MovieChat Forums > Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989) Discussion > Painfully uninteresting

Painfully uninteresting

posted 18 years ago by b1lskirnir
30 replies | jump to latest

How can a movie with a name like this be one of the most dull scripts ever written? The entire plot is simply a story of a cheating husband and his prude wife who gets into a bizarre situation with her husband's old high school friend and she comes out of her shell and he learns how not to be a total freak and everyone's happy. Wow. And please, someone get this man a good art department and a competent director of photography. Why do people even call this an art film when his shot composition sucks? The entire movie barely has any interesting photography, which would really help to maybe take our attention away from the banality of the dialogue.

------------------------------------
Modern Plumbing Studios, est. 2004

[–] simplypm2004 18 years ago

Did you get anything out of it at all?

"The truth does not make it easier to understand." Sophie Zawistowski

[–] b1lskirnir 18 years ago

I learned the importance of creating interesting cinematography. Other than that, no, I did not get a message. There's plenty of other movies about taboos, a lot far more severe than this, that tell better and more interesting stories. I cannot understanding in the slightest why this film gets the praise it does when its no more than the story of a generic extramarital affair.

------------------------------------
Modern Plumbing Studios, est. 2004

[–] simplypm2004 18 years ago

Hhmmmnn.

"The truth does not make it easier to understand." Sophie Zawistowski

[–] Radiant_Rose 17 years ago

Its no more than the story of a generic extramarital affair.

---
Sorry, but if you think it is merely about John cheating on Ann with her sister, then you have missed a lot. For a start, how can you say it is about nothing more than that when the central character is not physically involved in the marriage or the affair?
----------------------
Don't dream it, be it.

[–] Radiant_Rose 18 years ago

I can sympathise up to a point, I was initially disappointed by this. I would have given it 3 stars out of 5. Now, however, I would award it 5.

For a start, how many films can you think of where the hero is jobless and impotent but not presented as depressed or a loser? And the idea that watching pornography could be more soul-destroying than appearing in it? And indeed the notion that appearing in porn could be life-enhancing for a woman? Not a popular notion at the time, as I recall.

----------------------
Don't dream it, be it.

[–] simplypm2004 18 years ago

Ms Rose,

How do you define (or characterize) "pornography"?

Forget about World Peace.
Visualize using your turn signal.

[–] Radiant_Rose 17 years ago

I am defining Cynthia masturbating on camera as "pornographic".

I would not define anything in the actual film itself as porn. Had there been an actual scene where we, the viewer, had watched Laura San Giacomo taking off her clothes and masturbating, I would have defined that as pornography.

Perhaps my statement needs to be qualified somewhat.

----------------------
Don't dream it, be it.

[–] indymovies 17 years ago

I don't quite understand what you're saying, Rose.

Graham has videos of women talking about their sexual experiences - not doing anything. If we had seen exactly what Graham sees to turn him on I wouldn't consider it pornography.

Also you say that if we,the viewers, had watched Laura San Giacomo taking off her clothes and masturbating you would have defined that as pornography but when Maggie Gyllenhaal 'masturbates' in Secretary would you call that pornography? Or do you mean if San Giacomo had done it for real?

Actually I'm not sure what is pornography. Can anyone define it?

[–] Radiant_Rose 17 years ago

I agree, pornography is hard to define. I was once at a Green Party conference where there was a workshop on whether to set up a Policy Working Group on Pornography. Everyone agreed that erotica was good and pornography was very bad. Nobody quite knew how to define the difference. So nothing happened.

As I recall, all the women spoke, but some of them also masturbated.

Cynthia was one of those who chose to undress (Graham notes the fact that she is "not wearing any underwear", a line I find very erotic for reasons that are hard to define) and then to masturbate. During the conversation with Ann, Cynthia makes it clear that someone did something to someone, and that Cynthia was both the doer and the recipient. Hence, Cynthia was masturbating.

Laura San Giacomo, by contrast with the character she played so well, merely did the voiceover. For all I know, she could have been dressed up as an Inuit in a big coat with only her face showing when she recorded the lines in question. Okay, I suspect not, as the scriptbook by Steven Soderbergh has photos with captions making it clear that it was blooming hot when they were filming. But the Inuit thing is a metaphor.

I don't think that Maggie Gyllenhaal's masturbation scenes in Secretary count as porn. I would class them as porn if she had removed her knickers and we, the viewers, had actually seen her hand make contact with her sexual organs. I think it would have counted as porn if we had seen a body double's hand make contact with her (the body double's) sexual organs. Or if they had used two separate body doubles pretending to be Lee!

I don't know if the term "underwear" includes bra in this context or if Graham said "underwear" but merely meant "knickers", sorry, "panties". However, we know that Graham taped Cynthia masturbating and that her lack of knickers/panties was visible to him. I think that probably counts as soft porn.

The point is that Cynthia felt turned on and not remotely exploited or harmed in anyway by letting Graham see her hand/hands in contact with her sexual organs, and by letting him tape this for future viewing in private.

However, Graham was, on some level, harmed by his obsession with watching the tapes rather than trying to interact with actual living women. I say "women" rather than people because he seems to have decided he is straight. Although his comments about "in the presence of any other person" (not "in the presence of a woman") and "I prefer taping women" suggest he may have "experimented".

----------------------
Don't dream it, be it.

[–] indymovies 17 years ago

My guy thinks the only difference is that erotica is produced artistically and often expensively while pornography definitely is not. Otherwise essentially no difference.

If the viewer doesn't see anything (as was the case in the scene with Graham and Cynthia) I feel that it doesn't rate as any kind of porn. Also the scenes between John and Cynthia made you feel the sexual excitement but you really didn't see anything. The sex scenes in 'Crash' were much more explicit but the effect such scenes usually have on me is to wonder how the actors are able to simulate passion surrounded by all the people connected with the actual filming.

It's a fascinating subject - erotica or pornography. We should put it on the 'Secretary' board and see what others think.

[–] Radiant_Rose 17 years ago

If the viewer doesn't see anything (as was the case in the scene with Graham and Cynthia) I feel that it doesn't rate as any kind of porn.
---
I agree!

I think sex, lies and videotape demonstrates that a film can convey a lot of sexual excitement without anyone having to do nudity if they don't want. Apparently, Steve Soderbergh was pressurised by a distributor to include more nudity, but MacDowell and San Giacomo refused. As they had every right to do if they didn't agree to it at the start.

That doesn't explain the lack of sex scenes, since San Giacomo and Gallagher and Spader have not been reluctant to feign sex in other films. I can't remember about MacDowell, though someone said she and Hugh Grant feigned sex in Four Weddings.

There are only a few films where I think it added to the film that someone was totally naked: in Secretary, Lee's nudity was about how she felt about her body, and in both The Crying Game and Boys Don't Cry it was quite important to see for oneself that the character was not the gender we had been led to believer.
----------------------
Don't dream it, be it.

[–] simplypm2004 17 years ago

In considering the matter, I have come to think that if you attempt to characterize the art form according to its intended use, the true nature of the film is discovered. If the filmmaker crafts the film with the intention that it should be a stimulus for sexual arousal as it's principal objective, then it is pornography. If for example, the intention is to present the human body (or form) as an object or study in beauty it is not. Or again, the artist may have another agenda, such as a political or social message in mind. In these cases, as well, I wouldn't consider it pornography. (What the end user does with the art doesn't characterize the art, but the user. A dog can find excitement in a pant-covered leg.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-bFpYQzXE

[–] scarymonster33 17 years ago

I wouldn't call it porn - it's a movie about sex (amongst other things), not a sex movie. Still a sexy movie though...am I making sense?!? I've confused myself here ;OS

[–] simplypm2004 17 years ago

You are positively scary.

(PRN) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-bFpYQzXE

[–] Radiant_Rose 17 years ago

Scary monsters should be scary! Someone once started a post called "Radiant Rose" and their post just read, "You scare me".

Now, that was a trifle disconcerting.

----------------------
This is nicebat, my cyberpet.

[–] scarymonster33 17 years ago

lol I try my best to live up to the name ;o)

[–] simplypm2004 17 years ago

It'll get worse for sure when you try to top the cyberbat.

(PRN) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-bFpYQzXE

[–] Radiant_Rose 17 years ago

Evil9 is also interesting.

I think he may be nicebat's Evil Twin.

My sister has identical twins, and I am allowed to make jokes about training them to say, "It was not me, it was my evil twin". I am, however, utterly banned from making jokes about their being clones, although, technically, they sort of are.

----------------------
This is nicebat, my cyberpet.

[–] simplypm2004 17 years ago

Sort of like Ann and Cynthia?

(PRN) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-bFpYQzXE

[–] Radiant_Rose 17 years ago

If they were twins, Ann would definitely see herself as the good one! But I like Cynthia.
----------------------
This is nicebat, my cyberpet.

[–] simplypm2004 17 years ago

Good is always hotter, the road down is where all the fun lies!

(PRN) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-bFpYQzXE

[–] Howlin Wolf 17 years ago

I can't remember about MacDowell, though someone said she and Hugh Grant feigned sex in Four Weddings.

... They did, but with no nudity, so it's in the same sort of league as Sex, Lies... on that score.

I'm gonna take this itty-bitty site by storm... I'm just gettin' warm.

[–] Howlin Wolf 17 years ago

I was once at a Green Party conference where there was a workshop on whether to set up a Policy Working Group on Pornography. Everyone agreed that erotica was good and pornography was very bad. Nobody quite knew how to define the difference. So nothing happened.

As I recall, all the women spoke, but some of them also masturbated.

... Hehehe, only joking!

I'm gonna take this itty-bitty site by storm... I'm just gettin' warm.

[–] Howlin Wolf 17 years ago

'Pornography' (in the cases of most men, at least!) is about what is seen... So if it's simulated or done offscreen - as is assumed to be the case with both Maggie and Laura - then it don't count, in my view... !

I'm gonna take this itty-bitty site by storm... I'm just gettin' warm.

[–] indymovies 17 years ago

There's a thread on the Secetary board - Pornography or Erotica?

[–] bmusler-1 17 years ago

"Actually I'm not sure what is pornography. Can anyone define it?"

The Supreme Court had a little trouble with that one. Was is Brandeis that said "I know it when I see it?" Profound stuff. ;-)

[–] indymovies 17 years ago

I'm not sure anyone can. There's been a great deal of discussion on the Secretaryboard on that very subject but without any real resolution.

Probably it's a case of "If I like it, it erotica. If you like it, it's pornography"

[–] moo6cow2 17 years ago

I just want a lot of yall to realize that this was Steven's first REAL movie. It was a truly LOW (and I MEAN LOW) budget movie that a lot of what you don't understand is that with the budget he had, he really couldn't portray everything to his exact desire. Trust me. I know.

i wanna drive a zamboni

[–] Radiant_Rose 17 years ago

What is he on record as saying that he wished to portray (apart from being asked for more female nudity by distributors after casting actresses who didn't want to be more nude)?????????????????????
----------------------

Nicebat and I had to party.

[–] simplypm2004 17 years ago

Here's a cut n' paste:

In considering the matter, I have come to think that if you attempt to characterize the art form according to its intended use, the true nature of the film is discovered. If the filmmaker crafts the film with the intention that it should be a stimulus for sexual arousal as it's principal objective, then it is pornography. If for example, the intention is to present the human body (or form) as an object or study in beauty it is not. Or again, the artist may have another agenda, such as a political or social message in mind. In these cases, as well, I wouldn't consider it pornography. (What the end user does with the art doesn't characterize the art, but the user. A dog can find excitement in a pant-covered leg.)

(PRN) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-bFpYQzXE