‘50 Shades of Grey’ movie the wrong kind of fantasy

The '50 Shades of Grey' movie is the wrong kind of fantasy, says Suzanne Harrington.

THE two reactions to the forthcoming movie Fifty Shades of Grey seem to involve either (a) swooning or (b) tutting. The swooning is by all the overheated lady magazines keen to ride its mummy porn coat-tails, and the tutting from those disapproving commentators who think the whole thing is a bit, well, unfeminist.

And here’s (c): meh. Meh because the story is neither one thing or another. Meh because it is such a missed opportunity for something genuinely hot — it is too Mills & Boone to be properly erotic, yet too falsely representative of the true nature of submission and domination to give an accurate portrayal of this most misunderstood psychosexual dynamic. It’s just too Hollywood to be any good. Cinderella in a blindfold. As if.

The book, despite being the biggest seller in the history of the universe, is pretty much unreadable. Not the idea, but the delivery. Worst premise ever, written in the worst prose ever. You want sub/dom erotica, 50 Shades should not be your go-to book — but if you are a newbie, or just BDSM-curious, then perhaps launching straight into Pauline Reage’s Story of O might be a bit too much, and God forbid you cut your teeth on De Sade. But seriously, for those who find the idea of submission and domination interesting and exciting — and there are clearly millions who do, hence the exploding bank balance of 50 Shades author EL James, do you really think this book bears any relation to the real thing?

And soon the 21-year-old student and the 27-year-old billionaire will be portrayed on the big screen... First, they are the wrong age. Twenty-somethings are not the typical demographic in the world of BDSM — people are generally older, more experienced, more confident, more self-assured. But do we really want to watch the middle aged playing with spreader bars? Of course not — we are too conditioned to fetishise youth.

Secondly, the idea that erotic submission/domination is unfeminist is a bit like saying that rain is a bit wet. Of course it is. All of human sexuality is about pretending to be someone — or if you are really kinky, something other than what you are. Sometimes this includes behaviour that, if it is occurring outside of the erotic arena, you would press charges for assault. The key words within this private arena are safe, sane and consensual. The submissive is the real boss, with every aspect of play pre-discussed and limits respected. The rest is fantasy. Also, the unfeminist argument applies only when the woman is submissive; what if it is the man who enjoys being dominated?

Many things are unfeminist — the gender pay gap, unequal division of domestic labour, lack of affordable childcare, cyber-sexism, I could go on, but erotic play is not one of them. To confuse the healthy acting out of private erotic desire with the oppression of women is to miss the point entirely.

All around us is evidence of the objectification of women, from Rihanna videos to car adverts. Lumping BDSM erotica in with this as unfeminist is, in my view, missing the point entirely — women (and men) who engage in this kind of sexual play are the most liberated of all.

Which has very little to do with the ersatz sadomasochism offered by 50 Shades. This is a fairy story, like Pretty Woman with added riding crops. Its success points not at the decline of feminism, but in the strong desire in women to explore a sexuality that colours outside the lines; a taste for tutti frutti, rather than always choosing vanilla. In the words of one online submissive woman, “Forget the roses, I want the thorns!”

Unfortunately, the 50 Shades movie is not the vehicle to satisfy this curiosity in any meaningful way. It is standard issue romance, unrealistic and as unpleasantly consumerist as the awful Sex & The City movies, but without the snappy dialogue. As a sexual fantasy, it sucks. Women need helicopters and billionaires to turn them on? Do us a favour.

What is most offensive about 50 Shades is its safeness. It is utterly conventional in its soft focus fantasy. Mainstream movies that tackle this area of human sexuality rarely get it right. The Secretary unhelpfully linked female submission with self-harming, but this latest offering is off the chart in its naffness, its obviousness, and its irrelevance. That it will be a giant hit is inevitable, but if you are genuinely interested in exploring powerplay within the human sexual psyche, don’t expect it in your local multiplex watching some glossy Hollywood kids hamming it up.