Erick wrote:
@dollMaker:
YOUR REPLY TO MY POST: "And bdsm a suitable replacement for self harm, not. The short story the film is based on, is hardly a fluffy romance, try non consensual abuse in the work place. "
Well, you're right that Mary Gaitskill's story is completely unlike the movie. But the difference between you and me is that I don't much like Gaitskill's writing. So I was very pleased when Erin Cressida Wilson turned Gaitskill's muddled effort into something much better.
It doesn't often happen that movies are better than the literature they come from, but when it does happen, the movies are usually MUCH better. As in this case.
I notice that your lengthy profile is overflowing with venomous remarks about all the people in the world that you deplore and despise and intend to cancel and block and eradicate and annihilate and remove from your life. Best of luck with that. Anyway, I'm sorry for your sake that you missed the point of what was really a very good movie.
Shame you had to make my comment about Secretary having problems and turn it personal, by having ago at me. I am not the only person who has issues with Secretary 'not' being a good bdsm role model film, because its not. Wanking non consensually, for example, on a woman, with out actual consent is sexual assault. So was that cool in the film? Was that a good role model example for safe sane consensual bdsm? No. Are there great bits in it? Yes, its hot in places? Is it a good film to introduce bdsm to vanillas? Not in my opinion. My saying this is not an attack on anyone who likes the film, simply my opinion on the film.
When discussing subjects its not cool to turn it into ad hominem.