So that Fifty Shades of Grey movie came out today...

[ChangeAndChance]

Aside from a few recurring posts popping up on my tumblr dashboard, I've tried to keep away exposure to the massive debate over this film's release despite I myself condemning the flick. With a large proportion of feminists furious at the film's promotion of abuse and rape as "sexy" and BDSM practioners angry over their group's misrepresentation in both book and film, the film is still projected to gross way over its $30-40 million budget. So I ask you lot one question: What the fuck is wrong with people? Internalized misogyny? Capitalist cultural undertones of hierarchy and domination affecting people psychologically?

[Hit The North]

Well, if it is "internalised misogyny" then it is "female internalised misogyny" given that the readership of the novel must have been around 90% female.

[Zanthorus]

I suspect that the people who enjoy the book aren't looking as deeply into it, or looking for the same things, as it's critics.

I found this (http://historyofbdsm.com/2012/07/the-curious-kinky-persons-guide-to-fifty-shades-of-grey-chapter-19/), which interested me:

The best idea that I heard that the millions of women reading this book are reading selectively. One of the key ideas of my work is that reading is an active, not passive, process. If Christian Grey is a lightly sketched character, with little substance beyond “rich, handsome, damaged, fixable” the people reading this are filling in details. Likewise they are editing out certain details like his stalking, his threatening behaviour, and the fact that he’s not mentally sound.


It’s a little like when, decades ago, lesbian women read pulp exploitation novels about innocent women being seduced by evil butch lesbians, and mentally edited out the endings when the innocent woman goes back to heterosexuality. The lesbians did this because at this point in history, this was the only reflection of female-female desire and sexuality available in culture. It was this or nothing, and the lesbian readers strongly misread what the culture allowed.


The book's prose is awful though, so it's not something I really want to spend too much time thinking about.

[Sasha]

i liked these two reviews both;

http://slog.thestranger.com/film/features/2015/02/11/21703711/50-shades-of-grey-might-be-the-mass-market-starter-smut-you-deserve

and

GUg3o6no4-0

its a sad day when upgraded twilight fanfic is the sexual led out of millions of women, then again, maybe we (as collective humanity who know better) should make sure there is healthier better written sex positive erotica out there.

[Mr. Piccolo]

Fifty Shades of Grey is perhaps even worse than that. In 2012 Lynn Stuart Parramore wrote an interesting article contending that the books could be interpreted as a Randian fantasy about submitting to the power of tycoon supermen.

http://www.alternet.org/story/156291/fifty_shades_of_capitalism%3A_pain_and_bondage_in_ the_american_workplace

[Creative Destruction]

Well, if it is "internalised misogyny" then it is "female internalised misogyny" given that the readership of the novel must have been around 90% female.

Which isn't outside the realm of possibility.

[Creative Destruction]

I suspect that the people who enjoy the book aren't looking as deeply into it, or looking for the same things, as it's critics.

I found this (http://historyofbdsm.com/2012/07/the-curious-kinky-persons-guide-to-fifty-shades-of-grey-chapter-19/), which interested me:

The best idea that I heard that the millions of women reading this book are reading selectively. One of the key ideas of my work is that reading is an active, not passive, process. If Christian Grey is a lightly sketched character, with little substance beyond “rich, handsome, damaged, fixable” the people reading this are filling in details. Likewise they are editing out certain details like his stalking, his threatening behaviour, and the fact that he’s not mentally sound.


It’s a little like when, decades ago, lesbian women read pulp exploitation novels about innocent women being seduced by evil butch lesbians, and mentally edited out the endings when the innocent woman goes back to heterosexuality. The lesbians did this because at this point in history, this was the only reflection of female-female desire and sexuality available in culture. It was this or nothing, and the lesbian readers strongly misread what the culture allowed.


The book's prose is awful though, so it's not something I really want to spend too much time thinking about.

I've always wondered how the movie would translate to people when it was on-screen, as opposed to reading a book...and that people edit shit out when they read makes sense. This is going to be incredibly more difficult to do with a movie, though. They're basically going to see one-step below a rape flick, as far as I can tell. I'm wondering how the reviews are going to follow or what reactions are going to be.

[Creative Destruction]

GUg3o6no4-0

lol, the peanut gallery.

[Lily Briscoe]

Fifty Shades of Grey is perhaps even worse than that. In 2012 Lynn Stuart Parramore wrote an interesting article contending that the books could be interpreted as a Randian fantasy about submitting to the power of tycoon supermen.

http://www.alternet.org/story/156291/fifty_shades_of_capitalism%3A_pain_and_bondage_in_ the_american_workplace

I read this on libcom last night. Thought it was a really awful article in general.

There's something a bit gross to me about a bunch of dudes wringing their hands about "internalized female misogyny" on the basis of women enjoying a piece of kinky fiction, idk...

[Quail]

its a sad day when upgraded twilight fanfic is the sexual led out of millions of women, then again, maybe we (as collective humanity who know better) should make sure there is healthier better written sex positive erotica out there.

I'm finding it a bit annoying the way that people are dismissing 50 shades as obviously terrible because it's twilight fan fiction, though admittedly the source material doesn't lend itself well to healthy sex positive erotica. There's some pretty good erotic fan fiction around that isn't misogynistic or unhealthy (I read and write it - come at me), and I think that the way people dismiss fan fiction in general (especially erotic fan fiction) is partly because it's an expression of female sexuality. Fan fiction is mostly written by women (or at least seen as such), so unsurprisingly is often met with derision.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I wouldn't view erotic fan fiction any different from erotic fiction in general, although I've never considered it before which might be significant I guess. Twilight's basic structure seems like it would lend itself to problematic retellings though.

[Subversive]

This is really not a topic I usually get into. I hate pop-culture nonsense and I really don't know anything about the book or movie. (Is it 'really' that bad? I just thought it was about a guy/girl who like bondage. Oh well, whatever.)
But in this particular case it interests me for several reasons. Mostly because it is, in itself, a cultural movement.


Fan fiction is mostly written by women (or at least seen as such), so unsurprisingly is often met with derision.
From my experience that simply isn't true.
I would certainly not say most "fan fiction" is written by women. Moreso, it seems that it is written mostly by younger-people, of both genders. And the general derision towards it is because these youths have not developed very good writing styles and are mostly just writing out their personal fantasies.
Personally I agree with the piece you quoted from Sasha. If the most popular piece of a certain genre of material is actually a poor example of that genre, then society itself is apparently just uninformed about the genre or that not enough focus and effort has been put into producing genuinely creative works.

However, as opposed to what you're discussing, this particular title is not engrossing to readers because it is 'fan-fiction', or only because it is sexual, but because it is relevant to a culturally dismissed sub-culture. As they say, 'people want what they cannot have'. Or in a more uniquely psychological sense, people are enjoying this book/movie because it was recently a big 'taboo'. The mainstream popularity of it, through nothing but sudden trend, is merely a psychological movement, mostly for women whom have formerly understood bondage-play as a means of cultural oppression, as a cultural taboo.

This trend, the popularity of this book, is therefore the yearning for women's sexual freedom, by women.
It is therefore not the oppression within the book that matters, but the previous oppression of the genre.

[Quail]

I never said it was engrossing to people because it started out as fan fiction. I said I was annoyed with the way people use that against it, as though "it started out as fan fiction" explains why it's bad.

[Subversive]

I never said it was engrossing to people because it started out as fan fiction. I said I was annoyed with the way people use that against it, as though "it started out as fan fiction" explains why it's bad.
I know, I was just trying to transition from one point of discussion to another.
I apologize if that was misworded.

[Sasha]

I never said it was engrossing to people because it started out as fan fiction. I said I was annoyed with the way people use that against it, as though "it started out as fan fiction" explains why it's bad.


oh noes, i have no problem with fanfic, let alone erotic fanfic, my problem was purely with the Twilight part, its like someone basing an economic polemic on atlas shrugged, with source material like that you shouldnt have high hopes for the end result. (not only is Twilight badly written, its also thinly veiled Mormon sex-negative abstinence propaganda)

[Redistribute the Rep]

They're basically going to see one-step below a rape flick, as far as I can tell.

It's not one step below, there literally is a rape scene (in which she explicitly rejects his advances but then ends up... liking it?), not to mention physical violence that far crosses the main characters boundaries

[motion denied]

@ libcom rand article

people are so obsessed with this woman and yet, in the real world, no one gives a shit about her. go figure

[Creative Destruction]

It's not one step below, there literally is a rape scene (in which she explicitly rejects his advances but then ends up... liking it?), not to mention physical violence that far crosses the main characters boundaries

i didn't realize this. ugh.

[Rosa Partizan]

Capitalist cultural undertones of hierarchy and domination affecting people psychologically?

I wish more people would be talking about this, about the neoliberal undertones of erotification of sexual hierarchies, be it with or without consent.

[Lily Briscoe]

It's not one step below, there literally is a rape scene (in which she explicitly rejects his advances but then ends up... liking it?), not to mention physical violence that far crosses the main characters boundaries

I remember seeing a study somewhere that showed something like, iirc, 60-65% of women claimed to have rape fantasies. Can't really be said enough that the essential element here is obviously fantasy, and I feel pretty confident in assuming that 0% of those women think actual rape would be erotic.

In a similar way, this film is obviously fictional. And I think the erotic appeal it has for a lot of women is based on the knowledge that it's fictional. Now I haven't actually seen the film, and maybe I am just terribly naive, but I really doubt that many people come out of the theaters with a newfound appreciation for the 'eroticism' of actual rape. I mean you can speculate about what causes people to have the kinks that they do (although I think at the end of the day we can't really draw any certain conclusions, since we don't have a society free from oppression where we can compare the sort of things people get off on), but it's pretty important not to veer into some kind of indignant moralism about 'deviant' sexual practices/fantasies/kinks etc ("women who get off on rape fantasies are misogynists", "the overwhelmingly female fans of this book have internalized sexism" etc).

[Creative Destruction]

I remember seeing a study somewhere that showed something like, iirc, 60-65% of women claimed to have rape fantasies. Can't really be said enough that the essential element here is obviously fantasy, and I feel pretty confident in assuming that 0% of those women think actual rape would be erotic.

In a similar way, this film is obviously fictional. And I think the erotic appeal it has for a lot of women is based on the knowledge that it's fictional. Now I haven't actually seen the film, and maybe I am just terribly naive, but I really doubt that many people come out of the theaters with a newfound appreciation for the 'eroticism' of actual rape. I mean you can speculate about what causes people to have the kinks that they do (although I think at the end of the day we can't really draw any certain conclusions, since we don't have a society free from oppression where we can compare the sort of things people get off on), but it's pretty important not to veer into some kind of indignant moralism about 'deviant' sexual practices/fantasies/kinks etc ("women who get off on rape fantasies are misogynists", "the overwhelmingly female fans of this book have internalized sexism" etc).

There's something to be said about reading it vs. watching it, I think, especially with how the portrayal is set up. I was reading a review of the film on Salon, where the writer went to the film and basically described two scenes where consent was not there and Anastasia Steele was clearly in pain, but the male character -- the virtual "broken" hero of the film -- didn't give a shit. She concluded that if people walk away with the idea that it's going to be a model to act on (which, it's definitely been framed as such in discussions of the book), that there's going to be a lot of painful and abusive sex going on this weekend. Which I can imagine. There's a fine line between saying that it's "indignant moralism" and what's going on isn't actually healthy to be showing.

Think about it this way: it's not cool to have a movie that is mute in its position on what happens to the characters, when it comes to something like rape. Sam Peckinpah caught a lot of shit for this when he made Straw Dogs, and for good reason. Is there really a different dynamic at play if there is a rape scene (or two, it seems) of the woman in this film, and the film does not let on whether this is a "good" or "bad" thing, just because the director and writer of the film were women? Of course, your innate sense is going to tell you that's bad, but, again, there's something to be said about the actual piece of art taking a stance on what's happening. Otherwise, there's no reason for it to be made, other than being grossly exploitative and useless as a piece of art. I can't imagine there being a good argument there, even one that says they were taking ownership and directing it. A rape scene is still a rape scene, and a story that is indifferent to it, or uses its indifference as a springboard to continue on with the story, doesn't seem like it would be a "good thing." I don't think that's being indignantly "moral," unless, of course, the moral is that it's not fucking cool to do that and that it's not something that should have a neutral stance. In which case, okay... I'm going to engage in indignant moralism all fucking day long.

Not to mention that the actual kink community itself has been strongly against this book and this film for its portrayal of BDSM and its misuse of "contracts" and the idea of consent. Are they engaging in "indignant moralism," as well? It seems like they would kind of have the final word on what passes the sniff test for their kink or not.

eta. i'm hetero cis-male scum, so feel free to disregard this opinion at will.

[HampshireGirl]

I really can't stand this book and those silly women that go on making us look so stupid and easy to objectify.

It's precisely because of this reason that men think they can flirt on the street, approach you like it was their right in bars, and otherwise treat you like a whore that is 'begging for it'.

Appauling to see this kind of thing. Brave women need to take a stand, and show how ridiculous this whole deal is.

[Kingfish]

Is this a storm in a teacup though? I know it is certainly true that a lot of women are reading this but just how many actually agree with it? Many people buy and read bibles and watch biblical movies without it being representative of their views conscious or subconscious.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

It's the commodification of rape culture, which is so normalized that even most women buy into it on some level. It's a piece of fiction that presents a rapist/abuser in a positive light.

[felliciaryan]

I love this couple but this movie should have had love story than sexual :o but i love Dakota Johnson very much i bought her red jacket at valentine's day for my special date:

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I love this couple but this movie should have had love story than sexual :o
Uh, it's a sexually explicit novel, and it's about rape and abuse, not love.

[human strike]

I'm not sure if this point has already been made, but when this stuff appeals to people it's not because they endorse abuse but because they find the fantasy of non-consent hot (I don't see any real evidence that it's the result of "internalised misogyny" or whatever). I've heard lots of people lamenting that Fifty Shades isn't a better representation of BDSM, but if it were would it be so popular? I highly doubt it. When people act out scenes of 'consensual non-consent' it's the 'non-consent' part that holds the erotic value and it's also where the fantasy element lies. The consent is real but intentionally hidden and that hiding is important - the fantasy doesn't function otherwise. Likewise, Fifty Shades probably wouldn't function so well as erotica if the relationship portrayed were more consensual.

That isn't to say I endorse or enjoy the book, I'm just surprised when people are surprised by its success. Maybe I'm wrong about the book - I haven't read it - but I see feminists often getting confused by how so many women (including many feminists) can have rape fantasies seemingly without understanding that finding something hot isn't the same as thinking it's ok.

Another reason why a Fifty Shades that isn't problematic wouldn't be so popular is no major publisher would be likely to print it. There was a discussion about the book in WOYM and I said this there:

I'm very tempted to frame Fifty Shades of Grey as recuperation. Such an argument would be based on the assumption that healthy BDSM relationships challenge heteronormativity; an argument I'm also tempted to make. BDSM appeals to a lot of people - that much is clear - and seemingly more and more people are learning about it and adopting aspects of it into their own lives all the time. It's not that unusual now for people to have a Fetlife account; the site has millions of users. The old arguments against such lifestyles are becoming less effective, though undoubtedly it can still be very dangerous to be open about kinks; people still lose their jobs or are violently assaulted. Its generally growing acceptance though means there is a different kind of backlash. It's like, OK, you're allowed BDSM, but only sexist and abusive BDSM that can generate profit for publishers, Hollywood and makers of pornography. Our desires are taken and sanitised before being (literally) sold back to us. I don't mean to suggest that BDSM is always practised well or free from abuse everywhere except in the media, but I think it can be argued that any relationship based on honest and communicated consent is subversive in a society based on violent subjugation.

[Lily Briscoe]

There's something to be said about reading it vs. watching it, I think, especially with how the portrayal is set up. I was reading a review of the film on Salon, where the writer went to the film and basically described two scenes where consent was not there and Anastasia Steele was clearly in pain, but the male character -- the virtual "broken" hero of the film -- didn't give a shit. She concluded that if people walk away with the idea that it's going to be a model to act on (which, it's definitely been framed as such in discussions of the book), that there's going to be a lot of painful and abusive sex going on this weekend. Which I can imagine.
Do you really think women are going to walk away from this film thinking, "wow, sex that is unenjoyable, painful in a bad way, and that I don't consent to... that sounds like a fun time, I think I'll try it out"? Again, maybe I am incredibly naive, but I'd be pretty shocked if many people have attained that level of cartoonishly-impressionable brain-dead moron. I presume that for most fans of this stuff, the fantasy of non-consent is erotic because it's a fantasy.


There's a fine line between saying that it's "indignant moralism" and what's going on isn't actually healthy to be showing.

Whether or not a piece of entertainment is "healthy to be showing" is an important consideration if you're chaperoning a group of small children. It sounds like the relationship and messages in the film definitely aren't "healthy". I can't think of many popular movies that double as a guide to healthy living, though. Do you place the same emphasis on the ethical content of, say, slasher films (or James Bond flicks, in the case of Danielle Ni Dhighe), violent video games, and the total depressing shit all over the radio (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR_X6PrASho), or is this bizarre expectation of wholesomeness in popular culture more about the fact that this is an overhyped piece of erotica geared toward a female audience?


Is there really a different dynamic at play if there is a rape scene (or two, it seems) of the woman in this film, and the film does not let on whether this is a "good" or "bad" thing, just because the director and writer of the film were women?No, and I wasn't intending to suggest that there was.
Of course, your innate sense is going to tell you that's bad, but, again, there's something to be said about the actual piece of art taking a stance on what's happening. Otherwise, there's no reason for it to be made, other than being grossly exploitative and useless as a piece of art.

I suspect the main reason the film has been made is to rake in a shit ton of money by adapting one of the fastest-selling books of all time to the cinema. I don't really get why you would expect this to come with some kind of "right on" message that promotes egalitarian sexual relationships and healthy attitudes toward consent, nor do I understand the unique outrage this film has generated as though these kinds of shitty messages around sex and consent aren't completely widespread in popular culture.

Incidentally, I spoke with someone who saw the film yesterday and, in addition to being really disappointed (she is a fan of the book), she was absolutely baffled about why it has generated the amount of controversy it has. Whatever the reason, all the hype is definitely doing wonders for ticket sales...

[Lily Briscoe]

I really can't stand this book and those silly women that go on making us look so stupid and easy to objectify.

It's precisely because of this reason that men think they can flirt on the street, approach you like it was their right in bars, and otherwise treat you like a whore that is 'begging for it'.

"Those silly women" with their bad taste in fiction are the reason for male entitlement and sexual harassment? The more you know...

[Creative Destruction]

Do you really think women are going to walk away from this film thinking, "wow, sex that is unenjoyable, painful in a bad way, and that I don't consent to... that sounds like a fun time, I think I'll try it out"? Again, maybe I am incredibly naive, but I'd be pretty shocked if many people have attained that level of cartoonishly-impressionable brain-dead moron. I presume that for most fans of this stuff, the fantasy of non-consent is erotic because it's a fantasy.

A couple things here: No, most women are probably not going to walk away from the movie and think to themselves "Hey! Getting raped looks like fun!" Going back to the prior discussion of reading the book vs. watching it, I would have figured that most people probably would have had different views about what they're watching vs. what they read. There was an article posted that suggested that people tend to edit out things they may not like when they read. That's incredibly more difficult when you're watching something. The consensus on the movie seems to be general disappointment, with a lot of people being sickened with what they're seeing. That's about what I was expecting.

Second; this is anecdotal, so take it with as big a grain of salt as you will, but I have read from more than several women that this series was released when they were in abusive relationships, and the books aided in them staying in those relationships. It offered a rationalization, to them, that this was normalized. If you want to write those women off as being "cartoonishly-impressionable brain-dead morons," then that's your prerogative. I think that's an issue worth discussing within the larger discussion on this series. It's one thing to say that a piece of art serves as fantasy; it's another to try and interrogate why, at least some, women feel like it's an aid in normalizing the abuse they experience.

There are other concerns here, including, again, that the kink community did not take this book with any great zeal, other than their varied dislike of it. It, to them, subverts common conventions regarding consent and what not within that community.

There are different layers of shittiness to this phenomenon that stretches beyond the desire to just go against criticism of the book because of your feeling that people are just doing it because it's erotica geared toward women. If you want to mount an argument that these are the reasons the BDSM community are criticizing it, as well as the many women who are writing against it, and say that they're just going against it merely because it's women-geared erotica, I'd be interested in that.


Whether or not a piece of entertainment is "healthy to be showing" is an important consideration if you're chaperoning a group of small children. It sounds like the relationship and messages in the film definitely aren't "healthy". I can't think of many popular movies that double as a guide to healthy living, though.

The way I'm using "healthy" here is whether it generates any good conversations about the material, female sexuality and the like. It has nothing to do with "healthy living" or "wholesomeness" that you're attempting to shoehorn into the discussion here.


Do you place the same emphasis on the ethical content of, say, slasher films

Yes.


(or James Bond flicks, in the case of Danielle Ni Dhighe),

Yes.


violent video games,

Yes.


and the total depressing shit all over the radio (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR_X6PrASho),

Yes.


or is this bizarre expectation of wholesomeness in popular culture

Again, this is an invention of yours. I was never talking and never implied any sort of "wholesomeness" that we need to instill in popular culture.


more about the fact that this is an overhyped piece of erotica geared toward a female audience?

No.


I suspect the main reason the film has been made is to rake in a shit ton of money by adapting one of the fastest-selling books of all time to the cinema.

Yes, this would fall under the qualification of being "grossly exploitative."


I don't really get why you would expect this to come with some kind of "right on" message that promotes egalitarian sexual relationships and healthy attitudes toward consent,

I didn't expect that and never said I did. You can critique something or have serious doubts with it without having a pre-existing expectation of it.


nor do I understand the unique outrage this film has generated as though these kinds of shitty messages around sex and consent aren't completely widespread in popular culture.

My "outrage" here isn't unique, so I'm not sure who or what this is directed toward. If you're trying to get at general pop-culture critics by using me as a kind of vessel for it, then stop. You're not going to get anywhere. That's something to put to the general pop-culture critics. I've long wondered (and have a strong sense) of why James Bond, slasher flicks and what not weren't subjected to stronger social critiques, or allowed to become mainstream, anyway. If your issue here is that other forms of media aren't being subjected to the same level of scrutiny, then I'm with you.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

or James Bond flicks, in the case of Danielle Ni Dhighe
If you have something to say to me, just say it, otherwise it comes off as passive-aggressive.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

A couple things here: No, most women are probably not going to walk away from the movie and think to themselves "Hey! Getting raped looks like fun!"
No, some women just talk about how "romantic" the story is.

[Lily Briscoe]

If you have something to say to me, just say it...Which is exactly what I did. I was posing the same question to you that I was to 'rednoise'.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Which is exactly what I did. I was posing the same question to you that I was to 'rednoise'.
It felt like there was a criticism in that, to be honest, rather than simply asking a question. It still feels that way.

As a woman, the idea that I'm picking on 50 Shades because it's "erotica geared toward a female audience" is a bit daft.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Entertainment in bourgeois society reflects bourgeois values. Which isn't to necessarily say we can't be entertained by it, or that some of it isn't more problematic.

I mean, Bond is an imperialist thug, but I doubt anyone would watch a film with Blofeld in it and then take to Twitter to seriously call for death to rich European criminals who like white cats. Unlike, say, people who watched American Sniper.

Similarly, romcoms can present an unrealistic--and often sexist--view of romance, but presenting rape and emotional abuse as romantic is an entirely different beast.

[nadya]

Completely irrelevant from poverty issues and the like. I wonder why the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie enjoy watching this movie. It got no intellectual value aside from that it is so disgusting to morals and Islam culture. No wonder, the Islamic caliphate rules in Syria. The movie alienated the holy imams and the well-behaved Muslims and Christians.

[Lily Briscoe]

Lol?

[Lily Briscoe]

It felt like there was a criticism in that, to be honest, rather than simply asking a question. It still feels that way.
OK, well I don't really know what to tell you. I had seen that you were reviewing a large number of James Bond films on here without any social critique, so I was posing that question to you as well.

As a woman, the idea that I'm picking on 50 Shades because it's "erotica geared toward a female audience" is a bit daft.I don't know that this is your motivation, or that it's necessarily the motivation of any random individual critic, but I think it is what's driving a lot of the outrage in general. Also, in my experience, 'old maids' are pretty evenly distributed between the genders, so I don't really see what that has to do with anything.


Entertainment in bourgeois society reflects bourgeois values. Which isn't to necessarily say we can't be entertained by it, or that some of it isn't more problematic.

I mean, Bond is an imperialist thug, but I doubt anyone would watch a film with Blofeld in it and then take to Twitter to seriously call for death to rich European criminals who like white cats. Unlike, say, people who watched American Sniper.

Similarly, romcoms can present an unrealistic--and often sexist--view of romance, but presenting rape and emotional abuse as romantic is an entirely different beast.It's definitely true that there are movies with more problematic messages than others. But the point is that sexism runs a lot deeper than bad messages in movies, and the implication in a lot of the criticisms I've read of this film seems to be that this is a problem that begins and ends with this film, or - at best - with bad messages in culture that need to be rooted out. I would just expect people with a more 'materialist' bent to try to situate sexist messages in media and entertainment (whether we are talking about Hollywood or advertising or pornography or whatever) in the context of capitalism and structural violence against women, rather than getting on board this weird paternalistic bandwagon about how "this film isn't healthy to be showing" or pushing for 'socially conscious' mainstream movies.

[Creative Destruction]

Completely irrelevant from poverty issues and the like. I wonder why the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie enjoy watching this movie. It got no intellectual value aside from that it is so disgusting to morals and Islam culture. No wonder, the Islamic caliphate rules in Syria. The movie alienated the holy imams and the well-behaved Muslims and Christians.

...wtf?

[Creative Destruction]

in the context of capitalism and structural violence against women,

people are doing this, but you're hitting back with the accusation that the only reason we're criticizing it is because it's a book geared toward women.


rather than getting on board this weird paternalistic bandwagon about how "this film isn't healthy to be showing"

it's not really paternalism. or, at least, i am not seeing where it is paternalistic to try and criticize a piece of art for taking a, at best, seemingly neutral stance on violence against women or, at worst, actively romanticizes it. it's really difficult to find the point you're trying to make when you're questioning why people aren't doing the things you want them to do... but then when they do, you criticize them as paternalistic and sexist.


or pushing for 'socially conscious' mainstream movies.

who is doing this? you seem to be trying to address the general critics view, but no one is actually saying here -- in this discussion -- what you're thinking they're saying.

[Lily Briscoe]

people are doing this

No I don't really think people are doing this. A lot of your criticism in this thread seems to amount to "a piece of art has a responsibility to...!" as if "a piece of art" exists in a vacuum and isn't tied to a multi-billion dollar industry.

Actually I think the thing in this thread that came closest to trying to do this was that alternet/libcom article posted on the first page, although it ended up doing an awful job of it imo.

[Creative Destruction]

No I don't really think people are doing this. A lot of your criticism in this thread seems to amount to "a piece of art has a responsibility to...!" as if "a piece of art" exists in a vacuum and isn't tied to a multi-billion dollar industry.

This is a facile interpretation of what I've been writing here. Art doesn't have a responsibility to anyone, of course. People have the ability to interpret art. If that piece of art is found to be harmful to society, in some form or fashion, people have the responsibility to critique it as such and look for ways in which we can confront the forces which caused this piece of art to be made and accepted into the mainstream.

I'm really not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I mean what I write. You need to stop looking for hidden meaning or attempting to distill what I'm saying. At nearly every step in this conversation you've either misinterpreted or outright lied about what it is I'm writing.

Media and art are apart of our institutions and structures, right? I hope that is an uncontroversial thing to say. Given that, when you have -- as I've seen -- women who are writing or commenting against the book, saying that it has aided in their own abuse, or that there are women who are uncomfortable with its implications, especially given the other structural forces that encourage a rape culture at work, I think that counts as a structural analysis and criticism. Just because it is a focal point of the conversation does not mean that it's being written about -- at least here -- as an independent thing, separate from the structural forces around us.

Aside from all of that, though, even though I might be unnecessarily verbose here, Danielle has been outright -- through the entire thread -- outright calling 50SoG a "commodification of rape culture" and the like. I do not know what that is but an attempt to situate a structural criticism of the book. Yet, when she is saying that, much more directly than I am, she's still catching shit from you.

How about this: if you do not like the way in which our criticisms are taking shape, or they're not direct or forceful enough, or if you think we're short changing a "materialist" analysis here, how about making one of your own? That seems to be the best way to contribute here instead of sidelining.

[Counterculturalist]

My girlfriend took me to see this today. While the film presents messages that are problematic for a number of reasons, the only thing I can really see people taking away from the film is how boring it is, and how insufferably bland and vapid all of the characters are.

I actually find the romantic comedy to be the most ideologically offensive genre of all. They are (often subtly) classist, sexist and always pro-status quo. I suspect that these films spread and normalize oppressive and hierarchical relationships more efficiently than a film like 50 Shades, whose misogynistic aspects are paraded for all to see and critique.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

OK, well I don't really know what to tell you. I had seen that you were reviewing a large number of James Bond films on here without any social critique, so I was posing that question to you as well.
Maybe I completely misread it then.


I would just expect people with a more 'materialist' bent to try to situate sexist messages in media and entertainment (whether we are talking about Hollywood or advertising or pornography or whatever) in the context of capitalism and structural violence against women, rather than getting on board this weird paternalistic bandwagon about how "this film isn't healthy to be showing" or pushing for 'socially conscious' mainstream movies.
Well, as I said, it's the commodification of rape culture, which is an extreme form of sexism. Considering that the US is in the midst of a three-decade old assault on the gains women made in the '70s, we've seen a corresponding increase in violent misogyny reflected in the media and in the broader culture (GamerGate, etc.) here, and with US media and culture being major global exports, their impact is also global.

From what I've seen from women on social media who like 50 Shades is less "fantasizing about non-consent is hot" and more "Christian and Ana's relationship is so romantic". To me, the latter is more disturbing.

[Bala Perdida]

Seems like more of the same. Movies, tv, and basically everything haven't been the same ever since I started seeing red. lol
My co-worker shared the book with another, and then a different co-worker asked me for a book. (Seemingly wanting to look smarter without reading that crap) Then I curled a sinister smile and gave them a copy of armed joy.

[BIXX]

I just give them a book about furries that I was given when I was, idk, 9?

[Bala Perdida]

I just give them a book about furries that I was given when I was, idk, 9?
Furry book at 9? That's some fucked shit!

Ah whatever, I've seen weirder.

[The Red Star Rising]

Ultimately, what 50 shades of Grey is, at the end of the day, is a Schlock film, just aimed at Women rather than Men. The Author put it out in the world to vicariously live out her sexual fantasies. Yes these fantasies obviously have very unhealthy things to say about sexuality and romance but if any of you go around and claim you don't have some kind of sexual fetish I'm going to pre-emptively call you a liar. Addittionally, the film is terrible without any of the implications it makes. The characters are dumb and boring, the plot is circuitous and boring, the writing is lazy and broing, and really the whole film plays out like a high budget softcore porno with delusions of grandeur. You don't really have to delve into the creepfactor of the film before you find a goldmine of rifftrax material.

Really the only way to see it is on a torrented livestream with a large peanut gallery filled with deadpan snarkers. While it's probably not as endlessly mockable as classics in terribleness like The Room or Battlefield Earth it's probably going to go down in the Rifftrax hall of infamy sooner or later. The film is indeed uncomfortable to watch and the author's personal fantasies are pretty creepy but it's hardly Triumph of the Will. It's a brainless schlock-fest written to cash in on a book's success, no more no less.

Also if you really want a painfully bad movie, watch an animated Film called Foodfight! and wonder how a 2000s era movie with a 45-65 million dollar budget churns out animations that would be considered stiff and unnatural looking on the Nintendo 64.