MovieChat Forums > The Girlfriend Experience (2009) Discussion > Liked it actually but three things bothe...

Liked it actually but three things bothered me

posted 16 years ago by all3rd
8 replies | jump to latest

1. The far shots seemed silly and useless why is the camera so far away at times from the actors talking.
2. The film while I like it gets I think to disorganized by it not totally being in order causes confusion about the movie message.
3. Why does Chris even care about Chelsea so much all she does it sleep around and not seemingly care about him at all.

After those three issues I was shocked how Sasha and the lesser known cast held their characters together in this complex tale I give it at 7.5 out of 10.

[–] avicars 16 years ago

3. sometimes you can't help who you love and care about, and eventually you hope they will come around.

[–] gargamel-8 16 years ago

3. The movie doesnt really show the two together much so its hard to say how much or why they care for eachother. But for some (obviously not all) men the sleeping around does not matter all that much. Chris in many ways is just as much of a whore as Chelsea, especially when you see him take the trip to vegas.

From what we see at the end of the movie it doesnt seem like their relationship is that great anyway.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cbundoc 16 years ago

1. Just like what another posted, having the camera far away and watching the scene play out makes the audience feel like a voyeur...i like the way this was used in the movie...plus it shows off the beautiful lighting and the set design of the movie.

2. I have to agree that I was also confused as to why Soderberg used this technique. Yes, it mirrors Chelsea/Christine's confusing life but I believe that this message would've still been understood if the movie was edited in order. It would've made Chelsea/Christine's character development work because we're following her day to day, client to client, other than wondering where this scene takes place in the story; just takes away from the flow of the film.

The movie was great, again the Cinematography, the Soundtrack, and just the overall look and feel of the film; very high class, sexy and sleek, it was just the editing was the ONLY thing (IMO) that made me like the movie a little less.

[–] creaturefeeture 15 years ago

About #2, I've been wondering the exact same thing. I should probably watch the film again but I didn't see the point of the inconsistent timeline unless it was merely supposed to feel like memories being replayed in one's mind? I'm really not sure..I don't think it necessarily hurt the film. I think it may have made it slightly more interesting but also more confusing. I would love to hear other's thoughts on this.

Voting History: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=26598711

[–] Flojangles 15 years ago

1 - Soderbergh used virtually no lighting for the majority of this movie, and so what several wide shots give his is the freedom to still have a beautiful shot without having to control the lighting. Once you do a bunch of closeups and stuff, more lighting is necessary, otherwise it would look like crap. I completely agree that it was also done to give a "voyeuristic" look, but I also think that it was a lighting strategy for the director and DP.

[–] ltsNotRight 15 years ago

I actually disagree on #1 I loved the long shots. I thought it made it feel a lot more realistic.