Girlfriend Experience

I saw this film last night on its UK premiere at the National Film Theatre (although it had previously been given a preview showing to a sell-out audience during the London Film Festival last month). Sasha Grey, the star of the film, appeared in person at the end and participated in one of the longer Q&A sessions in my, admittedly limited, experience of these events in which she batted away questions, mainly about her adult film career, with the same show of glacial insouciance that her character demonstrates in the film.

The film which is a series of episodic vignettes about the encounters, both professional and personal, of a high-priced Manhattan escort girl set in the run-up to last year's US Presidential election is not really about prostitution either as a means of earning money or as a paradigm for the despair of the human soul.

What it is really about is speed-dating, not as an extra-curricular activity but as a well-rewarded existence. The film opens with Ms Grey leaving a hotel and getting into a car and giving a deadpan account of her previous encounter with a client. She prefaces her remarks by listing her complete outfit down to her underwear since this was obviously part of the client "package" which he has purchased, if only for a short time. This sets the tone of the film as being a triumph of, quite literally, style over substance.

This is a very sanitised world with no violence, no drug-taking and even no cooking although enormous importance is attached to meals, mainly taken in commercial premises, where many important conversations take place with Chelsea describing her situation either to clients, an alternately amused and bemused girlfriend (of the platonic variety), and to a journalist. In Chelsea's profession making intelligent, if superficial, conversation is as, if not more, important than her bedroom gymnastic skills.

Whilst Ms Grey's elegant Ice Maiden, a persona she has exploited with astonishing ability in her adult film roles, is eminently watchable the main weaknesses of the film are the character and the plot. Ms Grey and her personal trainer boyfriend are mismatched and seem to have nothing in common except vapid self-regard.

There is not so much a narrative thread as a series of threads that Soderbergh pulls out then almost immediately lets drop again. The scene with the boyfriend where Chelsea tells him she is thinking of going away for the weekend with a client put me briefly in mind of Paul Snider's jealous murderous rage towards Dorothy Stratten (who emerged from the softcore world of Playboy to be on the brink of a carer as a serious actress before her untimely demise) at the end of Bob Fosse's biopic of that tragic figure, "Star 80", but it is never developed and it never becomes clear whether they patched up their differences or parted company.

The most interesting scene and the one where Chelsea almost has a "Goodbar" moment is an encounter with a blog reviewer of erotic "services", the gelatinous self styled "Erotic Connoisseur" . This stands out in sharp contrast to the rest of the film as the dialogue is sharp and pointed and even witty, provoking laughter in the audience, as relief from the surrounding conversational banality. However part way through the scene fades and we do not learn the denouement until later when she describes it in a conversation with a client.

This is one example of how scenes crucial to the action are discussed rather than depicted. This may have some value in a documentary but it weakens a drama which should have both conflict and resolution and this has neither and instead is a few days in the life of a New York escort girl except Ms Grey isn't an escort girl in reality but portraying one in fiction.

Lastly, we come to Ms Grey herself, who I think will be the major selling point of this film particularly for those who have come across at least some of her other 180-odd films she has appeared in since the age of 18 which will never receive a cinema release. Soderbergh himself makes an ironic reference to this in the final scene where a mountainous Jewish jewellry store owner achieves release by merely being embraced by Ms Grey, clad only in bra and pants, just as many others have achieved release by being electronically embraced by Ms Grey through watching her films.

Ms Grey is the most intriguing figure to come out of the adult film industry and attempt a mainstream crossover since Traci Lords in the mid-1980s. Her svelte, dark-haired willowy appearance stands in sharp contrast to the blowsy, blonde, silicon-assisted features of previous adult film stars who have entered the wider public consciousness in more recent times such as Jenna Jameson.

Could Ms Grey achieve what Dorothy Stratten was on the brink of doing before tragedy intervened and become widely accepted as a mainstream actress? On this evidence she has a long way to go yet but this reviewer will continue to follow her career with interest.

OK, somewhere between 1 and 5.. Look, I'm a fairly big Soderbergh fan, Solaris - perfect!, Kafka (where can I buy this now!!), Sex Lies., The Good German and etc.. But what the heck was this movie? I was waiting during the entire movie for the "it's about to get interesting", it has to get interesting because the acting sucks.. right?.. "it's just about to get.. " nope. It never was interesting. And oh I had high hopes for Sasha, not that I know who she is because I had to look her up on Google. But because I love to root for the underdog - thinking just maybe a porn star really could break into mainstream. Oh right, that kinda sorta did happen once from that porn star from the 80's Traci lords.

Despite how 'high brow' Sasha is supposed to be, she was anything but barely interesting during the entire movie. I'm not sure if it was her acting or the script. Hard to tell.

Seriously, this is bad indie at best. It was almost like it was trying to be an indie film, but Sasha Grey didn't have really any interesting lines, she just sat there with uninteresting (understatement) responses. She did cry well, that was about the most challenging part - again the script.

Too bad, I thought this was going to be good by reading those reviews on the box (ah, suckered in by the reviews again!),

I never write reviews about anything. I had to sign up for IMDb just to write this. :) Other than this film, however, Soderbergh rocks, and Sasha Grey probably could act if challenged. She is certainly interesting to look at both in the screen charisma sense and in the other sense.

Well, it was only 5 bucks at BB and 2 hours of my time.

Soderbergh satisfies because he is fearless in a way that Herzog could never be. Herzog goes toward danger in order to capture experiences, but he relies on cinematic methods and narratives models that are safe. Indeed, he never innovates or experiments here. As a result, we get lush operas about violent nature.

Soderbergh on the other hand seems ready to risk his soul, to destroy his career, to make an audience very unhappy if it allows him to surround his art. You never know; you never do. This is structurally less risky than the film he make with and about his wife, 'Schizopolis.' But it is about much the same experience.

The risk is only partially in building the character of a hooker around a genuine porn star. It is more in the assumption that close observation of the near-real will snap us into the ultrareal. Who else does this? Who else among successful filmmakers would put themselves on the line like this. Jarman perhaps, if he had been more widely seen.

And that is what happens. Because the insights here come not from what is written or what the actors do, but by what we see. The filmmaker is the character that is revealed because we define ourselves by the world we make. And he makes this, by looking for certain things between men and women. The killer risk is that he won't find it, or worse, if he does, he shows us who he really is.

The idea is remarkable. The we see through is actually interesting; he makes Sasha an attractive subject and casts his own foibles onto her boyfriend.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Here in Australia there is an extraordinary statistic which tells us that the majority of students at the biggest university in the country work in the sex industry. You see, study is expensive. Who wants to slave away at McDonald's for hours after class to buy books and pay off student loans when you can make ten times that much for a fraction of the time spent? There is obviously an interesting movie to be made here. This is not that movie. I knew a girl who paid her way through law school by working as an escort. Any one of her stories about "clients" would be more interesting than this.

As the title implies, Chelsea/Christine, the main character, is an escort who also goes out on dates with her clients. She also meets regularly with a journalist who is apparently writing an article about her. This is funny, because as either Christine or Chelsea, the prostitute alter ego, this woman doesn't say a single interesting thing throughout the entire movie. The only interesting characters are the "clients", and yet they're paying Chelsea for her time, not just for sex.

It is tempting to critique Sasha Grey's performance, but the script doesn't give her much to do right, let alone wrong. It's a one note character, and a one note performance.

"The Girlfriend Experience" also refrains from making any kind of statement about this strange, shocking situation that so many students are in now. It's just Chelsea visiting different men.

It has occurred to me that the repetition of these scenes makes it deliberately confusing as to who the men are. At first, you assume they are all clients Chelsea is servicing. Then, you realise that Chelsea is Christine with some, one is a boyfriend, the other is a journalist interviewing her. Is the point that for someone in Christine's situation, men are interchangeable, and it is hard to tell clients from spouses? This is not the way any of the real-life sex workers I have heard from describe their work and private lives, but hey, I'll take meaning where I can get it.

This film gets a 5/10 from me because mostly it was in focus and not too hostile to the viewer.

That said, let me start at the end, and say that I was at once relieved that the tedium was over, and annoyed that almost no story had been told, no character really developed. It doesn't even qualify as an abstractly artistic experience.

Soderbergh is by no means my favourite director, but he has been responsible for some at least competent film-making in the past, which is why I went to see this film, in addition to the subject sounding interesting.

But I am just shocked not to be able to find anything good to recommend this film except that it's in focus, and you can identify a main character or two. The sound, cinematography, and editing are otherwise among the worst I've ever experienced. The story just barely exists. In a way, the film is worth seeing just to see how not to make a film.

I could go on about what I wish had been different, but really, what's the point? It's beyond repair.

I will say it's better than Last Days by Gus Van Sant. If you liked that, you'll probably love this.