It's what you don't see. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

Mercnbeth -> It's what you don't see. (12/26/2006 8:14:58 AM)

'The Secretary', 'The Story of O', and most recently 'The Pet'; movies announced as providing incite and breaking barriers regarding BDSM. They all failed. The failed for many reasons. Prime among them is capitalism; they were meant to produce money so they needed to be 'sensational' and 'titillating' much more then they needed to be reality. They were directed and represented by 'stars' who had no reference point to draw, or if they did, wanted to keep it secret. As a result the characters were caricatures. Their personalities and personal psychology was dysfunctional represented by such things as OCD or a 'cutting'. The submissives are always shown as weak, needed the strong, rich, caring character to 'complete' them. Does this really relate to anyone's reality?

The one minor exception was '9 1/2 Weeks'. Mickey Rourke gave the appearance of really knowing how to use a crop, and his sarcastic sadistic dialog and tone gave the impression of being 'real'. However, there was only just so far the director was willing to go. And of course, the submissive had 'issues' with being a successful woman who couldn't maintain a relationship and the Dom was 'dark' and 'rich' who had 25 suits of the same color and style hanging perfectly in his closet; so we still had the basic formula. They should have put more of the book into the movie.

The reason these movies fails isn't contributed by the expectation that showing a BDSM relationships must involve physical pain and physical restraint. More often watching a relationship is watching a submarine race. From the surface it's difficult, if not impossible to view making it hard to put on screen. Good actors with a good script could do it if they were willing to delve into the characters. But also it could be boring. Think of a CM version of "You've Got Mail" or "Sleepless in Seattle". What would have been the difference if between, or before meeting, the individuals went to separate BDSM clubs instead of a book shop or coffee house?

That's the way it is pretty much. The physical stuff, public or private, makes the distinction, but it doesn't make the relationship. Unless/until they decide to write and produce THAT movie, the representation of 'lifestyle' people will be minimally socially functioning, psychologically damaged, outcasts.



julietsierra -> RE: It's what you don't see. (12/26/2006 8:24:25 AM)

I think the biggest problem with showing lives as they really are (lifestyle or not) is that on the whole, they are pretty boring and do not exactly lend themselves to cinemagraphic portrayals. People want sensationalism - in a big way, and just imagine how "thrilled" they'd be to find out that we make beds, clean toilets, do bills and sit around visiting with friends and families, and even shop at the mall. Imagine how they'd run in droves to see a film that shows us celebrating birthdays with cake and ice cream, going out to dinner from time to time, and reading a book - even when the subject matter isn't erotic.

It's not only that the filmmakers don't have a clue and are capitalistic. It's that on the whole, being a voyeur to someone else's regular life is...well...kind of like watching paint dry.

Even "Ordinary People" portrayed a very extraordinary problem - or 10.

And then, I reread your post and realized you said exactly this along the way.

juliet



Voltare -> RE: It's what you don't see. (12/26/2006 8:36:21 AM)

You're frustrated that Hollywood misrepresents the BDSM community and associated lifestyles.  I'm frustrated that life doesn't imitate Hollywood.

Seriously, it isn't a Capitalist plot to destroy art that is to blame.  It's our spoon fed, sitcom gorged, sound bite TV culture at fault here.  I can't name a single movie that portrays even vanilla relationships accurately, just as I can't name a single movie that portrays computer repair accurately for the same reason:  It's boring. 

Eighty percent of our live-in relationship focus on domestic and mundane issues - washing dishes, vacuuming the floor, chasing unmentionables, going to work, flossing, clipping the dogs fingernails, scrubbing the sticky gunk out of the sink, sleeping, and all of the other basics of life.  I consider our relationship special in that we take a lot of time to sit and talk to each other about various topics - but our jobs allow us that kind of 18 hour a day interaction.  Most people don't have that luxury.

We never see Lee (from the Secretary) doing laundry (even if she does have a date at the Laundro-Mat), we never see her trying to choose hair conditioners, we never see her discussing her musical tastes with Edward.  I would suggest the characters weren't even intended to be seen as real people, but rather as caricatures of what some people are like (within the time and budget constraints of the film itself.)  It doesn't mean the concept of a 'different' style of loving aren't illustrated, it just means that people are only interested in seeing other people's laundry unless if it's dirty.

EDIT: Juliet:  JINX!!

But I don't agree that the Mercs were saying that.  To be honest, I think a story could be brave enough to present the development  and culmination of a D/s style relationship.  g & I have an idea, but need to plan it some....



mstrjx -> RE: It's what you don't see. (12/26/2006 8:58:55 AM)

Imagine a vanilla person being a 'fly on the wall' of a pretty hot play party.  What they 'see' is the physicality of play.  That's certainly one thing.

But what we say all of the time is that although play can be/is hot, what is really steamy is what is going on in the minds and hearts of the participants involved.  The proverbial fly on the wall might not be able to really see that.

It reminds me of the first Sorayama original painting I bought years ago.  Without going into all of the salacious details about the pose, one of the things I remember most was the salesperson commenting on the look of pain on the woman's face.  My reply was 'I've seen that look before.  No, I've CREATED that look before.  That isn't pain what you are seeing.'

What our Lifestyle about is psychology.  The internal struggle to accept who we are, to embrace who we are, to revel in the passions that (partially) the physical generates in our head, to make the step from being in vanilla relationships to those of our kind.

To be able to portray that drama, the internal workings, cinematically, might not be so easy.  We see films in the 'psychological thriller' genre or the 'revenge' genre, and sometimes those seem closer to BDSM than they try.  Looking inside someone's head is what would make, to us, a story we need to see.  We might not 'know' this, but if I were to say that there is many ways that paint can dry, it starts to make sense.  Might not make for great theatre, but it's how we want to see things.

A couple of weeks ago I got around to seeing 'Writer of O', a documentary about the writing (and the author) of the book.  Because it was 'real' it wasn't as exciting as it could be, but it did say a lot without being gratuitous.  Part of the problem, perhaps, is that we tend to see something and want it all spoon-fed to us.  We should ultimately spend some time considering what it is that we have seen and know that there are things that we can/should feel that weren't explicitly commented upon.  We seem to have gotten out of the habit of reading books, but it should be the same sort of experience.

It has only been a week since I saw 'The Pet', and I don't really wish to go into my feelings until I've given it more consideration.  The movie I'm looking forward to seeing, though I'm not sure how it will come across cinematically, is 'Book of Revelation'.  I read the book, and there is something that is interesting to consider even after the experience of the read.

Jeff



marieToo -> RE: It's what you don't see. (12/26/2006 9:03:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

'The Secretary', 'The Story of O', and most recently 'The Pet'; movies announced as providing incite and breaking barriers regarding BDSM. They all failed. The failed for many reasons. Prime among them is capitalism; they were meant to produce money so they needed to be 'sensational' and 'titillating' much more then they needed to be reality.


No one works for free.  Even documentary type movies are produced in order to make money, no?  Why would or should a
'bdsm' flick be any different?  Should someone be making bdsm movies as a public service to mankind?  Whats wrong with titalliating?  This is afterall, entertainment we're talking about, no?

quote:

They were directed and represented by 'stars' who had no reference point to draw, or if they did, wanted to keep it secret. As a result the characters were caricatures.


But thats what acting is. And when it's done well, actors can and do create wonderful representations of certain realities, that can either touch someone or not. 

quote:

Their personalities and personal psychology was dysfunctional represented by such things as OCD or a 'cutting'. The submissives are always shown as weak, needed the strong, rich, caring character to 'complete' them. Does this really relate to anyone's reality?


It does relate to some peoples' reality, Merc.  Vanilla, bdsm or anything in between, people of all orientations have 'issues' or 'dysfuntions' of some sort.  In fact, off the top of my head, I cant think of any drama (movie, TV or otherwise) that the main characters dont have some type of hang-up, problem, issue, or dysfunction of some sort.  Why would bdsm movies be represented any differently?  Are you suggesting that those who live bdsm lifestyles are somehow less apt to have dysfunctions than say....'vanilla' people?

quote:

The one minor exception was '9 1/2 Weeks'. Mickey Rourke gave the appearance of really knowing how to use a crop, and his sarcastic sadistic dialog and tone gave the impression of being 'real'. However, there was only just so far the director was willing to go. And of course, the submissive had 'issues' with being a successful woman who couldn't maintain a relationship and the Dom was 'dark' and 'rich' who had 25 suits of the same color and style hanging perfectly in his closet; so we still had the basic formula. They should have put more of the book into the movie.


Again, I would view this as entertainment rather than a representation of anything other than a plot for dramatic movie.  Frankly, I found 9 1/2 weeks to be one of the most boring films I've ever seen.  The only thing that saved it, was viewing close-up shots of Basingers face every 20 seconds. 

As far as the Secretary, I think most people's disappointment lies in the fact that there wasn't a whole lot of sexual/physical scenes. I didnt even really view that film as being much of a bdsm flick. I saw two very vulnerable people who had finally found someone else to accept them exactly as they are. Two 'newbies' who yin and yan to each other's 'freak', quite naturally with no questions asked, no reason to discuss, dissect or find logical reasons for it. If I remember correctly, the guy at one point tried running from it, but the girl stayed there and waited for him; commited to acceptance of herself and to him; and finding freedom and empowerment in that acceptance. The fact that their particular 'freak' had D and S overtones, seemed secondary to the the underlying message (the way I interpreted it, anyway)  Of course the characters had dysfunctions; everyone does. to portray bdsmers as being more psychologically fit than anyone else, would be a gross misrepresentation.

I just dont think there is any accurate way to represent bdsm relationships any more than there is an accurate way to represent non-bdsm relationships; all are varied and unique unto those involved, and I would go even further than that and say theres a little Ds and a little "vanilla" in all relationships anyway.  Whether or not its recognized or admitted to is a whole other story.




SirDiscipliner69 -> RE: It's what you don't see. (12/26/2006 9:07:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

'The Secretary', 'The Story of O', and most recently 'The Pet'; movies

Which version of O? There are many.

Ross



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: It's what you don't see. (12/26/2006 9:29:15 AM)

quote:

Which version of O? There are many.

Ross

But none of them were really commercial blockbusters- which was the point.

I've always noted that bdsmers get pissed about how "bdsm movies" don't really show "bdsm relationships."  But bdsm relationships are pretty darn boring overall and no one wants to see a happy everyday couple just doing what people do.  You gotta throw something to shake it up-so you get bdsmers annoyed because it's not "true to real life and will give the vanillas an altered view" and it's still not that popular because bdsm doesn't really resonate with most vanillas.

Which is interesting because I've never known a bdsm person who said they didn't want to watch movies about vanilla relationships because they find vanilla relationships boring and not resonating.

I'd actually put Secretary on the success panel- it got shown at some major film festivals, got a lot of buzz in the papers, the actors were fairly well-known beforehand and have gone on to even greater success since.  It's no Independence Day gross, but it did pretty good for itself.



Emperor1956 -> RE: It's what you don't see. (12/26/2006 10:00:23 AM)

Movies movies movies.

Actually, my favorite "B/D/S/M" themed movie is "Quills", which didn't even get a nod in the Mercnbeth review.   It is hardly flattering to those of us who are involved in D/s relationships, but it is a compelling movie. 

LA is correct, "Secretary" was considered a financial success in the world of indie films.  Moreover, I think it was generally a successful movie.  I find it interesting that people repeatedly seize on the fact that that Lee (Maggie Gyllenhal's character) was just out of a psych hospital and was a cutter, and draw that to mean the film says that all submissives are emotionally damaged.  Why?  Isn't that simply information you are given about that character at that time?   I saw "Ray", and loved it, and saw "Dreamgirls" and liked it -- both show African American R&B musicians who have drug problems.  Does that mean the movies are saying ALL R&B musicians are Black junkies?  Of course not.

Indeed, one thing I liked a great deal about "Secretary" is it didn't preach, didn't draw generalizations -- this was a story about two people (and some surrounding characters).  And I agree with MarieToo, too.  It is a relationship movie as much as a kink movie.

And finally, "9 1/2 Weeks" was a terrible film.  Bad acting, badly written and one of the biggest disappointments in going from a moderately good book to a rotten movie.  First, it made D/s all about sex, and only about sex.  Second, it was DULL DULL DULL (thank you Marie for reminding me).  And third -- Mickey Rourke?  Please...the man makes me want to take a shower when he opens his mouth.  He was the least convicing "in control", wealthy, competent Dominant I could imagine.  Carrottop could play that role better.

But that's why they make movies and horse races, too.

E.



MaryT -> RE: It's what you don't see. (12/26/2006 10:01:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
That's the way it is pretty much. The physical stuff, public or private, makes the distinction, but it doesn't make the relationship. Unless/until they decide to write and produce THAT movie, the representation of 'lifestyle' people will be minimally socially functioning, psychologically damaged, outcasts.


I saw Secretary as a rehash of Pretty Woman, which was just a rehash of Cinderella.  Disney is to blame for all this. [:D]

Normal people are boring.  Sane people are boring.  What appeals to consumers of mass media is outlandish fantasy, and BDSM lends itself to a darker theme.  Sounds like maybe a documentary would be more to your liking, but the public would probably find it as boring as I find Anne Rice.

MaryT



LaTigresse -> RE: It's what you don't see. (12/26/2006 10:08:48 AM)

I just adored the movie Quills. Have yet to see Secretary although I just borrowed it from my adult daughter and will be watching it one of these evenings.

Quite often I just prefer to read over watching movies. It is a rare actor that can portray inner tormoil and anguish as well as I can read about it.



Mercnbeth -> RE: It's what you don't see. (12/26/2006 10:35:07 AM)

Defining "success" as financial is fine. The disagreement would be defining 'The Secretary' as a successful depiction of 'healthy' relationship.

No, it doesn't define a 'Dom' or 'submissive' anymore than a black character defines his race in the movies mentioned. However, negative racist stereotypes are offset by positive role models. The 'best' character on screen is one where race doesn't play into the character's interactions with other characters. The best example of this is the Drill Sargent character in the movie "An Officer and a Gentlemen". 

Granted there isn't enough of a similar sampling to point to positive examples of lifestyle relationships; but again that is the point. When you see one you hope there is a fair representation. There has not been one movie made, that I can think of, that doesn't show a lifestyle person as socially 'normal'. It would be as if every black person depicted in a movie played an "Amos & Andy" character in comedy or a maid, as in "Gone With the Wind". It's not that I think everyone will believe that all Doms are as insecure as the Dom in "Secretary"; or as socially inept as the submissive; but so far - that's all they've seen.

Here's a question regarding perception. Since 'Lee Hollaway' no longer had the need to cut herself once her relationship began with E. Edward Grey did she just replace her self abuse with accepting 'abuse' from another?

I'm guess I'm just eagerly awaiting a movie representation made by a 'lifestyle' Sydney Poitier.

quote:

Actually, my favorite "B/D/S/M" themed movie is "Quills", which didn't even get a nod in the Mercnbeth review.

Don't recall any BDSM theme in the movie 'Quills'. I saw it more about censorship and government sanctioned religious repression; with a side-bar about inhuman treatments of psychopaths. Having the Marquis housed and 'treated' in the same facility confirmed the association. His writings and thought of BDSM meriting the same incarceration. The Marquis' audience was the everyday man/woman who were safe as long as their desires and fantasies were locked behind a facade.



Emperor1956 -> RE: It's what you don't see. (12/26/2006 10:47:05 AM)

Two quick replies:

quote:

 Mercnbeth: The disagreement would be defining 'The Secretary' as a successful depiction of 'healthy' relationship.


Who said anything about healthy?  I surely didn't.  That is for the viewer to decide, and clearly, you've decided.  But I suggest that is what you bring to the movie, more than what the movie brings to you, and that by the way, is in many film students' minds, the mark of a successful film -- it makes you think afterwards.

quote:

 More Mercnbeth:  It's not that I think everyone will believe that all Doms are as insecure as the Dom in "Secretary"; or as socially inept as the submissive; but so far - that's all they've seen.



If that is your concern, take heart.  The repeating character of Lady Heather and her on-again/off-again relationship with Gil Grissom in the CSI series should give you (and the world) a D/s relationship (or is it?) filled with secure, mature characters.

E.



beltainefaerie -> RE: It's what you don't see. (12/26/2006 11:03:57 AM)

I would love to see a CM version of "You've got Mail"  or "Sleepless in Seattle" as long as it was well done.  Would anyone make such a film?  I doubt it, beasuse, as others have mentioned, I think it is the darkness or freak quality that sells when dealing with BDSM and most people would find the actuality boring.  They want the sensationalism.  But for those of us living our lives this way, wouldn't a silly romantic comedy that happened to characters in an D/s relationship be fun? 

Maybe it's just me. 



popeye1250 -> RE: It's what you don't see. (12/26/2006 11:29:31 AM)

In my humble opinion Hollywood hasn't done many good films in the last ten or fifteen years.
Everything's "special effects" these days or you'll hear about a network's "New Line-up", "17 new Cop Shows!"
With all the supposedly "talented" people there you'd think they could come up with something different other than Cop Shows, Lawyer Shows, Hospital Shows or Reality Shows.
That's why I watch The History Channel, A&E, and The Discovery Channel.



mymasterssub69 -> RE: It's what you don't see. (12/26/2006 11:36:36 AM)

the Story of O (the French subtitled ver) movie was good however as usually the case, the book was much better and has more details than the movie.

ordered my own copy recently



simonsays69 -> RE: It's what you don't see. (12/26/2006 11:44:20 AM)

I have not seen the movie, the book I gave to a gal then never saw her again. lol she said she was interested in the lifestyle, but I learned the hard way she was not that interested.  Any clue where I can fing a copy of both?



domiguy -> RE: It's what you don't see. (12/26/2006 12:01:08 PM)

It is true that most of what comes out of Hollywood is garbage, but there are definitely some movies that are thought provoking that don't follow ant particular "formula" and are a joy to watch.

As far as making a movie that  you feel "captures" the life style experience, is partly where the whole problem begins...because then you have to define the "lifestyle" which is impossible...From your own particular point of view I understand whole heartedly that which you are looking for.

For instance, all one has to do is read the thread,  "Everything changes, nothing stays the same"... and you will see the vast contradictions that people see as their own actual experience.  I understand what you are saying, and I feel entirely the same way...I have no use for a woman who's only  worth is her body and who feels that her opinions and outside interests are meaningles....but obviously many out here feel differently when it comes to the issue of what defines their relationship....and thereby it is impossible ot portray a relationship which will ring true to the people who are actively participating in said relationships.

And I am not trying to  stereotype...but because of the nature or at least the percieved notion of this lifestyle...it does probably attract a higher percentage of people who are "minimally socially functioning, psychologically damaged, outcasts."... And quite frankly they are probably more interesting of a subject than someone who is relatively well rounded.

Just my two cents. Again.

out.

D.G.

p.s. Jesus please protect me from your followers.



sleazy -> RE: It's what you don't see. (12/26/2006 1:10:09 PM)

I must admit to a dissapointment at Secretary, I have watched this with both other people like us, and with 'nilla types. Our kind of people fell into two camps "Fantastic movie catches the relationship wonderfully" and the other camp felt that it portrayed people like us in a bad light falling back on stereotypes....... which were all that the 'nilla folks I viewed with saw, him being a control freak, but with a lack of self-control, and her being a weak self-harmer with no real self -esteem.

I have almost litterally just finished watching The Pet. I found that to be a movie that had no idea what it was about. Was it about the slave trade, black market organs, or a d/s relationship based around animal games? Was Mary in it for the money? a natural "pet"? Vulnerable because of the violent ex-partner and lack of housing? The impression I got was that the way she was instantly sat on the floor in the restaraunt for desert meant she was simply trying to show affection in exchange for the large check.

I dont think either of these movies show us in a "good" light to Joe Public, whilst we can watch them and see how the dynamic is really working in a positive way for the characters, Joe sees stereotypes that match his preconceptions of something dirty, abusive, and hidden behind locked doors done by people with what are percived to be serious personal issues. The Top in each case comes across as predatory and the sub as being desperate. I know that in Secretary he tried to escape the relationship, but more than one person I have spoken to has missed the actual letter, and thought he was backing off just to test her.

Next on my list is a french movie called "The Piano Teacher" which is supposedly about a relationship with d/s overtones, perhaps being french like the original Story of O it will be going into a little more of the physicallity and not show us as predators and victims.

To Joe public it is fine to feel relaxed about yourself by going to a quack and getting a bottle of some little pill, but to feel relaxed about yourself by being yourself is seen as abnormal, and perversley, unhealthy.



mymasterssub69 -> RE: It's what you don't see. (12/26/2006 1:10:33 PM)

try amazon.com, they have both movie and book  ...if you have Netflix - rent it



ExSteelAgain -> RE: It's what you don't see. (12/26/2006 1:42:10 PM)

In literature or film, the story and dialogue does not mirror reality exactly. It is more like jazz, playing around the notes, but giving a feel to things.  It has to represent the story to us on levels beyond the obvious. The constraints of time are one of the reasons it can’t be perfectly realistic, but that can also lend artistic devices to the work.

Many make the mistake of picking out a scene and thinking that is not “realistic.” The purpose of a book or movie is not to be a newspaper account, but to tell us what really happened on a much higher level.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875