An apt way to sum up its reception is to say that it has had huge audiences but bad reviews.
http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/fifty-shades-of-grey-huge-audiences-bad-reviews/2652498.html
Of course, the theaters care more about the former than the latter as perhaps they should. I'm not someone who is so impressed with reviewers and critics myself. It seems that critics-whether it's music, or literature, or movies-have their standards for quality but why their opinions should get such weight and whether they deserve to is another question altogether.
If you eat a meal and enjoy it what does it matter what a food critic says? Ditto with a song or work of literature or a movie.
For my part I find what the critics say sometimes of interest though again, I'm always fascinated by how much of a gulf there is between critics and the public. If the public likes it what do the opinions of snobs matter?
As for 50 Shades I saw it with my buddy yesterday. Like this post's title says, it wasn't bad but it seems to me it could have been better, should have been better. So maybe the critics have a point in this case.
Don't get me wrong it was enjoyable enough. Yet it seems to me that the movie just nibbles at the edges of what it could have been. The movie seemed very nervous-very little sex or and real iimmersion in BD/SM as seemed to be promised. The ending particularly was just absurdly abrupt.
My friend though did point out that it kind of ended on a reversal for Christian and Anastasia with Christian kind of calling desperately to her 'Anastasia?!' and her coolly answering 'Christian.'
There should be a sequel both because the box office numbers were great and really more needs to be said in this movie. For this reason I'm actually now checking out the book for clues-it's a 3 part sequel.
https://read.amazon.com/?asin=B007SGM084
It seems to me that this story can be taken or understood in many ways but one way of course is through the prism of an age old war, perhaps the oldest war in history of humanity a kind of Ying and Yang of a war between the sexes.
You could argue that Anastasia represents a belief of women in the overwhelming power of Love above all else, that nothing matters more than love, that nothing counts besides it even at all. All you need is love as the Beatles said.
Nothing sounds more wrong to such female sensibility than Christian's announcing of a contract-isn't love supposed to be above any mere rules?
However, if the highest ideal of woman is love what is the highest ideal of the masculine ethic? Perhaps love of power and control?
Christian could be seen as representing control and Anastasia love and what you notice in the movie is that Christian may have been a strange pervert with some shadowy past that accounts for him being '50 shades of fucked up' but he is willing to compromise on his 'rules.' Remember at some point she complains that he wants to change her and he says that it's she who is changing him.
So he is willing to compromise though he can't shake his odd proclivities-the story seems to want to suggest that these proclivities are not 'natural' but the product of his unusual environment.
However, Anastasia is not willing negotiate with him to accommodate him in anyway-for her, with Love,, there is no compromise. She loves him but won't take anything less than everything. Love doesn't negotiate it insists on all or nothing and at the end of the movie nothing is what we get-which makes me wonder what the whole 2 hours watching the film was about.
P.S. I think there's something to this dichotomy of Love vs. Control. It seems to me that the believers in Love find Control simply malign, they feel that it's an awful alien thing that Love of course can conquer as Love can conquer all.
However, those who believe in Control understand things differently. Control is what they love, for them Love and Control are not mutually exclusive substances.
That's the whole point it seems to me of Sadomasochism: within it Love and Control achieve a kind of unholy alliance. Zizek has written a lot about this. I mean one could argue that the more you love someone, the more you will try to control them the more you will want to control them. Love itself is a violent, aggressive impulse and the pristine duality of the believers in Love miss this crucial point.
I mean Anastasia for her part is totally trying to control his behaviour.
Anyway I'm reading the book for clues and looking forward to the sequel which I hope will shed some more light. .
UPDATE: Whether or not I was wholly impressed by 50 Shades or the critics were this young Mexican woman clearly was.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/woman-caught-masturbating-fifty-shades-grey-article-1.2124562
http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/fifty-shades-of-grey-huge-audiences-bad-reviews/2652498.html
Of course, the theaters care more about the former than the latter as perhaps they should. I'm not someone who is so impressed with reviewers and critics myself. It seems that critics-whether it's music, or literature, or movies-have their standards for quality but why their opinions should get such weight and whether they deserve to is another question altogether.
If you eat a meal and enjoy it what does it matter what a food critic says? Ditto with a song or work of literature or a movie.
For my part I find what the critics say sometimes of interest though again, I'm always fascinated by how much of a gulf there is between critics and the public. If the public likes it what do the opinions of snobs matter?
As for 50 Shades I saw it with my buddy yesterday. Like this post's title says, it wasn't bad but it seems to me it could have been better, should have been better. So maybe the critics have a point in this case.
Don't get me wrong it was enjoyable enough. Yet it seems to me that the movie just nibbles at the edges of what it could have been. The movie seemed very nervous-very little sex or and real iimmersion in BD/SM as seemed to be promised. The ending particularly was just absurdly abrupt.
My friend though did point out that it kind of ended on a reversal for Christian and Anastasia with Christian kind of calling desperately to her 'Anastasia?!' and her coolly answering 'Christian.'
There should be a sequel both because the box office numbers were great and really more needs to be said in this movie. For this reason I'm actually now checking out the book for clues-it's a 3 part sequel.
https://read.amazon.com/?asin=B007SGM084
It seems to me that this story can be taken or understood in many ways but one way of course is through the prism of an age old war, perhaps the oldest war in history of humanity a kind of Ying and Yang of a war between the sexes.
You could argue that Anastasia represents a belief of women in the overwhelming power of Love above all else, that nothing matters more than love, that nothing counts besides it even at all. All you need is love as the Beatles said.
Nothing sounds more wrong to such female sensibility than Christian's announcing of a contract-isn't love supposed to be above any mere rules?
However, if the highest ideal of woman is love what is the highest ideal of the masculine ethic? Perhaps love of power and control?
Christian could be seen as representing control and Anastasia love and what you notice in the movie is that Christian may have been a strange pervert with some shadowy past that accounts for him being '50 shades of fucked up' but he is willing to compromise on his 'rules.' Remember at some point she complains that he wants to change her and he says that it's she who is changing him.
So he is willing to compromise though he can't shake his odd proclivities-the story seems to want to suggest that these proclivities are not 'natural' but the product of his unusual environment.
However, Anastasia is not willing negotiate with him to accommodate him in anyway-for her, with Love,, there is no compromise. She loves him but won't take anything less than everything. Love doesn't negotiate it insists on all or nothing and at the end of the movie nothing is what we get-which makes me wonder what the whole 2 hours watching the film was about.
P.S. I think there's something to this dichotomy of Love vs. Control. It seems to me that the believers in Love find Control simply malign, they feel that it's an awful alien thing that Love of course can conquer as Love can conquer all.
However, those who believe in Control understand things differently. Control is what they love, for them Love and Control are not mutually exclusive substances.
That's the whole point it seems to me of Sadomasochism: within it Love and Control achieve a kind of unholy alliance. Zizek has written a lot about this. I mean one could argue that the more you love someone, the more you will try to control them the more you will want to control them. Love itself is a violent, aggressive impulse and the pristine duality of the believers in Love miss this crucial point.
I mean Anastasia for her part is totally trying to control his behaviour.
Anyway I'm reading the book for clues and looking forward to the sequel which I hope will shed some more light. .
UPDATE: Whether or not I was wholly impressed by 50 Shades or the critics were this young Mexican woman clearly was.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/woman-caught-masturbating-fifty-shades-grey-article-1.2124562
No comments:
Post a Comment