i thought the girlfriend experience was really quite good even if it wasn't totally successful. a moment ago i had the following exchange with a friend:
how's the girl?
she's good. not great, but better than kristen stewart in adventureland. i'm not a critic, but i think sasha grey worked in the role. i thought she was convincingly genuine and purposefully detached at times, and it didn't come across as forced. she portrays a mix of ambition and self-doubt, and i think that's kind of universally relatable.
how does it work?
in a way, it doesn't. as a capitalist drama set in late 2008, it's an examination of moral and financial self-evaluation. in that sense, it's everyone for themselves, which soderbergh tries to tell us doesn't work. then, in the final scene, he gives us his alternative solution. as my friend put it, "the capitalist deconstruction piece is [soderbergh's] strong point." it is, but i'm not convinced this time.
ambitons, fears, paranoia; they're within us all, and they shape our collective experience and drive what we do. i don't buy the fact that we're products of our environment. i think we shape our environment and that it becomes a reflection of ourselves. "capitalism" didn't shape the people in the film, they shaped it. blame the inventor not the invention.
in way, then, i think the film is a failure. to the extent it has a message (which i think is subject to debate), then i'm not sure it was convincing. but as a reflection on personal and professional realities, i thought it was great. and goddamned if it wasn't beautiful to look at. it could have been completely free of dialogue and i still would have loved it.
how's the girl?
she's good. not great, but better than kristen stewart in adventureland. i'm not a critic, but i think sasha grey worked in the role. i thought she was convincingly genuine and purposefully detached at times, and it didn't come across as forced. she portrays a mix of ambition and self-doubt, and i think that's kind of universally relatable.
how does it work?
in a way, it doesn't. as a capitalist drama set in late 2008, it's an examination of moral and financial self-evaluation. in that sense, it's everyone for themselves, which soderbergh tries to tell us doesn't work. then, in the final scene, he gives us his alternative solution. as my friend put it, "the capitalist deconstruction piece is [soderbergh's] strong point." it is, but i'm not convinced this time.
ambitons, fears, paranoia; they're within us all, and they shape our collective experience and drive what we do. i don't buy the fact that we're products of our environment. i think we shape our environment and that it becomes a reflection of ourselves. "capitalism" didn't shape the people in the film, they shaped it. blame the inventor not the invention.
in way, then, i think the film is a failure. to the extent it has a message (which i think is subject to debate), then i'm not sure it was convincing. but as a reflection on personal and professional realities, i thought it was great. and goddamned if it wasn't beautiful to look at. it could have been completely free of dialogue and i still would have loved it.
No comments:
Post a Comment