I'm supposed to be writing PhD related stuff but I'm going to take a break and write about pop culture instead. While I haven't read the book (nor have any desire to), don't plan on watching the film, nor read the Wikipedia entry, I must say that I believe Fifty Shades of Grey is 9 1/2 Weeks twenty-nine years later (minus the crazy box office numbers). I'm basing this entirely on tidbits I read from the media and the two minute trailer I had to sit through waiting for Inherent Vice at the Barbican.
Now, the film that made stars out of Mickey Rourke and Kim Basinger was apparently met quite negatively at the time, but it is often cited (style! sexy! grimy-ish NYC!) by the younger generations (well, mine at least). There is no questioning it - did you see Kim in it? I'm not going to get into a conversation about what happened to Mickey Rourke, but let's just call it bad decisions. Although 9 1/2 Weeks was not necessarily about BDSM, it was about a sadomasochistic relationship - dealing with ownership of a woman's body and the master/slave relationship which I assume is what Fifty Shades deals with.
Looking back at the trailer of 9 1/2 Weeks now, much of this stuff is likely to creep its way in 14A films as many directors are quick to throw in a sex and/or nudity scene just for the heck of it. As for cast comparisons, I understand there's a lot of factors that go into casting, and despite society's obsession with sex (more heightened than ever apparently), the lead actors are, well, boring and Disneyish. This is very similar to the current music 'superstars'. I am referring here to the likes of Ed Sheeran, who appears to be emulating a look from 'indie' bands from the 2004-2005 period (he reminds me of Billy Talent, Fall Out Boy, American Rejects, Simple Plan, etc.,) and whose 'bad ass' credibility comes in the shape of sleeve tattoos that likely have an image of My Little Pony and other 80s-90s nostalgia; and Sam Smith, who is apparently 22 years old but looks 35 at least, has zero facial expressions, and whose style reminds me of 1980s-90s George Michael minus the charisma.
Back to Fifty vs. 9 1/2: Dakota vs. Kim? Kim wasn't just beautiful, she had style, charm and a certain elegance.
While Dakota may represent exactly the type of character described in the book I have not read, Kim's character wasn't meant to be some vixen either. From the trailer of Fifty Shades I saw, Dakota has none of that electricity Kim brought. In fact, it felt like she belonged in a romantic comedy from the mid to late noughties period alongside Mandy Moore. As for the lead male actor, he's too much of a "I have a job in the City" pretty boy. He has no look in his eyes that gives you a warning that there's something dangerous about him (like Mickey did). I think the celebrities of today are in fact just representations of today's society: boring and extremely PC (you know, in that I am going to stay neutral in person but have an opinion online ONLY kind of way).
Now, the film that made stars out of Mickey Rourke and Kim Basinger was apparently met quite negatively at the time, but it is often cited (style! sexy! grimy-ish NYC!) by the younger generations (well, mine at least). There is no questioning it - did you see Kim in it? I'm not going to get into a conversation about what happened to Mickey Rourke, but let's just call it bad decisions. Although 9 1/2 Weeks was not necessarily about BDSM, it was about a sadomasochistic relationship - dealing with ownership of a woman's body and the master/slave relationship which I assume is what Fifty Shades deals with.
Looking back at the trailer of 9 1/2 Weeks now, much of this stuff is likely to creep its way in 14A films as many directors are quick to throw in a sex and/or nudity scene just for the heck of it. As for cast comparisons, I understand there's a lot of factors that go into casting, and despite society's obsession with sex (more heightened than ever apparently), the lead actors are, well, boring and Disneyish. This is very similar to the current music 'superstars'. I am referring here to the likes of Ed Sheeran, who appears to be emulating a look from 'indie' bands from the 2004-2005 period (he reminds me of Billy Talent, Fall Out Boy, American Rejects, Simple Plan, etc.,) and whose 'bad ass' credibility comes in the shape of sleeve tattoos that likely have an image of My Little Pony and other 80s-90s nostalgia; and Sam Smith, who is apparently 22 years old but looks 35 at least, has zero facial expressions, and whose style reminds me of 1980s-90s George Michael minus the charisma.
Back to Fifty vs. 9 1/2: Dakota vs. Kim? Kim wasn't just beautiful, she had style, charm and a certain elegance.
 |
| Via |
While Dakota may represent exactly the type of character described in the book I have not read, Kim's character wasn't meant to be some vixen either. From the trailer of Fifty Shades I saw, Dakota has none of that electricity Kim brought. In fact, it felt like she belonged in a romantic comedy from the mid to late noughties period alongside Mandy Moore. As for the lead male actor, he's too much of a "I have a job in the City" pretty boy. He has no look in his eyes that gives you a warning that there's something dangerous about him (like Mickey did). I think the celebrities of today are in fact just representations of today's society: boring and extremely PC (you know, in that I am going to stay neutral in person but have an opinion online ONLY kind of way).
