The controversy isn't about the sex. Why don't you read things and not just post things your brain vomits? Geez Louis. People, most of them people who also right erotica, have a problem with the man's behavior outside of the bedroom and the female character being a brainless twit. But Again you haven't read the book or seen the movie so this is all assumption isn't it? What's that saying about people that assume?
If you think my problem with the movie is sex then why wouldn't I have the same problem with movies like Short Bus, Nymphomaniac, AntiChrist or Blue is the Warmest Color? Those movies are far more sexually graphic than anything happening in this movie.
Again you can continue to derail every single conversation that has any chance of being smart or interesting by continuing to pull from every single direction possible in the off chance that one is a hit and you end up accidentally making a valid point.
Your example is exactly what I'm talking about. What in the world does that scenario have to do with what I find problematic with the movie? Do you even know what I find what it is I find problematic with it?
You want it to be sex, so you, as always, made it what you assumed it was about instead of actually reading and comprehending.
Why am I having such a feeling of déjà vu?
Just finished watching it - I really shouldn't have used the "Saw" analogy at all, since this movie is closer to "Leave it to Beaver" than "Saw". This still illustrates my point though - how a movie with graphic torture, kidnapping, etc generates less controversy than a movie with light bondage scenes.
Overall this movie was a fairly run-of-the-mill film with the only twist being the S&M kink, which was extremely tame, and the guy's mild obsession. Not to mention that everything which happened in the film was consensual, there was no 'abuse' whatsoever outside of consensual S&M (the "contract" wasn't even legally binding, it was done just for legal affirmation that it was consensual which made perfect sense in the context of the film, and the lead actor's status as a prominent billionaire).
As far as the objection to the "guy's behavior" goes - that's pretty unfounded given that the film was intended to be about a guy with a mildly dysfunctional sexual preference. It'd be like watching a horror film and then getting "shocked and offended" when people get killed. By that standard no one should watch anything other than "Andy Griffith Show" reruns on TV Land - what a boring reality that would be.
As far as the girl being a "brainless twit" - I disagree, I think she was pretty well acted - I thought of her character as a pretty nice and genuine girl, and given her portrayal as a young recent college grad who'd never had a boyfriend before, I'd say any naivete on her part was pretty accurate to many young people in real life. Anyone who can't empathize just doesn't have a heart, or never had a normal childhood. Or they're just jealous because they don't get attention from attractive billionaires, hah :P
If the objection is simply to an allegedly "brainless character" being in a film at all, even when it's fitting (simply because said brainless character has a vagina) - well 10 bucks says the same PC gestapo doesn't have a problem with brainless male characters in films like The Hangover, or in awful sitcoms like "Friends", "Big Bang Theory", "Everybody Loves Raymond", etc (while I'm on it, the lead character in "Everybody Loves Raymond" is way more of a dysfunctional and exploitative character than the dude in this film is, but that's another rant).
I don't see any intellectually honest thought behind this 'controversy'.
It's about a girl who becomes infatuated with a guy who turns out to be a psychopathic murderer.
Nope, this is a complete lie, sorry. The character is never a murderer; I also read the cliff-notes for the 2 sequels and he never commits a murder in those books either
In fact I took your word for it before watching the film (which is why I used the "Saw" analogy) and now I wish i hadn't. Everyday I learn more and more not to believe everything I read on the internet.
My impression with BDSM is that it's roleplay, so they have brief moments when they get to play master and slave and it's enjoyable because it's something that they wouldn't do every day. Whereas Christian is permenantly controlling so it's not exactly roleplay- it's real.
That's incorrect - the BDSM itself is unrelated to obsessive behavior outside of that context - all of the BDSM in the film is entirely consensual; Christian's obsessive attitude toward her is a separate issue, and could easily exist in a non-BDSM relationship as well.