Talk:Secretary (2002 film)

Rewrite

i believe this article should be re-written to not be a scene by scene explanation of the movie, rather briefly outlining the plot without any spoilers. It is an encyclopedia article. -MYTENCENSE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mytencense (talk • contribs) 12:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that a "Cliffs Notes" approach to films ("spoilers" encouraged) is preferable.However,the synopsis here is verbatim the same as that at the Internet Movie Database...who is copying whom? 12.144.5.2 (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

While you're at it, shouldn't a page about a movie have the movie's rating in it somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowcharge (talk • contribs) 04:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Not all countries rate films, or the ratings may differ. In the future, please add new text to the bottom of the page. Thanks.--TEHodson 04:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"he carries her to his home."

He does not carry her home, he takes her to the apartment about his office.

Response by the BDSM community

The main article includes the comment, "The movie has received a very positive response from those in the BDSM community for its sympathetic mainstream portrayal of BDSM as practiced by happy, healthy and otherwise average people."

I can't speak for the entire BDSM community, of course -- but, frankly, what I saw was a devious creep with no respect for the law and inadequate control of his own emotions preying on a mentally ill girl. "Doms are abusers and subs are mentally ill" is NOT a stereotype that needs encouraging. (Yes, in the second half of the movie this magically morphed into a sympathetic portrayal, and by the end, the characters were happy and healthy.)

Discussing the movie with friends has revealed that not all of them see such negative stereotyping going on. I won't edit out the "very positive response" comment for now -- but if it's going to stay in I feel it at least needs to be sourced. TaigaBridge 08:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This comment as well as the one below it piss me off. I'm a sub, and I have bipolar disorder. I've hurt myself. And you know what? I'm happily married, own a home, and love my life. I see my shrink and take my pills and go to work and that's fine. You think a sympathetic portrayal of kinky people has to present their lives as perfect? The characters in this movie heal through each other, even through sex, and are functioning members of society. That speaks to me more than a movie about how "normal" Doms and subs are. I don't know any "normal" people anyway. 207.172.186.128 (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to know how someone who was recently released from a psychiatric hospital who continues to self-harm for non-sexual reasons represents a "happy, healthy, and otherwise average" person. As far as I'm aware, this is neither seen as healthy nor is it typical in the BDSM community. I say out with it. -Teep 02:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This gets into questions of interpretation of course, but might not the point simply be that this character ends up healthy and happy? Zahir13 02:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think that of this film you obviously don't understand it any way, shape, or form. I don't think you're speaking for or of the BDSM community with your assertion, you're speaking as someone with an opinion of a film.

Edward did not know of Lee's mental illness when they first met. He saw her butterfly bandages when she was setting the mouse trap and then later saw her attempting to cut during a scene in the waiting area it was soon after that he called her into his office, gave her hot chocolate and had a frank discussion about her abuses. He told her she wouldn't need to cut anymore and also let her know that she should walk home, releasing her from her mother and giving her a chance to be free and think .. he saw her plight and in using her obvious submissive nature gave her a 'way out' if you will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.251.70 (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: I think that Lee finds release from her problems through her relationship with Mr. Grey. Her family do not understand her and cannot relate to her and this is probably part of why she has been depressed and in such a dark place. Through her relationship with Mr. Grey she is awakened from her previous state of mind. It ignites her, and she discovers HER own way of being, and loving. I do not think Mr Grey preys on her, he is aware of her problems when he sees her cuts, and releases her from that prison. She just needed someone to give her permission. Her submissive nature fits with his dominant one. He does not over power her, they meet each other at a point and it makes them both happy. There are many subtleties that the original commenter has missed in the psyche of the main characters. She is not scared of him, or opressed, their BDSm realtionship frees her, and she discovers her way of life. They fit together. Peter is merely the pawn in the whole thing she needs to finally say 'no, I don not want what my parents want for me, I want to live my way'. Mr. Grey takes some time to accept his feelings towards her and to accept himself, but he does eventually, and they come out the other side a happy, healthy couple with a playful, exciting, fulfilling relationship. I love this film. It takes me to places- empathy, sadness, happiness, enlightenment. Incredible.Thecamellook (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Query: Knowing that there is not a "normal life", can we agree that we can find hope here even it is just a movie?

German article

A translation of the German article for this entry would already be a significant improvement IMO. 212.99.207.127 10:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary

I don't know that the claim that the pair "happily continue their sub/dom relationship" or even that they marry is substantiated by the movie. The last scene of the film is simply them naked and kissing each other, with no reference to their former BDSM activities. Should the plot summary be edited for accuracy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicero in utero (talk • contribs) 17:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll check out the voice over to see what she says happens to them. New sections always go at the bottom of the page, by the way. Thanks.--TEHodson 20:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they do marry and live happily ever after in their BDSM relationship. Very clearly stated in the voice over and shown in the final scenes (there are many after the bathing/kissing naked scene.--TEHodson 09:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

S/M in introductory paragraph

If you want to expand the first paragraph, please leave the first sentence alone and write a couple of sentences which cover the subject matter in an appropriate way for a film that is considered important, of good quality, thoughtful, insightful, etc. Your choice to just drop in those words so casually does not do justice to the film. It makes it sound like a porn movie. The subject needs to be handled with greater thought than that.--TEHodson 04:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ewawer: Based on your contributions and the emphasis you keep putting one aspect of the content of this film, you are not paying respect to Secretary as a film, but only as a vehicle for sexual activity onscreen. Your contributions are not helpful, but distracting; I've incorporated your emphasis in what I think is an appropriate manner. Please discuss here before changing anything else and explain your concerns so that I and others can comment on them. Your latest edit was totally random (wikilinking submissive, but not dominant, for example). What is your agenda? Make it clear here, and then we'll make changes together or separately, but sensibly, and respectfully. Thank you.--TEHodson 06:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

People outside the office

It is not clear whether or not people actually were outside the office as Lee waits. I seriously doubt it, yet the article makes it sound like people were definitely actually there. 162.207.203.26 (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)