MovieChat Forums > Disclosure (1994) Discussion > was the harassment part even needed?

was the harassment part even needed?

posted 13 years ago by stazza
9 replies | jump to latest

I love this movie. But upon watching it again, I ask myself, "Is the whole subplot part about the sexual harassment even needed for this plot?" I don't think it really is. I understand the tie in of her being his new boss, and the inequality of men and women and her turning the table on him to get him removed, but the entire segment of the harassment law suit, laywers all the way through to the phone call that recorded everything, could have been replaced with a "You didn't file this report on time, and showed up to the meeting late, there fore I need to get rid of you." I don't mind the story AS IS and enjoy the whole movie, but kinda don't see how the harassment, and pseudo rape part REALLY supports the main agenda of the story: her screwing him out of a job with sabotage.
How is the sex stuff required for this story? Even the ending had nothing to do with it.
Opinions on this?

[–] Disclosuredude 13 years ago

It is the way the late Michael Crichton wrote the book. His main concern was his focus on the "role-reversing sexual harrassment" theme throughout, although it does seem like a sub-plot in the movie. True, you could have left out the sexual harrassment stuff and made a great movie just based on the corporate BS, infighting, & deceit, but you have to admit, the sexual harrassment made the movie all the more interesting. This movie had a lot of stuff going on, including fast moving dialogues, inuendos, & comments. I had to watch it several times to pick-up on lots of stuff I missed the first time.

Watch your back, trust no one, stay one step ahead, always have a backup!

[–] itsmesowhatofit 13 years ago

You Know, married or not, if a hot chick like that initiated something on me, I would have done her five ways to Sunday and got myself a raise..!

[–] madnesspersonified 13 years ago

Watching that scene on the TV at the moment and it's fair to say that she'd be pretty hard to say no to!

---------------------------------------

born slippy

[–] Varekai 12 years ago

So you're willing to sleep your way to the top, progress!

Chase the morning
Yield for nothing
Trust your heart

[–] stazza 13 years ago

hey I just read your back story from the book in another thread. I think that sort of explained why the sex harassment is in the movie, even though the movie didn't cover the purpose well enough. it's a great story and movie, and I enjoy where they go with the sex harassment stuff, but it seemed sort of sub plot-ish while watching. Now, with the backstory of Meredith climbing the ladder, cutting costs and pinning in on him, makes the movie make a little more sense in that. Thanks!

[–] treach33 9 years ago

Short answer OP:

For the overall plot and message of the movie?, No!

To sell tickets?, Yes!

~What if this is as good as it gets?!~

[–] puirt-a-beul 9 years ago

That was pretty much Michael Crichton's thing, though -- finding developments in technology and society that he found intriguing/promising/concerning, and weaving a story around them that set them up to pay off against each other. It's one of the main reasons I enjoy his books.

In this story, I would say part of his interest was the sexual empowerment of women, and also its dark side: women's ability to misuse that power just as much as any man does. It was a shortcoming of the film, I think, that it let that subplot overpower the rest of the story; although it was a major dilemma for Tom, it was really just the way Meredith and Garvin chose to get at him.

I personally find it a bit problematic to have Garvin knowingly complicit in a set-up for sexual harrassment, and yet have Stephanie be apparently completely unphased by that. What were Crichton/Levinson saying? That it was "just business"? That because women are "only" doing what (some) men also do, that makes it okay for them?

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] treach33 8 years ago

You raise some really good points. I'm reminded of a quote by George Carlin where he talks about how women ended up being just as a bad as men when given the opportunity and the power to make a difference, even going as far as to copy men right down to the way they dress by wearing pantsuits, lol. This was quite disappointing to him and to me as well. I think Catherine Alvarez' quote also summed up this point nicely. "What you have proven Ms. Johnson is that a woman in power can be every bit as abusive as a man"

~What if this is as good as it gets?!~

[–] al666940-3 7 years ago

The movie serves 2 purposes:
- To thrill us with a clever plot about office machinations
- To showcase the inconvenient truth about sexual harassment: it's about POWER, not GENDER. Meaning women, when in power, are just as capable of doing it as men (something taboo back then, but proven true with time as more and more women get into positions of power).