Latest / This Film is Lit / Secretary

Transcript

Secretary · This Film is Lit

• 0:04
  Speaker A: This film is lit, the podcast where we finally settle the score on one simple question. Is the book really better than the movie? I'm Brian and I have a film degree, so I watch the movie but don't read the book.
• 0:15
  Speaker B: And I'm Katie. I have an english degree, so I do things the right way and read the book before we watch the movie.
• 0:22
  Speaker A: So prepare to be wowed by our expertise and charm as we dissect all of your favorite film adaptations and decide if the silver screen or the written word did it better. So turn it up, settle in, and get ready for spoilers, because this film is lit in one way or another. I've always suffered. I don't know why exactly, but I do know that I'm not so scared of suffering now. It's secretary and this film is lit. Hello and welcome back to this film is lit, the podcast where we talk about movies that are based on books. We have every single one of our segments in this week's episode. We got lots to talk about. Before we get started, we did want to drop just a brief content warning here at the top. Throughout, there will be discussions of self harm as well as like, we won't get super involved sexually. There will be discussions of bdsm and that sort of thing and like power dynamics and kind of.
• 1:33
  Speaker B: And sexual assault.
• 1:35
  Speaker A: Sexual assault and that sort of stuff. So if any of that stuff is not something you're interested in listening to, you probably should just skip this episode because it's not going to be limited to a section, most likely language content.
• 1:48
  Speaker B: Warning, which we always. Probably, yes.
• 1:51
  Speaker A: But in particular, if those are self harm and or abuse, sexual assault, that kind of stuff is something that you're not interested in hearing. Yeah, like I said, you might want to. Might want to skip this one. We're not going to get super graphic or anything, but it will be discussed at length at different times throughout the episode. So let's get into it. If you have not read or watched. Secretary, not the secretary. Secretary, we're going to give you a brief summary in. Let me sum up, let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up. This is the film summary for secretary, sourced from Wikipedia, so it's not perfect. Lee Holloway is the socially awkward and emotionally sensitive youngest daughter of a dysfunctional family. She adjusts to normal life for having. After having committed to a mental hospital following an incident of severe self harm, Lee learns to type and applies for a job as a secretary for an eccentric and demanding attorney, E. Edward Gray. Gray explains that she is overqualified for the job, having scored higher than anyone he has ever interviewed and that it is very dull work as they only use typewriters. Lee, however, agrees to work under these conditions. Though at first Gray appears to be highly irritated by Lee's typos and other mistakes, it soon becomes apparent that he is sexually aroused by her obedient behavior. When Gray discovers her propensity for self harm, he confronts her and commands that she never hurt herself again. The two soon embark on a bdsm relationship. From their typical employer employee relationship, however, Lee experiences a sexual and personal awakening through the sadomasochistic sexual encounters with Grey, and she falls deeply in love with him. Conversely, Grey displays insecurity concerning his feelings for Lee, as well as shame and disgust over his sexual habits. During this period of exploration with Grey, Lee also has been attempting to have a more conventional boyfriend in Peter, even engaging in lukewarm sex with him. After a sexual encounter in Grey's office, Grey fires Lee. Peter then proposes to Lee, who reluctantly agrees to marry him. However, while trying on her wedding gown, she leaves and runs to Grey's office to declare her love for him. Gray, still uncertain about their relationship, tests Lee by commanding her to sit in his chair without moving her hands or feet until he returns. Lee willingly complies despite being forced to wet her dress and she is not allowed to use the toilet. Hours pass as several family members and acquaintances individually visit Lee to alternately attempt to dissuade or encourage her, while Gray watches from afar. Completely taken by Lee's compliance. Her refusal to leave the office draws the attention of media, which they believe to be a hunger strike. Three days later, Grey returns to the office and takes Lee to a room upstairs where he bathes and feeds her. The pair marry and happily continue their dominant submissive relationship. The end that is a summary of the story, the film specifically. We do have a guess who this week, so we'll get into that right now. Who are you? No one of consequence. I must know. Get used to disappointment.
• 4:47
  Speaker B: He was a short man with dark, shiny eyes and dense, immobile shoulders. He shook my hand with an indifferent, aggressive snatch.
• 4:59
  Speaker A: I'm going to say that's Mr. Gray. That's the lawyer. Yes, that is the say on my thing. There are two page numbers listed here for the two characters that are described and I'm like. I feel like I'm going to get this one, but we'll see. I guess there could be a curveball in here.
• 5:14
  Speaker B: She was a blonde who wore short fuzzy sweaters and fake gold jewelry. Around her neck.
• 5:21
  Speaker A: Wow. All right, so that's pretty brief. The main blonde in this film, fuzzy sweaters and fake gold jewelry. The main two blondes would be either, I guess there's three. There is Lee's mother, there is Lee's sister, and there is Gray's ex wife. I'm inclined to think that maybe. Or ex partner. I think wife, because she says something about an annulment or something. So I'm inclined to say with the fake gold jewelry, that this is probably Lee's wife. So I'm going to say. Or Lee's ex wife. And I don't remember her name, but I'm going to say, this is Lee's ex wife.
• 6:01
  Speaker B: It's actually his paralegal.
• 6:03
  Speaker A: Oh, the. Also, I forgot about her. She is in the movie briefly in a handful of scenes, but I completely forgot about her. But, yeah, that actually makes sense, too. That totally tracks for her. Okay, well, one of those was easy. The other one, not so much. All right, I have quite a few questions. We're going to get into those in. Was that in the book?
• 6:26
  Speaker B: Nicholas Flamel is the only known maker of the philosopher's stone. What? Honestly, don't you two read?
• 6:34
  Speaker A: So the film opens up and we immediately open on Maggie Gyllenhaal in spreader bars holding her wrists out to her side, like around her neck. And I was like, well, we must be starting in media rest here, because this doesn't seem like where I expected this to start. And that is what happens, which we'll talk about here more so in my next question. But as she's going about doing some of her daily office tasks in this precarious situation, she's, like, getting coffee and stuff. And I wanted to know if in particular there's one thing she does that I thought was very funny, which is that she needs to staple some papers. And so she gets the papers on the desk, and then she bends down and she uses her chin to staple the papers. And I wanted to know if there's a moment at any point in this story where our character, while in a precarious bondage situation, staples some papers with her chin.
• 7:33
  Speaker B: No, there's not.
• 7:34
  Speaker A: Okay. That's honestly surprising to me.
• 7:38
  Speaker B: I think it will not be once I describe the short story more. The short story is very different from the movie. One of those differences, maybe the main difference, the biggest difference, is that the narrator and the lawyer don't engage in a consensual dom subdynamic like what we see in the movie.
• 8:01
  Speaker A: Fascinating. I would not have guessed that.
• 8:04
  Speaker B: Okay, I want to get this out of the way. I want to get this out of the way right off the front and try to describe what the difference between this is, because. Spoilers. I think my answer to every one of your questions is no, I think so. Movie and the book are very different. The movie, as we kind of covered in the summary, is an exploration of a romantic bdsm relationship and how that relationship gets started and grows and develops.
• 8:40
  Speaker A: Yes. And particularly within the context of a very strange employee employer power dynamic that complicates things.
• 8:47
  Speaker B: But I would honestly hesitate to even call the short story an exploration of bdsm.
• 8:58
  Speaker A: Really?
• 9:00
  Speaker B: Okay. So the lawyer, and definitely gets off on being dominant. And the narrator, her name is Debbie. In the short story, I'm just going to call her the narrator. The narrator definitely experiences arousal and some other complex feelings over having been dominated, but that's as far as I would go in describing it as bdsm.
• 9:28
  Speaker A: Interesting. Okay.
• 9:30
  Speaker B: It's not a portrayal of a relationship like the movie is at all. It's more like an exploration of a woman being sexually harassed and then grappling with the fact that she felt turned on by it. Okay, imagine if the movie started kind of. Imagine if the action starts with that first spanking scene and then jumps ahead to the scene where the lawyer jacks off behind her.
• 10:01
  Speaker A: Right.
• 10:02
  Speaker B: And then she quits her job and then it ends. Okay, that's basically the short story.
• 10:07
  Speaker A: Yes. That's a very different.
• 10:09
  Speaker B: Very different story. It's got very different messages. Exploring a very different thing.
• 10:17
  Speaker A: Yeah, very different. Not what I was expecting. Based on. I don't know. Not really based on anything.
• 10:25
  Speaker B: And I still want to talk about all of your questions. I just wanted to get. Because these are so radically different. I wanted to get that out of the way up front that we are talking about two wildly different beasts here.
• 10:37
  Speaker A: Okay. And also for context, in case of what? We didn't say this at any point. I think you just did. But it is a short story and not like a novel.
• 10:44
  Speaker B: Yeah. And it is a very short story. It's like 20 pages, maybe.
• 10:47
  Speaker A: Okay, interesting. Well, I'll ask my questions anyways, and I'll do my best not to preface anyone with I know, probably not. I'll just ask them as if I didn't know that the answer was probably going to be no. So, as I mentioned a second ago, the story does start kind of forward in their story, where they're already in the midst of their bdsm relationship in the film, and then we get a title card that says six months earlier, and we jump back and we are introduced to Lee as a completely different person prior to ever getting the job at this lawyer's office. And I wanted to know if the story did a similar sort of meteor as and then jump back beginning.
• 11:30
  Speaker B: It does not. The short story is a very straightforward, linear narrative. I like this change, though, especially given all of the other changes that the movie makes. I think we need that little tease at the beginning to kind of pique our interest in how do we get to this point?
• 11:50
  Speaker A: Because it's a very striking visual imagery. Like, we open up and you see a person in an office setting wearing, like I said, a spreader bar bondage. It's a giant bar across her neck that is strapped to her neck and then holding her wrists out at arm's length, basically. But she's in full, just standard office attire, walking around a legal office doing, like, getting coffee and papers and stuff. And so it's very much a. What is going on here? Cold open. So it definitely works sort of narratively at pulling the audience in immediately. It's a good opening hook, for sure.
• 12:25
  Speaker B: Right. Whereas the short story is kind of relying on that switch and the actions of the lawyer being shocking and kind of coming out of nowhere. Because the point of the movie is to build to that relationship.
• 12:44
  Speaker A: Yes. And her personal development, her personal sort of revelation and discovery.
• 12:50
  Speaker B: Yes. I think having that cold open really works.
• 12:55
  Speaker A: Interesting. Okay, so we gave the content warning at the beginning, but we'll get into a little more depth here, specifically about the self harm thing. So just if you are listening and you do want to skip that specifically, you could probably skip forward a little bit here and at least miss most of it. I want to know if we find out pretty early in the movie, as after we jump back and we're introduced to Lee before all this goes down, it's established very quickly that Lee self harms as a coping mechanism for kind of her deeply dysfunctional family that she's a part of. Her mom is incredibly overbearing in an unhealthy way. And I wanted to know if any of that backstory for our main character came from the book. Any of that. Yeah, I guess backstory is the right word, but characterization came from the book.
• 13:39
  Speaker B: No, it doesn't. The narrator does have some issues in the book or in the short story, but it seems to be more along the lines of, like, Gen X flavored on. We like bored. Yeah. Aimlessness, boredom, dissatisfaction, tinged with some anger over being bored. And dissatisfied and aimless. Sorry, Gen X. I really associate this with you guys, though.
• 14:12
  Speaker A: Maybe most, like, I've personified more recently with them, but us millennials have a big case of it as well, as do most people. I think most generations at least deal with it to some extent. But yes, I think it is culturally something we identify with Gen X quite a bit.
• 14:27
  Speaker B: And her family seems fairly normal. She's got an older sister who also seems to potentially be struck with the same kind of Anwi, but her parents seem, like pretty regular.
• 14:46
  Speaker A: Yeah. They don't have the very obvious dysfunctionality that the movie portrays.
• 14:51
  Speaker B: No.
• 14:51
  Speaker A: Father is an alcoholic.
• 14:52
  Speaker B: Yeah. Her father in the movie is an alcoholic, and her mom seems really emotionally overbearing, very clingy.
• 15:04
  Speaker A: Clingy, yes. Overprotective and sheltering, and partially probably because of the relationship with the husband or her husband and Lee's father. I don't know if we know for sure if it's been physically abusive prior to this. It seems like probably not. We'll talk about that here in just a second. Or I have a question about that a little bit later about one of the things that happens in the film. But if not emotional or if not physically abusive, between Lee's parents, it was at least very. Again, he's an alcoholic, seemingly, and their relationship is very volatile, shall we say. So I'm sure that also at least plays somewhat into her mother's state of mental state, I guess because she does seem better, at least a little bit once the dad is out of the picture. She seems at least marginally better once that happens again.
• 16:06
  Speaker B: I did like this change in the movie.
• 16:08
  Speaker A: I thought it worked. My note was that it's already a wildly more interesting background for this sort of story than what 50 shades presents us, which we will just. This is the first comparison. It will not be the last. This story is.
• 16:22
  Speaker B: It was impossible to not compare this to 50 shades. And we'll talk more about why throughout.
• 16:29
  Speaker A: Yeah, we'll talk more throughout. There's lots of things. Yeah, it is very much the case. It was funny, when I looked at, you already heard in the thing, I said that the lawyer's name was Mr. Gray, which.
• 16:41
  Speaker B: Yes, it is first of many similarities.
• 16:43
  Speaker A: First of many. But, yeah, if you weren't aware that, I think we mentioned it briefly in the 50 Shades episodes, potentially this movie may have come up at some point. I can't recall, but I definitely mentioned briefly, like last week, that it was something when we were doing the 50 Shade series and researching and looking at stuff this movie showed up, and for good reason. In stuff all the time. Yes. And yeah, there's lots of similarities, but also it was funny because when we went to watch the movie, we actually bought it on Amazon because it was on sale for, like, $4 and it was not available to rent. And that's like the rental price. Anyway, I guess we'll just buy it and the thumbnail or whatever for it, I think. Not the version I purchased, but the version that was like the free version with, like freebie or something. The thumbnail picture just said, meet the original Mr. Gray. So they know, like, the marketing, even whoever decided to release this on another streaming service is like, we got to capitalize off that.
• 17:48
  Speaker B: Yeah. So I liked this change. I liked the fleshed out stories and the characters, even if I didn't always like every single decision that the movie made along these points. More on that later. And, yeah, it is miles more interesting than anything in 50 shades.
• 18:07
  Speaker A: Yeah, for sure. So she has a pretty big self harm episode and then ends up getting, and we don't really see this. We just get it mentioned to us and kind of see flashbacks of it, that she cut herself pretty badly at one point, ended up in a psychiatric ward for a while and is now recovering. And she doesn't really know what to do with her life. And she kind of just, on a whim, decides to get a job. Basically. She's going to typing school or whatever. She's like, the community college. She's taking secretary classes or typing classes and stuff like that. And so she decides to just get a job to get out of the house and ends up seeing one at a law firm looking for a secretary. She's like, oh. And she goes to check it out, and she walks into the building. And as she's walking in, we see this sign that says secretary wanted outside of. And it says, like, gray law, or I don't know what the sign says, but it's like his law offices or whatever. And underneath the main sign is a little sign that says secretary wanted. And it's got little light bulbs around it and the lights are all on. And it's literally like a vacancy sign at a hotel like that, they switch back and forth between vacancy and no vacancy. And I thought that was a really nice little detail, teasing. And then it continues throughout the film as, like, a detail of kind of how difficult he is to work with that he has a constant sign outside that he can just turn the light on and off when he needs a new secretary. And I wanted to know if that detail came from the book.
• 19:37
  Speaker B: It does not. But I really liked this. I also thought it was, like, a fun little detail. There were some, like, throughout the movie. There were some kind of the campier details like this that reminded me a little bit of. But I'm a cheerleader.
• 19:54
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 19:55
  Speaker B: And this is not nearly as, like, stylized.
• 19:57
  Speaker A: No. But it's got some similar.
• 20:01
  Speaker B: It's got a similar kind of a vibe. And, like I said, kind of campy almost. Details like this.
• 20:08
  Speaker A: Yeah. This movie does not take itself overly serious all the time. It is very serious moments throughout. And overall, it is, I would say, like a drama, romantic comedy drama. It's definitely dramatic at times, and there's some very intense scenes that are not. This isn't like a fun watch all the time, necessarily, but it is definitely the thing where. Yeah, and they don't lean into the overt camp and style as much as. But I'm a cheerleader. But they play with color and they play with some other kind of more campy details in which I have some more questions about some of those things here and there as we go. So, yeah, they definitely leaned into the playful nature of what this is at times, at least. So she gets into the office, and she's kind of doing this very Kurt interview with him. As she gets inside, she sees the previous secretary storming out in tears, basically, and stuff is like, it looks like a bomb went off in the office, and things are broken all over the place, kind of very quickly establishing the kind of volatile personality that Mr. Gray has or potentially has. And she goes in and she meets him, and he's kind of giving her this very Kurt short interview. And then during that interview, he has this control panel. He goes back and he flips some switches. And in the other side of his office, this big mister turns on, and it's like, spraying these orchids. But then later, after she gets the job, we see him. She comes into his office at one point, and he's, like, watering or. I don't know exactly what. He's. He's doing some sort of very meticulous plant care pruning of these very exotic flowers. He's got, like, a little syringe, and he's, like, doing something with them. And she's kind of watching him. And I wanted to know if the detail of him having these exotic plants that require very particular and meticulous care came from the book, because I thought, again, that was a very good little detail kind of bolstering and characterizing him as this very controlling, meticulous person.
• 22:20
  Speaker B: It is not from the short story, actually. We really learn very little about the lawyer in the short story, which makes.
• 22:27
  Speaker A: Sense based on what you're talking about, where it's less about, it's not their relationship, it's more about her, right? Sort of. Yeah.
• 22:36
  Speaker B: He seems mostly like just like kind of a sleaze ball in the short story.
• 22:42
  Speaker A: So right after that, he mentions that he has misplaced some notes for one of his cases and he thinks that maybe he threw them away and he's not sure. And as soon as he says that, he says, I think I threw away the notes for the x case. And he trails off because he gets distracted or something. And she finishes his sentence by saying, dig through the trash and look for him. And he looks at her like, yeah, sure. And she walks out into the dumpster and jumps right in the dumpster and just digs through until she finds the notes, which she does. And I wanted to know. Oh, that's just a little thing. The thing that spurs her to look for the job is that she has a bout of self harm and she decides to throw away her. She has this moment where she's going to throw away. She has a kit. And I think this is a detail from my understanding that the movie gets fairly accurate, is it's very ritualistic for her. She has this whole thing where she sets up this kit and gets out. She has like iodine and all this stuff to do this in a very kind of clean way or whatever. Again, she does it very much as like a ritual. But anyway, so she's getting rid of this kit that she uses for that and she goes to throw it away and she sees a help wanted like newspaper, and she decides not to throw away the kit at that moment. She decides she can't. But she sees this and that's what spurs it. Anyway, it's just a little side note. So she's able to find these notes and dumpster. And I wanted to know if the scene where she just, like, unprompted offers to dig through the trash for legal notes came from the book. Because I thought that was funny.
• 24:16
  Speaker B: It does not. I also thought that was funny. Interesting addition. I thought that was an interesting way to kind of show her submissiveness or like the.
• 24:34
  Speaker A: I wouldn't know if I'd necessarily characterize it as submissiveness in this particular instance. It's maybe indicative of that in this moment. To me, it's more so her lack of self worth, kind of, and just a desire to please and that sort of thing in this moment. It makes him realize how fragile she is or how eager. To me, at least, I read this interaction less as like, oh, she's submissive, and more as like, which I think plays into kind of their whole dynamic of their relationship. And part of why he becomes so distant and stuff eventually is, I think there's a little bit of him worried that he's, like, taking advantage of her, maybe because she is, because of the nature of her upbringing and the relationship with her parents and how protective and how reliant and dependent she is on them. She's so eager to smooth things over and make things better. She seems like she's kind of always been, like, maybe the peacekeeper or something with her parents, and so she's immediately willing to do anything to make the problem, make the problem go away, basically. But I think that also does, it's somewhat indicative of the nature of her submissive miss. Ultimately, maybe. But yeah. Speaking of signifiers of her characterization here is after that we see him, I think because it's right after he sees her do this, I think that he has all these red markers on his desk, and this is before they've really done anything. He hires her and he sees all these red. Or maybe he's already gotten rid of them at this point, but at some point, very early after he hires her, he dumps all of these red sharpies that he has into the trash. And we will find out later. And I think that this is actually maybe the moment that they are kind of like a symbol of his own neurosis, his own controlling nature. The red markers are what he uses to correct typos and stuff on the things that the secretaries type up. And they're kind of indicative of his controlling, domineering nature. And when he first hires her, he throws them all away. And it's this idea that he's trying to turn over a new leaf and not be this commanding, domineering person, meticulous person that he has been because he's ruined all these previous relationships because of that. But then he goes and he actually sees Lee and Peter. And Peter is the girl or the guy who she's been dating, like, just casually dating, kind of. And we'll talk more about them in a little bit. But he sees them out on a date, and it makes him jealous, basically, because he's already kind of interested in Lee and fascinated with her, I think. And so he sees her out on a date with Peter, and he gets jealous, and he immediately goes back to his car and he pulls a red sharpie out of his glove box, which I thought was funny. There's, like, again, that symbolism of him immediately kind of reverting back to his. This event triggers him, and he immediately kind of reverts back to his controlling nature. I wanted to know if the red markers, the red sharpies, were anything that came from the book.
• 27:51
  Speaker B: They are not. Not from the short story. But I also enjoyed that kind of visual aid, if you will. Kind of reminded me of a smoker.
• 28:05
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 28:06
  Speaker B: He gets stressed out. He threw all his cigarettes away, but then he gets stressed out. He gets triggered. He goes out, and he finds the one cigarette in his car that he still has away.
• 28:15
  Speaker A: Exactly. Yeah, it's very funny. So I mentioned earlier that her mom and her dad have a pretty tumultuous relationship and that her dad is an alcoholic. And we see one scene very early on where he gets physically abusive, and he pushes her or something, right?
• 28:35
  Speaker B: Yeah, he pushes her down.
• 28:36
  Speaker A: She falls over and hits a chair or something. And we don't really see what happened after that unless Lee says something in a voiceover. I don't recall ever knowing exactly or in the immediate aftermath of that, knowing what happened. But we see a scene a little bit later where her dad calls the office, and Lee is like, where are you? And he's at, like, a phone booth, just, like, in the middle of nowhere. And he's like, I'm downtown. And it becomes very clear immediately then that her mom has kicked him out, basically. And I thought that was a really interesting detail. And that was why I said earlier that I don't know if their relationship prior to that moment had been physically abusive. Maybe it had, and this was a final straw, or maybe I interpreted it more so as that he had been kind of gradually going down his path and becoming more. Because I think he lost his job at some point. They allude to the idea of him losing his job or something like that. And so I interpreted it more as he maybe has always been, like, kind of a jerk and dealing with alcohol issues and stuff. But then this one time, he becomes physically abusive, and her mom just immediately kicks him out. And I thought that was an interesting detail, that despite the fact that she's a fairly fragile person, seemingly herself, that she doesn't put up with that and immediately kicks him out, which I thought was kind of interesting. And again, just like a deeper layer of characterization than maybe you would expect from kind of a tertiary, I guess, secondary character like that. And I wanted to know if that detail came from the book that is.
• 30:04
  Speaker B: Not from the book, as far as I know. In the book, her parents relationship is fine.
• 30:10
  Speaker A: Right.
• 30:11
  Speaker B: We discussed that as far as I know. But I also liked that the movie included this. I thought it was a really interesting thing to include because a lot of people do tend to draw correlations between bdsm and abuse.
• 30:31
  Speaker A: Do that.
• 30:32
  Speaker B: I thought that this inclusion of this depiction of quote unquote, actual abuse, which.
• 30:41
  Speaker A: This movie muddies that because there is other actual. Arguably, we're going to get into that this movie has its issues, just generally it's complicated because, yes, even the relationship that grows between Lee and Mr. Gray has its issues and problems. But we'll discuss that more a little bit later.
• 31:01
  Speaker B: But yes, your that kind of background. I thought this was an interesting parallel for the movie to put out there.
• 31:10
  Speaker A: Yes. So at this point. Now, I kind of jump forward quite a bit here, but there's a big scene. And this, I guess you alluded to earlier, is from the movie, the spanking scene, which is like the big first moment in the film where she makes a typo and he calls her into his office and he makes her read it and he spanks her while she reads it. And she's very kind of confused and unsure of how she feels about this, but it's clearly kind of into it. And obviously that's its whole own bag of worms. We'll discuss that, at least to some extent. At some point. Maybe. This movie is very difficult to talk about because it's fascinating. We have more thoughts on it later. We'll get to. But that has all happened. And now they have kind of, with gusto, entered into a full bdsm relationship within the office where she kind of leans or heeds every command that he gives her, that sort of thing. And we kind of get, like a montage of them doing. And this is kind of played more for laughs at this point. There's like a scene where his desk is covered in straw and she's, like, on her hands and knees, and he puts a saddle on her and gives her a carrot and all this kind of this stuff. And again, a lot of this is played more for laughs than anything. But within that, we get this one little scene where she's having dinner with her family and she calls him up and explains to him what they're having for dinner. She's like, we're having steak and peas and cream potatoes or whatever, and ice cream for dessert. And he tells her exactly how much of everything she can eat, which is a whole thing. That's a different. Which 50 shades touched on this a little bit with, like, the food thing. This version, I thought, was way better, kind of. Which everything about this movie, in my opinion, is better. We'll get to that, than 50 shades. But he's like, you can have one scoop of potatoes, exactly four peas, and then as much ice cream as you want. As much ice cream as you'd like to eat, which I thought was funny. And I wanted to know if the meal instructions came from it. And specifically the line and as much ice cream as you'd like to eat, because that line got me and was very. Again, that little detail of that line was like, here, go ahead and answer first and we can discuss it.
• 33:26
  Speaker B: That line is not from the short story, but it also got me. Yes. And I like the portrayal of bdsm here as something that can provide joy for someone who genuinely enjoys that lifestyle.
• 33:47
  Speaker A: Yes. And again, apart from the other issues of how this relationship starts, which, again, we may discuss to some extent, is not only joy, but that the structure that it can provide for somebody who is entering into it knowingly and wantingly and with full knowledge. And again, I say with full knowledge. Maybe that's hand waving away some of this movie's more problematic beginnings and other issues throughout it. But the fact that you can tell she is very much into this and becomes a recurring thing a lot of times when we see her eating. Throughout the rest of this, she will eat exactly four peas because it reminds her of this particular moment or whatever. But the little detail of. And as much ice cream as you'd like was one of those little things that felt. It's like El James read this book but didn't hear it. Like, didn't get it. Because that little detail, that addition of that line kind of fixes. Not fixes, but giving her that freedom within that thing where it feels it's not about him controlling her body. It is.
• 34:59
  Speaker B: But in a way that serves her.
• 35:02
  Speaker A: Yeah, I guess. Yeah. It's hard to describe how to put it in exact words. Yes, because she wants him to tell her what to eat and what, however. But giving that other layer, ending it with and as much ice cream as you'd like to eat. He's controlling, but also giving her this place to do whatever she want. And also, it's very clearly then not about him wanting to control her weight or anything. Right. That gets rid of the weird thing of he's controlling her food because he's worried about her gaining weight like this. When he says, as much ice cream as you want clearly, he's not worried about the calories or it just feels, like, less manipulative and controlling in a bad way and more manipulative and controlling in the way that she wants. Which it feels better.
• 35:53
  Speaker B: Well, and in comparing it to 250 shades, which the food thing. I mean, the food thing comes up consistently throughout the series. But the main thing that I'm thinking of is in the first book when she's reading the contract, and it's in the contract that he controls what she eats and when she eats and how much she eats. And she is horrified at this. Right? Within the context of 50 shades of Gray, rightfully so, in my opinion. But if you compare that to the portrayal in this movie where Lee is, like, giddy about this, she's, like, giggling on the phone.
• 36:37
  Speaker A: She calls him giggling, and it's like.
• 36:38
  Speaker B: Counting out her four p's and just happy as a clam. And I think that helps a lot immensely.
• 36:46
  Speaker A: Yes, absolutely. So then as we move forward, we get this big montage, and then kind of out of nowhere, Mr. Gray, what is his first can't.
• 36:59
  Speaker B: E. Edward.
• 37:00
  Speaker A: E. Edward Gray. Yeah. I was calling James Spader. James Spader just sort of stops engaging in the bdsm relationship, and he doesn't really tell her why. And she's left kind of confused and in the lurch by all of this and wondering why. And she kind of starts trying to push its buttons to reignite the relationship, and it's not working, and she's not really sure what's going on. And I wanted to know if this lull happened in the book. And I have a note about why I think it happened. Because initially I was like, what is going on here? Because the movie doesn't really ever have them address it at all. Even by the time the movie ends, we've never really addressed why he kind of put up this wall all of a sudden and kind of ended it again, we'll get into my speculation in a second, but I wanted to know if that element came from the book first.
• 37:48
  Speaker B: So this never happens in the short story because, as I said, they never have a bdsm relationship.
• 37:55
  Speaker A: Right. I keep forgetting that the main thing.
• 37:57
  Speaker B: In the main thing in the movie is not in the short story. What happens is that she quits working for him after he assaults her. Presumably, had she stayed, he would have just gone on doing what he was doing. No.
• 38:15
  Speaker A: Okay. My speculation, after I thought about it more, it was that I assumed, ultimately, that I think it's an attempt by the film to make her the pursuer in this relationship. I think he starts to realize and feel that this is out of line. Like, he knows from the beginning. He says as much in one of their first encounters, when they first start broaching the topic of sex and stuff, he says something about their employee employer relationship. So it's not, like, unknown to him that this is a problem. I think what we're doing there is that by having him stop doing this, engaging in this, and then have her be the one who's trying to continue to instigate it, I think what we're doing the movie is doing is trying to flip a little bit and address the problematic nature of the power dynamic in their relationship. I don't think it necessarily fixes it entirely. And I think you kind of. My broad thing is that I think, similar to 50 shades, you kind of have to approach this whole story as the fantasy that it is and not as, like, a guide for how to do a relationship, which, again, at least in this instance, I think it's a little bit better because I think the movie knows that. And I think the heightened kind of style of the movie is playing into the fact that this is a fantasy, whereas 50 shades, maybe a little bit less. So it feels maybe a little more like, especially the books, feels a little less, like, aware of that this is not good here. I think the movie knows that this power dynamic is bad and that the way the relationship started is bad. So it goes, okay, we'll have him stop because he knows this is bad, and then turn her into the person who instigates this relationship because that then at least somewhat negates the power imbalance. Again, it doesn't, but it at least makes her the person instigating the relationship as opposed to him the person instigating this.
• 40:10
  Speaker B: Yeah, it doesn't negate the power balance, but I can see the attempt to mitigate it. Now. I can't remember now, was this instigated by when his wife shows up to the office? Is that what kicks this off?
• 40:28
  Speaker A: Might be. I don't remember exactly. That's the thing is, I don't remember what necessary. And I think that's part of what made me confused is that there didn't feel like a very obvious instigation for this.
• 40:37
  Speaker B: But I think you might when his wife, because his wife shows up to the office at one point and she kind of storms in and she obviously has a very strong personality, kind of the antithesis to Lee, and clocks Lee as a submissive immediately and immediately seems to know what is going on in this situation.
• 41:03
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 41:04
  Speaker B: And I think that that encounter was what instigated him to take a step back. But I kind of got the same vibe as you that I think the movie was attempting to make her more of the pursuer. He also has a lot of obvious self loathing in this.
• 41:23
  Speaker A: Yeah, no, for sure. That is definitely a big part of it. Yeah. He feels very weird about his interest and all that sort of stuff, so, yeah, that's definitely another aspect of it. So because their bdsm relationship is on hold despite her attempts to revive it, she also has now trying to recapture some of the feelings. And there's a scene in the movie where she's at home and she gets a hairbrush and tries spanking herself with it to see if that will capture the same spirit of the event. And it does not. And I wanted to know if that scene came from the book because I found that funny.
• 42:06
  Speaker B: It does not come from the book.
• 42:08
  Speaker A: Like, trying to tickle yourself. It just doesn't work.
• 42:10
  Speaker B: But that also got me good.
• 42:12
  Speaker A: Yeah. Just doesn't work. All right, so let's get to this scene. This is a big scene in the movie that I still was not exactly sure how I feel about it. And we'll get into it. There's the scene where she has put kind of an ultimate act of defiance in order to really, like, she's been trying to get him to do the bdsm stuff again, and he just has not been. And so she puts, like, a worm in one of his memos or something, and he finds it, and he calls her into his office, and he has her assume the position when he spanked her the first time.
• 42:48
  Speaker B: Yeah. Bent over the desk.
• 42:49
  Speaker A: Yeah. But then he has her pull down her pants and stuff, and then he's standing behind her real quick.
• 42:55
  Speaker B: I think it's important to clarify for people who may not have seen the movie that their relationship, up to this point. Oh, yeah. It's been sexual in the sense that they both get sexual gratification from the dominant submissive dynamic.
• 43:12
  Speaker A: But the movie does a good job of making it clear, and it is a portrayal of that in this movie, that it is not necessarily the case that it is always sexual, like, fully sexual.
• 43:23
  Speaker B: They have not engaged in any sort of. In what you would typically think of as a sexual act.
• 43:30
  Speaker A: They have not kissed, I don't think. Right. No, I don't think they have not done anything that sex comes in lots of different shapes and sizes, but they have not done almost essentially anything that most people would consider, like, a sexual encounter. Yes. They have done things that many people sort of affiliate with sexual encounters. Not affiliate, but associate. Associate with sexual encounters. But they have not kissed, they have not been groping each other, any of that stuff.
• 44:00
  Speaker B: I don't think they've even seen each other naked. Except for he's seen her butt, I guess.
• 44:06
  Speaker A: No, because the first time he spanks.
• 44:08
  Speaker B: Her, she spanks her. She has her skirt.
• 44:10
  Speaker A: She's like, fully clothed. She's like, fully clothed all the time. Again, it is very much a power exchange that they are engaging in and not a sexual part of that, which sometimes those things go together, sometimes they don't. That's a whole different thing. And it's a thing that 50 shades really doesn't ever kind of alludes to. But it's always also sexual, explicitly sexual. And it always revolves around having sex, which for a lot of people, it does. For some people who engage in BSM, it's basically only ever in the context of having sex or whatever. But for lots of people, it is also not some people, it is just part of their day to day life and that sort of thing, and they don't do it necessarily sexually. So, yes, your point is very well taken that to this point, they have not really engaged in anything, quote unquote, sexual. Yes, some people might describe it as sexual, but they have not had a sexual encounter. But anyway, so she is now naked, essentially, in front of him, and he's standing behind her, and she's not really sure what's going on. And he tells her, I'm not going to have sex with you. Don't worry, I'm not going to have sex with you. And then he masturbates. He masturbates. And then she leaves. And he's like, now leave, or whatever. And she's kind of unsure about everything that just transpired. And the whole scene just is very strange. And I think this sounds to me, and it plays more like what maybe the book is doing, the wholly where you can. It's very clear when you're watching her reaction to this, that she is unsure of how she feels about this. And it's interesting because I also, as an audience member, was unsure of how I was supposed to feel about this, and I wanted to know if this scene came from the book, and then I wouldn't discuss it because it's an interesting scene that, again, I was not. I don't know, I had interesting, unsure feelings about.
• 46:06
  Speaker B: Yeah, this is directly from the book, but I agree with you. I think it's kind of hard to suss what exactly the movie wants us to get from it.
• 46:17
  Speaker A: Yeah. And I guess what it's supposed to be is that he thinks having sex with her would be, like, over the line, that that would be particularly egregious. But he does sexually desire her, so he thinks it's somehow okay to masturbate.
• 46:34
  Speaker B: Or maybe in the moment just decides that that's the better course of action.
• 46:39
  Speaker A: Yes. But then he ultimately ends up disgusted with himself, which is because after this happens, he does fire her. And I think we're supposed to read this as he is disgusted at himself for kind of giving into this temptation and doing this thing, which he sees is over the line and sort of not. I don't know, not good. And so that's kind of what leads to him, like, firing her, is he feels that he has lost control of himself in this instance. And I will say that I don't think that that doesn't work. But I still was left kind of feeling unsure, in the grand scheme of this movie, how to feel about this scene.
• 47:19
  Speaker B: Yeah. Like you said, it doesn't not work in the sense that you've described.
• 47:25
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 47:26
  Speaker B: But overall, I'm not sure it entirely works with the other changes that were made to his character and to the overall story arc.
• 47:36
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 47:37
  Speaker B: Because in the short story, it's pretty obvious that this is just one of this guy's kinks, that he wants to ejaculate on her. And it's clear that we're supposed to be disgusted with him in that moment in the book.
• 47:55
  Speaker A: In the book, yeah.
• 47:56
  Speaker B: But the movie directly transposes that event, which I think results in uncertainty over whether or not I'm supposed to be disgusted with Mr. Gray as I'm watching it, because it doesn't feel like it tracks with everything else up to that point.
• 48:14
  Speaker A: This is the scene that most feels abusive and really bad because, again, her reaction to it, and even more so than the first spanking scene, which is obviously wildly inappropriate.
• 48:26
  Speaker B: Wildly inappropriate.
• 48:28
  Speaker A: Can't even begin to express how wildly inappropriate the first spanking scene is where she makes a typo. And to that point, he's been mildly inappropriate. Like, talking about their personal lives and stuff.
• 48:41
  Speaker B: He's been overly familiar.
• 48:42
  Speaker A: Yes. In a way that you definitely, absolutely, 100% should not with an employee, like, making no bones about it. But that particular instance with the spanky, it's, like, just wildly over the line to the point where she could sue him and he would get disbarred, and it's just, like, wildly over the line. But for some reason, that scene feels less problematic than this scene, even though at this point they have already engaged in this relationship. And she is not only a participant, she's a very eager and willing participant to the point where she has been trying to reignite this relationship between them. But, yeah, the scene plays out and you're left feeling like, I don't know.
• 49:26
  Speaker B: Yeah, I don't know how I'm supposed to feel about the scene. I don't know how I'm supposed to feel about him, which feels a little.
• 49:34
  Speaker A: Intentional because I think that's how she's feeling. I think the movie is at least trying to somewhat put us in her headspace where she doesn't know how she felt about this. But it does clash a little bit with, at least to some extent, with what the movie has done up to this point, where she has been a more eager and willing participant. And then I don't know.
• 49:56
  Speaker B: And I think it gets muddled, too, by the fact that this happens. And it's kind of our low point. Like our act two low point, yes, for sure. But then the movie kind of just picks right back up again with her enthusiasm for it and for him.
• 50:16
  Speaker A: Yes, because she, immediately after this, goes into the bathroom and masturbates into it, but in the moment isn't. And again, I think that pulls the most from maybe some of the interesting exploration that the book is doing of the idea of even during very traumatic experiences, there can be this weird interplay between arousal and all of these things can be true. And it's a difficult thing to suss out, and it's a very personal journey that people have to go on. Like that kind of thing of like, what does it mean that during this moment of abuse that I enjoyed aspects of it or was aroused by aspects of it? That's definitely what the movie, and it sounds like the book is doing at times is kind of like, what does that mean? And she's going on that journey of how she feels about it. Does she feel like a victim in that moment or does she not? And that sort of thing. It's a very complicated topic. Obviously, that requires layers upon layers of sort of. Honestly, she needs probably to talk to it like a therapist about it or whatever. But point being, I think it's very much the case that that's what the movie is doing in this moment. But it does feel slightly.
• 51:30
  Speaker B: It feels a little undercut.
• 51:34
  Speaker A: Yeah, it just feels slightly out of place with the rest of the tenor of the movie compared to what maybe the book. It feels like something where you're pulling a scene almost directly from the book, which is doing a very different thing.
• 51:46
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 51:47
  Speaker A: Than what the movie is doing. So like I said, right after this, he fires her. And I wanted to know if that happens in the book, if he fires her, but that she ultimately rushes back and confesses her love despite being let go.
• 52:01
  Speaker B: That does not happen in the book. She quits, and then after, like, a week, he sends her a paycheck plus some extra, which does have.
• 52:12
  Speaker A: He does do that in the movie.
• 52:15
  Speaker B: Also included with that in the book is a note that basically tells her not to tell anyone what happened.
• 52:21
  Speaker A: Which I will say that I felt like that was the implication in the movie with the money a little bit was like, once he fires her kind of hush money to some extent, for sure. Yeah. So she does rush back. Peter proposes to her. She kind of agrees to marry Peter, and she's trying on her future mother in law's wedding dress. And her mother in law is also. Peter also has obnoxious, overbearing parents.
• 52:54
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 52:55
  Speaker A: And her mother, future mother in law, is very judgmental and is like, oh, I guess I must have been thinner than you when I wore this, because.
• 53:04
  Speaker B: She'S like Maggie Gyllenhaal, who is a wisp of a human in this.
• 53:09
  Speaker A: But so she gets on the wedding dress and she realizes she can't go through it because she doesn't really care for or love Peter, but she does love E. Edward Gray. And so she rushes back to his office and storms in, and she's like, I love you and I want to be with you, blah, blah, blah. We've already talked about that doesn't happen in the book. But I wanted to know if this line came anywhere from the book because during this exchange, it cracked me up, which this was in the trailer, I'm fairly certain, because I remember playing it in the prequel. She rushes back in and she's like, I want to be with you. I want to do this, or whatever. And he says to her, we can't do this 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And she goes, why not? And I died laughing at this scene. And I wanted to know if it came from the book because, man, those two sentences to me alone showed that the author, writers, and I guess, depending.
• 54:01
  Speaker B: On if it comes from the book, more the writers.
• 54:03
  Speaker A: Well, because, spoilers, it doesn't come from the book, right? So in that case, the writers of this film knew more about bdsm than every single moment that ever happens in the 50 Shades book. That exchange in particular, just felt more real and more knowing of the lifestyle than anything in 50 shades at all.
• 54:25
  Speaker B: Yes, that's not from the book, but I loved the exchange. And after 50 shades, it was really refreshing to see a portrayal of a BDsm relationship where the submissive actually wants to be submissive and isn't, like, horrifying you the entire time with her life choices.
• 54:47
  Speaker A: Yes, but it's one of those subtle things where it's, like, one of those little moments in the movies that is very clearly a nod to people who know. For people who don't know, the term 24/7 dynamic is, like, within the culture of BDSM, is the particular type of a BDsm relationship that is, as it states, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, whereas many, or maybe most, I don't know the percentages. People who engage in that do so within a given context, at their leisure. At their leisure. Maybe for a day, maybe for a couple of hours, whatever. But there are other people who do it all the time. And just, again, that particular sneaking that line in and saying 24/7 without really saying it and then having her be like, why not? Just again, it just cracked me up. And I was like, okay, yeah, we got some real heads writing this one. So then during this whole exchange, she is insistent that she wants to be with him. And he's like, no. And she refuses to leave, basically until he either agrees or something. I don't remember the exact demands that she has, but he basically says, okay, fine, then sit at my desk. Put your hands on the desk and don't move until I come back. And then he leaves the office. And then we watch her sit at this desk in her wedding dress for now, for in the movie, supposedly days. We will discuss this momentarily, but she sits there, and in the movie, so long that she soils herself because she has to go use the restroom, but she refuses to leave. And I wanted to know if that at all happened in the book.
• 56:32
  Speaker B: No, none of that is from the book.
• 56:33
  Speaker A: Okay, so then obviously, my last questions here for this will be also not in the book, but in the movie. The media shows up and starts covering it. Even before that happens, we start getting a line of people from her life coming to kind of talk to her about this. Peter initially shows up and tries to stop her, and it's like, what are you doing? Blah, blah, blah. And then after that, a bunch of other, like her mom and her dad and a bunch of other people and.
• 57:01
  Speaker B: Her sister's husband, some of her friends that we saw briefly earlier.
• 57:05
  Speaker A: All these people come through and talk to her in different ways and try to talk her out of this or in some instances, give her support, like her dad.
• 57:14
  Speaker B: I think priest is odly supportive, yes.
• 57:19
  Speaker A: Because he's comparing it to some of not mortardom, but the tribulations of the nunes, that sort of thing about how they would flagellate themselves with whips and stuff as, like, a sign of penance. And it's like, a similar thing. And so this is very respectable of her. And her dad says something similar. So none of that, obviously. None of this in the book.
• 57:43
  Speaker B: No.
• 57:44
  Speaker A: Okay. So initially, I was trying to figure out what the heck was going on here because I didn't know how I felt about all this because it was very strange. And I got to the point eventually. Initially or, sorry, initially after the first part with Peter, I was like, okay, this is probably real. But then after we get this whole line of her friends and family, I'm starting to think, like, I don't think any of this is happening because we see her throughout this. She's becoming more and more kind of out of it because she's not eating or anything. Like, she's just sitting there. And the interactions becomes fairly surreal where they're, like, some of the interactions, and they're, like, super over the top. Like, the one her friend comes in and plops down a stack of, like, 50 feminism books and is like, you need to read about. I don't even know if it's a friend. It might just be some random woman or something.
• 58:34
  Speaker B: I think it was one of the friends.
• 58:36
  Speaker A: I thought she is too.
• 58:37
  Speaker B: There's a really brief scene earlier where she's talking, like, sitting by the pool at her house with some girls.
• 58:43
  Speaker A: She stacks a stack of books, and she's like, you need to read about feminism and how you can't do this for a man and that sort of thing. And then her mom is like, oh, I brought you peas. There's little details. And then particularly the interaction with her dad felt very strange to me to where I began to think that none of this was actually happening, that maybe the interaction with Peter did, but that the rest of these interactions were not real and that she was imagining these and actually kind of, like, imagining these arguments from all these people to kind of essentially argue herself out of what she's doing. She's basically having this argument in her head, like, is what she's doing makes. Does what she's doing make sense? Should she be doing it? And so she kind of presents all these different perspectives presented by these different people in her life who would provide these different perspectives. But then the media thing happens, and that feels like that is real, maybe because all the media show up and they're covering it as like, a hunger strike. And we see. The only reason I think this might be real, maybe, is because we seem to see, we cut away from her perspective and we see James Spader reading a newspaper that is covering her because they think it's a hunger strike. And it has, like, a quote from her. And he's, like, reading the quote now, this could all still be in her head.
• 1:00:12
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:00:12
  Speaker A: But if it is, it's a little bit like film language wise, it's a little clumsy because it cuts away from her perspective entirely in a way that felt weird. And he shows up outside the office and he walks through all these gaggle of media and stuff like that to where I wasn't sure if this was real or not, or to where it felt like it maybe had to be real. But there is another scene that I thought, then again, made me think it wasn't real, is that we get this one brief shot of all of her friends and family sitting in the office, like, eating food and laughing, which feels very clearly she's hungry. And she's imagining all these people eating and kind of sitting there, which they wouldn't. Why would they be? And they're all, like, laughing. It's very strange. Which that felt very fake. So I'm inclined to think that all of this is fake or not. Is all in her head.
• 1:01:07
  Speaker B: All in her head, yeah. I like that interpretation, that all or most of it is happening in her head. And I agree with you. That first scene with Peter when he comes in, that felt like it could be real, but the rest of it is so dreamlike. It's so surreal and dreamy. And I do think there's a good argument to be made that it isn't really happening.
• 1:01:29
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 1:01:30
  Speaker B: I also genuinely don't think that, given what we know of Gray's character, I don't think he would have left her there for days.
• 1:01:41
  Speaker A: And because they say three days that she was there, I agree. And to me, what makes the most sense is he leaves her there for the evening and he goes home and she's maybe already very. Because she hasn't been eating a whole lot anyways. Right. So maybe she's, like, very quickly becomes sort of a little out of it, a little loopy, kind of loses track of how much time has transpired. She sort of invents this whole narrative in her head of staying there for three days as she's arguing with herself. But really, in reality, it's been like 6 hours or something like that, which obviously is not great, but it's a little bit different. And then he came back later that night and got her. Is kind of my head cannon. Or maybe it's really what's supposed to be happening, but that's my interpretation of what's going on there. But please feel free listeners to chime in and let us know what you think is actually. Do you think it's literal, like everything we're seeing is actually. But I got the feeling that that is not what it should.
• 1:02:35
  Speaker B: To me, it felt very dreamlike, very surreal.
• 1:02:38
  Speaker A: Yeah. All right. Those are all my questions. I have a couple more things I wanted to discuss, but we'll get into those in lost in adaptation. Just show me the way to get out of here and I'll be on my way. Yes. And I want to get unlost as soon as possible. So we find out right at the very beginning that she's taking typing classes and at a community college. And then when she goes to the office or to Gray's office to get. And she's also going to a newspaper to get information or to do job applications. And we know the film came out in 2002. Yes. And so I was trying to figure out when this took place, and I was wondering if maybe the book gave us any more information because I felt like we would be on computers by now. But then he does, because when he gets to the office, he wants her to be able to type. She's typing on a. Again, in the classes, she's typing on a typewriter. And when she gets in the office, there's a typewriter, like, at the reception desk and stuff. And I was just like, wait, but what year is it? You would be using computers by now? But he specifically mentions that they only use typewriters in his office. So the movie kind of does address it to the point where they must have known audiences would be like, why are they using typewriters? Yeah, but I wanted to know if any of this, like, if the book had any more kind of. When this took place or on top of that, what you thought. What was your interpretation?
• 1:04:05
  Speaker B: So the short story was written in 1988.
• 1:04:08
  Speaker A: Oh, that's right. Okay. Well, yeah, that doesn't help then.
• 1:04:11
  Speaker B: But in the movie, it's at least 1996, because that's when that cake cover of I will survive came out.
• 1:04:20
  Speaker A: Does that, like, play on the radio.
• 1:04:21
  Speaker B: Or something it plays while her and Peter are having sex. And it was the first.
• 1:04:25
  Speaker A: Was it diegetic? Was it okay?
• 1:04:27
  Speaker B: Yeah. And that was the first thing. I googled that immediately. I was like, cake cover of I will survive. That came out in 1996. Overall, though, I think the movie's aesthetic to me, reads right in line with when it was made, like very late 90s, super early aughts.
• 1:04:46
  Speaker A: It feels like I'm watching Buffy.
• 1:04:48
  Speaker B: Yeah. Especially when we see her room and there's like glitter everywhere and the color palette and her little barrettes and things. And then some of the office wear is like giving a little more 80s. But also, it's not uncommon for those types of clothing to be like a little behind the times.
• 1:05:07
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:05:07
  Speaker B: And you're right. He does say specifically, oh, we use typewriters here, not computers. Even without that line, I don't know if it would have struck me as wildly out of place for his office to be using typewriters.
• 1:05:22
  Speaker A: To me, in the late ninety s. I think it would. Personally, I think without him specifically saying that, I think you would expect everybody.
• 1:05:33
  Speaker B: To be using computers like a big Mac.
• 1:05:38
  Speaker A: It's the 90s. It's not the. Even in the lot of offices were using computers, typewriters were phasing out, I think, by the early 80s. Not that people weren't using them anymore, but they were way phasing out by the. By the late 90s. You're pretty out of place if you're using a typewriter still. Not that nobody did, I'm sure.
• 1:05:59
  Speaker B: Right.
• 1:05:59
  Speaker A: But it would have been situations like this. And I took it as. It's maybe one. I think that for the movie, it's more aesthetic. It's more like from a creative decision by the filmmakers, it's just more aesthetic, more visceral.
• 1:06:13
  Speaker B: You get the sound of the clickety clack and the ding, and it's kind.
• 1:06:16
  Speaker A: Of ASMR elements to it. You've got all kinds of stuff that just aesthetically works more for the movie. But also, I think it ties in character wise, as I think the idea of this very meticulous, controlling guy who maybe doesn't either trust not. I don't want to say trust computers, but maybe wants stuff still done in a very specific way. And he's always used typewriters, so he still wants to keep using typewriters. And he likes the fact that maybe it's more secure in some way or something. I don't know. I could imagine this kind of controlling kind of guy that he. Eccentric kind of guy that he is. Would just want to use typewriters. I think that fits with his character. So I think those both work. But yeah, I think in most cases he would be very strange for still using typewriters in his office.
• 1:07:04
  Speaker B: No, I agree with you. I think it's symbolic of who he is as a person in the movie, at least. Also her making typing mistakes. It is from the book, and it is very pivotal in the start of their relationship. And that doesn't work if she has a backspace key.
• 1:07:24
  Speaker A: No, absolutely. Well, I mean, I guess it could, if she's still, like, you could still make typos and not realize it could still kind of work. But yes, it definitely works better with a typewriter. So I think for all those reasons is why they stuck with the typewriter. And it's just like one of those kind of aesthetic, creative character choices that just kind of works and makes sense. And then my other question here, and I just wanted to get back to it, we probably could have rolled this into our last segment, but I just wanted to go back to the final scene and discuss this a little more because I thought it was interesting, the whole thing at the, and whether it's 6 hours or whether it's three days that she stays at the desk, I don't think really matter. I mean, obviously it does to some extent, but the thing is kind of the same. Let's say it's three days. Let's say it plays out practically as it happened, literally as it was shown in the movie, and that she sat there for three days. Obviously, that's wildly abusive for him to do to her and to not intervene and stop her from doing that. Despite that, within the context of the movie, it feels instead like something that she needed to do for herself.
• 1:08:30
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 1:08:30
  Speaker A: It feels like this sort of true act of autonomy and her taking control of her life in a way that she never has been able to. So that was very fascinating. And again, in a movie that is somehow more problematic than 50 shades in lots of ways, or in some ways, because again, I think 50 shades tried to address some of the, because again, we'll get to it. This movie was very clearly what Yale James was pulling all kinds of stuff from. And it's very clear to me that I think what she tried to do is address some of the more problematic elements of this, like the fact that the employee employer thing by making Dakota Johnson not his employee.
• 1:09:12
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:09:12
  Speaker A: Or what is her name? Anastasia Gray Steele, not his employee. I think my guess would be that was her kind of know, fixing one of the very obvious problematic elements of their relationship because there's obviously the power dynamic and all that sort of stuff. But despite that, I somehow feel like kind of trying to address those. The movie manages to be more feminist and female empowering than anything 50 shades even gets close to, which is wild. It's fascinating. I don't know. I'm interested to see what you think.
• 1:09:57
  Speaker B: I agree. I think this scene does feel like her taking control and seizing that autonomy. Whereas before, she was kind of dust in the wind, almost like she just kind of blew about wherever and didn't really know what she wanted to do. Like, very aimless. And she had, like, her mom was overbearing and her dad was out of control. We don't really interact with her sister a lot, but her sister kind of seems like a type a, also a strong personality.
• 1:10:31
  Speaker A: I think it's her older sister too.
• 1:10:32
  Speaker B: Yeah, I got that older sister thing. And I think that part of the reason this comes off the way that it does this final scene is because it is focused on her. And I think if it had been focused on him or even on their relationship dynamic, it would have ended up feeling icky. But because it is focused on her and the fact that this is her decision, we get something that feels like her seizing her autonomy.
• 1:11:09
  Speaker A: Yeah, it's very fascinating. And again, I think all that is ultimately helped also by the fact that I do not think that it is literally what's happening.
• 1:11:19
  Speaker B: No, I don't either.
• 1:11:20
  Speaker A: It does read to me.
• 1:11:22
  Speaker B: I think there's enough filmic language going on there to safely interpret that it is not literally what's happening.
• 1:11:30
  Speaker A: All right. Those are all the questions I had. It's time now to find out what Katie thought was better in the book.
• 1:11:38
  Speaker B: You like to read. Oh, yes, I love to read. What do you like to. Everything. Um, okay, so I have a couple of things to address from the movie and a couple of things to address that are in the book. First off, I didn't really understand the relationship between her and Peter. What is their history? Why are they dating? And it's not the most important thing, but it just kind of bugged me.
• 1:12:08
  Speaker A: So I think your questions are the exact reason that relationship is in the movie. Probably, like, you going at the end. What is their history? Why are they dating? I think that's the point, is that she realizes, why are we dating? Like, I don't like you. I don't care about you. So they said they go into high school together at one point. Yeah, there's a line at some point, kind of quickly about how he's something. They've changed since high school or something. They went to high school together, so they've known each other for years. And she just sort of falls into this relationship with him that is not right.
• 1:12:46
  Speaker B: I get that.
• 1:12:47
  Speaker A: Yes. And so I think that's the point, though, literally, is just that this is a passive relationship that she kind of fell into versus an active one that she.
• 1:12:57
  Speaker B: Right.
• 1:12:57
  Speaker A: Like she does with Gray.
• 1:12:59
  Speaker B: No. I guess it just seemed, because I thought when we initially met Peter, that he was like a previous boyfriend that she had, then that seemed like maybe that was not the case.
• 1:13:12
  Speaker A: I agree that the initial setup of their relationship maybe leaves a little bit too much, doesn't have maybe enough.
• 1:13:20
  Speaker B: Right. I felt like there was something that I was supposed to know about them previously that the movie did not make me privy to, which would be fine if the movie hadn't made me feel like I was supposed to be privy to that information. That was my point.
• 1:13:36
  Speaker A: Yeah, that makes sense.
• 1:13:37
  Speaker B: So one thing that happens in this is that Mr. Gray figures out that Lee self harms, and he orders her to not do that any longer. And that didn't hit for me. It was a little cheesy.
• 1:13:57
  Speaker A: I agree.
• 1:13:58
  Speaker B: This, to me, was one of the only moments that felt like it could have come from 50 shades. It felt a little fanficky. I could totally see Erica writing a plot point where Christian has to save Anna from self harming by ordering her to not self harm.
• 1:14:18
  Speaker A: Yes, I agree. Because it's obviously not how harmful. Quitting harmful coping mechanisms does not work by some person just telling you to stop and you stopping. And I think that would maybe be. There's probably a handful of changes that could be made to this movie to kind of, like, update it and fix a few things. I think that would be one of the big ones would be not having him command her to stop, but have her just stop, which I guess is kind of like, have her realize she doesn't kind of just, I don't know, come to terms and stop doing it on her own or something. Because in the movie, it is just like a magic switch. Like, he tells her to stop and she just stops.
• 1:15:01
  Speaker B: Right.
• 1:15:01
  Speaker A: And I think there could have been maybe some. There probably would have been a better way to let that all play out. I understand what the movie is doing because the movie is obviously playing on the idea that she does this because. And he understands why she does it because he also has unhealthy coping mechanisms. I did like elements of that scene. I liked when he is kind of flip and played for a joke. But I thought it was kind of funny and was like an insightful little moment where he asks her why she does it, and she's like, I don't know. And he goes, is it because. And he goes on this big spiel and it clinically explains why she self harms and he gets done. And she's like, I guess that's one way to say it, because as he's saying this, you see it dawning on her face. He knows exactly. Because she knows why she does it. She just either didn't have words to put to it or just didn't really want to express it. And he expresses it in this very kind of poetic, psychoanalytic way. And, yeah, she feels very seen by that in a way that I think there's an element to it that works in the fact that she's finally seen by this person. Like somebody sees her and what she's going through and why she's doing it and then gives her permission to not do it. Yeah, I think it's obviously cheesy and it plays out in a way that's a little too easy. But there's not nothing to it.
• 1:16:36
  Speaker B: No.
• 1:16:37
  Speaker A: You know what I mean?
• 1:16:38
  Speaker B: Nothing there.
• 1:16:39
  Speaker A: There's definitely something to that. It's just the movie does it maybe a little too clean and easy in a way that feels.
• 1:16:48
  Speaker B: And it does feel, as I said, a little fanficy.
• 1:16:52
  Speaker A: Yes, for sure. Yes, absolutely. But again, sort of quite a few things in this movie. But again, I think the movie is aware of at least some of that because it does play with that in a way like, this movie does not take itself deeply seriously all the time. It is aware. So, yeah, I don't know.
• 1:17:09
  Speaker B: But, yeah, the other thing that really did not do it for me was the worm thing. It just didn't do anything for me.
• 1:17:20
  Speaker A: You mean, like, what do you mean?
• 1:17:22
  Speaker B: The whole plot point where she gets the worm and puts the worm in the letter and waits for him to find the worm, and then at the end there's a callback to it where she throws a dead cockroach on the bed? None of that did anything for me.
• 1:17:39
  Speaker A: Again, it just ties into the fact that we know he's very meticulous and clean and that sort of thing and has the way that he wants everything. And she's obviously throwing a big monkey wrench in that with the. But, yeah, I think there could have been a different way to do it.
• 1:17:51
  Speaker B: Maybe.
• 1:17:52
  Speaker A: I don't know.
• 1:17:52
  Speaker B: I don't know.
• 1:17:53
  Speaker A: I didn't hate it, but I didn't particularly like it either. Just kind of whatever.
• 1:17:58
  Speaker B: Okay, on to my book stuff. So in the short story, we spend quite a bit of most of the short story, just like with the narrator, before any of the meat of the story happens. And we spend a lot of time with her while she's looking for a job, and then while she's initially doing this secretarial work. And she likes the kind of mindlessness of the secretarial work and the fact that she doesn't really have to think about it, which, as someone who has done secretarial work. Yes. God, yes. That was the only thing I liked about secretarial work. There's the fact that I did not have to think about it.
• 1:18:46
  Speaker A: Yeah. I think a lot of people can identify with, even if not all the time. There's definitely times where doing mindless work is rewarding in a weird way. And it's nice, it's relaxing or whatever.
• 1:19:00
  Speaker B: Just something to be said for popping on your headphones and stuffing envelopes for 4 hours. Absolutely something to be said for it. But anyway, there was a particular line in the book where she's talking about enjoying the job and enjoying the kind of. The exacting way that the lawyer wants things done. And she thinks to herself, I enjoyed feeling him impose his brainlessly confident sense of existence on me, which is a chef's kiss sentence.
• 1:19:33
  Speaker A: That's a very good sentence.
• 1:19:34
  Speaker B: It's a great sentence.
• 1:19:36
  Speaker A: It really is. Yeah.
• 1:19:37
  Speaker B: There was another line that I was a little surprised did not make it into the movie, because I thought this might. When she's doing her reception work, like at the front desk, and there's somebody who's in there, like, waiting to meet with the lawyer. And this guy who's waiting says to her, I've always hated lawyers. And she just looks at him and goes, a lot of people do.
• 1:20:02
  Speaker A: Is that not in the movie? I think so. I had a vague memory of that I would have to.
• 1:20:07
  Speaker B: I did not catch it if it was okay.
• 1:20:10
  Speaker A: I don't recall it specifically, but for some reason that rings a bell. I'll do a quick look while you're doing the last one here, but I swear that sounds vaguely familiar.
• 1:20:21
  Speaker B: My last note here is really just kind of a general note, which is that I overall enjoyed the prose in the short story. I liked the writing. There was a lot of really great, evocative, descriptive language in it.
• 1:20:37
  Speaker A: That was everything that we have for better in the book. Let's go ahead and find out what Katie thought was better in the movie. My life has taught me one lesson, Hugo, and not the one I thought it would. Happy endings only happen in the movies.
• 1:20:52
  Speaker B: So obviously we covered a lot of things in your questions. But I do have a handful of things here that we haven't talked about yet. One of which was her costuming. Yes, I really enjoyed. I particularly liked when she first goes to his office. It's pouring rain and she's wearing this bright purple hooded raincoat as she's, like, crossing the threshold. It's giving very, like, little Red Riding Hood.
• 1:21:24
  Speaker A: It's very much for little Red Riding Hood.
• 1:21:26
  Speaker B: Yeah, except it's purple, which I love. The arc of her costuming was fascinating to me. She goes from very girlish and immature. There's some points where she's dressing very younger than her age at the beginning of the movie. And then we move into this kind.
• 1:21:46
  Speaker A: Of, like, dressing up, very classic office.
• 1:21:51
  Speaker B: Attire where she's kind of quote unquote dressing up as an adult. Skirts and the roughly blouses as she further explores her identity to literally pissing on traditional relationship norms.
• 1:22:07
  Speaker A: Literally.
• 1:22:08
  Speaker B: Literally keys on a wedding dress to then at the very end of the movie, she has on this very comfortable looking and natural feeling outfit. She looks very comfortable and very at ease with herself.
• 1:22:22
  Speaker A: And right before that, there's the intermittent stage where she is fully naked. And we see her naked for the first time and see the scars and everything. And she is kind of reborn into.
• 1:22:32
  Speaker B: This.
• 1:22:34
  Speaker A: At the very end. She's wearing, like, a light cotton, like a tank top or. I can't remember.
• 1:22:39
  Speaker B: Like a tank top and shorts. Just, like, very easy breezy.
• 1:22:42
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:22:44
  Speaker B: Overall, I thought there was a lot of really interesting visual stuff going on in this movie. Like, the set dressings were really cool. The costuming was really cool. The shots, I thought were cool.
• 1:22:53
  Speaker A: Yeah, no, it's a well shot film. The lighting, it's an era of cinema that I love where we weren't afraid to have light. Dude, look, I am not as much of a hater of modern cinematography as most people because at least I understand why it's being done a lot of times. Whereas I see so many people on the Internet complain about it, just like, which it is, what it is. I get why people complain about it but the trend in cinematography these days is very much towards naturalistic lighting and very. What would it look like in reality, in real life kind of thing. Like, people are doing their best. And part of that has to do with the technology and other things but is very much kind of trying to capture what light actually looks like in real life, maybe heightened slightly, but very close to reality, whereas this movie kind of very much more leans into the stylized. Like, we get lots of color and lots of more dramatic kind of pools of light and dark. And not every single light that we see in every single scene is perfectly motivated by a light that exists in the real world, which is a big. That is the number one thing. If you ever wonder why the lighting look a certain way in modern cinema compared to other things, is like there's been a big move. And again, it's not even one I necessarily disagree with. And I think for certain projects, it works very well. But it's kind of been an across the board thing in a lot of things to make sure that every light you ever see on camera has a reason to exist. And it's one of my favorite quotes I saw. I think it was from Lord of the Rings cinematographer, somebody involved with that. Where there's a scene, at least I saw it identified with a quote from, I think, to two towers or somebody, where there's a scene in two towers, or. No, I think it's in return of the king, where Samwise is in. Is saving Frodo from. After he gets taken by the orcs. He's been wrapped up by Sheila, and then orcs get him and take him up in the tower. Samwise, like, unwraps him and is saving him, and there's this light hitting Sam's face that makes zero sense. In the tower they're in, and everything. There's like this gold light hitting his face that makes zero sense. Again, this may be apocryphal, I don't know. But the quote I saw connected to this was Sean Aston or somebody asked the cinematographer or somebody, where's that light coming from? And the cinematographer or whatever said, the same place the music is. And that is a line that I think more cinematographers, modern cinematographers, could take to heart. Because, again, I think there is a place for not every single light that you see in a movie has to be, we are making an artificial thing. It doesn't have to be completely naturally motivated all the time. Always, we can have lights that just are there because they look cool and look good or evoke something very specific, sort of emotionally or whatever, and it's always a balancing act. But point being, I do like that in this movie.
• 1:26:03
  Speaker B: Yeah, I agree. That trend towards that naturalistic lighting, it works really well for some stuff, as you said, and I think people are just over it.
• 1:26:15
  Speaker A: Yeah, people are over it, and it.
• 1:26:19
  Speaker B: Can be frustrating when you don't have the best television set up.
• 1:26:24
  Speaker A: That's another part of it, is that it's the same thing with sound a lot of the times. The issues with sound these days is because they're mixing it for a 5.17.1 surround sound, $6,000 audio system or whatever, and most people are watching it on a shitty soundbar or their tv or whatever. So the sound mix is not perfect for that. And blah, blah, blah. All these things. Point being. Yeah, I agree entirely that I really liked, aesthetically what this movie is doing overall, while not being as over the top as something like, but I'm a cheerleader. I thought it was just over the top enough and just verbose enough, I guess, aesthetically and lighting wise, that it really fit the mood of the film.
• 1:27:05
  Speaker B: Yeah, I agree. I really liked the scene where she tries on the paralegal's eyeshadow. She has, like, an encounter with the paralegal in the bathroom, and paralegal leaves a little compact of eyeshadow, and leah's, like, smearing it on her eyelids just this further kind of like she's trying it on. She's trying on this new identity and this more like adult identity. Very interesting.
• 1:27:34
  Speaker A: Yep, for sure.
• 1:27:36
  Speaker B: The scene where he spanks her, where he calls her into the office and, I don't know, do we mention this now? This is directly from the book.
• 1:27:48
  Speaker A: You said that earlier. You said the spanking scene and the masturbation scene were, like, both direct.
• 1:27:53
  Speaker B: He calls her into the office and has her bend over and read aloud the letter that she.
• 1:27:58
  Speaker A: Typos.
• 1:27:58
  Speaker B: Yeah, with the typos. And in the movie, he tells her to bend over the desk, and she says, I don't understand. And he says, there's nothing to understand. Bend over. Guess what, kids? That's it. That's it. That's the dynamic.
• 1:28:17
  Speaker A: Yeah, that's it. Again, this movie, in very few words, very little work, demonstrates the fact that it understands far more about this world than 50 shades ever did, among other projects as well.
• 1:28:37
  Speaker B: Yes. I really liked the scene where she's trying to goad him with her typos, where she's made mistakes in a letter and she's, like, trying to shove it under his nose. Look at my typos.
• 1:28:51
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 1:28:51
  Speaker B: Don't you want to fix my typos?
• 1:28:53
  Speaker A: Also, I loved the little detail with that typo that she writes sincerely, but she spells it Lee L-E-E. Sincerely.
• 1:29:01
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:29:02
  Speaker A: Which I thought was great. I was like, she should just keep doing that. That's like a fun little Easter egg, if your name's Lee. As a receptionist. Sincerely. And then, yeah.
• 1:29:13
  Speaker B: The scene where he masturbates on her. We've discussed that. There was one subtle change from the book that I wanted to talk about. So he says in the movie, when she bends over, he's like, don't worry. Or he's like, are you worried I'm going to fuck you? I'm not going to fuck you. Subtle change. Maybe not so subtle. Small change. Maybe not subtle change. Single word change. In the book, the lawyer says, are you worried I'm going to rape you? Don't worry, I'm not going to rape you. I don't want that.
• 1:29:54
  Speaker A: Yeah, that is a small. Yeah, because it especially works in the movie, at least because he knows that at this point, she is very much into this. She wants to be with him, and he is aware of this. So, yeah, it's a small change. That makes sense in the context of the film.
• 1:30:16
  Speaker B: I guess there's a quick montage after he stops engaging in that dynamic with her. Or maybe it's after he fires her. I don't remember exactly where. She's trying to find another tom.
• 1:30:31
  Speaker A: I believe it's after he fires.
• 1:30:32
  Speaker B: Yeah. And we see her run through the gamut of all these dudes who do not fit the bill.
• 1:30:39
  Speaker A: Yes. A guy who starts grabbing her nipples on the way to the car as soon as they've met. And then I can't remember what all the other ones were, but one of them is not a dummy.
• 1:30:49
  Speaker B: No.
• 1:30:49
  Speaker A: Clearly a.
• 1:30:50
  Speaker B: Clearly a son.
• 1:30:52
  Speaker A: She ties him to an. I love the specific randomness. Because that's the other thing that the movie gets, is like, he ties him to an open lit oven or something.
• 1:31:06
  Speaker B: He's tied to the oven, and it's like the burners are turned on. But he's not tied to the burners.
• 1:31:12
  Speaker A: No, he's not like, being burned. He's just, like, tied to a stove with burners on. And then he wants her to throw tomatoes at him and call it something. I can't remember. But, yeah, it's very funny.
• 1:31:24
  Speaker B: And then the last thing here, there is a super brief scene when she mentions that they got married, where they're on their honeymoon and they're in a forest, and she's.
• 1:31:35
  Speaker A: I knew you would appreciate this moment.
• 1:31:39
  Speaker B: Thanks for the call out.
• 1:31:41
  Speaker A: Sorry. Specifically what she's wearing.
• 1:31:43
  Speaker B: Yeah. She's tied to a tree while he's fucking her. And she's wearing a black wedding dress. And veil.
• 1:31:51
  Speaker A: That's what I was referencing, was the black wedding dress and veil. All right, let's go ahead and find out what the movie nailed.
• 1:32:03
  Speaker B: As I expected, practically perfect in every way. She does take a typing class. Our main character, a thing that no longer exists. No typewriter. Typing class. I don't even know if you can take, like, a typing class. I guess you probably can somewhere. I don't know, maybe at, like, a community college or something.
• 1:32:23
  Speaker A: I don't know. There's a tweet I saw the other day that I thought was pretty funny. And it's kind of references to this. I don't even know how accurate it is. It might not be, so take it with a grain of salt, but I just thought it was funny because it felt accurate to me, but it might not be. Somebody said, it's fascinating that we created exactly one generation that knows how to use computers. And it's like our generation, the generation before us, grew up before computers, the generation after us grew up just with phones. And so it's like, literally millennials, like some Gen X millennials and some late, some older Gen. Older Gen Z or whatever. It's like, basically one generation knows how to actually use real computer.
• 1:33:01
  Speaker B: I feel like that's the real generational divide. Can you use a computer? Okay.
• 1:33:07
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:33:07
  Speaker B: You're in this generation. Yeah, we mentioned this earlier, but they have an exchange, and this exchange comes from the book. It's not had with the lawyer, but this exchange does come from the book. She has it with another person in a different interview, where the person says, like, well, you'll be bored at this job. And she says, I want to be bored.
• 1:33:31
  Speaker A: Yeah. And she has a similar exchange with him where he's like, I just looked at it because it's slightly different, but it's like the same idea, too, where she's like, yeah, I don't want to think. Yeah, no thoughts. Just typing.
• 1:33:48
  Speaker B: It is specifically mentioned in the book that the lawyer has a paralegal, so all he needs is somebody who can type. Doesn't really need her to be able to do anything else. The specific line that the lawyer says, there's something about you. You're closed tight like a wall.
• 1:34:04
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:34:08
  Speaker B: Slightly less creepy in the movie than it is in the book.
• 1:34:11
  Speaker A: Yeah, I can imagine. Based on everything else you stated, when.
• 1:34:16
  Speaker B: He tells her, you really should feel free to discuss your problems with me. Weird thing for it is a very.
• 1:34:25
  Speaker A: Just to stress again that even as we praise this movie and some of its depictions of a lot of things it's still lots of problematic stuff. You should not model relationships on this movie.
• 1:34:37
  Speaker B: And that does come directly from the book, which, again, is doing a different thing than what the movie is. We talked about the scene where he spanks her while she reads the letter. That is directly from the book.
• 1:34:52
  Speaker A: Speaking of the spanking scene thing that I almost mentioned in the prequel because I saw it in the notes, but I just wanted to throw it out there because I thought it was interesting, is in the IMDb fun facts. There was a thing that said that Maggie Gyllenhaal was offered a pad to wear, like, padded shorts, I guess, to wear for that scene, and she refused. So I don't know. There you go.
• 1:35:13
  Speaker B: All right, well, there's that. You do. You, girl. I support your decision. She does masturbate in the bathroom at work.
• 1:35:25
  Speaker A: Does she stick, like, the letter on the wall?
• 1:35:27
  Speaker B: No.
• 1:35:28
  Speaker A: Look at it. Okay. I thought that was interesting. She's got, like, little rings. I don't know what those are. They're the things that go around, like, a hole in, like, a manila envelope to keep it from ripping.
• 1:35:39
  Speaker B: Yeah, like, when you hole punch something, you put the little sticker rings. I can't think of what they're called.
• 1:35:44
  Speaker A: But she's got those all over the page.
• 1:35:46
  Speaker B: I feel like I used to know what they were called, and I no.
• 1:35:49
  Speaker A: Longer do, but, yeah, she uses those to stick it to the wall. That was fun.
• 1:35:53
  Speaker B: Yeah. And I mentioned earlier that when she leaves the job, he pays her more than what he owes her in both the book and the movie. But she has, like, a little monologue about it where she's like, I thought about tearing up the check, but I didn't. And I felt like I was doing the right thing. And that's directly from the book.
• 1:36:13
  Speaker A: All right, we got a handful of ods and ends before we get to the final verdict. When we started watching this film, I thought it was fascinating. I was like, it's crazy to me that this movie got made.
• 1:36:34
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:36:34
  Speaker A: In 2002. Although movies like this used to get made a lot more, like, kind of like sexy dramas or whatever were definitely more of a thing in the stuff. But this very specific romantic comedy bdsm exploration just feels like a movie that would never get made today. But also, it was shot on film and very clearly shot on film. And initially, I forgot that the digital changeover didn't happen until much later because in my head, I was like, it's 2002. I guess we were, but they weren't really starting to shoot on digital yet. But there's some stuff early, like some of the early shots, there's some very noticeable film noise and grain. One of the shots where she's outside the school or whatever, you can see the sky and it looks like it's snowing because it's so much film grain going on. But anyways, I looked it up, and the big changeover was from between 2013 to 2016 is when it went from everything being shot on film to everything being shot digitally, basically. So for some reason, I thought it was significantly earlier because it's also way more expensive to shoot on film, which is why my note was like, imagine a film like this being shot on film today just is insane. Never in a million years. But then again, to be fair, again, like, 95% of movies are shot digitally these days. Unless you're Tarantino or Nolan or something. Everybody shoots digital.
• 1:37:59
  Speaker B: We were like, maybe between ten and 20 minutes into this movie when I turned to you and said, I don't know if I've ever seen so many longing gazes in a single film.
• 1:38:10
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 1:38:12
  Speaker B: Because who. Boy, once they're both in that office, it is just.
• 1:38:16
  Speaker A: Well, it's a slow burn initially.
• 1:38:17
  Speaker B: Slow burn.
• 1:38:19
  Speaker A: Lots of longing.
• 1:38:20
  Speaker B: Longing gaze after longing gaze.
• 1:38:22
  Speaker A: Absolutely.
• 1:38:25
  Speaker B: There's one point where she's, like, trying to put a mousetrap behind a chair in the office, and it's an excuse for him to see the backs of her legs because she has scars from the. Yeah, and see her scars and the bandages that she put on. But it's such a strange way to put something behind a chair. It's like a high backed armchair.
• 1:38:49
  Speaker A: She puts, like, one leg on it.
• 1:38:50
  Speaker B: Yeah. And instead of moving the chair to the side a little bit, like a normal person would do, she climbs up on top of it and has one leg up and is, like, leaning down.
• 1:39:03
  Speaker A: I think maybe it's supposed to be because you can tell she's attracted to him before any of this happens.
• 1:39:10
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:39:10
  Speaker A: She has the whole. At least to some extent. And so I couldn't tell if maybe it's like a clumsy seduction.
• 1:39:16
  Speaker B: Maybe she's doing it on purpose, maybe. I don't know. I didn't get the vibe that she.
• 1:39:21
  Speaker A: Not entirely, but, yeah, I agree. That's not an intentional seduction thing. Is a very strange way.
• 1:39:28
  Speaker B: Very strange way to put something behind a chair.
• 1:39:31
  Speaker A: Yes, absolutely. Little thing I mentioned that reminded me of. It's a little moment that I really loved in the movie that I forgot I wanted to mention was after she gets the job and she goes home and she's taking a bath. And she's, like, rehearsing, answering the phone, I thought was a really sweet little moment. And she just finally feels like she has something for herself and a place where she belongs, quote unquote, I don't know if the right word. But the way the glee and the confidence she has and, I don't know, just the way her personality switches after she gets the job, I thought was a really interesting, beautiful little moment. But a little bit later, she goes on a date with Peter and the cameras again, the movie being kind of self aware and campy and stuff. We open on a scene and it's a laundromat. And then the camera does this slow pan over. And then it's like an arcade, and there's a bunch of little. With candles or, like, lamps on them and little terrible, ugly tablecloths. And Lee and Peter are sitting at one, like, eating, like, italian food or.
• 1:40:48
  Speaker B: Something and, like, drinking wine.
• 1:40:50
  Speaker A: And I was that. Are they on a date at a restaurant? In a laundromat?
• 1:40:58
  Speaker B: A date at the restaurant laundromat combo.
• 1:41:01
  Speaker A: Oh, it cracked me up.
• 1:41:03
  Speaker B: You know what, though? I initially had the same reaction. I was like, what is this place? But upon further reflection, I think more laundromats should have restaurants in them. Because if you ever sat in a laundromat waiting for your clothes to finish washing torturous, please put a restaurant in your laundromat.
• 1:41:24
  Speaker A: Absolutely. It seems hygiene wise, maybe like, it might be slightly problem. There's probably a code issue there.
• 1:41:30
  Speaker B: Yeah, probably.
• 1:41:31
  Speaker A: It's not uncommon for laundromats to be next to restaurants. There's several in our town. Where in particular? I know there's one over in the place called apartment land. That is.
• 1:41:42
  Speaker B: It's not actually called apartment.
• 1:41:45
  Speaker A: A lot of apartments, but, like, apartment complexes and stuff. But there's this little strip mall that has a laundromat. I think it's got, like, two things in. It's a laundromat and a mexican restaurant. And they're, like, right next to each other. And there used to be a laundromat next to the burrito place.
• 1:42:00
  Speaker B: That's right there did.
• 1:42:01
  Speaker A: Now it's a head shop. But it used to be a laundromat.
• 1:42:05
  Speaker B: There's supposed to be a new one opening, too, that's going to have, like, a coffee area in it.
• 1:42:10
  Speaker A: So there you go.
• 1:42:11
  Speaker B: We'll see. There's one point where she's talking when she meets Peter's parents and they're talking about how they should get married and his mom is like, well, Peter has a very stable job at JCPenney, which is a hysterically aged line.
• 1:42:30
  Speaker A: It felt intentional. It felt like they knew, which obviously in 2002, you wouldn't know.
• 1:42:36
  Speaker B: I don't know.
• 1:42:37
  Speaker A: JCPenney was doing fine in 2002.
• 1:42:39
  Speaker B: Malls were still the place to be.
• 1:42:41
  Speaker A: I mean, there's a little bit of self awareness in the sense that having a job at a department store isn't like a big high. He's not a lawyer, obviously, so it's drawing a juxtaposition to that. But there's an added layer of this.
• 1:42:55
  Speaker B: Was in fact still at a time when you could have a stable job.
• 1:43:00
  Speaker A: Good job at a department store. Yeah. But yes, in retrospect now it is.
• 1:43:04
  Speaker B: Even funnier in the year of our Lord 2024. Very funny line.
• 1:43:09
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 1:43:09
  Speaker B: Clocked the park scene. There was only one park scene in this, so it was easy to, did I miss it? He lets her go home early. She literally just walks through. Yeah, she takes a shortcut through the park. Yeah, she's literally just walking through the park.
• 1:43:24
  Speaker A: They could have shot it in like ten minutes.
• 1:43:25
  Speaker B: Yeah, I thought maybe something risque was going to happen in the park scene, but it's literally just her walking through.
• 1:43:31
  Speaker A: Middle of the park.
• 1:43:32
  Speaker B: Yeah, you're probably right. It probably did not take them long at all to shoot that because it's.
• 1:43:37
  Speaker A: A big, wide shot. It's not like they set up any light you would be able. Yeah, they literally just had a camera, I think maybe something somewhere. But, yeah, they probably shot it incredibly quickly. I thought Maggie Gyllenhaal was fantastic in this. I thought James Spader was good. Not the best I'd ever seen him. But then I will say that was what I wrote initially as I thought more on it. I think I maybe initially was underselling Spader's performance or underappreciating his performance a little bit because I think I went in expecting Robert California, specifically that cadence and confidence that Robert California has, which, if you don't know Robert California is the character James Spader plays on the office in the later seasons. I absolutely love Robert. I know people do not like the later seasons of the office as much. I think it's fine. And in particular, I absolutely love Robert California on the office. I think he's fucking think so. I was expecting that because that felt like the right kind of character to me. Initially, he's just nothing but confidence and just self assured, kind of neurotic. If you haven't seen in the office, he's a very rich guy. Who incredibly self confident, who just reads people the filth on the spot.
• 1:44:57
  Speaker B: The megalomaniac CEO.
• 1:44:58
  Speaker A: Yes, but who's very intuitive and can just sense people's insecurities. And that was kind of what I was expecting from this character. So I was really expecting that performance. But Robert California, on more reflection, doesn't have the insecurity and self loathing that this character needed.
• 1:45:18
  Speaker B: No.
• 1:45:19
  Speaker A: And so there was a thing that Spader was doing with this character that was slightly different. He has some of the same cadences and stuff because it's James Spader. He still sounds like James Spader. And that's just kind of how he talks, I think, from everything I've ever seen. Like, freaking what you might call it sounds the killer robot from the second Avengers. In the second Avengers movie, the robot they make is James Spader. And he talks the same way. That's just how James Spader talks, I think. But he has an insecurity and a self discussed self loathing in this movie that really comes through that I wasn't expecting. But that is pivotal to his character and made me appreciate his performance a lot more as the movie went on than I did initially when I just wanted Robert California, and it wasn't California, so, which is also an incredible name for a character. I don't know who came up with that. There's a little scene that I just had to ask a question about because I'm not actually sure because it's been forever since I've made copies. But she's making copies in their copy room, and she has the top of the copier open. And I was like, can you do that? I mean, I know you can run.
• 1:46:28
  Speaker B: It, but would it work?
• 1:46:30
  Speaker A: Wouldn't it make the paper? Well, no, I guess it would work. I don't know why it wouldn't.
• 1:46:35
  Speaker B: Well, I think it would work, but I don't think the copy would show up as well.
• 1:46:40
  Speaker A: Yeah, because I'm pretty sure that's the.
• 1:46:43
  Speaker B: Whole point of closing the copier, is.
• 1:46:45
  Speaker A: That then it creates, like, a nice seal and then there's not, like, any weird waves or anything. Yeah, I would agree.
• 1:46:50
  Speaker B: It seems like I was so distracted by that during. I don't even remember what happened during that scene because I was so distracted.
• 1:46:56
  Speaker A: All he does is he walks in and he goes, because that's right after the spanking scene. And he comes in and he goes, good letter or something. And she's like, thank you. But it clearly just done so that we get the light hitting her. That's literally just like an aesthetic choice. Like, they just wanted the light. And maybe also an idea that she's slightly not all there. Like, she's paying as much. I think it works. It works thematically. I don't know if it works, if it would actually work to make copies very well. Again, I know you. Doesn't matter. Who cares?
• 1:47:28
  Speaker B: We have a copier at work. We should just try it. We'll report back.
• 1:47:33
  Speaker A: I felt bad for Peter in this movie.
• 1:47:36
  Speaker B: I did too.
• 1:47:36
  Speaker A: He seems like a fairly nice guy. He's a little oblivious.
• 1:47:39
  Speaker B: He was really just a casualty.
• 1:47:41
  Speaker A: Yeah, he really was just a casualty of this whole thing. He seems like a fairly reasonably nice guy who just also has overbearing parents. And he doesn't really mistreat her or anything. Again, he's kind of oblivious to what she wants and stuff. But she also doesn't do a good job communicating with him at all. That scene where the worst scene that he has is the one where they have sex or whatever, but she wants him to spank her, but she doesn't communicate that. She just kind of presents herself. And he's like, what's going on? He doesn't know what she's doing. And she's like, never mind. And he's like, oh, okay. And he's just, like, confused. And then she's like, I guess we can have sex. He's like, okay. He's just very confused by the whole thing.
• 1:48:27
  Speaker B: Yeah. Question. Why have you never bathed me while I lounged in a giant copper tub?
• 1:48:34
  Speaker A: Number one reason would be that we do not have a giant copper tub.
• 1:48:39
  Speaker B: Well, that's unacceptable.
• 1:48:41
  Speaker A: We get a giant copper tub. Absolutely.
• 1:48:45
  Speaker B: Okay. I went ahead and collected all of our disparate. We each had a couple of disparate ods and ends notes about 50 shades of gray. So I just went ahead and connected them all here. My note here. It's actually kind of hysterical how much more this movie knows about BDsm than the entirety of 50 shades, which we.
• 1:49:07
  Speaker A: Have touched on throughout. But, yeah, it is crazy how much better it is. And I think the other thing. So I touched on it earlier because one of my other notes here was that I mentioned that it's kind of wild how much this movie feels less problematic than 50 shades, while maybe on its surface being way more problematic than 50 shades. Maybe not way more, but I think.
• 1:49:29
  Speaker B: It has elements that are maybe more problematic. Like him being her boss.
• 1:49:34
  Speaker A: Yeah. And spanking her with just out of nowhere, without any discussion or anything like that.
• 1:49:40
  Speaker B: Or maybe elements that are just as problematic as some of the more problematic stuff in 50 shades.
• 1:49:47
  Speaker A: Right.
• 1:49:47
  Speaker B: But overall, I wouldn't say that this is more problematic than 50 shades.
• 1:49:54
  Speaker A: I guess what I mean is that it's more, like, overtly. And I think this one would offend the sensibilities, more of a general audience in terms. Again, the thing where he just out of nowhere, starts spanking his employee is a thing that is, like, there's nothing like that in 50 shades. Before anything like that happens in 50 shades, they enter into their relationship way more knowingly in 50 shades and way more consensually in 50 shades, initially, at least. But there are other aspects that are way worse in his controlling nature and all the stuff we talked about. Again, I think 50 shades is way more problematic than this. What I'm saying is that I think there are elements of this that, at first blush, are, like, appear more problematic, but I think part of what makes it work and ultimately feel less problematic and be less problematic as you finish it and get to the end of it is that both of the people in this feel like real people with real, understandable emotional baggage and situation. Everything about them feels more wholly realized to where it feels like two people in a weird situation and not like a maniacal, manipulative, crazy person with an idiot. You know what I mean? I think that's ultimately part of what makes it work better.
• 1:51:20
  Speaker B: I agree.
• 1:51:20
  Speaker A: I think.
• 1:51:21
  Speaker B: I don't know. I don't know if we'll have anyone here listening to this episode who didn't listen to our episodes, but if you haven't, yes, go listen to them, because our 50 Shades series is, in my opinion, our magnum opus.
• 1:51:36
  Speaker A: It's up there for sure. It's some of our best work. I would agree with that. And then my last note, also related to 50 shades, and I kind of mentioned earlier, but 50 Shades may have started as Twilight fan fiction, but El James owes this movie, the estate of this movie, whatever. All of the royalties from 50 Shades.
• 1:51:57
  Speaker B: I don't remember seeing anything about this when we were researching 50 shades.
• 1:52:01
  Speaker A: Like, was there a lawsuit?
• 1:52:02
  Speaker B: But I would be 0% surprised to discover that there was a lawsuit or something. Or something.
• 1:52:10
  Speaker A: Some little detail. And again, I'm pretty generous in terms of. I'm saying this kind of ingest because I'm fairly generous in terms of doing homages or pulling elements from stuff. I think that's totally fine. Pulling inspiration from things. The stories are very different in lots of ways. It's not like a carbon copy of this. But that being said, you very clearly.
• 1:52:32
  Speaker B: There'S very interesting similarities.
• 1:52:35
  Speaker A: Like, his office is the room where this all goes down is his office, which has red walls. It has literally red walls. It has this big wooden door that the camera likes to linger on when it shuts, which is very reminiscent of the playroom door. He has, obviously, his name. He's Mr. Gray. A handful of other things, obviously, throughout. But then there's a little detail later that kind of just a throwaway moment in the movie where he has, like a book full of photos of his old subs and stuff that he burns. It's basically exactly from. Again, I was just like, oh, yeah, no, 100%. El James was just like, I'll take that, I'll take that, I'll take that.
• 1:53:22
  Speaker B: And probably thought no one would ever notice.
• 1:53:24
  Speaker A: Yeah, I don't know.
• 1:53:25
  Speaker B: But guess what, Erica, we noticed. We're on to you.
• 1:53:30
  Speaker A: Before we wrap up, we wanted to remind you you could do us a giant favor by heading over to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or Goodreads or threads, any of those places. Make sure you follow, subscribe to us, do whatever you need to do. So you see our posts. We would love to hear what you all have to say about secretary. Get those comments in and we will talk about that on the next prequel episode. Also, if you want to do us favor, you can head over to Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube, among other places. But the podcast is now up on YouTube. If you'd like to listen to it there, you can drop us on YouTube. Obviously, you can drop likes, write comments, whatever you want to do. But yeah, drop us a five star rating, write us a nice review on any of those platforms. Helps gets the show out to more people. And finally, if you would also like to support us at the utmost ability, I don't tired. You can head over to patreon.com thisfilmislit and give us some money. At $5 a month and more, you get access to bonus content. We put out a bonus episode every month where we discuss something random. We just put out our episode on fighting with my family, which is a 2019 movie with Florence Pew, where she's a wrestler. Next month, we're doing an episode on I had it and I lost it. Hold on. Singing in the rain dancing, singing in.
• 1:54:40
  Speaker B: The rain singing in the rain I mean, they do all dance in the.
• 1:54:43
  Speaker A: Rain, but yes, singing in the rain. So every month we do add a little bonus episode that'll be out for the $5 patrons. And at the $15 a month level, you get access to priority recommendations or requests whatever you want to call it. And this one was a patron request from Matilde. There you go. Thank you, Matilda. Very fascinating episode. Really enjoyed talking about secretary, but now it's time for Katie's final verdict.
• 1:55:07
  Speaker B: Now, are you ready for your sentence? Sentence? But there must be a verdict first. Sentence first, verdict afterwards. This is an interesting comparison because these two narratives aren't just different, they are radically different. I mentioned in the prequel episode that the author of the short story, Mary Gateskill, revisited it and wrote an alternate version. Maybe it sounded by the description like it was more of a sequel, but like alternate version following the Metoo movement. But having read now the original 1988 version, I'm almost kind of not sure why she felt the need.
• 1:55:53
  Speaker A: I'm just real quick, want to chime in? Based on what you've described, I thought the same thing when after we had talked about that in the prequel episode, and then hearing you talk about it, I was like, it sounds like she.
• 1:56:00
  Speaker B: Already sounds like it was very in line with what the MeToo movement was about. So, Secretary, the short story is a fascinating exploration of the complicated feelings that can arise from experiencing sexual assault, particularly when those feelings include arousal. The story even ends with a journalist calling the narrator to discuss her former boss, who is now running for a local government position. It feels very in line with, again, with what the metoo movement was about. The movie, on the other hand, is much closer to being a romantic comedy, albeit a unique romantic comedy. While the basic premise and the inciting incident are the same as they are in the short story, that is really where the similarities end. I enjoyed the short story, I liked the prose, I liked the thematic exploration, and I liked its overall trajectory. But I will say that in 2024, it wasn't really bringing anything new to the table in terms of the type of story that it is. And I'll be first to admit that my opinions on secretary the movie might be colored by having recently done a deep dive into the world of 50 Shades of Gray, but I thought that its exploration of a bdsm relationship was really candid and sympathetic, and I enjoyed its take on the two main characters, their issues, and how they're able to help each other grapple with those issues. In this case, I would consider both the short story and the movie to be well worth your time with the addendum of appropriate content warnings. But I thought that the movie brought a little more for me to chew on to the table, and for that reason, I'm giving this one to the movie.
• 1:57:58
  Speaker A: There you go. Would you say it brought four peas to the table for you to choose.
• 1:58:02
  Speaker B: I would say it did. Four peas and as much ice cream as I could eat.
• 1:58:07
  Speaker A: There you go, Katie. What's next?
• 1:58:10
  Speaker B: Up next, we are currently running our March Madness bracket over on all of our social media platform except for Goodreads because they don't have any kind of function for that on Goodreads because Goodreads kind of sucks as a social media platform.
• 1:58:29
  Speaker A: Nico, just tell us which one you want to vote for. Yeah, you're like our one Goodreads person, so you can just chime in, but.
• 1:58:37
  Speaker B: We are going to be talking about Alice's adventures in Wonderland and also Alice through the looking glass.
• 1:58:46
  Speaker A: Okay.
• 1:58:47
  Speaker B: I decided to just go ahead and read both. They're not very long. It's like between two and 300 pages altogether. And most adaptations pull elements from both of them. Pick and choose, cherry pick. So we are running a bracket. We have, I believe, twelve different movie adaptations of Alice in Wonderland. And we're asking you guys to vote yes.
• 1:59:15
  Speaker A: As you're hearing this, the first round is done for all of them, I think. Yeah, but you can still vote for the second round and then the ultimate winner.
• 1:59:23
  Speaker B: That's where it gets interesting anyways, because.
• 1:59:25
  Speaker A: A lot of times the first rounds are movies people haven't heard of or don't care about. And generally the way we do it is we give buys to the more popular ones. So if you're hearing this on the day it comes out, there's still several rounds for you to vote in. So make sure you head over to any of the social media platforms and vote for what you want us to talk about because we will be covering that next month.
• 1:59:44
  Speaker B: And those polls are quick, 24 hours each, so that we can get through this. But, yeah, you have Facebook, Twitter threads, Instagram, and Patreon. Patreon. Any of those places.
• 2:00:00
  Speaker A: There you go. That's it. Go ahead and vote in the Alice in Wonderland March Madness bracket and then join us back here next week where we will announce our winner. Right, tell you which one we're doing and preview it, as well as hear everything everybody had to say about secretary until that time. Guys, gals on binary pals and everybody else, keep reading books, keep watching movies.
• 2:00:23
  Speaker B: And keep being awesome. It's.