Now, as an avowed feminist and Christian I know I may be an odd choice to be writing a blog defending Fifty Shades and I genuinely didn’t think I’d be bothered enough but then, of course, the articles denouncing it as abuse, and encouraging people to boycott it did the rounds and I got pissed off, again. So here I am.
I have read all the books (including the one from Grey’s perspective which, being less whiny, is my fave) but I wasn’t sure about seeing the films for some of the same reasons people have given in their condemnatory articles: unhealthy example of a relationship, perpetuating the hyper-sexualisation already dominating our culture (pun intended), maybe negatively influencing my own sexual ideas and, maybe most importantly, the crappy dialogue. But I caved. Because I love dramatic love stories with happy endings (no pun intended-actually, I’ll stop saying when puns are/aren’t intended because practically anything could be a pun given how sexually creative they are!!). And just as with Twilight, the simplistic writing, bad relationship example, and pathetic heroine still grabbed me because I was hooked on the love story (I’m ridiculous, I know!).
So here’re my thoughts re Fifty Shades. Firstly, it is NOT ABUSE. It is NOT un-consensual. For starters, he gives her a bloomin contract with a buffet-list of sexual proclivities from which she chooses what she’s up for and what are her definite no nos. Furthermore, it’s her who chooses what’s she’s up for and what’s off the table, and whenever she uses her safe words or says no it’s a NO. That’s gotta be the most consensual, communicative start to a sexual relationship ever. Yes, he IS demanding, controlling, and domineering -he tells her this in their sex-contract-meeting so it’s not a surprise. And yet, in book/film two they only go into the playroom or do any kind of BDSM when she initiates it; we see her saying No, arguing, and drawing boundaries. Yes, hers are looser than mine would be but she’s hardly the first pathetic female lead…she’d be in good company drinking and whining with Carrie from Sex and the City, Bridget Jones, or, of course, Bella from Twilight-on whom she’s based.
So, sexually, there’s no abuse. In fact, I commend the latest film for the two scenes of cunnilingus-seeing a woman’s pleasure prioritised in a film is so rare, and to show this ‘strong’ man doing it can surely only have a good effect on dismantling the idea that it’s unmanly, so well done Fifty!
Image: Happy Naila Edits
As for their emotional relationship, my goodness is it unhealthy but, to me…that is as someone who sadly knows women who have been abused in varying ways…it is not abusive. Yes, he’s an over-protective control freak and she’s insipid. This film, Fifty Shades Darker, actually goes a long way to improve things. In the books, they’re both in need of serious therapy (which he’s getting) but this film makes Ana’s character more assertive, likeable and generally less pathetic and wet (ok, that pun was unintended but it’s funny so hey, it stays). When Ana wants to say No or challenge him (cue the movie hairdresser scene), she does. And in the film her times of compromise are clearly through conversation and negotiation; even though I, as a strong-willed woman would have definitely not caved where she does (cut to NY trip convo), she isn’t emotionally manipulated or dominated but rather weighs up the options and makes a choice that suits her best. Sounds rather feminist to me. Of course, the reasons she makes the choices she does are because a) she’s in love for the first time and we are all a little pathetic when those hormones are flying. b) she has lowwww self-esteem but again, I know real life women-and plenty of fictional ones-who seek their affirmation from a man and to give Christian Grey his credit, he’s always encouraging her that’s he’s capable, intelligent, beautiful and worthy of his affections when she asks stupid, doe-eyed questions like ‘why would you want me?’
So no, Anastasia Steele is not up for the best Feminist Icon in Fiction award, nor is Christian Grey Mr ‘I Love to Compromise’. But the film is far better than the book re showing her as a more assertive, confident, independent young woman growing in her career and love life and skin. So watch it or don’t. But let’s not condemn it when we don’t decry the same pathetic characters in other movies, and let’s definitely not decry ‘abuse’ when there are so many real women (& men) who are being abused.
OK, I have been looking forward to today for months: today is *the day* that Me Before You is released. And what a hoo ha there is about it! So I feel the need to wade into the debate-well attack-on the film. I’ve read the book-unlike many who are commenting & even protesting, ugh! To be more precise, I actually stayed up until 9am in the morning to finish it and then re-read it the same week.
And it definitely is *not* an ‘anti-disability’ book. Not a ‘snuff movie’ (Lol). Not a pro-euthanasia book. And not an anti-euthanasia one. These labels and criticisms miss the amazing depth and range of this story:
It is a story about love-of self and life and others.
It is about freedom-from fear, from shame, from doubt.
It is about class and hardship.
It is about family.
It is about hope.
It is about dreams and loss.
And it is about disability and euthanasia.
Yes, the chap (SPOILER alert!!!) wants to be euthanised. But that’s not making a judgement that all disabled people want to die, should want to die or should simply be killed without choice (yep, some ejits are actually suggesting that’s the film’s message!).
(Hmm, only willfully offended people could take that message)
It’s saying this particular character wants to. And that is his story and his choice. And as with all euthanasia choices it is based on both his physical condition and his personality.
Physically he is stuck. He’s not just ‘in a wheelchair’, he’s a quadriplegic: he can move one finger and his neck. A little. While that is tragic and horrid, it is something many people accept and live with and are happy in spite of-hence they aren’t asking for euthanasia. But he is not able, or not willing, to live with it. Again: it’s his story not all disabled people’s.
He’s also in recurring, agonising pain. I know pain. I am in pain every day, all day. And anyone who has chronic pain and says they haven’t even passingly thought about death is lying (or has amazing drugs!). Unlike Will, however, when my pain is bad I can get up, I can move position, take a bath, take meds, go to sleep, drink some wine, or watch some distracting Grey’s Anatomy! Whereas he is stuck, immobilised with searing pains, oh and suffers frequent pneumonia, and also night terrors.
Again, many people accept that and live with it and are happy in spite of this. I hope I would if it were me, but I do not know. What we readers know is that He Is Not.
And that’s where character comes in: he says, painfully, ‘I know I could have a good life with you, even a great life’ (paraphrasing from memory so excuse me if not exact). But ‘I am not a man who accepts’. He will not adapt, accept and press on to design a new, adapted life-like the many happy or contented quadriplegic people also mentioned in the book. He wants HIS old life back. His active, adventurous, full, independent, busy life. And if he can’t have it he doesn’t want the life he’s stuck with. So he wants to un-stick himself and be killed (because he can’t do it for himself).
That is not anti-disability. It is the story of many chronically ill or disabled people. Thankfully not all and not most. But it’s valid and real and important and needs to be told. SO let’s stop criticising and just start listening to these sad but different and valid views. (Oh, and I promise I’m not just saying this because Sam Claflin is in the film 😉 )