Commentaires des utilisateurs

Those Gyllenhalls, they sure can act. Maggie, like her brother Jake, turns in great performances like they're routine - she makes it look easy. In 'Secretary', she delivers a layered, complex performance as Lee Holloway, a disturbed young lady who deals with stress by cutting herself - the pain pushes away everything else that's bothering her.

As she's released from an institution back into the world, she takes her first job as secretary to lawyer E. Edward Grey, played by James Spader. From then on, the movie explores their relationship and how it affects Lee, taking her from the quiet, self-damaging wallflower into the determined and strong woman she becomes.

The film's use of S&M in the relationship between Lee and Mr. Grey makes it a bit controversial, but it's not really the focus here. The idea of Lee as the submissive and Mr. Grey as the dominant have little to do with their sexuality and everything to do with their personality issues.

Lee can't handle extreme emotion without resorting to pain, because she can't take control of her own life. What she sees in Mr. Grey is love - absolute love, the likes of which she can't find with her fiance Peter (Jeremy Davies). That love allows her to give him the power of her pain - by doing that, she's finding something worthy to focus on instead of the nothingness of her sewing kit and iodine.

Mr. Grey, for his part, is a man who can't deal with anything except in his own ordered, regimented way. He cares for his orchids but little else, and the steps he takes with Lee open up his wary heart. He's slower to develop than she is, and to take the final steps towards a real, lasting relationship, he has to be dragged there by the force of Lee's own will.

The key to this film - and S&M relationships in general - is that Lee (the submissive) has all the power, not Mr. Grey (the dominant). She sets the terms by which the relationship will be conducted, seemingly for the first time in her entire life (including the relationships with her family). Lee finds love and desire in Mr. Grey, and pursues it while healing her own shattered psyche in the process.

Maggie Gyllenhall is luminous here. She can say more with a facial expression than most can in a Shakespearean soliloquy. She gives herself completely over to the part, without a wink or a nudge that she's just kidding, or thinks any part of this is silly. She becomes Lee Holloway, which is the best compliment you can give an actor. Spader, for his part, follows in a long string of oddballs, but doesn't go over the top, as he could have been tempted to do. This is Maggie's movie, and he supports it and plays off it well.

Rating: 8/10, based on the strong performance of Maggie Gyllenhall and the character of Lee Holloway, but nocked down due to a poorly-constructed finale that just doesn't fit with the rest of the film. Highly recommended.

Maggie Gyllenhaal deserves an Oscar nomination for her brilliant portrayal of borderline psychotic, self-mutilating Lee Holloway, a former mental institution patient seeking to sustain herself - vocationally and emotionally - in a challenging world where she has few safe harbors. She comes from a messy family background although that alone can't explain her illness.

Learning typing, she gets a secretary's job with lawyer E. Edward Grey (James Spader, who also turns in a first-rate, nuanced performance). Grey refuses to have any computers in his very smart, expensive law office. Like many lawyers he's a perfectionist who abhors typographical errors but his obsession with perfection reflects more than an anal personality hitched to a law degree. His solo practice seems to thrive better than his self-control of a suppressed sexuality, awakened by Maggie at first unknowingly.

This is a film about what many consider to be deviant behavior (sado-masochism and bondage-discipline, not your usual Hollywood romantic fun and games) that most will concur is uncommon in the workplace. Director Steven Shainberg and his cast - and Gyllenhaal and Spader carry the film, forget the supporting actors - show Lee and Grey's rocky and developing relationship with candor, without condemnation and without exploitation. The lawyer and his secretary are sexualized in a way few have experienced and those who have don't talk to folks outside their circle.

This is a black comedy/a black drama. It either grabs or repels the viewer: there's no in-between. The resolution? Is it realistic or a cop-out? I'd love to hear from those able to comment from experience on IMDb's discussion board. But I have a feeling few will post reactions.

A very different film that I rate 8/10 on a personal scale where I value the deep and tortured acting projecting the absorbing conflict of this sexualized working (initially) relationship.

'Secretary' deals with a daring and original subject and does this in an effective and funny way. Its subject is sadomasochism, its genre is a romantic comedy. The secretary is Lee Holloway (Maggie Gyllenhaal), who suffers from self-mutilation, her boss is Mr. Grey (James Spader), who seems the coldest man alive. When they are in the same room you feel that there is something there, they both feel it too. Since the movie opens with a certain S/M scene we already know that there is a point in the movie where the two must find each other and start the sadomasochism activities. I will not reveal how and when it happens, but the moment is great.

Saying too much about the story would spoil things. We laugh at the right times, which is a good thing. Considering the subject it is even hard to accomplish that since people who are not familiar with it laugh very easy when they see strange things. For most audiences the events will be strange. The original approach of the movie, the performances perfect for this movie, the funny moments and an ending that plays exactly as it should this is a good movie and one of the most original romantic comedies I have seen.

Secretary is the first of its kind - a very dark love story. First of its kind in that it deals with themes never seen before seen in mainstream Hollywood cinema - S&M, sexual dominance and submission.

Maggie Gyllenhaal is outstanding in a potential minefield of a role - she handles it with dignity and even provides some effective dark humour.

The story here is that her character, Lee, applies for a job as a secretary for the firm owned by James Spader's brilliant Mr Grey. However, Lee has a history of self-harm and masochism and Grey has a dominance complex along with a very sadistic streak. Combine these 2 in theory and you have 2 very happy people. But this is no ordinary love story...

Spader, as stated, is brilliant. He brings an icy steel to the troubled Grey, but also provides a touch of black humour which comes at some great moments to 'release the tension'.

For the themes supplied here you'd probably expect a lot of raunchiness - well there are sexual moments, of course, but there is nothing gratuitous, which is in itself an achievement and well handled.

Overall it's quirky, off-beat, and a little bit different.

Worth a view.

This one was really a pleasant surprise. I was expecting a black comedy as well as a movie that deals with kinky fetishes. It's both of those things but, surprisingly, it's also a very nice and sweet love story. Yes, really. Maggie Gyllenhaal is wonderful. I think this is easily my favorite role of hers. She's funny, adorable, and sexy. James Spader's great but Maggie really makes the movie something special.

Obviously not for all tastes but I would say that you should try it out, even if the BDSM stuff doesn't float your boat. I think you'll be surprised at how much you like it. One thing that I would like to address is that I see a lot of other reviewers who liked the movie saying they hated the ending. Gotta say I can't disagree more with this. I assume these people would have preferred a more downbeat ending. Frankly, that would have ruined the whole experience for me and I would have subtracted points from my score. The fact that the ending left me with the warm fuzzies is a large part of why I enjoyed it so much.

This is a very different kind of film, and it is probably not for everyone. The story is about a young woman, Lee (Maggie Gyllenhaal) with emotional problems who cannot find her place in the world. She is self-destructive. But when she sees the want ads one day, she is inspired to take her typing certification and seek office employment.

She meets an off-beat attorney, Mr. Grey (James Spader), who hires her. And they develop an unusual work relationship that becomes more personal.

Kudos to Ms. Gyllenhaal for a brave performance. Lee is complex but accessible for viewer understanding because of her wonderfully nuanced portrayal. Grey is not as transparent, and it feels like that is intentional. It would be interesting to ask viewers which character is more damaged/dysfunctional.

This is not comedy in the broad style, but a comedy of small moments. At the same time, it is incumbent on the viewer to recognize the pain and dysfunctions that are on the screen. The result is a thoughtful film.

The Secretary in question is Lee Holloway (Maggie Gyllenhaal, who looks disturbingly similar to her brother Jake, yet another sexually disturbing thing in this film), who is released from a mental hospital as this film begins. She's crazy because she cuts herself with implements from a sewing kit, due to her father being an alcoholic (there may be other reasons, but due to the lack of character development, I can only assume). During a particularly crazy moment, she decides to apply for a job as a secretary for Mr. Grey (James Spader), who has a light-up sign outside that advertises the position (sign #1 that this may not be the best place to work).

Mr. Grey is a bad man. He's mean, nasty, and not very pleasant to be around. He kicks puppies (ok, maybe he doesn't kick puppies). Regardless, Lee falls in love with him because she needs someone to dominate her and tell her what to do (and, obviously, to unleash his man-stuff on her back), things she's not getting from her boyfriend Peter (portrayed by Jeremy Davies, whose principal acting talents consist of "looking bewildered" and "having long hair").

This movie is put together very well, most of the acting is good, but it's lacking something, perhaps character development, or a valid climax and resolution. James Spader gives a good performance, despite not having appeared in anything that anybody has seen since Stargate. If you're into S&M films (that aren't porn), this is the film for you.

Maggie and James the two leads are both excellent in this intriguing story of a sub/dom relationship. Overall it has a Lynchian feel to it with the costume and sets looking sumptuous with the right level of oddness and attention to detail to be humorous. The dramatic part does however let it down. With it being so deadpan and overt in nature the emotional connection to the characters was never that strong.

This is a film i doubt many would be brave enough to make today and it is handled very well and for that it is to be celebrated.

Throughout the centuries, relations between bosses and their assistants/secretaries have often been controversial or secretive, with even "worse" happening than depicted in the movie in question. A lady with an asylum background and a man being a control freak are a good start, but their potential is limited to dominant-submissive relationship only - not so startling in the modern society. At times the events do not develop at all, twists end up with trivial solutions, and the ending is so dull... The actors do a great job (in particular, the protagonists: Maggie Gyllenhaal as Lee Holloway and James Spader as E. Edward Grey), but their great efforts are unable to outperform the mediocre plot. The selection of music, however, was interesting and to the point.

The movie can be for you if you like mild SM and twisted characters as well as Gyllenhaal's performances, otherwise - see something more or less appropriate :)

Clearly, most of the people that thought this movie was genius were more titillated than anything. Yes, it's taboo. Yes it's intriguing. But it never really materialized in a smooth manner. I did appreciate the fact that the S and M stuff was introduced in a way that didn't insult the audience, taking the viewers seriously and insinuating they knew what this was all about. But for those that didn't understand, the film was pretty dull.

Sadly, the film just didn't take the subject far enough. While the progression of pleasure gathered by the characters was quite effective, a lot of little annoyances just kept getting in the way. Maggie Gyllenhaal's mental illness was too overplayed in the second half of the film, and then hokie moments like her pleasuring herself in the bathroom and the big crowds outside the lawyers' office really kind of knocked the film out of its continuous dark turn. In the hands of a more capable writing-directing team, this film would be pretty good. But with it already made, we'll have to stuck with this film until something better comes along.

What is the path to love? For every person, it's different. The superficial circumstances are similar... you meet someone at work, at school, in a singles bar. And, usually, the emotional pathways are similar. Eyes meet. We talk. We dance. We communicate about ourselves to each other. Then begins the sexual part, so we parry and thrust, take signals from each other, and, over time, we feel each other up together. But what about the path to love through the back door (so to speak)? What about a love story where she's a young, neurotic woman, just out of a mental hospital back to a family where Dad's a serious drunk and Mom's a serious nervous fruitcake. And what about a man, an attorney, who's emotionally closed off and can only get in touch with orchids, inserting long stainless-steel tools into their waiting organs. Yes, these two find each other in one of the most bizarre cinematic love stories ever.

I loved this movie. I pilgrim around, searching through books and movies for secret pathways to and circumstances of the human heart. This movie transcends its gentle S&M to reveal yet another way to love.

Our heroine, the fresh-faced (and magnificently moon-like) Maggie Gyllenhaal is brilliant as the new secretary to a lawyer who goes through so many secretaries, he has a "secretary" vacancy sign he lights up outside his office. As our heroine tries to re-enter the world by getting her first job with this man, it becomes apparent that the boss is anything but normal. He is demanding yet insistent that his new charge break away from her stifling past and be herself. But what or who is she? And who in the hell is he?

The movie is sexy. There's no denying it. Gyllenhaal is radiant and sinuous, and we feel that she's truly experiencing the wonder of it all for the first time. Spader is type-cast a bit, but his world-weary sexiness fits well with Gyllenhaal's naiveté. And, let's face it, Gyllenhaal is grippingly sexy, and we see her in hose, panties, tight skirts and in the nude. And as far as I'm concerned, she's fabulous, darling. And in one of the movie's sexiest, most endearing scenes, we see Spader carry her off in her urine-soaked wedding dress as he finally assumes his responsibilities as her loving "dom". She is totally tired, subservient and radiant in total surrender, rescued from a voyeurizing world. What a hunk of sexy cinema that was with her arm languidly draped around Spader's neck as he carried the bride over the threshold to love and dominance. Wow.

This movie explores and explodes sexual myths. The director has successfully created a dark comedy layered with nuance in a stew of social commentary. This movie is not for everyone. Stay away if you're conventionally wrapped, conservative, or lacking in a certain joy of exploration. But if you're ready for a most untraditional-traditional love story, Spader and Gyllenhaal give Oscar worthy performances... but of course the subject matter nixed that.

(Ah, at long last: a return to procrastinating, ruminating and insinuating my views on film via a IMDb User Comment...! It seems a while, though is maybe only four months. This viewing was an all-too-rare trip to the cinema for me of late, and it was indeed a Late Show, piping up with its typewriter-attended credits at as late as 11pm, in Cinema 2 at the Cambridge Arts Picturehouse.)

Now, "Secretary"... indeed, these matters make very daring subject matter for relatively mainstream Hollywood to be taking on. I think I can say that Shainberg and company managed to avoid putting fatal feet wrong. It is not an exceptional film overall, but at least for the first three-quarters is disarmingly entertaining, and edge-of-the-seat. It is a true boon for the film that I really didn't know how this was going to resolve itself, at 2/3 of the way in; the superb lead performances and a very astute script strike just the right uncertain, curious tone. The events we are shown are not held up as any general example - it is key to remember that - and yet, it gets one thinking interestingly of real-world relations between the sexes; at work and in amorous affairs particularly.

I loved Maggie Gyllenhaal here; a really thoughtful show of acting. Putting herself at the picture's centre, and imbuing the whole construct with human frailties and mannerisms. I adored Gyllenhaal's deft sleights of hand in conveying Lee's development of character: from the doe-eyed vacancy of an utter misfit girl, to a burgeoning, rather mischievous woman, who comes to terms with her intense sexuality and the way to relate to others. Others... well, to a certain Messr. E. Edward Gray; Spader plays this oddball lawyer with a delightfully lilting serpentine quality. He refuses to be pinned down or stared in the face by the audience, until the facade becomes entirely impossible. Unquestionably, the character takes advantage, but as the film's last act attests, only good eventually seems to come from this. Lee's family scenes amuse at the very first, and then do reveal themselves as essentially cardboard; we get little sense of depth or real dynamics going on: allegedly, much was cut from this portion of things. And as the parts we do have are nowhere near as well handled and interesting as the sparky, thoughtful Gyllenhaal-Spader scenes, maybe it was quite right that they were minimised.

The ending is sadly a misguided, doddering drawing of the veil over proceedings. Any degree of edginess or sinewy uncertainty that had been stirred in the spectator is shunned; bolted away from, indeed, by a very unsatisfying conclusion. A kind of Happy Ending on Happy Ending-hallucinogens; it frankly jars with and dismantles the thoughtful, spellbinding atmosphere hitherto sustained, and answers none of the tantalising questions that were forming themselves in my mind while watching the main body of the film. It is manifestly an avoidance of drama and real engagement with the scenario as it is set up; one expected some form of revelation about Gray's problematic life, yet, what do we get? An entire recantation, and a wondrously Changed Man in essential characteristics. I will insist that it ought not to have been as simple as that; it impoverishes an intriguing character.

Disappointingly, we miss any reflection on the sublime Peter's fate, after 'his Lee'; so very touching is the actor, playing an awkward, romantic Middle-American young man. See for example, his teary, bemused quality of haplessness when he imitates Lee's hands on the table gesture, as means of questioning what on earth she was doing on their wedding day, in Gray's office. A shame that this character wasn't delved into further; I'm sure an ambivalence might have emerged.

Furthermore, the lingering would-be ambiguous final shots are appalling; what are these supposed to denote? It would have been more honest to the rest of the conclusion to have had the couple cuddling lasciviously. These final shots merely lend an ever more doubtful, thrown-together impression, artistically. I won't go into the sham of the media coverage of Lee's 'vigil'; hook, line and sinker, it was the main offender in this film's downfall. Inappropriate, 'wacky' humour, cartwheeling in a tone from a completely different sort of film; in no conceivable sense did it pay any sort of dividend...

I will continue to dwell on negative aspects, as I feel it is important to note that this film - while on the whole very good - made some genuine errs. The voice-over really adds nothing; as with so many latter-day motion pictures, it is latched onto as a device presumably denoting 'cool' or, merely, 'the way things are', as it increasingly seems. These irrelevant, none too telling asides to the audience are a long way from William Holden and all that wonderful misanthropy - meddling with the audience's perceptions and expectations - in "Sunset Boulevard", back in 1950. Why not just try and 'show' a story visually? Unless an extra narrative voice is actually required or would add something tangible to the film's whole; better to let the cinematic deal with showing, rather than telling.

Anyway, enough of my casting dismaying briars into the critical blancmange; I have to insist that this was a most worthwhile, well-handled film - at least for most of its running time. It is a shame that the ending so rubs the rest of the film up the wrong way, as even as a whole, I must say it was appropriately teasing concoction, with splendid leading performances and appropriate handling of apparently 'non-mainstream' sexual issues.

How refreshing!! It has been quite some time since I went to the movies and walked out feeling I could wholeheartedly endorse the film I just saw. When asked why this film was so good by my coworkers, I responded "the actors' performances, the sets, the script, the content, essentially everything." And so it is, everything. Thank the spirits that flow someone still has the ability, honesty, and energy to make such a film in the land of fakery and deception. While the relationship depicted is that of a sadist and a masochist and this is what will get played up in the press, the point is the relationship and the near impossibility of love working without complete honesty. Bravo.

"Secretary" is everything I have ever wanted in a film: romance, humor, drama, and kinky sex! The incredible chemistry between an amazing Maggie Gyllenhaal and a repressed yet fierce James Spader is what makes this movie work so well, and the tender depths to which their relationship is portrayed makes it so much more than just a film about sadomasochism. I felt that the main theme of the film was to show that people have pain, and it is only when you accept that pain that you are able to feel your emotions fully, therefore making your life much more livable. This movie was a bit quirky, and might not be for everyone. However, I would recommend it to anyone with an open mind. "Secretary" is by far my favorite film of the year.

So what is it with the Academy and truly brave performances by women? For at least three years running, they've callously failed to even nominate the year's most mesmerizing, wrenching and courageous turns by lesser-known actresses in favor of showy swagger from big name bombshells. Julia Roberts was brassy and less grating than usual in Erin Brockovich, but to place her above Bjork's jaw-dropping vulnerability in Dancer in the Dark is inexcusable; likewise Halle Berry's histrionics as compared to Naomi Watts' soul-baring, nuanced anchoring of Mulholland Dr. And now Maggie Gyllenhall's fragile portrait of self-reclamation is overshadowed by forty minutes of Nicole Kidman pouting behind a phony nose? I lost faith in the Academy long ago, but this is inexcusable. Gyllenhall is very near perfect in this part, capturing a character living under a constant threat from herself and her unorthodox journey to, if not happiness, self-acceptance. If we don't really get to know the character beyond her neuroses, it's only because she doesn't seem to know or care much more than that about herself. The film itself has its flaws, but a fantastic effort by Ms. Gyllenhall is more than reason enough to cherish it.

I don't mind films that deal with disturbing material, as long as I get a sense of the methods behind their madness. I'm sure the director wasn't intending to make an exploitative softcore S & M flick. I mean, the film doesn't even contain that much nudity. But the film just left me dry, with a bad taste in my mouth. I knew this wasn't supposed to be the feel-good movie of the year, but I thought I would at least get more of a sense of the characters' motivations. I never fully got a sense of why the two main characters were into these fetishistic S & M acts. True, the film is different. True, the film is daring. But it didn't really lead anywhere. I had the same feeling after watching "Blue Velvet," which also dealt with a female character who enjoyed being abused.

The actors are not to blame. Maggie Gyllenhaal gives as human a portrayal of her character as possible. And I always enjoy James Spader, who lately I don't see too often in the movies.

The movie has a mildly promising beginning, and I can't say I "hated" it, but it was an overall unsatisfying experience, with a premise that could've been put to good use.

My score: 5 (out of 10)

The movie its story is highly original and the movie's subject is handled in a good way. It is what makes "Secretary" a one of a kind movie experience.

The movie beautifully tells the unusual love-story of the secretary (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and her boss (James Spader). The two subtly slowly develop a sadomasochistic relationship at the office. It's a subject that is not handled very often in a movie (atleast not in serious manner) and that is what makes "Secretary" an unique movie. It tells the story slowly and with lots of dark humor, making this movie a light and fun movie to watch rather than an heavy drama.

The movie is carried by director Steven Shainberg and the main cast. Maggie Gyllenhaal and James Spader (Hard to believe it's the same guy who played Daniel Jackson in "Stargate".) are acting really solid and make the story work and make the movie believable. Other solid performance comes from Jeremy Davies. This guy is on his way of winning an Oscar in not too long from now.

The subject is handled in a good and believable way but the movie is 'too little' to be considered controversial or a must see and it has a bit too many odd moments. It just is a fun solid movie that you will not regret watching.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Pros: 1. Maggie Gyllenhaal (Lee Holloway) and James Spader (Mr. Grey) both give great performances. 2. There is really good chemistry between James Spader and Maggie Gyllenhaal, and that shows explicitly in the sexual tension onscreen. 3. The film shows depth to the characters of Lee Holloway and Mr. Grey when it shows them struggling with their kinks and the affect it has on them.

Cons: 1. The score is a little too corny, and at times it sounds like music from a pornography film. 2. There are some really strange editing decisions, such as the usage of jarring slow-motion. 3. The initial bum-slapping scene lasts far too long and ends up being unintentionally funny. 4. Peter (Jeremy Davies) ends up being a useless character who is only inserted for forced drama. 5. The alcoholic father of Burt Holloway (Stephen McHattie) has no baring on the plot, and he only seems to be there for emotional manipulation. 6. Lee Holloway seems to stop self-harming when Mr. Grey starts spanking her. It seems a little unrealistic, as well as trivialising self-harm. 7. The comedy falls exceedingly flat.

I may be a jaded old cynic but from time to time a contemporary movie knocks me off my seat. Recently there's been quite a few -'May', 'Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance' and 'Auto Focus' immediately spring to mind. 'Secretary' is another recent gem. This is the most original romantic comedy (very black, mind you) I've seen in YEARS! And for something which deals with a lifestyle alien to me (dominance and submission) it's surprisingly touching, and even managed to get me to shed a tear or two. I had previously enjoyed Maggie Gyllenhaal's supporting roles in 'Donnie Darko' and John Waters' 'Cecil B. Demented' (she played Raven, the make up artist - "Pain is pleasure! Slavery is freedom! Suicide for Satan!' remember?), but her performance here is first class and is guaranteed to turn her into a major cult figure if not an actual genuine STAR. I confess that I now have a major crush on her to boot (I'm sure I'm not alone!). James Spader is also very, very good. While I admired him appearing in Cronenberg's 'Crash' a few years ago most of his other film choices have been safe ones and to be honest I'd pretty much given up on him as an actor. But it just goes to show what an actor is capable of with an innovative script and a supportive director. It's really difficult imagining any other two actors playing these roles any better. In the supporting cast Jeremy Davies also surprised me. I'd been getting a bit tired of his crazy shtick in previous roles, especially his extremely irritating performance in 'The Million Dollar Hotel', but he did a much more subtle job in this movie, and it really worked for me. This is my first experience with director Steven Shainberg but I was impressed. I now want to try and see his previous movie, the Jim Thompson adaptation 'Hit Me'. I also look forward to his next movie, because if 'Secretary' is any indication of his talent then he's sure to come up with something very special. Highly recommend.