You hit on something here, regarding BABYGIRL, and the influence of sexual politics, feminist sexual politics, on the private relationship between Romy and Jacob. In reality, do women really want a sensitive gentle man who won't cross the line into domination? The director might have done more with this; what's missing for Romy IS the male power dynamic. Feminism has imposed on women a desire for equality that actually isn't very sexy. If men and women are being their authentic selves, then the male exerts his sexual power over the woman, and that, for most, is the turn-on. Jacob has turned that off, out of deference to ideological demands that in reality, aren't fostering sexual interest.
It seemed utterly out of place for a much younger man, probably stewarded into adulthood by a feminist mother. We don't get a window into Samuel's life, but one wonders how he got so bold in a culture where -- in reality -- MEN are shamed for their sexuality. So how did he get so bold? I found that rather implausible.
Kidman's penciled- into-a permanently-shocked expression-eyebrows and peculiarly orange hair wielded a baffling effect. The powerful female executive wears a mask that conveys a waifish timidity. If I remember correctly, her costumes were highly sexualized, something I always wonder about, when it comes to women in powerful positions who force their cleavage on underlings.
"The Substance" was utterly lacking in substance, although it does provoke thoughts on the emptiness in the life of a woman whose career is dependent on her physical prowess. The metallic, up-in-the-air apartment is creepily sterile. She has no friends, no social life; her only relationship is, symbolically, to her body. Frankly, I was completely turned off by the outrageous caricature of the Dennis Quaid character. Call this viewer repulsed by the demonization of men as well. When we ruminate on and on and on over the "violence" done to women's bodies -- cry me a river. Seventy years ago, Quaid might have been thumping along on the prosthetic leg on which he barely returned from some literal war.
There’s a whole lot I agree with here. What I’d take issue with is the idea that the craving to be dominated is a suppressed secret among women only. I think that men and women alike can have suppressed (or for some, acted on) sexual desires for “unequal” roles in erotic play. It’s likely to be felt as MORE shameful for men, because not seen as masculine. Feminists are your friends in that!!! See my book “The Male Body,” for example, which is largely an exploration of male shame and was praised by male reviewers for a non-demonizing exploring of masculinity and recognizing that—cliche coming up—“we’re all human.”
You are of course correct--there is a huge unmet demand for domination among men.
Data on the kink community's always been limited, but thanks to the sex researcher (and not-incidentally former sex worker) Aella, we finally have large samples, in the thousands!
What you see more than anything else is that there's a real shortage of female dominants, but all the other combinations are represented. So not only is there an unmet demand among submissive men, but it is unlikely to be fully met in real life.
(I've gone through a lot of other samples on the Internet and they show similar patterns.)
The director went about as far as she could, I think. Any further than that and she'd be running up against feminist dogma. Subversion is the art of pushing just hard enojugh. Actually showing a healthy M/f with safewords used and hard limits defined and respected would probably be a public good as that's probably the most common kink out there. Maybe Nicole Kidman opens up her relationship and fools around with an experienced rigger. I'll leave it to the people with actual artistic talent around here.
I don't think *every* man is a dom and *every* woman is a sub; there are a lot of subby guys out there and they have a hard time as there aren't enough pots for their lid. But I do think power inequity is a substantial part of attraction for a lot of people and the rise in popularity of kink is a way to get a politically-approved way of doing that. (You would not believe how many feminists want to get tied up or spanked in private!)
And while I agree with you that men are shamed for their sexuality now, it's entirely possible that the younger guy bucked the trend. That's how he got sexy enough to fool around with Nicole Kidman, after all. We never meet his parents--maybe he didn't have a feminist mom. (The person I watched it with did not find him convincing, FWIW.)
I thought Kidman did a really good job of portraying the I-don't-know-how-she-does-it female executive balancing being professional with being just cute enough. As for forcing your cleavage on underlings--it's a power play, like so many others executed by powerful people over the years. You distract them and torment them as a method of subjugation, which is needed if you're going to maintain power. But it also gets the dudes in the movie theater, because Nicole Kidman is cute.
Interesting that the person you saw it with didn't find Samuel convincing. I didn't either because that generation of males is just so...soft. I even hoped this film would be signify a bellwether for more masculinity. So many actors over the past couple of decades are just too baby-faced, like Matt Damon and Leonardo de Caprio. The latter has the sex appeal of a potato. However, just as there are outlier women who want to dominate, so might there be a Gen Z male with the balls to take on his cleavage-wagging boss, and in the brash way Samuel did it. What you say about men preferring domination, it's perfectly plausible -- there are all kinds for sure -- but it seems that the average female prefers a strong, more dominant male, because, generally speaking -- perhaps from an evolutionary standpoint -- domination and strength are male fitness signals. Anecdotally, I had a boyfriend who was the only male with three elder sisters, the father was gone, and whenever he slipped into feminine behavior, it really turned me off to the point where I made a mental note not to marry him. There are more covert ways in which women wear the pants in relationships.
I agree. I just think you *could* find a Gen-Z male who could pull it off (there are millions!), even though it's quite possible he could never be cast in the current environment. FWIW you don't necessarily have to be Brad Pitt in most cases, a lot of of women are so desperate to find a dom without winding up in a body bag you can treat it as an unpaid acting gig and do OK. A movie's a different story of course and everyone has to be very attractive.
I think the fundamental asymmetry is that there are more submissive men than dominant women, and I don't know why. I guess a dominant woman might still make a good mate but a submissive man is unlikely to command enough resources. But that's pure speculation on my part.
As for more covert ways...absolutely. The bedroom just happens to be one of the places the roles are most evolutionarily conserved.
Wow, loved this! I subscribe to your substack and your writing is always somehow rich and tight (maybe precise is a better word) simultaneously. It’s a pleasure to read what you write. Thank you. 🙏
Thanks Susan for reviewing these two movies so thoroughly and placing them in a wider context to make incisive points about "Shame, Sex, and the Female Body."
I have not seen The Substance. But I enjoyed Babygirl and your review added to my experience of it.
Thank YOU for inviting me. And—as you undoubtedly can tell from my review—as a friend who wishes you only the most rewarding of movie experience, I can’t urge you to see ‘The Substance.’ Although I would like to know what you think! (By the way, have you noticed that our tastes in movies almost always align?)
I love and agree with your assessment of BABYGIRL. One critic said that the film ended too pat, too neatly—Husband forgives and everything is OK. But I like the way you have complicated that reductive reading because Rome still does have fantasies about the younger, dominating intern at the end, so the whole idea of her being shameful and forgiven completely dissolves. She still owns her own sexuality. I also appreciate the fact that this is the first movie I have ever seen that explicitly explores female desire, especially desire that is not considered normative. I think many women have been through this kind of experience where their psychosexual impulses become so strong that they do things they never thought they would. Sometimes this blows up women’s lives. Sometimes they survive unscathed. But for the 1,000,000+ movies we have seen about every version of male desire, it’s about time we see a movie about a woman willing to risk everything to fulfill her psychosexual needs because, frankly, “everything” pales in comparison to her desire. (Perhaps this is why Greek mythology imagines falling in love as getting hit by a random arrow from Cupid. We don’t choose who we love or desire all the time. Sometimes it just washes over us like Niagara Falls ).When her intern asks, “Are you trying to blow up your life? Am I just an agent of that?” (or words to that effect), she says no. Sexuality is not a means of destroying a traditional hubby + 2 kids marriage. Nor is it some kind of feminist protest against heterosexual norms. Instead, her sexuality and desires, which even resist EMDR therapy, are given room to explore; they are given voice. Although she admits that she is ashamed of her”dark thoughts”, I suspect she says this primarily because she is confessing her affair to her husband. In sum, I say Huzzah to a movie that, for the first time, depicts women’s sexuality not as crazy (“ Fatal Attraction”) or shameful (most movies ever, especially those riffing off the Scarlet Letter theme) but instead as something we can choose to pursue, to claim as our own. As something that resists easy categorization—you know, like women do.
Thank you. I appreciate it so much when readers like both the political commentary and the movie/tv stuff—because I love doing both. (Well, “Love” may not be quite the right word with respect to the politics right now. Maybe more accurate would be “compelled” or “can’t stay away from”)
Fantastic review and writing, as usual. Have yet to see Babygirl - influenced by what you've enumerated - but now quite intrigued. Will absolutely not see The Substance. Btw, 💯 agree with your remarks re Demi Moore, but she's 62, not 52!
Haven't seen either film, I'll be sure and at least watch Babygirl, but I recently watched Nightbitch with Amy Adams as the aging rage-mom, and enjoyed it, laughing all the way through. Also feminist body horror. Definitely has a lecture element, and is not subtle in the general message, but the acting and filming is good, and for some reason it worked for me. I wasn't even annoyed by the predictable ending.
I enjoyed that movie, too, but WAS annoyed by the ending. I mean: why do they always wind up going back to the husband? (I think of this as the “Fleischman is in Trouble” syndrome. It was the worse offender.) Re. Body horror, have you seen “Love Lies Bleeding”?? That dips into body horror, too—but in a way that I LOVED.
No, haven't, will have to watch it. As a husband, I didn't mind the goes back to husband element. It was more like, sufficiently cowed and having learned a lot about what it takes to have a balanced relationship, he went back to her, and they managed to renew whatever good in the early part of their relationship, on way better terms (however unlikely that may be). He was kind of an empty character, but there he was with the broom, cleaning up.
This is a fascinating juxtaposition: one filmmaker using violence against her characters to explore shame, another using tenderness--it made me wonder what you made of LOVE LIES BLEEDING. It's violent, like SUBSTANCE, but its use of body horror, especially toward the end, is playful/triumphant and seems to lean toward Reijn's values of "not punishing" her characters as a way of making the point.
(Also: interesting/morbid bit of trivia about FATAL ATTRACTION's ending)
Funny you should mention LOVE LIES BLEEDING, because it was one of my favorite films this year. I haven’t written about it yet, but I agree completely with you. (By the way, if you click on that link about the Fatal Attraction ending change, you’ll find my stack on both that movie and PRESUMED INNOCENT (book, movie, tv series)
Subscribed! And I'm with you--LOVE LIES BLEEDING is one of just a handful of movies that was both titillating enough to leave the house for and weird enough I kept thinking about it for days.
I think most, if not all, beautiful young actresses realize that once they've been thoroughly exposed, and enough times, the novelty thus value to most of the once-drooling viewers/voyeurs is reduced.
The viewers’/voyeurs’ interest in her nudity wanes, and they henceforth may even consciously or subconsciously look upon her as having been ‘used’ thus cheapened. And unless she has notable acting talent [e.g. Jennifer Lawrence, two-time Oscar winner], I wouldn’t be surprised if her marketability may also wane.
A close female relative of mine was disappointed with Ms. Lawrence doing the nudity in Red Sonja, which to me was mostly obstructed and therefor unremarkable.
Nevertheless, it indeed is a great injustice to the objectified, exposed actress [and perhaps also to their attractive, young male peers as time progresses]; since I doubt any of them truly wants to do nudity, let alone the blatantly gratuitous sort prevalent during so much of the 1980s.
P.S. Though I didn’t at all complain, I was astonished (even back then) to see a mid-teens Jennifer Jason Leigh fully frontal and [in hindsight] gratuitously nude in Fast Times at Ridgemont High.
One of the ways in which JJL’s nudity in Fast Times is startling is because she really does look nude. So many of the naked bodies in movies today have been so “perfected,” both cosmetically and through constant upkeep, that they don’t even seem exposed or vulnerable. Mikey Madison, so great in ANORA, says she regarded her nudity in the movie as just another kind of clothing. Appropriate in that case, since she plays a sex worker who has long since gotten very used to being naked.
love this and feel affirmed. substance didn’t touch my mind either…. i actually found babygirl much more frightening. the danger felt so real bc samuel didn’t understand (willfully or not) her vulnerability. his solipsism as yiu said! but i had to read the paragraph w sean baker multiple times to make sure i understood that you liked anora!? please help me understand: how and why?
to me he makes the same mistake as fargeat : characters as symbols and attention-grabbing to trick us into thinking we’re witnessing something insightful. like feminism treatise in the substance the class commentary was flat well worn and annoying
Yes, I loved “Anora”! Wrote a stack about it earlier this week and writing another this weekend. We may have to agree to disagree about that one! But please do read my stack on it if you have the time.
Would it be "liberating" if a male character in a position of authority discovered and unleashed his inner and suppressed sexual desires with a much younger woman who worked for him? That question answers itself. After the main character, a married woman, has used the young man to "find herself" sexually, what happens between them at work? What do coworkers think about the affair, since this kind of thing would probably be revealed at some point? A sequel could be about the disruption at work, the woman's trouble with her fellow executives over her impulsive behavior, and ensuing sexual harassment litigation, where the larger world intrudes on her and her private sexual urges, and the public consequences of her sexual exploration of a work subordinate all play out.
You hit on something here, regarding BABYGIRL, and the influence of sexual politics, feminist sexual politics, on the private relationship between Romy and Jacob. In reality, do women really want a sensitive gentle man who won't cross the line into domination? The director might have done more with this; what's missing for Romy IS the male power dynamic. Feminism has imposed on women a desire for equality that actually isn't very sexy. If men and women are being their authentic selves, then the male exerts his sexual power over the woman, and that, for most, is the turn-on. Jacob has turned that off, out of deference to ideological demands that in reality, aren't fostering sexual interest.
It seemed utterly out of place for a much younger man, probably stewarded into adulthood by a feminist mother. We don't get a window into Samuel's life, but one wonders how he got so bold in a culture where -- in reality -- MEN are shamed for their sexuality. So how did he get so bold? I found that rather implausible.
Kidman's penciled- into-a permanently-shocked expression-eyebrows and peculiarly orange hair wielded a baffling effect. The powerful female executive wears a mask that conveys a waifish timidity. If I remember correctly, her costumes were highly sexualized, something I always wonder about, when it comes to women in powerful positions who force their cleavage on underlings.
"The Substance" was utterly lacking in substance, although it does provoke thoughts on the emptiness in the life of a woman whose career is dependent on her physical prowess. The metallic, up-in-the-air apartment is creepily sterile. She has no friends, no social life; her only relationship is, symbolically, to her body. Frankly, I was completely turned off by the outrageous caricature of the Dennis Quaid character. Call this viewer repulsed by the demonization of men as well. When we ruminate on and on and on over the "violence" done to women's bodies -- cry me a river. Seventy years ago, Quaid might have been thumping along on the prosthetic leg on which he barely returned from some literal war.
There’s a whole lot I agree with here. What I’d take issue with is the idea that the craving to be dominated is a suppressed secret among women only. I think that men and women alike can have suppressed (or for some, acted on) sexual desires for “unequal” roles in erotic play. It’s likely to be felt as MORE shameful for men, because not seen as masculine. Feminists are your friends in that!!! See my book “The Male Body,” for example, which is largely an exploration of male shame and was praised by male reviewers for a non-demonizing exploring of masculinity and recognizing that—cliche coming up—“we’re all human.”
You are of course correct--there is a huge unmet demand for domination among men.
Data on the kink community's always been limited, but thanks to the sex researcher (and not-incidentally former sex worker) Aella, we finally have large samples, in the thousands!
https://aella.substack.com/p/bdsm-subtypes-and-their-prevalence/comment/56237728
What you see more than anything else is that there's a real shortage of female dominants, but all the other combinations are represented. So not only is there an unmet demand among submissive men, but it is unlikely to be fully met in real life.
(I've gone through a lot of other samples on the Internet and they show similar patterns.)
The director went about as far as she could, I think. Any further than that and she'd be running up against feminist dogma. Subversion is the art of pushing just hard enojugh. Actually showing a healthy M/f with safewords used and hard limits defined and respected would probably be a public good as that's probably the most common kink out there. Maybe Nicole Kidman opens up her relationship and fools around with an experienced rigger. I'll leave it to the people with actual artistic talent around here.
I don't think *every* man is a dom and *every* woman is a sub; there are a lot of subby guys out there and they have a hard time as there aren't enough pots for their lid. But I do think power inequity is a substantial part of attraction for a lot of people and the rise in popularity of kink is a way to get a politically-approved way of doing that. (You would not believe how many feminists want to get tied up or spanked in private!)
And while I agree with you that men are shamed for their sexuality now, it's entirely possible that the younger guy bucked the trend. That's how he got sexy enough to fool around with Nicole Kidman, after all. We never meet his parents--maybe he didn't have a feminist mom. (The person I watched it with did not find him convincing, FWIW.)
I thought Kidman did a really good job of portraying the I-don't-know-how-she-does-it female executive balancing being professional with being just cute enough. As for forcing your cleavage on underlings--it's a power play, like so many others executed by powerful people over the years. You distract them and torment them as a method of subjugation, which is needed if you're going to maintain power. But it also gets the dudes in the movie theater, because Nicole Kidman is cute.
Interesting that the person you saw it with didn't find Samuel convincing. I didn't either because that generation of males is just so...soft. I even hoped this film would be signify a bellwether for more masculinity. So many actors over the past couple of decades are just too baby-faced, like Matt Damon and Leonardo de Caprio. The latter has the sex appeal of a potato. However, just as there are outlier women who want to dominate, so might there be a Gen Z male with the balls to take on his cleavage-wagging boss, and in the brash way Samuel did it. What you say about men preferring domination, it's perfectly plausible -- there are all kinds for sure -- but it seems that the average female prefers a strong, more dominant male, because, generally speaking -- perhaps from an evolutionary standpoint -- domination and strength are male fitness signals. Anecdotally, I had a boyfriend who was the only male with three elder sisters, the father was gone, and whenever he slipped into feminine behavior, it really turned me off to the point where I made a mental note not to marry him. There are more covert ways in which women wear the pants in relationships.
I agree. I just think you *could* find a Gen-Z male who could pull it off (there are millions!), even though it's quite possible he could never be cast in the current environment. FWIW you don't necessarily have to be Brad Pitt in most cases, a lot of of women are so desperate to find a dom without winding up in a body bag you can treat it as an unpaid acting gig and do OK. A movie's a different story of course and everyone has to be very attractive.
I think the fundamental asymmetry is that there are more submissive men than dominant women, and I don't know why. I guess a dominant woman might still make a good mate but a submissive man is unlikely to command enough resources. But that's pure speculation on my part.
As for more covert ways...absolutely. The bedroom just happens to be one of the places the roles are most evolutionarily conserved.
Wow, loved this! I subscribe to your substack and your writing is always somehow rich and tight (maybe precise is a better word) simultaneously. It’s a pleasure to read what you write. Thank you. 🙏
Thank you!!😊 What a lovely compliment!
Thanks Susan for reviewing these two movies so thoroughly and placing them in a wider context to make incisive points about "Shame, Sex, and the Female Body."
I have not seen The Substance. But I enjoyed Babygirl and your review added to my experience of it.
Thank YOU for inviting me. And—as you undoubtedly can tell from my review—as a friend who wishes you only the most rewarding of movie experience, I can’t urge you to see ‘The Substance.’ Although I would like to know what you think! (By the way, have you noticed that our tastes in movies almost always align?)
They do align! Watching the Dylan movie. I remember your article about the real “Sylvie.”
I love and agree with your assessment of BABYGIRL. One critic said that the film ended too pat, too neatly—Husband forgives and everything is OK. But I like the way you have complicated that reductive reading because Rome still does have fantasies about the younger, dominating intern at the end, so the whole idea of her being shameful and forgiven completely dissolves. She still owns her own sexuality. I also appreciate the fact that this is the first movie I have ever seen that explicitly explores female desire, especially desire that is not considered normative. I think many women have been through this kind of experience where their psychosexual impulses become so strong that they do things they never thought they would. Sometimes this blows up women’s lives. Sometimes they survive unscathed. But for the 1,000,000+ movies we have seen about every version of male desire, it’s about time we see a movie about a woman willing to risk everything to fulfill her psychosexual needs because, frankly, “everything” pales in comparison to her desire. (Perhaps this is why Greek mythology imagines falling in love as getting hit by a random arrow from Cupid. We don’t choose who we love or desire all the time. Sometimes it just washes over us like Niagara Falls ).When her intern asks, “Are you trying to blow up your life? Am I just an agent of that?” (or words to that effect), she says no. Sexuality is not a means of destroying a traditional hubby + 2 kids marriage. Nor is it some kind of feminist protest against heterosexual norms. Instead, her sexuality and desires, which even resist EMDR therapy, are given room to explore; they are given voice. Although she admits that she is ashamed of her”dark thoughts”, I suspect she says this primarily because she is confessing her affair to her husband. In sum, I say Huzzah to a movie that, for the first time, depicts women’s sexuality not as crazy (“ Fatal Attraction”) or shameful (most movies ever, especially those riffing off the Scarlet Letter theme) but instead as something we can choose to pursue, to claim as our own. As something that resists easy categorization—you know, like women do.
And yet again, you and I are in such complete alignment. Do we share a brain, or what?
Twins separated at birth! 👯♀️
Thanks. I have been debating BabyGirl but I think your review pushed me over the edge.
Great to see you in here! I also really relate to your political commentary!
Thank you. I appreciate it so much when readers like both the political commentary and the movie/tv stuff—because I love doing both. (Well, “Love” may not be quite the right word with respect to the politics right now. Maybe more accurate would be “compelled” or “can’t stay away from”)
Fantastic review and writing, as usual. Have yet to see Babygirl - influenced by what you've enumerated - but now quite intrigued. Will absolutely not see The Substance. Btw, 💯 agree with your remarks re Demi Moore, but she's 62, not 52!
Thank you!
And: Wow, that’s right about Demi’s age. I’ll have to ask Ross to correct that for me.
Yeah, I would have stayed way from “The Substance” myself if I didn’t consider required by my “job” to see it.
Haven't seen either film, I'll be sure and at least watch Babygirl, but I recently watched Nightbitch with Amy Adams as the aging rage-mom, and enjoyed it, laughing all the way through. Also feminist body horror. Definitely has a lecture element, and is not subtle in the general message, but the acting and filming is good, and for some reason it worked for me. I wasn't even annoyed by the predictable ending.
I enjoyed that movie, too, but WAS annoyed by the ending. I mean: why do they always wind up going back to the husband? (I think of this as the “Fleischman is in Trouble” syndrome. It was the worse offender.) Re. Body horror, have you seen “Love Lies Bleeding”?? That dips into body horror, too—but in a way that I LOVED.
No, haven't, will have to watch it. As a husband, I didn't mind the goes back to husband element. It was more like, sufficiently cowed and having learned a lot about what it takes to have a balanced relationship, he went back to her, and they managed to renew whatever good in the early part of their relationship, on way better terms (however unlikely that may be). He was kind of an empty character, but there he was with the broom, cleaning up.
This is a fascinating juxtaposition: one filmmaker using violence against her characters to explore shame, another using tenderness--it made me wonder what you made of LOVE LIES BLEEDING. It's violent, like SUBSTANCE, but its use of body horror, especially toward the end, is playful/triumphant and seems to lean toward Reijn's values of "not punishing" her characters as a way of making the point.
(Also: interesting/morbid bit of trivia about FATAL ATTRACTION's ending)
Funny you should mention LOVE LIES BLEEDING, because it was one of my favorite films this year. I haven’t written about it yet, but I agree completely with you. (By the way, if you click on that link about the Fatal Attraction ending change, you’ll find my stack on both that movie and PRESUMED INNOCENT (book, movie, tv series)
Subscribed! And I'm with you--LOVE LIES BLEEDING is one of just a handful of movies that was both titillating enough to leave the house for and weird enough I kept thinking about it for days.
Looking forward to having you part of the BordoLines community of independent thinkers!!!
I think most, if not all, beautiful young actresses realize that once they've been thoroughly exposed, and enough times, the novelty thus value to most of the once-drooling viewers/voyeurs is reduced.
The viewers’/voyeurs’ interest in her nudity wanes, and they henceforth may even consciously or subconsciously look upon her as having been ‘used’ thus cheapened. And unless she has notable acting talent [e.g. Jennifer Lawrence, two-time Oscar winner], I wouldn’t be surprised if her marketability may also wane.
A close female relative of mine was disappointed with Ms. Lawrence doing the nudity in Red Sonja, which to me was mostly obstructed and therefor unremarkable.
Nevertheless, it indeed is a great injustice to the objectified, exposed actress [and perhaps also to their attractive, young male peers as time progresses]; since I doubt any of them truly wants to do nudity, let alone the blatantly gratuitous sort prevalent during so much of the 1980s.
P.S. Though I didn’t at all complain, I was astonished (even back then) to see a mid-teens Jennifer Jason Leigh fully frontal and [in hindsight] gratuitously nude in Fast Times at Ridgemont High.
One of the ways in which JJL’s nudity in Fast Times is startling is because she really does look nude. So many of the naked bodies in movies today have been so “perfected,” both cosmetically and through constant upkeep, that they don’t even seem exposed or vulnerable. Mikey Madison, so great in ANORA, says she regarded her nudity in the movie as just another kind of clothing. Appropriate in that case, since she plays a sex worker who has long since gotten very used to being naked.
love this and feel affirmed. substance didn’t touch my mind either…. i actually found babygirl much more frightening. the danger felt so real bc samuel didn’t understand (willfully or not) her vulnerability. his solipsism as yiu said! but i had to read the paragraph w sean baker multiple times to make sure i understood that you liked anora!? please help me understand: how and why?
to me he makes the same mistake as fargeat : characters as symbols and attention-grabbing to trick us into thinking we’re witnessing something insightful. like feminism treatise in the substance the class commentary was flat well worn and annoying
Yes, I loved “Anora”! Wrote a stack about it earlier this week and writing another this weekend. We may have to agree to disagree about that one! But please do read my stack on it if you have the time.
https://susanbordo.substack.com/p/working-girls.
Would it be "liberating" if a male character in a position of authority discovered and unleashed his inner and suppressed sexual desires with a much younger woman who worked for him? That question answers itself. After the main character, a married woman, has used the young man to "find herself" sexually, what happens between them at work? What do coworkers think about the affair, since this kind of thing would probably be revealed at some point? A sequel could be about the disruption at work, the woman's trouble with her fellow executives over her impulsive behavior, and ensuing sexual harassment litigation, where the larger world intrudes on her and her private sexual urges, and the public consequences of her sexual exploration of a work subordinate all play out.