Printable View
I'm sure this question has been asked before, but I'm going to do it again. How do people feel about the film "Secretary"? That film was definitely one of the few turning points in my life that led me to researching this lifestyle. Despite my love of the film, however, I understand that many people feel negatively about the movie and its depiction of a BDSM relationship, so I would appreciate any thoughts on the issue.
Secretary: good or bad?
Good.
Not good enough.
Not complete enough.
A start.
It's clear that "Hollywood" is beginning to break more and more into the ground that is part of the bdsm lifestyle, just as it did for the gay lifestyle 30 years ago... It will take a while.
I like the general concept of the move, but it lacked a deeper plot. It was very disjointed and confusing for me to watch with all the jumping around. I agree, that it's a start, but really could have been done so much better.
I enjoyed watching both the boss and secretary's emotional struggles throughout the film to accept that love comes in many different forms, though. It reminded me very much of my own struggle with accepting who i am and that this is just as part of me as my eye color. :)
Bluefarie, very happily owned and engaged to Master Archeon
I liked the movie...I also liked that damn red pen...but then again, I'm into correction. :)
one word: Bad
Other words: Inconsistant with its's own themes and chronology, pandering to vanilla's, poor acting, poor representation of the lifestyle, endorses topping from the bottom.
Its main problem (apart from the plot, maybe) was its implication that the cause of the protagonist's submissive/masochistic tendencies was her dysfunctional family, alcoholic father etc. etc. Just seemed like the being spanked over a desk was a progression/substitute for cutting herself, which really isn't a good way to present the lifestyle. There might be cases irl which panned out like this, but they certainly aren't in the majority.
I loved it!
Just becuase she had a disfunctional familey didn't mean the makers of the film were saying all people into bdsm were emotionally scarred eaither.
I also didnt think it was bad that they didnt show anything too hard core and left plenty up to the imagination, it wasn't a porno movie afterall or a movie about bdsm so much as a movie about two people and the vulnerability of falling in love.
The movie showed two humans with all their flaws and good points combined.
Her determination and perserverence to keep her hands on his desk no matter what in the last act was a perfect example of what it means to surrender to one's own submission! To declare one'self a slave. To beg the collar!
She made herself HIS in that, come hell or high water, and in some traditions once such a thing is done, once someone submits on that level the dominant eaither recognizes her devotion with his own during the epiphany and accepts her under his dominion, becoming in his own right then a Master, answering the challenge placed by fortune before him in her admission of servitude of being his slave, or fails and dooms them both.
Something few submissives or dominants ever get a chance to actually confront within themselves for real, in a way that matters, let alone, be so well portrayed in a movie.
Both he and she tried to run from their fears at different points and ended up confronting and over coming them... and in the end... ultimately...love prevailed.
Denu,
She was about as far from a slave as could have possibly been portrayed from beginning to end. With the exception of one scene (the hands on the desk) her sole purpose was to gratify her own needs, in short to top from the bottom, from the beginning of the film, to the very final scene.
Obviously we will have to agree to disagree in that regard good Sir.
Thanks for all the responses! I'm still a little confused as to what you mean by "topping from the bottom." Could you please explain?Quote:
Originally Posted by Archeon
Topping from the bottom is where a sub manupulates the Dom in some way to ensure that they get what they want. It is an activity which is generally frowned upon as it indicates that the sub is not really being submissive but is in fact telling the Dom what to do. There are a variety of degrees of this ranging from subtle emotional blackmail to the more blatant 'here is a list of things I want you to do to me and this is what you wear when you do it'. The former is common in many relationships and in some cases may not actually be Topping from the bottom (or at least the participants may not realise it is or think that they are being properly submissive). The latter is common in male 'subs' who visit Pro Dommes where in many cases they try to give the Domme a complete script to follow.
Not seen secretary but I agree with Oz that is is clearly a step in the right direction. Though I don't think Holywood will ever depict BDSM in a normal, realistic manner. They need the drama and the emotion and they will never get that from a normal woman who decides to be a slave without the abusive past ands without the emotional trauma of the transition...
I felt really bored and sleepy when I watched that film. It didnt give me a hardon either.
I have liked a lot many updates from NaughtyOffice much more than that. ;-)
Also I would like to express my disappointment when that actress replaced Katie Holmes in Dark Knight! The party scene, Joker with his knife in her mouth saying "why so serious" was awesome ;)
You will find I am sure that there are a thousand different subjective points of view as to exactly what constitutes "topping from the bottom".Quote:
Originally Posted by SweeterNovember
For some it’s highly controversial as to weather or not it should truly exist at all in the first place as a derogatory lifestyle terminology since in most definitions it describes a perfectly natural behavior in all dominance related power exchange hierarchies Bdsm, Vanilla or otherwise.
Truth be told it’s been my experience that for the most part in real life I've only heard it used if at all as a passive aggressive complaint of those would be dominats who are either inexperienced to begin with and or insecure and easily threatened by the slightest "perceived" challenge to their would be authority or dominion.
Topping from the bottom refers to one thing essentially. The sub manipulating her way to getting what she wants.
Examples from the film: Deliberate mistakes to get "punished", the worm, bug in the bed at the end.
All a means to get her needs met, rather than show submission towards him.
I thought the film was both excellent and disturbing
It was excellent in its portrayal of a 'love/BDSM' story. I think it clearly showed what we can achieve being it dysfunctional or perfect who can saw what the perfect life is for someone else
But it was disturbing in showing her need to abuse herself. The cutting scenes were upsetting particularly when we saw that one of the objects in her box was a statuette of a ballerina. Something every little girl has, it made me believe she had been cutting herself ever since she was little
As possibly a disturbing question; how many people in BDSM, both subs and Masters, abuse themselves?
If you're not comfortable talking about it here PM me if you wish to discuss it
I never abused myself or was abused until after I was well grown up out on my own and had been doing bdsm for quite some time with no problems at all, I was so not the stereotype often portrayed. Until someone took advantage of my trust and butalized me bad enough to give me lots of problems that is.
Self harm is a common thing. Can't say if it is getting more common in recent years or if it is merely getting more reported. However, I do not think there is a direct link between BDSM and self harm. While it is true that many self harmers turn to BDSM as a means of catharic release from thier troubles not all of them do this and not all BDSMers are former self harmers.
Also, some self harm is a cry for help rather than anything to do with the endorphins released by pain.
I suspect the psychology and physiology behind this is very complex and there are probably social elements as well...
Going back to the topic of BDSM in the media, there was an episode of House that had a sadomasochist as a patient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Hurts_%28House%29
I liked some aspects of it, especially at the end where she explains that masochism is beautiful because of the level of trust it requires; but other parts I found disturbing (such as he paid her to dominate him, which suggests that two people could never form a loving, nurturing, mutual BDSM relationship).
However, overall it made me excited to see BDSM portrayed on a mainstream primetime show, and for the most part, most of the characters seemed to accept it just fine (implying that such desires are acceptable).
Just on a side note of the other tangent in this topic- I think there is a distinct difference between masochism (pain for pleasure) and self-mutilation (seeking emotional escape), though really I wouldn't be able to say how on earth a person on the outside would be able to know the difference (I am a masochist and before I had my beautiful sub I had to cause my own hurt, which was lonely). But I can guarantee I wasn't doing it for attention, at least not from 'nillas.
There is an episiode of Dollhouse which briefly touches on the same issues (in fact, the whole series is an essay on female/male relationships, 'paying for it', concepts of slavery, feminism and so on - very dark undertones). I also think there has been an episode of CSI that has some elements (I only saw the clip on YouTube not the whole episode). It is slowly creeping into the mainstream media.
Unfortunately, I think the ProDomme industry is the one most vanillas are aware of. They seem to assume that a man has to pay a Mistress to get her to do what he wants her to do which brings in issues of Topping from the bottom as well. Its a huge misconception but one that is supported by the media. Every single TV mention of Femdom involves a Professional dungeon (including a documentary on the topic) and everytime a Mistress gets unfortunately splashed all over the tabloids it is because either she has been caught 'running a house of ill repute' or, more likely, has been servicing celebrities and been caught. I can't think of any film, TV show or r/l media event where a Mistress is portrayed as part of a loving, long term, lifestyle couple. Which is a shame.
I agree with Archeon on all scores...the motives of the secretary were completely self-centered and manipulative...And the boss was a straw Dom.
As for the movie content...lighter than a wisp of cotton.
Blessed be,
^Black^
There have also been good episodes of Bones and CSI on bdsm before, Bones even had one centered on Pony Play.
Well let me ask what may be a dumb question then; how well do you feel Hollywood portrays the BDSM lifestyle?
Do you think they do it purely for sensationalism? (It just dawned on me that this is a silly question, of course they do it for the sensationalism)
Maybe I need to rephrase the question; how do you feel about the portrayal of BDSM by Hollywood?
Loved it...
My earlier answer applies.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSeeker
They're starting small. If it makes money, gains acceptance, they will show more and more and it will get more and more realistic, and all the while, the religious right will cry and lament the end of 'our way of life" just as they have and continue to do with regard to the gay community.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozme52
The first thing to say is that the film is a great improvement on the original story, which I read out of curiousity. The author specialises in intentionally pointless stories about hopelessly damaged people, and the spanking is not brought in as any sort of positive development, but to bring an end to the heroine's first and only attempt at a normal life and job, after which she goes back to pieces. Turning this into a tale of redemption and happiness through BDSM is quite a creative achievement.
The heroine's self-harming could be seen as implying that BDSMers are sick puppies, but one could equally read it as showing that she is painfully incomplete until she finds her Dom. Both of them are weak and flawed people, but together they can be happy.
I don't see her actions as manipulative, more that she is actually the stronger partner but uses all her new-found strength in serving him. She knows he needs excuses to punish her the way he enjoys, so she obediently provides them. When he panics and can't face his need to keep her she forces the issue the only way a good sub can, by obeying him beyond reason, through pain and humiliation, till he has to see what a treasure he has if he dares to take it.
The final scene with the bug in the bed is a model for service-oriented subs. If she were playing games for her own benefit, she'd just leave the bed in a mess and get punished for that. But she makes the bed neatly, and then completes her perfect service by providing an excuse for what one hopes will be a memorable thrashing.
As Max says, it doesn't work as pornography, but that's like saying "Sound of Music" doesn't work as a war story. I think in the future this will be listed alongside such films as "Brokeback Mountain" in a genre of love stories outside the straight-vanilla mainstream, where the theme is the love story and the non-standard sexuality is just the setting.
Secretary's one of my favourite ever films. There aren't many films which make me cry every time I see them. :o
I was going to say something like this but I don't think I could've put it nearly so well. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
I think it's also important to help demonstrate to vanilla viewers that she wants to be punished.
Never saw that movie before...just watched the clip where she is bent over his desk...receiving correction for the first time I suppose....
I can't think straight right now.....<<<< lips parted..eyes glazed over >>>>
I completely agree that topping from the bottom is contextual. While misbehaving to be punished is sometimes TFTB, in some cases it allows the Dom to act on desires that he otherwise can't satisfy or serves some other Dom-oriented purpose. In fact, I would say that what matters is motivation. Was she misbehaving in order to be punished because she wanted the punishment, or was she serving her Dom by allowing him to gratify his needs?
Or both.
I think any successful relationship involves a certain amount of give and take, even in the bdsm context. If both partners are not being gratified in some way then it will naturally disintegrate, as long as the arrangement is consensual. It's a question of finding someone whose limits and interests coincide with yours. Non consensual situations are justifiably illegal, although one might argue that these are the only "true" slaves.