Secretary

[snugglekitty]

So, actually - yesterday I saw the movie Secretary for the first time.

At the time it came out, someone (I can't remember who at this remove) told me they thought I'd find it really upsetting and that I should skip it. So I did. Since then, a bunch of people said, "Huh - I don't know why that would bother you," and now having seen it, I agree with them.

I liked it a lot. I thought that it was cute and funny and sexy, and I would like it to join our permanent collection here at syn. Four and a half stars.

Comments

[ceelove.livejournal.com]

I quite liked Secretary, I think the acting is fabulous and the script wonderfully tight and unique, and I've seen it twice. But the thing that did bother me, both times, was that there are nonconsensual acts in it. Desired, yes: she clearly enjoys his beating her and masturbating over her; but not understood and consented to beforehand. It concerns me a bit that someone not very familiar with kink might get the wrong idea.

I see what you're saying...

[lady-anemone.livejournal.com]

and to a certain extent, I agree with you.

But at what point do we let go of our need to have everything fall under the jurisdiction of Safe, Sane, and Consensual? Sure, our scenes should be that way, in general I agree with that, although often "sane" is defined as "what doesn't upset the neighbors too much." But does our artwork have to follow those rules too? I would be sad if it all did. How about our fantasies? I feel like anything's okay to imagine or write about even if it's not okay to do. I think that's kind of the point of fiction (I include movies in this category).

Yes, people could get "the wrong idea" about kink from watching this. They could also get the wrong idea from their own fantasies about being owned, used, and dominated (or owning, using, and dominating). And I think it's awesome that this movie demonstrated a healthy relationship, one in which both partners grow and come to a place of happiness and integration, even if the negotiation is, perhaps, not what most of who have experience and knowledge would wish.

In my ideal world, we would teach our children about how to protect themselves from sexual predators, and what different healthy relationships look like. Then, what we learn from fiction about them wouldn't be quite so important.

Re: I see what you're saying...

[ceelove.livejournal.com]

And I think it's awesome that this movie demonstrated a healthy relationship, one in which both partners grow and come to a place of happiness and integration, even if the negotiation is, perhaps, not what most of who have experience and knowledge would wish.

Which is why, ultimately, I watched and enjoyed it again. I think the health of the relationship, and what it brings to each of them - in terms of self-discovery and rejection of self-hatred (and unhealthy self-abuse) - trumps the fact that he is taking actions which he did not clear explicitly with her beforehand. But if he had gauged her reaction wrongly, if he didn't understand her as well as it turns out that he did, it would have been abuse. That would be my guess as to why others have told you it would be upsetting for you.

[nepenthedreams]

I actually found it more upsetting than I expected. But I chalked it up to YKiNMK - is that the acronym?

Since my relationship in college, sometimes it's been hard for me to tell the difference between playing and real abuse....hence I don't play games like that anymore.

But you know what bugged me more than anything? The cruel way she treated her boyfriend. she could have just kindly told him that she wasn't interested.

[lady-anemone.livejournal.com]

Since my relationship in college, sometimes it's been hard for me to tell the difference between playing and real abuse....hence I don't play games like that anymore.

I can understand that. I think verbal negotiation is a big part of the difference, and it was lacking in the movie, so I can see how that would have been an issue for you.

But you know what bugged me more than anything? The cruel way she treated her boyfriend. she could have just kindly told him that she wasn't interested.

I agree. I feel it was a problem with the way they were portraying submission. They painted Lee as a character who just couldn't say no to anyone, even when she needed to, but especially wanted to say "yes" to this one guy. And that eventually that "yes" won out over the other yesses...

I agree

[cyclothemia.livejournal.com]

"They painted Lee as a character who just couldn't say no to anyone, even when she needed to, but especially wanted to say "yes" to this one guy."

Yeah.
But then, I think I've met a lot of submissives with the "I'm just a girl who can't say no" issue... myself included. :/ And frankly, it did make me sit and think about why I settle and treat someone badly if my heart is elsewhere. It might not be something the S/m community wants to look at, but it's definately there.
I liked it a lot myself. I liked that the Dom wasn't always confident and in control, cause in my experience, that's true and that's what makes them great people. I didn't like that she was a cutter- however, again, I've met a lot of folks like that, including myself, so I felt where it was coming from.
As for the nonconsensual acts... well...
I'm going to say something that isn't popular.
I *like* playing without prior negotiation. I enjoy it more, generally, when that negotiation process isn't there. I'm sure that's also because now, I CAN say no, and can help guide the scene. Generally I just try to negotiate and hint way ahead of tie, and then, when it comes up, it can surprise me. So I kinda liked the spontaneousness and lack of negotiation; part of me (I'm almost ashamed to admit) loves walking that thin line between play and abuse. I've been on both sides of it, and now, I like the tightrope between.