The film "Fifty Shades of Grey" was a box office hit this Valentine's Day weekend. First Coast Connect pop culture philosophy contributor Nicolas Michaud says the story might not be the healthiest expression of love and romance.
"Fifty Shades of Grey," a film based on the book by E.L. James, opened in theaters this Valentine’s Day weekend. The book series has been hugely popular, having sold more than 100 million copies worldwide.
For numerous reasons, the books have received a great deal of criticism ranging from critique of its prose to criticism of its explicit subject matter. Much of the story revolves around a relationship that in many ways could be considered abusive. It is hard to say for sure if it is a "love" story, but at the very least "Fifty Shades of Grey" delves deeply into the conflicted and tumultuous relationship between Anastasia Steele and Christian Grey as Anastasia enters Grey’s world of bondage and submission. Much of the controversy over the books hinges on the question of whether the story acts as a passionate form of advocacy for those who live alternative lifestyles, or if it acts to promotes violence against women.
Even without getting into the rather explicit details, there are some fantastic questions raised not just by the book, but by the tremendous success of the series. Consider, for example, the release date. Valentine’s Day, we tell ourselves, is a day about love and romance. Its expression, however, seems to be far more grounded in economy than any romantic ideas. What does Valentine’s Day teach us other than the best way to show love is through money? If we haven’t bought something nice for our partners, then we don’t really love them, right? What better way to show love than by killing pretty flowers and then giving our loved ones chocolate likely picked by child slaves in some other country? So should we be surprised that the romantic film we are most excited for Valentine’s Day is one less about love and more about transactions?
"Fifty Shades of Grey" likely doesn’t interest most of its readers just because of the physical content but because of the powerful push and pull between the two main characters as Anastasia struggles against Grey’s desire to maintain their relationship as a kind of business transaction. And, that fact only seems to remind us of the commercialization of love. After all we are talking about a love story that involves a man requiring that a woman to sign two contracts: one, to agree to not discuss their bedroom life with anyone; and two, to accede to the fact that their relationship has no "love" content, just the physical. Despite Anastasia’s repeated instance that she does not want to sign the second, Grey attempts to manipulate her into doing so.
Part of their contract requires that Anastasia not look Grey in the eyes. One interpretation of this tells us that it is just a game played by two adults. Yet, on the other hand, eye contact is something we tend to promote in men, but discourage in women. Consider what we often see in our media when a man and a woman meet. He walks into a bar, looks around, and then makes eye contact with a beautiful woman, they share a tense and sizzling moment, and then she looks down demurely, signaling to him her interest and the dropping of the boundary between them. We’ve seen it over and over again. Let’s be honest, what we are really seeing in this overly repeated, supposedly romantic scene, is a kind of hunt where the primal man casts his eyes about for, and then stares down, his helpless prey... much like Christian Grey does.
With that in mind, it makes me wonder if Grey is really best described as a predator. Consider, for example, the fact that Grey basically stalks, intimidates, and emotionally abuses Anastasia. He spends a good deal of time following her, learning her habits, and setting emotional traps to catch his prey.
So perhaps the controversy about "Fifty Shades of Grey" isn’t really about the better left behind the scenes intimacies of our lives. Instead, the questions that come to my mind are about love and what we consider romance. Have we genuinely reduced our social concept of love to one that can be distilled into contracts like Grey’s, really not so different from prenuptial agreements? Certainly there are good questions about whether or not this film portrays women as strong. Or does it portray them as willing victims who really, deep down, want a man who doesn’t want to love them?
I wonder, too, though about the portrayal of men. Is really the most romantic fantasy man we can see on Valentine’s Day one who believes that he shouldn’t love, and that the person with whom he shares his deepest intimacies shouldn’t even look him in the eye?
Nicolas Michaud is an author and editor of numerous pop culture and philosophy books.
