Year: 2015
Director: Sam Taylor-Johnson
Screenplay: Kelly Marcel
Starring: Dakota Johnson, Jamie Dorman
The Fifty Shades of Grey feature
film arrives amidst massive hype, awkward promos and in house fighting between
the film’s director and the book's writer. Such fighting appears to be common
with adaptation, but as Director Michael Haneke states in an interview about
his 2000 psychosexual drama The Piano Teacher (and I paraphrase):
“You must be glad
if you translate a third of the content as you can’t convey the richness of a
novel which is 300 pages long.”
From what I’ve read of Fifty Shades,
it seems clear that there’s little penetration (snigger) or richness to be found, with E.L James’ lead
character, Anastasia Steele feeling like an awkward mixture of Mills & Boon
and Robin from the 60’s Batman series. As a book, 50 Shades gives hope to crummy
writers in that, however naff your writing can be, there’s still a chance you
can make a bucket load of money (there’s hope for me yet).
Originally based on a piece of
Twilight fan fiction, Fifty Shades of Grey, was originally described as “Mommy
Porn” and while Sam Taylor Johnson’s cinematic adaptation may only really help
compound such descriptions with its vanilla sex and antiqued gender views, I
found it difficult not to admire its stylish production and knowing wit at certain points. It is taking on a film with no real richness to speak of, yet it’s
at times, a slyer film than those who have been quick to debunk it say (there’s a quantity
of people who react venomously to it while knowing very little) and its clear that the film is seeking a crowd of people who are clearly asking for adult
drama, a certain amount of titillation and of course escapism.
It’s a film that seems to clearly
acknowledge its sparkly vampire roots, opening to an ever grey Seattle, which
not only alludes to the looming shadow of one Mr Grey, but also reminds us of
the Bella Swan’s Forks. Fifty Shades amusingly never really escapes the Twilight
shadow, despite its adult leanings. It’s easy to see the similarities between
the main couples in each of the first film entries. However, Johnson’s film
feels far more playful with the material. The moment after Anastasia Steele
leaves her first meeting with Christen Grey all hot and flustered, the heavens open
outside and give her a cold shower. Dakota Johnson’s breathy performance has garnered
a mixed response and yet it seems clear that both director and actress are aiming
for more pithy representation of the awkward inner monologue that features in
the book. Hell, the film features the ludicrous close ups of Anastasia nibbling on company
pencils with the word Grey on them. So often the film understands what type of
movie it really should be.
Frustratingly, the film’s source
material hampers much of the playfulness. The character of Christian Grey is a
manic pixie dream guy. Not only successful, talented and knowledgeable in
nearly everything he touches (including her "sex"), but fantastically sculpted, and generically
handsome. Anastasia’s sexual naivety is made to look even more dubious (in
2015) by the sheer fact that the two are so instantly compatible in bed. He is the type of guy that the fedora wearing meninists
can't stand. Wish fulfillment? Yes, but the plot’s explanation of Christian’s main
flaw (which is dreadfully cliché and inaccurate when looked at along with his sexual
preference) never gives us true insight. While his manipulation of Anastasia through
material goods and sex are displayed far too much like perks than flaws. Only
the agency and fight back of Anastasia’s character claws back some balance,
although much like Bella Swan, all it takes is the raw sexual magnetism of Mr
Grey to cloud her judgement. Both lead
character’s goals in reality could easily be considered dangerous. The BDSM
aspect doesn’t even need to come into it. Although the nativity and treatment of the material
renders this element flaccid anyway. Such an uneven portrayal fails the drama substantially.
Fifty Shades the film helps destroy
some of the naff writing that came with the book and yet it still suffers from
dubious dialogue, naïve views to relationships and sexuality, as well as general
awareness. This man is so rich and clearly has a certain amount of fame around
him and yet he manages to slip in and out of clubs like a ninja with no one
noticing him. After the first time Christian and Anastasia have sex, to see him
playing the piano like such a tragic haunted phantom is more laughable than emotional. Jamie
Dorman does his best to make Christian a restrained and controlling figure, but
unlike his impressive abs, he has a character which lacks any real definition.
Anastasia drives the narrative throughout and yet her need to change Grey is
the kind of thing that's been making both men and women sick for years.
Yet the film is gorgeous to look at (shot by The Avengers' Seamus McGarvey), the performances often hold more chemistry than the net gossip and
early reviews suggested. Although the sex itself is mechanical and stiff it at least
suggests at female pleasure more over male. I do feel there’s a certain amount
of female gaze at play over the more typical male.
The biggest problem with a film
like this is there's not enough decent female led and female driven
features, not enough decent western films dealing with sexuality and not enough
mainstream movies interested in outright adult situations. There needs to be more films with similar material to make our basic appreciation of cinematic sex and
romance stronger. To see a more effective look at the role of BDSM and sexual power play, you would have to go back at least 13 years to 2002's indie feature Secretary. Foreign features such as the aforementioned The Piano Teacher are still light years ahead in digging into the complexity of material such as this. David Lynch's Blue Velvet (1984) dealt well with the idea of such transgressive sexuality having a corrosive edge, but that's as old as myself. That said, I have to say I'm fascinated that the film looks set to be one of the biggest 18
rated films dealing with such material, coming from a female perspective. Along with Gone Girl (2014) it’s clear that a certain type
of adult orientated fare is desperately being asked for and yet is only being nurtured
through quite narrow channels.
It's best to remember that
there will be many who are seeking this film out who will be able to remove the
right amount of reality in order to enjoy the fantasy. The more complicated talk about
the male character's abuse and manipulation is important, but ineffectual to a
certain crowd who will be able to paraphrase the infamous tagline from Last
House on the Left (it’s only a movie) in order to enjoy the film. I feel this
is important, as many people's abrupt disregard for others people’s enjoyment of something like this not only spurs the hype machine on, but also illustrates a massive gulf of why
people sought out and found enjoyment of the text. As bad as the book’s writing
is, and as uneven as the film shows itself, if we as an audience were more
willing to embrace adult situations within our entertainment, and hold up more
female driven fare, Fifty Shades would have more likely been a footnote rather than a landmark.
Fifty Shades of Gray will in no way enter my list of favourites of the year. It's simply
not that great a film. But no doubt the money made and the reactions garnered, in a climate which is consistently infantilizing its entertainment,
shows to me that the film is possibly one of the most important entries of the
cinematic calendar. Fifty Shades does enough to translate a third of the books content and while there's no richness of the source itself, there is a certain amount of the devil in the details.