BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Thoughts on "Secretary"

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Ethan Hawke
15:28 / 18.10.02
(I've been trying to write this for over a week, so now I'm just going to throw some random thoughts out. Spoilers throughout)

*I think Secretary is fatally flawed because the director was trying to make two movies simultaneously - One, a sexy, quirky (albeit unconventional) romance with moments of levity, and two, a parody of conventional romance. The two goals are pretty much mutually exclusive, and that's where the major flaws in the story come in. Goal #1 is closer to being fulfilled, and goal #2 isn't close at all.

*What makes Secretary a good movie despite the flaws of the screenplay/editing are the incredible performances of the lead actors. The performances are particularly commendable because the actors communicate so much about their characters in a non-verbal way. Maggie Gyllenhaal has incredible range of emotional registers from meek to confident to defiant that are mostly posture and body positioning. James Spader endows a thinly written character (his motivations is strangely absent - there are intimations of shyness and thinking he's sick, but that's it) with life by just using his face.

*The other thing that makes Secretary a good movie as that there are some very sexy scenes in it.

*Goal #1 comes close to being fulfilled, though the escalation of the relationship between Spader and Gyllenhaal's characters is rushed via a montage, from the initial spanking incident through her calling him for instructions on what she's allowed to eat for dinner to her waltzing around the office doing her menial work, constrained by a spreader bar that keeps her arms in a JC like pose.

*This last scene, which also opens the movie, though very sexy because of Gyllenhaal's poise and obvious enjoyment, unfortunately is out of place in the romance - last I heard, a spreader bar n cuffs are not standard office supplies in a law firm. One of the cool things about the s&m relationship between the characters is that as opposed to the baroque public face of the s&m scene, there's no leather outfits, riding crops, chains, etc. The characters are portrayed as regular, mainstream folks (i know, i know, leather daddies can be normal folks too) which allows an audience that's probably largely composed of people not into or intimidated by the "scene" to relate to the characters better.

*When the movie is funny (Gyllenhaal's character masturbating about "4 peas") it doesn't stoop to mocking the characters. It just shows how ridiculous sex and the sex urge is - even in "vanilla" sex.

*Through 3/4s of the movie its good story, and then it suddenly goes off the deep end starting with (spoilers ahoy) a runaway bride sequence - Now initially the sequence of Lee's vigil at Grey's office, waiting for permission to move from her chair (from him), with a TV newscaster and her parents, etc. visiting her just seemed stupid to me. A huge mistake. Then, I got the idea that what the director was trying to do was play against the common rom/com scene where the hero, after messing up somehow, makes some huge, public declaration of love to win back his girl. Only, haha, she's peeing on herself and it's an S&M relationship. This gambit, aside from being stupid, fails because to make fun of the idea of conventional rom/com wehave to consider Lee's love for Grey (and vice versa) to be somehow ridiculous, pathetic, or sick, which we don't, as the filmmaking in the first part of the movie is nimble enough to avoid making their fetish seem freakish.

*When Spader's character finally comes around, the ending scene is completely vanilla, completing the message that yes, their love was freakish, and having sex in a hot-tub after washing your girlfriend's body is the right way to do things. This is somewhat mitigating by the very ending, where an allusion to their courtship period is made in their new life together, but the idea has already been planted that grown-up love is straight sex. It felt like me that the filmmaker was chickening out, throwing in this ending so it would be palatable to the audience.

I've got more thoughts about the movie (what's up with Lee's dad? Is the association between cutting and being involved in S&M a harmful or pernicious one?) but I'd like to hear what other people thought.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
11:46 / 21.10.02
No one else has seen this? Flux, I know you've seen it. [whines]C'mon. Me want to discuss [/whine].
 
 
Hieronymus
12:32 / 21.10.02
I saw this two weeks ago. Struck way too close to home for me as it was seemingly my ex's and my relationship being played on the big screen. All I can say right now, as I'm dashing off to class, is that you're right that there were scenes that slightly derailed the conventional romance between Lee and Edward but I was struck by how deep their relationship was, even if it was only a snapshot of a beginning. Made me squirmy as hell to see it with a vanilla friend who's not in the scene at all but we both walked out of the theatre understanding that Lee's devotion to Edward was extremely powerful. As well as his devotion to her. He was the first person to truly show he cared about her. Her father was a drunk, lost to most of his own life much less his family, a virtual nonentity to Lee, her mother a flake, her sisters vain and showy. Nobody was real. Nobody was genuine. The only genuine thing she knew was cutting herself. Only the pain was legitimate. And then she meets Mr. Grey and suddenly his genuineness is almost overwhelming. This is his 'darker' side according to him, his gritty true self. Like he tells Lee when he's firing her "If you don't leave, I won't be able to stop". He's supposed to be ashamed of his desires. But he can't help but be true to them, God bless 'im.

Most of what I believe a good S & M relationship to be was culminated in that scene at his office when she's proving her devotion to him. Pain and suffering ends with or is its own reward. To me that very much encompassed the whole theme of Lee's life in this movie. I loved it. A few bumpsin the road but it's the most direct BDSM relationship flick I've ever seen.

More when I have some genuine time to wrestle with this thread.
 
 
Ray Fawkes
12:46 / 21.10.02
When Spader's character finally comes around, the ending scene is completely vanilla...

I'd dispute this point. Just because there was no overt S/M play in the final scene (i.e. no pain dealt, no bondage) doesn't mean it was "vanilla". Lee's abandon in that scene is complete - and Grey claims her absolutely. Reading it as just "sex in the hot tub after a bath" seems like you're plucking it right out of context - especially considering how significant it is that Lee revealed all of her scars.

Personally, I think "Secretary" was a beautiful examination of an S/M relationship and a powerful romance as well. Lee's dedication and Grey's compulsion were played with sensitivity and grace. I'm not sure I see a parody of conventional romance at all - the film seems to be written as a romance, period.
 
 
MJ-12
14:46 / 21.10.02
Isn't the tub scene followed by the offscreen wedding, after which they have sex with her tied to a tree?
 
 
Ethan Hawke
19:04 / 21.10.02
What I'm grappling with is how to fit the parade of visitors to Lee during her "vigil" for Grey into the scheme of a romance. I think it's a horrible sequence, to be honest, especially when they bring the TV crew in. It becomes cheesy like your typical Hollywood Rom/com, which is why I think the filmmaker intended it as a parody of the cheesiness. Only, for the parody to work, you have to make fun of the type of relationship Lee and Grey have.

Or, maybe not - maybe the scene serves to make the point that all relationships, especially the ones in Hollywood rom/coms, have a submissive/dominant aspect to them. The hero of a hollywood love story is usually a masochist, isn't he?

MJ-12, yeah, it does, which is why I said the sequence following the bath tub scene mitigates the implied message of vanilla-sex-is-best of that scene.
 
 
betty woo
14:39 / 24.10.02
I got the impression that the whole public intervention aspect of that sequence was intended to deal with the awkwardness and difficulty of making public one's involvement in an s/m relationship. The various visitors demonstrate a range of negative interpretations of the relationship, reflecting the way that outsiders misinterpret and are bothered by the power dynamics that work for the individuals involved. The TV crew represents the "Jerry Springer" response to such relationships, and Lee's devotion is tested by her willingness not to crumble in the face of such judgements and scrutiny. The parody seemed to be about other people's reactions to the relationship, not of the relationship itself.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
15:00 / 28.10.02
Betty Woo,

If so, what's the significance of the drunken Father's total acceptance of the relationship (he said something like "I gave you your body and you can use it however you see fit for your pleasure"; he may have been quoting someone. I don't exactly recall).
 
 
Ethan Hawke
15:00 / 28.10.02
So, basically, I'm wrong about my whole theory of the Filmmaker's agenda here, and Secretary was a great movie without any sort of tension between what it was trying to say and what it actually said? No one else had any qualms with the way this relationship was portrayed?
 
 
Ray Fawkes
16:00 / 28.10.02
I think the basis of the argument presupposes what the film is "trying to say". In my opinion, it seems to say: Kinky love is still love. No tension there between what I saw and what I got.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
20:23 / 31.10.02
I pretty much agree with most everything Todd has said - it's a weird movie, cos if it just stopped after Mr. Gray fires Lee, it would've been fantastic, but the ending is tacked-on and seems almost like it morphs into a completely different movie with a drastically different point-of-view and message. Make no mistake - this ending was added on, the original short story never went there. In fact, the short story seems more like a pitch for the movie - so much of the film is not in that story that the credits should read "inspired by a short story".
 
 
The Strobe
16:42 / 24.05.03
(culled from a thread I started but then discovered this one and decided it was pointless, so apologies if I don't reply to anything previously - will look in a while).

It's a surprising piece, veering from comedy to pathos, and is a very uplifting film - it's a feel-good film for people like me.

It also does a good job, in my humble and not entirely experienced opinion, of portraying behavioral disorder; Maggie Gyllenhaal's Lee is very well-realised, and her turns towards self-harm are very, very painful to watch. They're also crucial to the development of the film, and the sequence at the end where she describes explaining what each scar is from and represents to Mr Grey is just lovely.

That's the thing about the film: it's very tender, very sweet. The tone is set early on in a wonderful scene in which Grey (James Spader) sits her down, and explains his own shyness to her, and then enquires about her self-harm - because he's seen her cutting herself at her desk. And then, quite simply, tells her "you will never, ever, cut yourself again." She needs the command, needs the order; it's the greatest expression of his affection for her, because he knows she'll do whatever he says. It gives her motivation, gives her drive, and sets the tone for what's to come. Another similarly brilliant sequence is when Lee is essentially on hunger-strike, refusing to budge from Grey's desk because he told her too, and she's visited by all manner of people - her family, friends, and helpful femnists and submissives trying to offer advice. But the best advice comes from her formerly alcoholic father, who quotes the Bible passage explaining that whilst we're made in God's image it's up to us to do whatever the hell we please with those bodies, and her former psychiatrist at the institute she was released from, who simply says "who says love has to be sweet and gentle?" - really, it's whatever you want it to be.

I'll stop ranting on, but it's very lovely, has some wonderful comic sequences (oh, the worm!) and also manages to make some serious points, unflinching from its central character's afflictions and needs. I loved it, anyhow.
 
 
Professor Silly
18:05 / 24.05.03
god...damn...it...

If you cut off the whole ending, then we'd miss the placement of the bug on the bed.

Which goes to show, even though she's found love and all, she's still NAUGHTY and the games continue in their comfortable suburban life.

I can see why fans of S&M porn didn't like it...but sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
 
passer
23:34 / 24.05.04
I'm still trying to figure out how I missed this movie for two years! I have however made up for my oversight through obsessive multiple viewings. I love this movie.

I recommend renting the DVD and watching with the commentary, which is pretty good about discussing the intent behind the scenes. The director says outright that it's a romance first and S/M is only one facet of the love story.
 
 
Looby
12:04 / 25.05.04
From what I remember the scene in the bath was far more about being tender and loving someone emotionally rather than sexually - their relationship was many-faceted and this showed that their mutual love of S&M was only one of these facets.

I personally came out of that movie feeling uplifted and sexy - a great combination. And it portrayed S&M in such a positive light, very clearly making the distinction between abusive relationships and functional S&M relationships. Through submissive behaviour our heroine found her voice and confidence, as well as a deep physical and emotional relationship.
 
 
Peach Pie
16:15 / 31.08.05


The general feeling I get from what people have posted above is that the hard spanking is far more healthy than the self-mutilation. If so, I'm not fully sure I agree. Read one psychologist who suggested that enjoying being spanked as an adult came from being smacked in childhood and learning to associate it with pleasure becuase the experience was relatively memorable.

Thought both characters were likable and brilliantly acted, but I didn't understand what I perceived as a change in Gray's character at the end. has he become a gentle lover? Had he fallen in love?

Also, what did you make of the ambiguous ending? With a wife now ensconced at home, was he off to hire another "secretary"?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
17:00 / 31.08.05
Read one psychologist who suggested that enjoying being spanked as an adult came from being smacked in childhood and learning to associate it with pleasure becuase the experience was relatively memorable.

Well, if you've read one psychologist, I guess that proves it! Everybody who claims to enjoy being spanked has problems related to their childhood and does not enjoy it really. It is not healthy, etc.

A bit like being at someone's beck. And call.
 
 
Peach Pie
15:20 / 01.09.05
no - just raising the possibility that the psycholgist might have a point.

why so defensive?
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
15:45 / 01.09.05
Loved James Spader in this. Especially the scene where he finally goes to pick her up at the office after three days or whatever, and when he walks past the crowd he's sipping a frozen coffee drink. Like "alright, time to collect my love and live happily ever after. mmm...gotta stop at starbucks first..."
 
 
Jack Vincennes
18:44 / 01.09.05
but I didn't understand what I perceived as a change in Gray's character at the end. has he become a gentle lover? Had he fallen in love?

I don't think it was meant to be a change -it was a change in what the viewer saw of him, but I don't think it was inconsistent. He could obviously be gentle to Lee, as shown best (I think) in the scene Paleface mentions, where he tells her she will stop self-mutilating. The difference at the end is that Grey doesn't feel disgusted with himself when he's with Lee; so he's out of the cycle of spanking her, hating himself for it, then still feeling the same thing for, and wanting to do the same thing with her. That aspect of their relationship was still there (him telling her how to organise the cushoins, the coakroach she leaves on the bed...) but they could both express it in different ways because they knew the other wouldn't leave.

Also, what did you make of the ambiguous ending? With a wife now ensconced at home, was he off to hire another "secretary"?

Again, I'd not thought this, mainly because that seems like a part of the old cycle of his relationships which had never made him particularly happy.

Tuna Ghost, I liked the perfectly ordered and completely empty jars in his kitchen in the scene before that -"my love might have been waiting for me for the last three days, but my kitchen is a model of neatness..."
 
 
Jackie Susann
21:40 / 01.09.05
I hated this movie so much! I mean, I had a pull and everything, but as a movie and as a 'message' I think it totally, totally fails. Everyone has pointed out how stupid the ending is, but did nobody notice it portrays SM people as completely pathological and weird? Yeah yeah, rote bullshit about neurotic self-harm as precursor/less healthy version of SM relationship, the bottom inexplicably falls for her sweaty, weird, sexually harrassing boss presumably because SM people are so overcome by their URGES as to be unable to fall for the first dude who spanks em.

The only thing this film is possibly good for is showing your new boyfriend/girlfriend as a kinda gingerly way to exit the closet.
 
 
lekvar
05:17 / 02.09.05
...but did nobody notice it portrays SM people as completely pathological and weird?
I thought it did a nice job of showing that people in s/m relationships are people too.
 
 
lekvar
05:20 / 02.09.05
OK, that was a little vague and flip.

I thought the movie showed a logical progression that a relationship could take, one based on dominace and submission. The characters reacted in an understandable way, their feelings and motivations obvious in ways that would, conceivably, be obvious to "vanilla" viewers.
 
 
The Strobe
09:42 / 02.09.05
did nobody notice it portrays SM people as completely pathological and weird?

Well, I'm pretty sure it didn't. It happens to be a film, and the SM relationship is a logical progression within the plot. I'm sure in "real life" that SM people don't fall for the first person that spanks them, but the film has a plot and a story to tell.

And besides, I'm pretty sure Lee isn't "all SM people". She's quite a specific character who was capabable of making the decision she did - and actively chose to.
 
 
Jack Vincennes
10:10 / 02.09.05
presumably because SM people are so overcome by their URGES as to be unable to fall for the first dude who spanks em

I saw this much more as a limitation of / trope from the romantic comedy genre in general. If you look at something like Sliding Doors, the protagonist essentially falls for the first person who's nice to her after she finds her boyfriend cheating -and in a way Grey was the first person to be nice to Lee, or at least the first person to actually pay attention to her and take her feelings into account in his interactions with her. I'm not sure that what happens in Slidiing Doors is particularly different from what happens in Secretary (excepting, obviously, the way the relationship develops) especially if it was, as the director considered it, primarily a romantic film rather than a film about SM.
 
 
Evil Scientist
10:38 / 02.09.05
One of my favourite romantic films this. That moment where Lee gets spanked for the first time; surprise turning to a look that burns through the screen. Gyllenhaal is a fantastic actor, she moves so easily between sniffing wallflower and filthy sexpot.
 
 
Jackie Susann
07:29 / 03.09.05
point taken re. generic formula, but i have never seen another romantic comedy in which both characters start out so obviously abnormal (i.e., to the point that one is in an institution). and the way the plot develops, to me, seems to put their sexuality in continuity with what are intitially presented as character flaws, and in cliched reproductions of social hierarchies, i.e., maggie is shy and self-destructive and in subordinate position economically : bottom :: james spader is creepy and manipulative and the boss : top. it really bothers me, both as a practicing pervert and a romantic comedy fan (although the latter may be its own kind of perversion). on the other hand, there is one scene that i think is maybe the sexiest thing i ever saw in a movie, so i am not totally down on it.
 
 
Peach Pie
08:22 / 03.09.05
Loved James Spader in this.

Veeery charming.
 
 
Jack Vincennes
09:23 / 03.09.05
the way the plot develops, to me, seems to put their sexuality in continuity with what are intitially presented as character flaws

I think that the fact I was watching this movie from the standpoint of someone without any real experience of SM meant that I was less alive to this reading than I could have been, and to a far greater extent just liked the fact that a romcom could show two people who were so very obviously miserable (as opposed to just 'a wee bit unhappy', as in much of the genre) and show their being happier by being together. Certainly I didn't think that the viewer was meant to take it as typical of an SM relationship, although I can see how actually being in such a relationship (SM, not 'like Lee and Grey's') might have changed the way I interpreted the movie.

there is one scene that i think is maybe the sexiest thing i ever saw in a movie

Do tell...
 
 
Peach Pie
09:49 / 03.09.05
"fetch me my usual sandwich... no mayonnaise this time"
 
 
Hydra vs Leviathan
14:07 / 06.09.06
well, i actually found this film (ideologically) very uncomfortable and disturbing...

The primary thing that really disturbed me about it was the way that he basically took from her the one thing she had (her use of cutting and/or pain to self-medicate) that was for her a meaningful form of self-control, and replaced it with his control over her (ie, by banning her from using pain in a constructive way by herself, and only allowing her to be thus "medicated" by him). IMO, that's equivalent to taking away the medication someone was dependent on, and saying ze could then only have that medication if they have sex with you...

also (IIRC, it's a while since i watched it) the initial spanking was completely out-of-the-blue, without warning and came as a complete surprise to Gyllenhaal's character - now, if this spanking is defined as a sex act, what would you call a "vanilla" sex act initiated in the same manner? (hint: it's a four-letter word that rhymes with "shape")

to be honest, what the relationship reminded me of more than anything was Stockholm syndrome...

maybe in part my emotional response to the film could be related to the fact that i have considerably more friends who are/have been survivors of rape, domestic violence and pimping/people-trafficking than are actively involved in BDSM (and have never been involved in a BDSM relationship myself, altho that's more for want of opportunity than lack of interest), but from a libertarian/feminist perspective IMO the Spader/Gyllenhaal relationship is (to say the least) deeply problematic...

I think Jackie Susann's point about reproductions of social hierarchies also has quite a lot to do with my perception (interestingly, i reckon i wouldn't have felt anywhere near so uncomfortable about this film if the genders were reversed)...

None of this is to say that i didn't think Secretary was a brave, powerful, highly intelligent and transgressive film, and i also did find it both funny and sexy in part... but i'm not convinced it's a film about a positively-viewed romance, rather than about the nasty, uncomfortable reality of the overlap between sexuality and abuse/exploitation...

(incidentally, i searched for a thread on this film because i was strongly reminded of it by this thread in Conversation... make of that what you will...)
 
 
Spaniel
18:42 / 06.09.06
Isn't the point that she chooses him, consciously, and chooses his "medication", and therefore presumably could refuse it? That she's ultimately empowered.

Only seen the film once, ages ago, so I'm not sure. That's the impression lurking in my mind, however.
 
 
*
05:20 / 08.09.06
(incidentally, i searched for a thread on this film because i was strongly reminded of it by this thread in Conversation... make of that what you will...)

Why don't YOU make something of it? Do the participants in that thread not deserve you being forthright, instead of alluding to the thread obliquely and then putting the responsibility into the hands of your readers? That's a really heavy thing to level at people without being willing to get behind it. This makes me so mad! Take some responsibility for what you think and post to the board. If what you think about that thread and its participants isn't worth taking responsibility for, it's not worth hinting at.
 
 
Char Aina
06:11 / 08.09.06
yeah.
i'm not so sure that was all that good an ending to your post, natty.
it kinda shits all over everything else you've said, as though you've spent an hour getting cleaned up and ready for a posh summer picnic, half an hour choosing the right linen outift and then another hour making sure all your accesories match, only to loose your bowels explosively.

taxi to moss bros. for sir?
 
 
*
23:25 / 08.09.06
That was also not particularly useful, I think.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply