Richard Mailer's 1981 venture into the world of adult publications offers a glimpse into the less-than-glamorous machinery behind the magazine covers. Set against the backdrop of New York City's publishing scene, the film follows a young intern navigating the complicated, often ethically murky waters of finding the next star model. It attempts to blend workplace drama with the titillation inherent in its subject matter, resulting in an experience that is often as conflicted as its protagonist's journey. The core idea, focusing on the pressures and personalities within such an environment, holds some promise, hinting at a potential satire or critique of the industry.
The execution, however, mirrors the low-budget aesthetic common to films of its type and era. Characterizations lean heavily into archetypes: the eager, perhaps naive newcomer trying to make her mark; the quintessential sleazy editor whose motivations are transparently self-serving; and the ironically named photographer, 'The Maniac', whose supposed sex addiction fuels his lens but adds a layer of predictability rather than depth. While the dynamic between the ambitious intern and her obstructive boss provides some narrative friction, it often descends into familiar tropes. The photographer character feels like a missed opportunity - intended perhaps as quirky or darkly comic, but ultimately contributing to the film's uneven tone.
The film seems unsure whether it wants to be a commentary on the objectification within the modeling world or simply another piece of the very industry it depicts. Moments that could have offered sharper insight are often undercut by a commitment to showcasing the expected elements of the genre. The quest for the "perfect" model becomes less about artistic vision and more a series of encounters designed to fulfill audience expectations of the time. It captures a certain gritty, pre-digital era of magazine production, but the narrative struggles to rise above its exploitative underpinnings. It's a product of its time, reflecting certain attitudes and aesthetics without offering significant critique or transcendence. The result is a viewing experience that feels dated and doesn't quite capitalize on the inherent drama or potential satire of its setting, leaving it hovering in a middle ground of mediocrity.
