50 Shades Series: Fan Fiction Run Amok

[methodwriter85]

Again, I'm going to laugh my ass off if they decide to split Fifty Shades Freed into two movies. After Divergent and Mad Men, I'm not putting anything past Hollywood executives. LOL.

[proserpina65]

Box office update:

 

 

It looks to be just as popular, if not moreso, outside the US. Guess it must be all those expatriate Midwestern soccer moms crowding global theaters...

I think that's the saddest thing I've ever read.

[emjohnson03]

I saw this today, by myself, no less. Yay Valentines day for me!

 

I read the first book so I knew what was going to happen but wow it was boring. Everything about their relationship was dull and just very wooden. Granted the source material was fan fiction but they couldn't do any better or try to elevate it.

 

I actually didn't mind Dakota, I thought she played it well but it's hard when you aren't enjoying your co-star. If you google enough you can read how much her and Jamie didn't really get along, maybe it was the material or whatever but it was obvious they could care less about what they were doing. I think she can do well but she might be stuck playing the whole inocent girl thing.

 

Jamie was ehhh. They worked so hard to find the right Christian but in the end they had to scramble anyways. I was always for Matt Bomer (not like he would take the role) because he wouldn't be so retrained and bring some fun into it, even in the dark material (and he can wear a suit damn!)  He could be both brooding and sexy but I think Jamie was just brooding. He really only had two expressions, stotic and puppy dog and neither was capitvating.

 

My biggest pet peeve and I'm usually ok with this was the music. So much music. They could have made the sex scenes sexy by putting in words or thoughts or something. The scenes that were meant to be so scandelous were so freaking dull.

 

And now that the other 2 will be in the works, let's see how they take it.

 

No one in their right mind would actually fall in love with a man like that, so yeah....

 

 

 

 

[Rick Kitchen]

There's a romance novelists convention going on in Sacramento this weekend and the local news was trying to connect the convention to 50 Shades.  50 Shades is a romantic movie?  Do they know what it's about?

[xls]

That is fucked up.

That goes to illustrate what a sicko this character must be. If I was Ana, no way would I let him around a child.

[SophiaD]

I won't be seeing this movie. I tried to read the first book, but it just made me sick.  Christian is creepy, stalker-ish, and has serious emotional issues. His constant attempts (mostly successful, because LLLLLLOOOOOOVVVVEEEEE - not to mention her horrible lack of self-esteem) to control Ana, tell her what to do, tell her what she wants, and keep her isolated, powerless, and dependent.  I didn't remember him getting angry/ignoring her safe word, but I'm not surprised.

 

I'm just vaguely alarmed at the droves of young women who will see this dreck, and then downplay any abuse issues *they* experience.  Yuck.

Edited February 15, 2015 by SophiaD

[Cobalt Stargazer]

There's a romance novelists convention going on in Sacramento this weekend and the local news was trying to connect the convention to 50 Shades.  50 Shades is a romantic movie?  Do they know what it's about?

 

Rick Kitchen, there's a website called paperbackswap.com, and I was browsing it for new copies of the Sleeping Beauty series, and in the comments section about one of the books in it, someone posted that FSOG was "a love story with some BDSM in it" while the latter was just about a girl who was forced to like spanking. So apparently people who actually are familiar with the material don't know what it's about.

[Zuleikha]

I'm just vaguely alarmed at the droves of young women who will see this dreck, and then downplay any abuse issues *they* experience.

 

I've seen this Huff Post article about a woman wishing her husband would be more like Christian Grey referenced frequently (not necessarily here... the woman's-interest blog-of-sphere is chock full of anti-50 Shades of Grey writing this weekend). It was clearly comedic, but people were still using it as an example that women were going to be influenced by the book. There's another article by that author in which she fantasizes about what it would really be like to be married to him, and the image she paints is both unenjoyable, ridiculous, and even includes reference to Christian Grey's stalker tendencies.

 

This seems like a non-sequitor, but I bring it up because it seems like the thing to assume that women who like FSoG are unaware of how abusive and dangerous Grey's behavior is. But I don't think there's a good reason to assume that. Things like Beauty and the Beast sneak abusive behavior in under the radar of romance by being light and pretty and romantic and quality entertainment. FSoG is none of those things. It's dark and poorly written and ridiculous. The article writer I linked to above is a fan and seems as typical as any one person can be of a fan, and she clearly gets the distinction between what works in fantasy and what works in real life. I do think the general trope of taming the bad boy can be absorbed in a dangerous way, but I don't think FSoG is a particularly harmful example of it (and I admit that I am personally a sucker for a good taming the bad boy story... it's a fun fantasy!).

[Proclone]

I've seen this Huff Post article about a woman wishing her husband would be more like Christian Grey referenced frequently (not necessarily here... the woman's-interest blog-of-sphere is chock full of anti-50 Shades of Grey writing this weekend). It was clearly comedic, but people were still using it as an example that women were going to be influenced by the book. There's another article by that author in which she fantasizes about what it would really be like to be married to him, and the image she paints is both unenjoyable, ridiculous, and even includes reference to Christian Grey's stalker tendencies.

 

This seems like a non-sequitor, but I bring it up because it seems like the thing to assume that women who like FSoG are unaware of how abusive and dangerous Grey's behavior is. But I don't think there's a good reason to assume that. Things like Beauty and the Beast sneak abusive behavior in under the radar of romance by being light and pretty and romantic and quality entertainment. FSoG is none of those things. It's dark and poorly written and ridiculous. The article writer I linked to above is a fan and seems as typical as any one person can be of a fan, and she clearly gets the distinction between what works in fantasy and what works in real life. I do think the general trope of taming the bad boy can be absorbed in a dangerous way, but I don't think FSoG is a particularly harmful example of it (and I admit that I am personally a sucker for a good taming the bad boy story... it's a fun fantasy!).

 

I don't really object to woman (or men) liking or getting turned on by a story like FSOG.  Heck I've read some works that I've found pretty hot where issues of consent were a little dubious.  The difference in my mind is they were not dressed up as an epic romance.  They were obvious fantasy with practically a "Do not try this at home" sticker on them.  If you have a fantasy of being controlled by a guy, hey that's fine with me, but don't turn yourself into a pretzel trying to tell me how Christian Grey isn't really controlling or abusive because you don't want to admit that's it's your fantasy, which is what I've seen some fans of the book do.  It also pisses me off that the book tries to have it's cake and eat it too with BDSM.  On the one hand it presents it as bad and dirty and wrong, but on the other it's really hot.  You can't have it both ways book.  I won't judge you for liking FSOG because you get turned by the sex in it.  I will judge you for liking some really badly written prose and tell you that you can find much better written much more titillating erotic stories on the internet for free with similar themes.

 

For the record I actually find the relationship in FSOG less troubling then the one a Twilight only because FSOG is aimed at adults who should know it's not a healthy relationship (whether they actually do, is their problem).  Twilight glorified a controlling relationship and was aimed at young adults which I find much more disturbing.

[27bored]

I just got back from watching Fitty and...well, here are my thoughts. I haven't read any of the books, nor have I seen Twilight, so I came in relatively unaware of what this was all about.

 

As far as Ana and Christian are concerned, I didn't mind Dakota Johnson, but Jamie was lacking some charisma. I could buy that she was into him, but not the other way around. I agree with the poster above who said Dornan had some issues with an American accent, and I think that's part of the reason why he was so stiff. There was one scene early in the movie where he sounded Slavic almost. I honestly think if they were going to do this right, they should've gotten an American actor, for all the obvious and not so obvious reasons. I think two American actors would've had a bit more natural chemistry and been less uncomfortable with the sex scenes (which I'll get to) than Dornan and Johnson. An American male in his early to mid 30s has probably seen some BDSM and wouldn't be so squicked out by it. You could tell Dornan was kind of going through the motions. He didn't seem in the least bit inspired or aroused by being a dominant. DJ arched her back and kept those knees bent so you wouldn't see Ana's hoo-ha.

 

I can see why people find Dornan attractive, but you would think he would bring a bit more mystique than he did. Like, white men in their 30s with abs and a head full of hair are kind of a dime-a-dozen. Even some of the adulation Christian has in the movie seems forced. And not to bag on his looks, but there at least three dozen scenes of him just staring at Ana and you could notice that one of his eyes is noticeably bigger than the other. Almost like a perma-half-wink. Y'gotta do more than brood and stare.

 

There was a lot of sex in it, and it was HBO Late Night levels of hot. Meaning: not that much. There was one sex scene that wasn't particularly innovative or tawdry, but it was the best one because it seemed like the type of BDSM-lite regular couples might have.

 

The two things that messed it up for me were 1) it always felt like Ana agreed to the Submissive stuff moreso because she was attracted to Christian and had no self-esteem rather than why I think a lot of people get involved in BDSM, which is to explore and tap into a part of themselves as sexual beings that they're not comfortable with or even aware of, which made it more pitiful than intriguing, and 2) the last ten minutes of the movie were pretty...stupid. If you've read the book you know what happens, but I wont spoil it for people who haven't seen the movie or read the book. And the movie just ends. Like a "cut to black" ending almost as abrupt as the last scene in The Sopranos.

 

All in all, it wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't great. It's hovering somewhere around good-ish. It's nice for a couple who wants to mutually enjoy some hanky-panky R-rated entertainment on a night out before they enjoy some traditional normal-people sex, but I don't see how it's going to inspire a new interest in BDSM. The BDSM in the film is pretty Freshmen-level stuff. Hell, I've played "Don't Make A Sound" with piece of ice in my mouth on more than...nevermind. TMI.

 

The point is, regardless of age or gender, if you've seen a reasonable amount of porn and/or had a reasonable amount of sex, nothing in the film will be scandalous to you. It's maybe a little more sexed-up than your normal Hollywood film, but that's because most Hollywood films aren't as clearly about sex as this one is.

[dusang]

There was a lot of sex in it, and it was HBO Late Night levels of hot. Meaning: not that much. There was one sex scene that wasn't particularly innovative or tawdry, but it was the best one because it seemed like the type of BDSM-lite regular couples might have.

I was thinking of that comparison, too, but then realized you may actually see more on HBO than in this movie. God bless the Swedish.

[Dejana]

As far as Ana and Christian are concerned, I didn't mind Dakota Johnson, but Jamie was lacking some charisma. I could buy that she was into him, but not the other way around. I agree with the poster above who said Dornan had some issues with an American accent, and I think that's part of the reason why he was so stiff. There was one scene early in the movie where he sounded Slavic almost. I honestly think if they were going to do this right, they should've gotten an American actor, for all the obvious and not so obvious reasons. I think two American actors would've had a bit more natural chemistry and been less uncomfortable with the sex scenes (which I'll get to) than Dornan and Johnson. An American male in his early to mid 30s has probably seen some BDSM and wouldn't be so squicked out by it. You could tell Dornan was kind of going through the motions. He didn't seem in the least bit inspired or aroused by being a dominant. DJ arched her back and kept those knees bent so you wouldn't see Ana's hoo-ha.

 

I don't know if Jamie Dornan's nationality or age has anything to do with his hangups about BDSM; from what I saw of the UK version of Skins, it was full of teen actors with zero hangups about explicit sex scenes and that was just a TV show over there.  As for the accent, some actors are really bad with them and others can manage them quite easily.

 

Dornan wasn't the first choice for the role and the production had to be moved back when Charlie Hunman bailed, so they were probably desperate to find someone who'd agree to it and was immediately available. It's well known that the A and B-list were not exactly begging for roles in this thing. I find it interesting that both actors ultimately cast as Christian Grey hail from the UK; I know Sam Taylor-Johnson really liked Hunman, but I wonder how much it has to do with the fact that EL James got a big say in the production and that it's been widely reported that her dream Christian candidate was Robert Pattinson.

 

The director also seemed more interested in playing up sensuality rather than raunchiness. while EL James pushed for more explicitness. However, the MPAA's double standards about sex vs. violence and male vs. female nudity are pretty notorious and they were probably watching every frame like hawks to make sure nothing crossed their imaginary line. It passed without getting the dreaded NC-17 (major chains refusing to show it) but they called the BDSM aspects "unusual behavior".

Edited February 16, 2015 by Dejana

[27bored]

I don't know if Jamie Dornan's nationality or age has anything to do with his hangups about BDSM; from what I saw of the UK version of Skins, it was full of teen actors with zero hangups about explicit sex scenes and that was just a TV show over there.  As for the accent, some actors are really bad with them and others can manage them quite easily.

 

I agree, but I think it's the culmination of things. Having an American play Christian Grey would've worked for several reasons: 1) the character is American, so the actor wouldn't be dinged on shoddy voice work; 2) I think as a society we're more comfortable with BDSM and sex in this realm than actors from across the Big Pond; they can pull it off as the character requires, some of them, but I think a movie like this needs people who are clearly committed and not put off by BDSM. As weird as it sounds, he should've watched some BDSM porn and read a book or two to really get into being an effective Dom. He had to take a shower after visiting a sex dungeon, so I doubt he did much more exploration than that; 3) I think an American actor would've enjoyed the erotic and transgressive nature of the film, instead of finding it laborious like Dornan did.

Edited February 16, 2015 by 27bored

[Ohwell]

And not to bag on his looks, but there at least three dozen scenes of him just staring at Ana and you could notice that one of his eyes is noticeably bigger than the other.

I noticed the wonky eyes in the promos, and him staring like that would make me hightail it for the door.  He can't help it, but it is definitely not sexy.

[millennium]

Would women find the concept of this movie as compelling if the character were not incredibly wealthy and successful?  

 

What if he were a middle-aged office worker or a civil service-type with a ranch house and a "playroom" in his unfinished basement?

 

Would it be sexy then?    Or just creepy?

[Jamoche]

John Oliver just reported that France rated it 12+. It wasn't unanimous, though - some members of the board didn't think it needed an age limit at all.

 

Would women find the concept of this movie as compelling if the character were not incredibly wealthy and successful?  

 

What if he were a middle-aged office worker or a civil service-type with a ranch house and a "playroom" in his unfinished basement?

 

Would it be sexy then?    Or just creepy?

For it to be compelling in the first place it would need to have safe, sane, consensual BSDM with both parties into it and a good time being had by all, and in that case money wouldn't matter. This movie? Anyone remember "Indecent Proposal" with Robert Redford? Christian Gray could make that million dollar offer and I'd still turn him down flat, because he sure as hell isn't Robert Redford.

[27bored]

I just remembered something: there was a Lifetime movie that came out sometime last year (possibly in anticipation of this film) called "The Secret Sex Life of a Single Mom" (I think). I remember catching it by accident and compared to this film, well, the fact that it compares very well to a big-budget major-motion-picture is saying something. But the guy was maybe slightly older than the female protagonist, seemingly wealthy, with a lake house. There wasn't a play room, but he did talk to her about rewards and punishments and following his rules. I wont ruin the ending for anyone who wants to go watch it, but it ended a lot better than 50SoG.

[millennium]

John Oliver just reported that France rated it 12+. It wasn't unanimous, though - some members of the board didn't think it needed an age limit at all.

 

For it to be compelling in the first place it would need to have safe, sane, consensual BSDM with both parties into it and a good time being had by all, and in that case money wouldn't matter. This movie? Anyone remember "Indecent Proposal" with Robert Redford? Christian Gray could make that million dollar offer and I'd still turn him down flat, because he sure as hell isn't Robert Redford.

 

But I mean within the framework of this film ... if you just tweaked some of the circumstance, not the plot.   Would it be so "erotic" for the masses who broke the box office records this weekend if it were the story of a middle-aged nobody who tried to groom an uninitiated young woman into his BDSM fantasy world?   Or would it be more like some of the stories I see on the Investigation Discovery Channel?

Edited February 16, 2015 by millennium

[hardy har]

I agree, but I think it's the culmination of things. Having an American play Christian Grey would've worked for several reasons: 1) the character is American, so the actor wouldn't be dinged on shoddy voice work; 2) I think as a society we're more comfortable with BDSM and sex in this realm than actors from across the Big Pond; they can pull it off as the character requires, some of them, but I think a movie like this needs people who are clearly committed and not put off by BDSM. As weird as it sounds, he should've watched some BDSM porn and read a book or two to really get into being an effective Dom. He had to take a shower after visiting a sex dungeon, so I doubt he did much more exploration than that; 3) I think an American actor would've enjoyed the erotic and transgressive nature of the film, instead of finding it laborious like Dornan did.

 

Hmm. I've always thought Brits and Europeans seemed much more comfortable with nudity and sex on screen than American actors. I'm speaking generally of course, but I do kind of hope at some point Dakota Johnson and Charlie Hunnam get to play opposite each other at some point. I know the scuttlebutt was that they had insane chemistry.

 

John Oliver just reported that France rated it 12+. It wasn't unanimous, though - some members of the board didn't think it needed an age limit at all.

I was reading something about the world ratings for the movie the other day and some site wrote: "and in France the film received a 12+ rating because FRANCE."

[KatWay]

 

I think as a society we're more comfortable with BDSM and sex in this realm than actors from across the Big Pond; they can pull it off as the character requires

I don't know, I've seen some pretty weird stuff in European movies. Also, in France this movie got a 12+ rating. Actually, I think it got a lower rating than the US in most European countries (generally 16+).

[Dirndl]

In Germany the rating is 16+.

 

I saw the movie yesterday and hated it. The only positive aspects were Dakota Johnson, the nice shots of Seattle and the landscape and the music. Jamie Dornan was awful, the sex scenes terribly akward and during the whole movie I was rooting for Ana to run far, far away.

[harrie]

Would women find the concept of this movie as compelling if the character were not incredibly wealthy and successful?  

 

What if he were a middle-aged office worker or a civil service-type with a ranch house and a "playroom" in his unfinished basement?

 

Would it be sexy then?    Or just creepy?

 

Exactly. To me (based on the book, not the movie), it was your typical fairy tale with Grey as the White Knight and Ana as the princess perpetually in peril. Real people need not apply. (At the time I wasn't aware of the actual fantasy lit connection with Twilight.)

Edited February 16, 2015 by harrie

[DeLurker]

Seems like you gotta be really rich or really poor (aka wrong side of the tracks) to get away with it. Either way, in fiction or movies, he'll always be great looking.

[DkNNy79]

Would women find the concept of this movie as compelling if the character were not incredibly wealthy and successful?  

Probably not.  Personally thats the appeal to me.  I haven't read the books, but I've read books with a similar theme.   A gorgeous, wealthy and powerful man showing interest in you. There's definitely a little cinderella complex in there.  I can see why women would fall for that.

 

I'm gonna wait for the movie to come out on DVD, because while I'm curious, I have to really want to see a movie to go to the theater.

[Julia]

To be fair, there is an invert version, where an oafish stoner takes up with a more attractive, high-achieving woman who for some reason is with him despite being pretty vocal about not liking or approving of anything about him. He usually convinces her to loosen up and appreciate his charms by the end.  

 

I think it must be popular with men, because most of the highest-paid male stars in comedy make them pretty much full time.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Julia

[Jamoche]

I'm really hoping the box office tanks next week, because otherwise Hollywood is going to think there's a demand for "romantic" movies with no plot, just something vaguely scandalous, when really it's just hype, hype, hype, and Valentine's Day.

[Neeners]

And not to bag on his looks, but there at least three dozen scenes of him just staring at Ana and you could notice that one of his eyes is noticeably bigger than the other. Almost like a perma-half-wink. Y'gotta do more than brood and stare.

Thank you for mentioning this!  I saw this movie with my friend, and afterward the first thing I said was that his squinchy eye bugged the shit out of me.  She said she didn't notice!  I was shocked.  Oddly, this weekend we watched The Fall (where he plays a serial killer), so I've been tortured with that damn squinty eye all weekend long.  Ugh.

[millennium]

Probably not.  Personally thats the appeal to me.  I haven't read the books, but I've read books with a similar theme.   A gorgeous, wealthy and powerful man showing interest in you.

 

But that's not precisely what happens in this movie.   I have repeatedly seen the "interest" of this particular gorgeous, wealthy and powerful man described as stalking, which is a criminal, abusive behavior.  Going back again to Investigation Discovery, there's no shortage of real life stories there which begin with emotionally-damaged, obsessively controlling men telling women what they can do, where they can go, who they can't talk to, etc., and it frequently ends badly.   

 

Women deplore this behavior in real life.   It frightens them, and rightly so.   That's why it's so disturbing to see how eager they are to romanticize the same behavior as long as it is has a veneer of wealth and beauty.

 

How can any woman who lines up to see "50 Shades of Grey" ever again condemn a man for treating a woman like a slave or a possession?   Doesn't this movie send a message that this is what women want (even if they say they don't)?  And aren't women condoning and validating that message at the box office?

[millennium]

To be fair, there is an invert version, where an oafish stoner takes up with a more attractive, high-achieving woman who for some reason is with him despite being pretty vocal about not liking or approving of anything about him. He usually convinces her to loosen up and appreciate his charms by the end.  

 

 

 

It's not the same.   I believe the movies you're referring to are known as romantic comedies, or farces.    They are meant to be funny or charming, not erotically stimulating.    You'd have to look long and hard (no pun intended) to find any soft-core porn featuring oafish stoner guys.

[Julia]

It's not the same.   I believe the movies you're referring to are known as romantic comedies, or farces.    They are meant to be funny or charming, not erotically stimulating.    You'd have to look long and hard (no pun intended) to find any soft-core porn featuring oafish stoner guys.

 

And again, I'm not comparing the two except in the sense that they are each a form of self-insert wish fulfillment for the audience.

[CaughtOnTape]

Uh....it's just a movie.

 

Wow....I'm amazed at the amount of discussion about how this will influence women to want a relationship like this.  If it does, that's on them, why does anyone else care?  

 

That's a bigger problem in itself in this country if you ask me. This idea that adults can't think for themselves and it takes other adults to right their ship.  You may not agree with a relationship like that, I know I don't - so I won't get into one.  Women enter into relationships like this every day, I doubt this movie will have anything to do with it.

Edited February 17, 2015 by CaughtOnTape

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Uh....it's just a movie.

 

Wow....I'm amazed at the amount of discussion about how this will influence women to want a relationship like this.  If it does, that's on them, why does anyone else care?  

 

That's a bigger problem in itself in this country if you ask me. This idea that adults can't think for themselves and it takes other adults to right their ship.  You may not agree with a relationship like that, I know I don't - so I won't get into one.  Women enter into relationships like this every day, I doubt this movie will have anything to do with it.

 

CaughtOnTape,normally I would absolutely agree with you, and I'm usually the first to deride various forms of pearl-clutching related to movies (see American Sniper) with an eye roll and sometimes an 'Oh,  Lord!' thrown in for good measure. I'm borderline about this, though What little I know of the books indicate that they're both badly written and sophomoric, and apparently Jamie Dornan has been vocal about dissing the movie, but for me the more important thing is that this comes off like an abusive relationship dressed up as something sexy and romantic. I think that in general people can think for themselves, and I'm sure that most people will walk out of the theaters after seeing FSOG going, "Well, that was.....hmm." But I also think there will be those who see Christian and Ana as some kind of ideal, and that bothers me maybe more than it should.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Cobalt Stargazer

[CaughtOnTape]

CaughtOnTape,normally I would absolutely agree with you, and I'm usually the first to deride various forms of pearl-clutching related to movies (see American Sniper) with an eye roll and sometimes an 'Oh,  Lord!' thrown in for good measure. I'm borderline about this, though What little I know of the books indicate that they're both badly written and sophomoric, and apparently Jamie Dornan has been vocal about dissing the movie, but for me the more important thing is that this comes off like an abusive relationship dressed up as something sexy and romantic. I think that in general people can think for themselves, and I'm sure that most people will walk out of the theaters after seeing FSOG going, "Well, that was.....hmm." But I also think there will be those who see Christian and Ana as some kind of ideal, and that bothers me maybe more than it should.

 

I understand all of that.

 

But my point was that people should be more concerned with themselves and maybe those around them to a point.  If someone thinks that's the kind of relationship they want and are determined to find it, what exactly is someone else going to say to stop them from doing just that?  Nothing.  People will do what they will regardless of what anyone else says about it.  

 

Maybe it works for them, maybe it doesn't.  Some people get off on that kind of stuff, some don't.  It's not for anyone to decide but them.  Just because it doesn't work for you, doesn't mean someone else feels the same.

 

The movie is a fantasy, like most movies.  If someone can't get that, be happy it's not you and move on.  

Edited February 17, 2015 by CaughtOnTape

[Julia]

The movie is a fantasy, like most movies.  If someone can't get that, be happy it's not you and move on.  

 

I have a similar feeling about online discussions :)

Edited February 17, 2015 by Julia

[dusang]

What bothers me the most is actually the continued labelling of this as BDSM. It is not BDSM. I'm not part of that community and my understanding of it is superficial at best but from what I know if it, actually desiring to just inflict pain is not what it is about - even when being whipped there should be some form of pleasure or sexual stimulation for both parties. This is not that.

[coppersin]

Thank you for mentioning this!  I saw this movie with my friend, and afterward the first thing I said was that his squinchy eye bugged the shit out of me.  She said she didn't notice!  I was shocked.  Oddly, this weekend we watched The Fall (where he plays a serial killer), so I've been tortured with that damn squinty eye all weekend long.  Ugh.

I've never noticed it before (I'm usually oblivious to details like that), so I choose to believe Dornan was inwardly wincing so much at the dialogue, that he couldn't hold it all in.

Edited February 17, 2015 by coppersin

[Jack Shaftoe]

 

But my point was that people should be more concerned with themselves and maybe those around them to a point.  If someone thinks that's the kind of relationship they want and are determined to find it, what exactly is someone else going to say to stop them from doing just that?  Nothing.  People will do what they will regardless of what anyone else says about it.

 

Sometimes people do refrain from doing things because said things are disliked by their friends, relatives or the general public. The more people consider something as normal, the higher the likelihood of someone going through with it. Unless there is the forbidden fruit factor in play, of course, which might or might not be the case with films like FSOF supposedly encouraging abusive relationship. No doubt many go way too far with the whole "somebody think of the children/women/anyone who might disagree with my view!" thing but on the other hand it can be hard to resist saying something if you think so many people fail to see the elephant in the room. I mean (and I do apologize for the unpleasant example that I am going to use), if someone decides to write a book about how honour killing is the height of chivalry or how we should all be racists and the book becomes a smashing hit, I doubt the most common reaction of the naysayers will be "oh, well, let's agree to disagree".

 

Anyway, the thing that really bugs me about FSOD (other than E.L. James clearly not having the slightest clue as to what Tess of the d'Urbervilles is actually about) and its spiritual predecessor Twilight is how come protagonists who are that bland can become so popular. Crude wish-fulfillment has always been extremely important in fiction, I get that very well and I have consumed massive amounts of entertaining fluff. Nothing wrong with that. But I can't think of any male protagonist who is that bland and yet has become as popular as Ana or Bella. There are many many male protagonists, who are, at least in theory, losers and unattractive and so on. But generally, they have at least some area in which they excel - be it sword fighting, maths, solving murders or even telling jokes. Or if they are truly pathetic and unremarkable, that's the point of the story and they are not relentlessly pursued by super hot, mega rich, woman who for some arcane reason desires them. The only male equivalents of Ana and Bella that I can come up with are the protagonists of the Japanese Unwanted Harem series, and none of those shows is mainstream, let alone a pop culture phenomenon.  Mind you, the examples of the male "ordinary" and "ugly" protagonists gaining the love of the super beautiful and extremely talented woman can be even sillier than any sparkling vampires in love with bland teenage girls, it's just that the disparity between the sexes seems odd to me.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Jack Shaftoe

[Betweenyouandme]

I'd just thrown my new Glamour issue in my sitting room but saw today, walking by, that Jamie and Dakota are on the front cover. I read the article. Highlights for me:

-Jamie says he worked out a lot but definitely not 6 hours a day because he didn't want to leave his heavily pregnant wife.

-They both said they have a lot of respect for each other. Dakota said Jamie would be the first to throw a blanket over her when a scene ended and she was naked.

- Jamie thinks most powerful men in BDSM want to be told what to do in bed rather than spanking girls because those men are always telling people what to do all day at work...according to his "jovial" experience at a dungeon.

- Jamie doesn't care how this role affects him in the public eye because he's had the same friends from when he was a "small boy."

-Dakota is proud of her role because woman should choose what they do with their bodies. In the film, she thinks Ana and Christian go toe to toe, but Ana is actually stronger.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Betweenyouandme

[proserpina65]

Hmm. I've always thought Brits and Europeans seemed much more comfortable with nudity and sex on screen than American actors.

 

I was just about to post the exact same thing.  It's not Jamie Dornan being British that's the problem; it's his obvious distaste for the subject matter.

[Dejana]

Women deplore this behavior in real life.   It frightens them, and rightly so.   That's why it's so disturbing to see how eager they are to romanticize the same behavior as long as it is has a veneer of wealth and beauty.

 

How can any woman who lines up to see "50 Shades of Grey" ever again condemn a man for treating a woman like a slave or a possession?   Doesn't this movie send a message that this is what women want (even if they say they don't)?  And aren't women condoning and validating that message at the box office?

 

How can anyone who ever played any version of Grand Theft Auto: Super Duper Lawless want charges pressed if they get carjacked in real life? Enjoyed a bank heist movie, ever? Don't be mad when someone rips off your credit cards. Maybe watching a horror movie or Criminal Minds is a tacit endorsement of murder itself!

 

As much as I think 50SoG is unsexy, horribly-written garbage, the claims of it being so dangerous and damaging and leading wide swaths of women down the path of victimization and oppression, make me want to defend its right to exist and and have a huge following (even if I'm not a fan). The "What does it say about the world that [Trashy Property Whatever] is popular? I weep for humanity!" laments tend to set my teeth on edge. I think a lot of popular entertainment romanticizes many forms of conduct that are generally frowned upon in real life, yet it's teen girls and women whose eyes and minds simply must be shielded from the undue influence of anything less than enriching and "ideal". Are we really such fragile, delicate flowers?

 

I can't say I know what it's like to be in an abusive relationship, but for the majority of women who are, the guy probably isn't some Adonis billionaire constantly lavishing her with pricey gifts and providing endless sexual satisfaction. Rather than validation, maybe seeing the controlling behavior put into words or in a film and being sold as an amazing love story will give them pause and make them think, "It's not really like that!" and reassess their own situations. Just as, I would guess, a tween girl who reads VC Andrews' Dollanganger series and is unfortunately a victim of incest IRL would probably be less susceptible to buying into the grand, Gothic romance and being titillated by it, than girls who were more sheltered. I'm not saying that more books glamorizing abuse would save women from these situations, just that many other "disturbing" narratives have been embraced well before Fifty Shades (such as Flowers in the Attic) and there's not a lot of empirical evidence that they led to a substantial or even insubstantial number of people copying those behaviors in reality.

 

Anyway, the thing that really bugs me about FSOD (other than E.L. James clearly not having the slightest clue as to what Tess of the d'Urbervilles is actually about) and its spiritual predecessor Twilight is how come protagonists who are that bland can become so popular. Crude wish-fulfillment has always been extremely important in fiction, I get that very well and I have consumed massive amounts of entertaining fluff. Nothing wrong with that. But I can't think of any male protagonist who is that bland and yet has become as popular as Ana or Bella. There are many many male protagonists, who are, at least in theory, losers and unattractive and so on. But generally, they have at least some area in which they excel - be it sword fighting, maths, solving murders or even telling jokes. Or if they are truly pathetic and unremarkable, that's the point of the story and they are not relentlessly pursued by super hot, mega rich, woman who for some arcane reason desires them. The only male equivalents of Ana and Bella that I can come up with are the protagonists of the Japanese Unwanted Harem series, and none of those shows is mainstream, let alone a pop culture phenomenon.  Mind you, the examples of the male "ordinary" and "ugly" protagonists gaining the love of the super beautiful and extremely talented woman can be even sillier than any sparkling vampires in love with bland teenage girls, it's just that the disparity between the sexes seems odd to me.

 

IDK, maybe he's not as much of a void as Bella or Ana, but I think Harry Potter (the character) gets a big pass on being, well, passive and repeatedly needing smarter/more talented people to give him the answers and save his hide, years into the whole Voldemort battle. With the later Potter movies, they decided to adapt such long books by centering the focus on Harry, leading many fans to lament that the movies might have been improved if the storytelling had shifted the narrative because other characters and stories would be more compelling to watch. When other books get adapted to film, like Twilight or Fifty Shades, people are quick to blame Stephenie Meyer and EL James for the protagonist being rather dull and the director/screenwriter only having so much to work with. Yet with Potter, you hear, "The story is all from Harry's POV so he doesn't seem so passive in the books!" and "Overall, it's a rich, detailed world with a lot of colorful, lively personalities!"  And not so much that the title character being the sixth or seventh most interesting character in his own story is kind of a flaw with the source material. Sometimes, I feel that if Harriet Potter had been written in much the same way, there would be more comparisons to Bella Swan that would not be flattering and all the feminist blogs would be saying Katniss is a million times better than both of them.

[millennium]

How can anyone who ever played any version of Grand Theft Auto: Super Duper Lawless want charges pressed if they get carjacked in real life? Enjoyed a bank heist movie, ever? Don't be mad when someone rips off your credit cards. Maybe watching a horror movie or Criminal Minds is a tacit endorsement of murder itself!

 

As much as I think 50SoG is unsexy, horribly-written garbage, the claims of it being so dangerous and damaging and leading wide swaths of women down the path of victimization and oppression, make me want to defend its right to exist and and have a huge following (even if I'm not a fan). The "What does it say about the world that [Trashy Property Whatever] is popular? I weep for humanity!" laments tend to set my teeth on edge.

 

The movie romanticizes abusive behavior, and the audience gleefully throwing their money at it consists largely of those most likely to be victims of that kind of abuse.

 

I'm not sure it's a threat to the world or humanity, but I do think abusers everywhere must be laughing. 

[Zuleikha]

The movie romanticizes abusive behavior, and the audience gleefully throwing their money at it consists largely of those most likely to be victims of that kind of abuse.

 

I keep seeing the claim that 50 Shades of Grey romanticizes the abusive behavior, but I don't think it does. I think Secretary romanticized abusive behavior because it made the abuse seem glossy and healing. 50 Shades of Grey is a campy sex fantasy. Saying it's romantic is like saying the strip club is romantic. 

 

I also liked Dejana's point about Flowers in the Attic, My generation devoured VC Andrews series--each more twisted than the last. We're as okay as any generation of women are, and what problems we have are definitely not the result of VC Andrews. Why on earth did we like a series featuring imprisonment, incest, abuse, and revenge? Who knows! I certainly don't, and I read every book I could get my hands on. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I also liked Dejana's point about Flowers in the Attic, My generation devoured VC Andrews series--each more twisted than the last. We're as okay as any generation of women are, and what problems we have are definitely not the result of VC Andrews. Why on earth did we like a series featuring imprisonment, incest, abuse, and revenge? Who knows! I certainly don't, and I read every book I could get my hands on. 

 

V.C. Andrews actually died in 1986, of breast cancer. After that a ghost writer named Andrew Neiderman was hired, and he picked up where she left off. She did write the Dollanganger and Casteel series, (serieses?) but Garden of Shadows and Fallen Hearts weren't complete when she passed away. As nutty as her books were, a guy was responsible for a lot of the really crazy stuff.

[idiotwaltz]

 

I also liked Dejana's point about Flowers in the Attic, My generation devoured VC Andrews series--each more twisted than the last. We're as okay as any generation of women are, and what problems we have are definitely not the result of VC Andrews. Why on earth did we like a series featuring imprisonment, incest, abuse, and revenge? Who knows! I certainly don't, and I read every book I could get my hands on.

 

Ha! I remember being 12-years-old and being thrilled when I got a copy of Flowers in the Attic and read it in secret. I got over V.C. Andrews' stuff pretty quickly though. I found better smut on the internet. 

 

I did read an article sometime last year, around the 20th? 25th? anniversary of the first publication of Flowers in the Attic, in which it is suggested that young girls of that generation were so drawn to the books because as teenagers they felt like they were trapped and struggling to be free from their parents' control, which is pretty natural thing to feel as a teenager. So the attic is metaphorical. Don't know about the freaking incest though --- maybe illicit romantic urges? When teens discover their sexuality, it can get pretty crazy and everything is so weird and new and intense. 

 

For Andrews herself, she was a very ill woman who was confined to a wheelchair for most of her life, so she was trapped physically and maybe writing FitA helped her get it out of her system (and make millions). 

 

I've never been able to get past the first two chapters of 50 Shades, nor do I really want to. It's the writing that bothers me more so than the content; I don't think it's fair for me to comment on the content if I haven't read it. Last summer, when I was on a bus tour, the teenager next to me was reading 50 Shades Freed, and while I'm all for kids reading ANYTHING, I hated the idea of that 17-year-old girl thinking that book is quality writing of any kind. It also gives fanfiction a really bad rep, because there is LOTS of great, well-written fanfic out there and if a non-fannish person reads 50 Shades of Grey and think it is representative of fanfiction in general, that really does a disservice to fanfiction in general.

[DeLurker]

I've never been able to get past the first two chapters of 50 Shades, nor do I really want to. It's the writing that bothers me more so than the content; I don't think it's fair for me to comment on the content if I haven't read it. Last summer, when I was on a bus tour, the teenager next to me was reading 50 Shades Freed, and while I'm all for kids reading ANYTHING, I hated the idea of that 17-year-old girl thinking that book is quality writing of any kind. It also gives fanfiction a really bad rep, because there is LOTS of great, well-written fanfic out there and if a non-fannish person reads 50 Shades of Grey and think it is representative of fanfiction in general, that really does a disservice to fanfiction in general.

 

I think a lot of people, not just kids, equate sales with quality.  Just because FSoG spent something like 100 weeks on the NYT best seller list does not make it well written.

Edited February 19, 2015 by DeLurker

[harrie]

The movie romanticizes abusive behavior, and the audience gleefully throwing their money at it consists largely of those most likely to be victims of that kind of abuse.

 

I'm not sure it's a threat to the world or humanity, but I do think abusers everywhere must be laughing. 

 

I dunno. In a very general sense, abuse is relative.  Taking a mean, potentially fatal beating at the hands of someone out of control is abuse; but taking a whipping to which you have willingly consented and where you have a safe word that will be honored can just be time spent together between consenting adults.  That doesn't mean that every adult should want to partake in this behavior or feel odd for not wanting to, just as one should not feel compelled to smoke, drink, dance, fish, or whatever if it's not something they enjoy.

 

From the few people I've known who have been in abusive or boderline abusive relationships - including one whom I feel is in a verbally/emotionally abusive relationship, but she says she really is fine and does not feel abused -- abuse is not about sex, it's about anger and power. So I don't know that abusers everywhere are laughing; and if they are laughing , they might not get why it is they are.  

 

That being said, I do find Grey creepy and stalkery and not for me -- but in a fantasy world, which is where I put this book/movie, it's just a storytelling mechanism.  Christian Grey is nearly omnipotent, and it's often been said that power is an aphrodisiac - check out some captains of industry and their trophy wives -- so it both lends to Grey's "appeal" and moves the story along as he keeps showing up unexpectedly.

 

Just my opinion.  

Edited February 19, 2015 by harrie

[harrie]

 

 

I think a lot of people, not just kids, equate sales with quality.  Just because FSoG spent something like 100 weeks on the NYT best seller list does not make it well written.

 

 

I always wondered how the NYT felt about that.

[millennium]

I dunno. In a very general sense, abuse is relative.  Taking a mean, potentially fatal beating at the hands of someone out of control is abuse; but taking a whipping to which you have willingly consented and where you have a safe word that will be honored can just be time spent together between consenting adults.  That doesn't mean that every adult should want to partake in this behavior or feel odd for not wanting to, just as one should not feel compelled to smoke, drink, dance, fish, or whatever if it's not something they enjoy.

 

From the few people I've known who have been in abusive or boderline abusive relationships - including one whom I feel is in a verbally/emotionally abusive relationship, but she says she really is fine and does not feel abused -- abuse is not about sex, it's about anger and power. So I don't know that abusers everywhere are laughing; and if they are laughing , they might not get why it is they are.  

 

That being said, I do find Grey creepy and stalkery and not for me -- but in a fantasy world, which is where I put this book/movie, it's just a storytelling mechanism.  Christian Grey is nearly omnipotent, and it's often been said that power is an aphrodisiac - check out some captains of industry and their trophy wives -- so it both lends to Grey's "appeal" and moves the story along as he keeps showing up unexpectedly.

 

Just my opinion.  

 

I was actually referring to the stalker behavior and the attempt to control her life as the abusive behavior, vs. the BDSM stuff.

[Jack Shaftoe]

 

IDK, maybe he's not as much of a void as Bella or Ana, but I think Harry Potter (the character) gets a big pass on being, well, passive and repeatedly needing smarter/more talented people to give him the answers and save his hide, years into the whole Voldemort battle.

 

I am not exactly a fan of Harry since I read the first 4 volumes of the HP series over a decade ago and stopped there, but as far as I remember, while rather annoying at times, the guy did have plenty of talents and not all of them were of the informed ability variety. I mean, other characters being more talented or memorable than the protagonists is very common, no matter if said protagonist is male or female. In not so well written stories it leads to all important events centering around the protagonist for no apparent reason and to him/her saving the day by virtue of little more than writer's fiat. So yes, this can be a narrative flaw, and a very annoying one sometimes, but I think it's different ball game than the utter blandness and general doormat attitude of Ana or Bella.

 

 

I keep seeing the claim that 50 Shades of Grey romanticizes the abusive behavior, but I don't think it does. I think Secretary romanticized abusive behavior because it made the abuse seem glossy and healing. 50 Shades of Grey is a campy sex fantasy. Saying it's romantic is like saying the strip club is romantic.

 

In this case an awful lot of people must have completely missed the point because so many fans seem to consider the story the pinnacle of romance. Isn't it true that Christian is abusive towards Ana, yet she is nevertheless head over heels in love with him and in the end they all live happily ever after, after her love "cures" him? How can this not be considered to glamorize abuse? Not that every other TV show doesn't do much the same, alas...

 

 

I think a lot of popular entertainment romanticizes many forms of conduct that are generally frowned upon in real life, yet it's teen girls and women whose eyes and minds simply must be shielded from the undue influence of anything less than enriching and "ideal". Are we really such fragile, delicate flowers?

 

There is a lot of sexism in such attitudes, no doubt, but to be fair, an awful lot of effort has been put in shielding boys and men from things like violent video games for instance. Speaking of video games, for me the difference between Grand Theft Auto and FSOG is that the former deliberately uses the refuge in audacity approach. One has to be really out of touch with reality to not realize that carjacking and murder sprees are not quite so easy and consequence-free in real life, plus, the vast majority of people who play those games are well aware that killing people for fun and profit is wrong. In the case of FSOG and its ilk, there are very vocal minorities that seem to believe that treating people horribly is perfectly okay if you are misunderstood, or you were abused as a child, or, most importantly, if you are really hot. Of course, this discrepancy is mitigated to a large extent by the obvious fact murder is worse than being "just" an abusive jerk but still, said vocal minority tends in turn to anger other people who pile on the work in question, often making sweeping generalizations about all its fans, which then leads to the vocal minority becoming even more vocal and the cycle continues. So basically, I think it's partly condescension and sexism and partly caused by people who blindly defend their favourite book/movie.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Jack Shaftoe

[harrie]

I was actually referring to the stalker behavior and the attempt to control her life as the abusive behavior, vs. the BDSM stuff.

 

Okay, but the control is based on the participant's consent, ie the signed contract.  Ana never signed the contract, but she also didn't follow through when she told Gray to take a hike.  In my real life, if I told someone to get lost and they showed up across the country when I'm visiting my family, the only thing I would say to them is "I'm calling the police" as I picked up my phone.  In the book, Ana "suffers" through Grey charming her mother, IIRC* and succumbs to his "charms" herself. Once again.  Because Ana never follows through on her protestations. It's part of the story's structure, with the emphasis on story.

 

FSOG is a fantasy; as someone above stated, it's just a movie.  I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I find it hard to imagine that no matter how into the Grey phenomenon one is, one would mistake stalking and controlling behavior for love or any desirable quality. I don't think people are that stupid, for lack of a better word. Most can differentiate between a fantastic omnipotent billionaire and a controlling jerk.  Again, just my opinion. 

 

 

 

*I think that's what happened in the book, and I'm not re-reading it to see if I do in fact recall correctly.