This film is a piece of crap. It is just awful. What is the plot? Whatever it is, it is boring. It is pretentious and full of itself. I can sense those involved thought it was so artsy and so peppered with current political references. Are we supposed to be interested and intrigued by the escort? She comes across as vapid, emotionless, and dull.
It's one of the worst films ever made. I saw it on TW cable in NYC: On Demand.
I think a lot of people will misunderstand this film (hence the subject line). While the acting could have been better (I speak purely of Sasha Grey), I thought it was a very smart film. She seems disconnected throughout the film when she is not with her boyfriend or girlfriend (she is very comfortable and conversational in those scenes). Many find this evidence of terrible writing or acting. I disagree. When she seems to be aloof or not fully there, might this be a sign of her trying to please her clients? Think of her personality more as a blank canvas that she constantly must repaint for each client. People may respond that someone with such experience in the industry should be better at "acting out the role" for each client. I would have 2 responses to this. 1) it does not seem that she is completely comfortable in her own skin with the profession. The sequences where she tries to "build her business" are evidence of the "newness" of her job. 2) Given her repeat customers, and the different way she treats them (especially the hug scene at the end) it seems like her job is less about what she says, as opposed to the feelings she is supposed to conjure in the client. The brilliance of the film is how it takes expectations of what the profession is and tosses them out the window. We are given a short glimpse into the life of one high-end escort that is both gritty and real, yet artful at the same time.
shareif you look at the Spitzer affair, i am not sure how u can say this is reality for $5000 ? /hour escorts?
i mention the spitzer affair since the movie seems to revolve around 2008 election and the affair popped up during the primaries.
i looked at the first 10 minutes and the ending: and i dont see an explanation of why anyone would pay $5000/hr for this character much less ruin a political career for one.
EDIT: the title doesnt really give license to make a realistic portrayal of working girls making less than top end prices
[deleted]
Pretty aggressive reply there buddy. I didn't realize I hit a nerve. You're entitled to your opinion. You didn't like the movie. I'm sorry for you. I did. Your reply to my interpretation of the film is just another example of misunderstanding it, however. You aren't supposed to see her from the client's point of view. You are supposed to see it from hers. Connecting HBO's Undercover series (about $20 hookers apparently) with someone who costs 100 times that (per-hour) is just further proof you didn't get it. It's not about you. It's not about the sex. It's about her. But I'm pretty sure you'll disagree. Now to the line by line...
1st, if you're going to quote someone, get the quote right. I said, "Think of her personality more as a blank canvas that she constantly must repaint for each client." I never said, "repaint her personality." Your failure to closely read my post is consistent with your failure to closely watch the film.
2nd, she does repaint her outward personality with each client in response to her interpretation of her clients' needs. She initiates physical intimacy with certain clients (the first make-out scene and the last hug scene as examples) and doesn't with others (the conversation scene with one of the other clients). She ends the sessions differently with different clients (her comment that one client did not hug/kiss her goodbye, unlike other clients).
3rd, my original point was that while she seems the same from the audience's point of view, the client does not know this. The repeat clients clearly perceive value in her services. The audience is not supposed to judge the needs/wants of each client. The audience only sees what she does, not what they do.
4th, your comments that the emotions that the client probably would feel would be inadequacy, insecurity, and boredom is evidence of seeing the movie from a different point of view (and one I would guess Soderbergh did not intend for his audience to take) than I did. You are judging her skills from how you would respond as a client. The movie isn't about her clients; it's about her. It shows her acting as an escort, as a friend, and as a girlfriend. It doesn't show clients in any capacity other than being clients.
5th, if you can for one moment stop seeing the movie from a client's point of view and start seeing it from hers you'll see a woman who is unsure yet confident (she isn't completely sure how to move forward with her business yet is completely confident in her personology); she is sensitive and still strong (she is emotionally affected by the bad review she received and yet is firm with her boyfriend); and she is guarded and still exposed (she consults with people about developing her business safely and is taking an interview with a journalist).
6th, unless you have experience working as a high-end escort or have intimate knowledge of someone who does, you have no idea what "reality" is for someone in her line of work. Further, not everyone in her business is the same. You shouldn't judge this film based on how you think some imagined escort is supposed to behave and react to certain situations.
7th, your failure in logic is connected with your failure to see the film from a point of view other than a client's. What may not seem logical to a client (or to someone else for that matter) may make sense to her. She wouldn't do the things she does if they didn't make sense in her world. What better example do we have than her choice of profession? Her choice to be an escort may not make sense to everyone, but it makes sense to her. The choices she makes as an escort may not make sense to everyone, but she makes those decisions anyway. That's the point of the film.
if you can for one moment stop seeing the movie from a client's point of view and start seeing it from hers
obviously you are gonna see it from your point of view, and we are gonna see it from our point of view. And from my perspective, i am not being judgemental on the profession or the girls at all, and you seem to be so defensive about it all; i think you may have admitted to being in the profession or know people in the profession.
The thing is this: The title is "the Girlfriend experience", it is about the clients and their needs and wishes. Its also about how the girls provide the service.
If we wanted porn we could go watch the real Sasha Grey, who is the bubbly girl we wanted to pay the $5000/hr for. Except the Sasha Grey didnt turn up when we paid the $5,000, in the movie.
I certainly didnt want to know if the working girl was abused as a child, or the boyfriend she has?? why?
I wanna know why men pay her $5,000/hr just to be with her, when they have families and friends, money and influence.
What is it that she has that the wives and girlfriends couldnt offer?
we are not being judgemental !!!
"I wanna know why men pay her $5,000/hr just to be with her, when they have families and friends, money and influence."
Probably she listens to what they say, is discreet, good looking, and is good in bed. Escort girls probably need some armor. They wont be talking much about themselves, and thats kind of a key issue in the movie.
As I said earlier, people are entitled to like or dislike the movie. Everyone has their own tastes (and in this case their own expectations). I thought it was a smart film. Others didn't. That's ok. The issue I have is the close-mindedness of film interpretation. As such, I am providing an alternate point of view from which some people have understood the film. A few replies,
1, I never said the previous posters were judging her choice of profession, I was explaining my disagreement with their interpretation of the film.
2, I never said I was "in the profession" or knew people in the profession. My defense of the film is exactly that: a defense of the film. Once again, the failure to correctly read my posts is consistent with a failure to properly recall and understand the film.
3, Anyone can interpret the title any way they choose. However, film interpretation goes beyond title interpretation. Moreover, the film's content informs one's understanding of the title. The content does not support an interpretation that the film is about the clients. See my post above for the details.
4, The film was not about the "girls." It was about one woman's experience in the industry. More evidence of a failure to watch the movie closely and/or confusing expectations of the movie with actual content.
5, "judgemental" is misspelled. It is judgmental.
good for you can spell ;) but you dont know linguistics
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/judgemental
Now can you understand why we are pissed off that we got dubed by the title?
Are you saying there this no service such as "GFE", ok i will save my money ;)
btw, how many escorts talk to reporters LOL
PS. if i take my kids to see Bambi and it turns out to be Bambi Does Paris, i aint gonna be happy ;)
Wow! "Good for you can spell." You must really know linguistics. Also, the link you posted makes my point for me. Thank you.
As for the title, that's a fair point. Maybe a lot of people were expecting something else and they were appropriately disappointed when they saw the film. That does not (or at least should not) get in the way of film interpretation, however. You can say that you were expecting something else and didn't like what you saw or you can say that you were expecting something else but you liked what you saw. They aren't mutually exclusive.
I never said that "GFE" isn't a service people can pay for or any comment like that.
Many escorts speak to reporters. There are several documentaries and articles written with escorts used as sources. It's not completely out of the realm of possibility that Sasha Grey's character would as well.
Finally, your last comment about Bambi is an improper analogy. In this case, the movie provides less sex than what people expected, not more. The movie wasn't intended to be a children's movie anyway. No one walked into the film thinking the movie wasn't going to be about an adult subject.
dude, your lack of ability to read between the lines astounds.
the dictionary link shows you that judgement/judgment, colour/color are the same, just silly americans dropping vowels for no reason.
there is no such thing as Bambi does Paris anyways; it s just a play on words. ;)
this "movie" just doesnt seem to know if it wants to be classy a la Breakfast at Tiffany, or smutty. In the end, it settled for a documentary style reality TV format. Rating PG too, for straight to DVD. it has no value, whatsoever, apart from one thing, "how a porn star goes mainstream"
Thats just BAD solderbregh (sure i spelt it wrong), the dude should retire LOL
Need to get Lars von Trier to redo it for his final of the American trilogy
[deleted]
Strawberry Bear,
Put the personal insults aside. They're not becoming. If you disagree with someone I suggest not calling their claims stupid and instead respond in a respectful manner.
If you want to debate me on the issues than I suggest you go toe-to-toe and not generalize. Specificity and precision are invaluable tools if your goal is to persuade the other side of your point of view. If your goal is to merely attack someone for having a difference of opinion then you can make up your own rules for that; I won't follow you into the muck.
As to your substantive arguments, they all surround the alleged deficiencies of Sasha Grey's character. However all of your claims are not supported by warrants (i.e. supporting evidence). You say things like "The story made sense, but the central character does not," however you provide no reasons to support that conclusion. I encourage you to explain yourself. What do you mean by the central character doesn't make sense? Tell us, " Sasha Grey's character made no sense because..." Fill in the blank. Once you do that, we can have a true debate.
As to my previous arguments, you failed to respond to the fundamental argument: that the audience should view the film from the point of view of Chelsea and not the client. I'm assuming you don't agree with that method of interpretation, but say so. Give us an alternate point of view by which we can interpret the film. If you are to give your interpretation of the film credibility, give people a reason to believe it.
When you make an argument I will respond with one. Until then, ball's in your court big guy.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Best response. Ever.
I totally agree!
Maybe Strawberry Bear would be better off telling us how funny "Hot Rod" is.
shareI agree with the "blank canvas" theory, and if you go a little further, she even tells the reporter that her clients don't want the real her, they only think they do, because they don't know the real her. She lets them see what they want to see because that is what they want.
"Wow I'm sore, I mean physically, not like a guy whose angry in a 1950's movie."
[deleted]
i respect your opinion, but you're wrong here. I know that opinions can't be wrong, but i noticed the changes with her character. They are very subtle and not dramatic, and it's almost that much more impressive that sasha grey can pull this off when most actresses in hollywood can't. It's hard to catch especially if you haven't studied film or seen character study films. Also in my opinion the film is about her job and how it effects her and the people in her life, how she slowly lets herself feel something only to be let down. It's a lot deeper a film than you're giving it credit for, and that's ok, i don't expect most people to truly "get" this film. It's way beyond most people, but i did, and for that, for truly understanding it's capacity, i am grateful.
share[deleted]
hey hey hey !!!
when sasha grey and the working lasses suck at their jobs, there is ALWAYS a happy ending ;)
there lies the difference ;)
werd up
one of the best movies i've seen
Actually, WORSE than totally awful. How can anyone call this a movie to start with?
Can anyone explain the current score of 6.6???
Is this some kind of joke?
I used to date a girl who was a high paid escort known for her GFE services, and it was sort of similar to this film in her encounters with different types of urban men, from middle age yuppies to cheap pimps to young pretty boys. I suppose I was kind of like the Chris character but in my situation there was more deceit in her then Sasha Grey's character Chelsea, as I had to find out through her 'agent' what exactly she did aside from stripping/dancing. Anyway I thought a film like this would be a bit more exploratory as a character study but it definitely fails to tap into who these people really are except as caricatures. I knew this girl pretty well and she was anything but a caricature. Lol maybe I should write a script, it couldn't be any worse than this one. Sasha Grey definitely seems like an 'it girl' right now that has people intrigued but it just doesn't translate to the character she is playing. The journalist in the film comes out exactly as we do, no closer to the truth then when we first started learning about her and the 'industry'. The girl I dated had the aloof thing happening but she had other sides too, she had some childhood abuse trauma thrown in there, she had a childlike naivete, she had an interest in writing and the arts, she was sensitive somehow but could also completely betray you in the most callous way. in short, she was a series of contradictions and hypocrisies that i believe many so-called 'escorts' are and anybody who has spent any time around these girls could probably tell you that it is a fascinating subject but without cracking the surface of the character you have really accomplished nothing. Also I don't think this film glamorizes that lifestyle in any way really, I mean I just ended up feeling depressed for this Chelsea chick. There are so many negatives to that line of work one has no idea, and the film also conveniently escapes ever having to address any of that. Oh well I am sure there will be more films in this genre over time, as it is such a relevant topic for so many people (especially those in Hollywood who make movies).
shareThis movie is for that certain contingent of people who pay for sex. Those people seem to *love* this movie. And there seems to be quite a number of such people. Does not take away from the fact that the movie is *AWFUL* and has *NO* entertainment value. Soderbergh is probably laughing at all those people discussing the artistic merits of this great film!!!
share[deleted]
SN51431 is telling the truth. This movie is *incredibly* bad.
shareTo the OP: thanks for the post. That says what I required to hear about this film. Wanted to check it out but I guess I'll stay away from it.
share[deleted]