spoiler

How does James Spader's wife fit into everything. Why does he seem to be truly frightened by her? Can the sadist/masochist angle of the Spader/Gyllenhaal relationship change it's dynamic etc. etc.

oldsheperd wrote:

Spoiler

How does James Spader's wife fit into everything. Why does he seem to be truly frightened by her? Can the sadist/masochist angle of the Spader/Gyllenhaal relationship change it's dynamic etc. etc.

Spoiler

I never interpreted her as his ex-wife, but likely someone who was had Grey under her thumb. This is most evident when she turns to Lee and calls her submissive like it was a curse.

With 50 Shades of Grey looming, I'm thinking of dusting off the DVD right around the time it's released. All the negative things I've heard about the book have not really improved with what I've heard about the script haven't lightened my mood about it. At least there is a rather steady movement of people expressing what I feel, that it's as much fantasy as the original story the author stole from. It might bode well for the legacy of Secretary being one of the few films of it's kind that got it right (or at least very close to it).