memfree's Journal: Why I loved "Secretary"

For those who are aware of my feminist streak, my approval of the movie, Secretary, would be a no-brainer were it not for the major theme: the lead is put into a 'submissive' state by a belligerent boss who should be sued for sexual and emotional harassment. Those who know me well guess that I'd approve of the movie's treatment of this issue.

First, take a look at your typical romantic comedy: boy meets girl, blood everywhere. No wait - those are Richard Thompson songs. Where was I? Oh right. Typical: boy meets girl, boy loses girl, goes to extreme lengths to get girl. Less common alternate (old school): boy meets girl, boy can't stand girl, boy realizes he loves girl, and puts up with extremes to appease girl (a la "Bringing up Baby"). Modern less common alternate: girl meets boy, girl rejects boy, boy goes to extreme lengths to get girl (a la "Sleepless in Seattle"). Now the twist I like in "Secretary": girl meets boy, girl loses boy, *girl* goes to extreme lengths to get boy.

The story is about a young woman who's been in the mental hospital. She's vulnerable, and feels she has no control of most things in her life. She gains control by cutting herself -- which was why she'd been hospitalized. The story is told exclusively from the female's POV, so the viewer is given a compassionate picture of the heroine's mental health (or lack thereof). She goes on her first job interview, and immediately has to deal with her would-be-boss's intrusiveness. He asks her overly personal questions and she just submits. She does not demand a right to privacy. She does not demand apology. She does not storm out. She submits. She is not capable of anything else.

The boss hires her, and proceeds to dominate her more and more completely -- humiliating her repeatedly, ordering her to do unnecessary and useless tasks (like looking through the garbage for notes, and then being ignored when they are retrieved -- "I found another copy"), and going into moderate S&M -- including spanking her. She loves it. She is getting attention. Even when the boss is ignoring her, he's doing it deliberately -- sort of an 'active' ignoring such that he is modifying his actions in a way she interprets as directed at her.

It'd be easy to argue that the film is degrading to women, but I don't think so because as the film progresses, the heroine gains control of herself. THAT is what made the film work for me. What the heroine wants is not what your average person might desire, but she has a goal, and she actively pursues it. I could relate more to this heroine than I could to ..say... the hero in "Field of Dreams" (who wants a baseball field?).

Oh, and the somewhat salacious bits were hot. :-) There weren't many such bits, and I found them tasteful enough, but I'm sure some folks will consider at least one scene 'sick'; maybe more than one. If you're looking for a sexy movie, go rent "9 1/2 Weeks", as "Secretary" probably will annoy you by having so little sexual activity/innuendo. It's far more about finding love than having sex.

According to standard SM philosophy...

[sielwolf]

According to standard S&M, the submissive is actually the one in control of the relationship. Why? In the game where on person dominates and one is dominated there is an understood casting off of power done by the submissive that is taken by the dominator. This is the thrill. But the key is that the submissive can take it back at any time they feel (ie when they are no longer enjoying it) thus taking away from the dominator's kick (power).

It is like any sex fantasy, like say "lady cop" where the uniform and the power associated with it is the kink of the "poor guy just trying to get out of the ticket".

The common mistake of most people is to assume that the submissives control of their own humiliation in this closed environment is just plain ol' humiliation. Heh. Hardly. Many rich and powerful people are sexual submissives because it is a forbidden fruit they cannot taste (powerlessness) in real life. Usually these same submissives could probably get their dominators deported to some far away island... but that isn't the point.

The nature of S&M is a tough one and not directly evident. But, as The Secretary shows, it can be very rewarding for those who enjoy it. In all truth then it is a feminist movie because the woman holds the true domain over the man.

Re:According to standard SM philosophy...

[memfree]

You are completely correct. I submit that this can be seen in the number of folks (guys in particular) who PAY will for a dominatrix to humiliate and/or abuse them. Obviously, the client controls the relationship. I don't, however, expect all people to already understand the power of being the bottom. :-)

Then again

[perfessor multigeek]

I certainly see your point about the conventional D-S power dynamic. Now, I haven't seen the movie, but maybe it is something even better. A movie in which *both* of the leads are moving (straining?) towards an ideal external to both of them.
Maybe, horror of horrors, nobody is in charge.
Now *that* would be seriously cool.
Rustin

Re:Then again

[memfree]

I tried to stay away from broaching who had control of what in the movie. If romance stories were honest, the real power should be with the object of desire -- with the Loved One that the Hero cannot do without. If the Loved One turned away, then what? It'd be a Tragedy instead of a Romance. Since that doesn't happen in the Romance genre, the Loved frequently gets set up as having power for reasons of dramatic tension, but we all know they cave in to the Hero by the end.

That said, I think all real-life relationships involve a lot of give and take. Even in movies, there usually is *some* give and take -- even if simplistic and transient. I was so happy that the girl really WAS the hero (rather than some pouty femme complaining, "I want the fairy tale") that the simplistic nature of the plot didn't bother me.

Sounds good

[Some Woman]

I saw a preview of this movie before "Lovely & Amazing." Due to the nature of the theatre, I figured it would be well done, but it's good to know for sure.

Re:Sounds good

[memfree]

oops. I fear I gave too good an impression of this movie. Be warned that while *I* loved it, many people found it to be little more than a typical rehash of a love story, but one that was trying too hard to be modern -- and a dull one, at that. Please don't go in expecting it to be more than it is.