Brilliant! A Masterpiece!

I think it is a masterpiece of pretentiousness. And weak acting.

I surprisingly really liked this. I put off watching it for and the longest time and thought it would be terrible, but it turned out pretty well!

why are dramatic development and tension necessary?

"it didn't have much in the way of "harmonic movement", that is, dramatic development or tension."

The mechanical methods of this affectless pro, Chelsea, were mirrored by the mechancial 'harmonic movements' in the script; i.e., the crises, including the break-up, the stand-up, the bad review; the audience-wakening pulp-fiction-time-play, etc.

Excellent, interesting little film, reminiscent in its societal criticism of Harron's masterpiece American Psycho....

Marina Ann Hantzis is a real person. She created a persona called "Sasha Grey", who could be considered a part of Ms. Hantzis' fantasies and ideas that she delivers to the adult film audience. "It's all an extension of who I am.", she says in the L.A. Times. Sasha Grey makes porn, but Ms. Hantzis made a movie called "The Girlfriend Experience". The character in the film is named Chelsea, but it is in fact just a different facet of the Sasha Grey persona. Ms. Hantzis simply took a prepared character and applied it in another film in which she wasn't depicting sexual acts on camera. So when the criticism is leveled that Sasha Grey is merely playing herself, that is not a criticism- it's simply an observation of fact. The intended criticism should read that Marina Ann Hantzis cannot act- yet anyone that has seen her in both adult films and "straight" cinema will tell you that is not the case.

As for the film, it tries too hard to be edgy in it's style, and not hard enough in the content (despite the subject matter). The writing is weak, the entire film seems like they lost the Final Draft in a laptop explosion and had to go with an earlier, unpolished version. Nevertheless, the willingness to produce a film that is barely an hour long is quite ballsy, and the pacing and visual conception are top-notch. Bottom line, Ms. Hantzis CAN act, even if she is(for now at least) a one-trick pony in the Sasha Grey persona; and Soberberg again shoots a film of compelling visuals that are at times mesmerizing, hypnotic, and quite beautiful. Unfortunately, wind chimes can be mesmerizing, hypnotic, and quite beautiful- but that doesn't make them good films, either.

Magnificent B'stard

They say you're judged by the strength of your enemies.

Sounds like HowardRoarkII actually understood the film. I enjoyed this film and was captivated from the beginning. I loved the way the music or sound effects actually were part of something happening in the film. I also can't believe the violent criticisms of Sasha's performance from members on this board. I am sure they wouldn't be as harsh if they did not know her background. She did a fine job.

Far from a masterpiece, however I found myself interested as if it was a reality show, but actually enjoying it a little, OK the character study didn't really delve beneath the surface, but I think its something that should be looked at as a piece of art, for its creative merit, its not a film made in the conventional manor.

Overall I think its a good choice of film for Sasha, I don't think she is mainstream acting material based on what she has done in the past, I cant see her being accepted by the general viewing public, always having her past looming, but I do believe she could become a cult star in her own right, starring in films with a similar direction.

"I can go out on a limb and say that most of the people who watched and liked this were Soderbergh fans, or rather fanboys"

I don't particularly like soderberghs work but i to some extent i do agree with the OP:

It wasn't a masterpiece per se but it really was a truly great film that left quite an impression on me. Especially (and as said by others in this thread before) for its social criticism.



When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk - Il cattivo.

"a 1xxx$ call girl gets tricked by some forum admin who lives with his dad, lol?! "

Excellent point. Thought Soderbergh's intro to this guy brilliantly funny: opening door felt like entry to chamber of doom -- which it turned out to be for Chelsea.

To keep the ball rolling, I must side with your opinion on this one.

This is the second movie I've watched this year, which left me questioning whether I was missing something and I had just actually watched a masterpiece, or that the movie was really what I felt it was - pretentious, boring and not that good overall.

I forgot what was the other movie (probably a Cronenberg feature), as it obviously had no impact on me, but I do remember that, right after I had watched it, I came to forums and reviews looking for this "something" I could have missed or not understood, which would make it an at least good movie, instead of a pretentious waste of time.

Then, like now, I read comments from people that liked it, arguing similarly:

1- Fans of action movies and today's over-the-top Hollywood blockbusters are unable to see beauty in cinema as Art, rather than Entertainment.
2- The boredom you feel while watching it, or the mechanical emotions of the characters (or complete lack of perceivable emotions) are on purpose, meant to cause on the spectator the same sense of boredom experienced by the characters.
3- Not all stories told have to be epics, or not all movies being made have to leave a lasting impression on viewers.

My counter-arguments are:
1- I completely agree with the premise of the statement, but I don't think it applies here. A lot of people think Gladiator is one of the best movies ever made. While I concede that it was great on many technical aspects, the storyline, the characters and the whole premise is, to me, nearly as dumb as those on Battleship (that one with Rihanna). But these would be logical fallacies to both imply that every movie which is not ostensibly Entertainment is ipso facto Artistic Cinema, and also that every movie made with an artsy mindset is automatically a good one. Let's not forget Soderbergh has no beef against Entertainment cinema - much to the contrary. Lars von Trier and Wes Anderson are good examples that come to my mind when I think of directors that were able to make both terribly good and terribly bad Artistic cinema.
2- If that is the truth, that the filmmakers wanted to convey the sense of boredom and lack of emotions of their characters, well... mission accomplished! I live quite a uneventful life (and I like it this way), so I wouldn't mind seeing some twists and turns when I watch a movie. Then again, other filmmakers have managed to do the exact same thing, i.e. transport the characters' emotions (or lack thereof) to the audiences, while still delivering great movies. Kubrick would succesfully replicate the mindsets of a paranoid military officer or a tortured prisoner, Hitchcock would lock us up in an apartment for the whole movie to allow us the same sense of desperation of his characters... In other words, it's OK to make us feel like the characters, in this case, bored and emotionless. But that could be done in a way that the movie itself does not end up being boring and emotionless (and I see that, for many people, this movie was neither. It didn't work for me though).
3- Sure, not all movies have to be good. Not all money has to be spent in a responsible way. Not every story has to leave a lasting impression on the people these stories are told to. That's my point (and more importantly, my personal opinion, which I don't want everybody to agree on) - this is not a good movie, and the story is dull. I won't say the money spent on it was wasted, as I believe the change of environment was probably good for Sasha.

I have nothing against Soderbergh, or in favor. I really liked Che: Part One and Traffic, probably as much as I hated Magic Mike and Solaris (even though I love sci-fi). I think pornography and prostitution are fascinating subjects, and we could use some more good movies about them. But since the porn made in the US was never (and still is not) quite as good as the porn made in Italy and France, I think it's likely that great, serious movies about it will probably come from these countries, too.

__________________
Let's all agree to keep signatures apart from text body?