This Valentines day has seen the release of one of the most talked about franchises in the past few years. What started as a rather crude Twilight fan fiction turned into three novels, a range of sex toys and now a Hollywood movie. But the sheer number of highly negative reviews for the film and the comments they made about the movie sparked my interest.
For those of you who have been living under a rock for these past few years, the books tell the story of the young student Anastasia Steele, who goes to interview Christian Grey, a wealthy businessman, for the university paper. From this brief encounter they end up becoming infatuated with each other. They fall in love, get married, have kids and live happily ever after.
Christian, however, has a dark past. The emotions from which, he 'manages' through his sexual encounters. He is a Dominant and he takes women on to be his Submissive's, asking them to sign extensive contracts within which are a series of rules and guidelines for the relationship. Anastasia gets whisked up by his allure and begins to experiment with the idea of this relationship and thus the story begins.
The concept didn't exactly intrigue me when I first heard about it a few years ago when the books became available. However I was astounded by the language used to describe the film, when reviews started to hit just before the films global release. A number of critics felt so strongly about the film that they labelled it as:
"more appalling than appealing. It’s domestic violence dressed up as erotica." Today Show Australia
"set in the BDSM world that dangerously dramatizes sexual violence and glamorizes domestic abuse." Hollywoodchicago.com
"more appalling than appealing. It’s domestic violence dressed up as erotica." Today Show Australia
"set in the BDSM world that dangerously dramatizes sexual violence and glamorizes domestic abuse." Hollywoodchicago.com
Unlike some of you who may be reading this, I have not read the books. To be quite honest I have no desire to read them, as their content lies a bit outside of my interests (if you know what I mean). But after reading those reviews and seen as I had a week off and a few hours to kill, I decided to go see the film. What I am about to say does not in any way comment on the events which take place in the book. From what I have read and heard from other people, the film does a good job of toning down or removing some of the cruder elements and therefore I am in no place to comment on them. I am merely expressing my opinions on the film and its content only.
As far as films go I thought Fifty shade of Grey was fairly standard. Boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, a few scenes showing intimacy and a growing connection between the two, followed by some drama surrounding a taboo area, fall out and then a cliff hanger to make sure you come back to see the sequel. The overall plot itself was nothing original. The finer details of BDSM within the movie are something I haven't seen explored on the big screen much and herein lies the controversy.
I'm going to go right out there and say that I thought the movie was tame. There was nothing really in there that shocked me in any way and I can easily say that I have seen much worse in films before that have not had anywhere near the levels of controversy that this has. For example, The Killer Inside Me is a harrowing tale of domestic violence which tells the story of an American deputy sherif and his sociopathic tendencies. There was some level of controversy about this film but nothing on the scale that Fifty Shades has received. There are many films out there that show relationships which turn violent and yet this seems to be accepted as a tolerable topic within films today. That does not mean that these films are glorifying or attempting to convince people that these things are any less wrong than the obviously are. But writers and film makers do not shy away from these topics nowadays when they are considering what might be too much for the films audience. Fifty Shades of Grey is different however, because it sets out to be overtly erotic, a task I feel it managed to convey quite well. However the idea that the film 'glamorises domestic abuse' and 'dresses violence up as erotica' are completely unfounded and potentially damaging to the film. Also, herein lies my quarrel, I feel that these exaggerated statements could prove damaging to the public too.
Everything, I repeat, EVERYTHING that happens in the film is fully consensual and there are strict rules and boundaries. These are set out and made perfectly clear before anything happens between the two lead characters and are stuck to at all times. I cannot help but feel that for viewers of a lesser understanding of BDSM, to be told that these events are acts of domestic abuse and sexual violence, is potentially incredibly damaging. A number of people in society explore these areas within a safe environment and these acts are capable of enhancing or even helping to create strong, loving relationships. People should be free (within reason) to carry out their fantasies with fully consensual partners, without fear of being labelled as being an abuser or being sexually violent. I can see that the primitive and hyperbolic views of some of these critics could harbour the potential to lead people to fear trying things that may end up being immensely positive experiences.
I cannot abide people of influence thrusting their opinions onto other people as facts when they are merely remarks made out of ignorance or differing personal preferences.
Another point of contention many critics have had with the film, is some of the language used which suggests that Grey wants to be overly controlling of Anna. Many critics have made some serious blanket statements claiming that the film was suggesting women should relinquish control to men and that they cannot be happy when they have to make their own decisions.
Just take a step back here and think about what the film is actually saying. The film is saying that Christian enjoys sex where he is in control, where women are trying to please him. Yes this may be sycophantic and some people may find this aspect of his personality overbearing, but he does not in any way suggest that all women should agree to this. He merely offers this to Anna if she is interested. You could argue that him only offering this to her and no other attributes of a relationship (in a 'it's this or nothing' kind of way) could be classed as emotional blackmail. But if she doesn't want what he is offering, she is more than capable of walking away or negotiating the finer details of the contract with him, which indeed she does.
I was absolutely dumbfounded when I read that critics were using this as an argument against the film, as events that take place in these sorts of media are meant within the context of the situation in front of you. If a films protagonist decides he wants to go to a restaurant for sushi then this does not mean that the film is suggesting that everyone must eat sushi and nothing else for the rest of their lives. It is merely suggesting that this character enjoys sushi and that at that time he decided he wanted some. I'm sure the worlds fish population are a tad unenthusiastic about this decision, but I don't see why anyone else should feel they have any right to criticise his culinary choices.
There is one scene in the film where the level of acceptable violence within a BDSM relationship was tested and in my opinion, definitely pushed beyond the limits of what is acceptable. However at this point, the film made a point of highlighting that this was in no means acceptable. It was too far and there were considerable repercussions for Grey's actions within this sequence. Yes it was an uncomfortable scene to watch but it was in no way glamorised or played out to be erotic. I was impressed with how this part of the film was handled and how well it was acted by the lead characters and thought that it was one of the highlights of the film.
A good dramatic story has to have an event or a moment where something striking or climactic actually takes place. Or else films would be bound by the constraints of normality. They would lose that je ne sais quoi, that films and literature have. That ability to take us outside of our reality and show us a narrative we may never experience ourselves.
I can't help but worry that dark times are ahead if writers and film makers have to live in fear of being chastised for delving into these controversial topics.
