What kind of world is this that celebrates the feast supposedly dedicated to love by a film glorifying domination not love?
Valentine Day this year was heralded by a perverse prelude, the release yesterday of 'Fifty Shades of Grey'. Those who wanted the privilege to view this oeuvre on its first day of release had to pay much more than those who would watch it a few hours later. But money is not of the essence to my argument.
Love is about sharing not domination. It is about the encounter of equal human beings not about the meeting between someone who is superior and someone who is inferior. It is about freedom not slavery. Love is about service not bondage.
The mega-selling novel and now the film based on it purportedly about the loving relationship Christian and Ana has nothing to do with love. A disturbed young man who became super-rich wants to dominate a vulnerable young woman. Christian is an obsessive sadist with an elaborately equipped "playroom" full of pain-inducing gadgets and restraints. He spanks Ana into subjugation after mesmerising her with his extravaganzas. He dominates her like he dominates so many people around his. But whereas the relationship with other people is a work type of relationship, his relationship to Ana should have been about love. In the novel and in the film that bears its title, love, which should be the highest expression of our humanity, is perverted beyond recognition.
Tim Wildmon, the president of the American Family Association was spot on to note that “Nothing in ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ builds up society, respects or empowers women or demonstrates healthy relationships. On the contrary the film “glorifies abusive relationships and glamorizes abusive tendencies such as stalking, bondage sex, intimidation and isolation.”
He rightly describes the film as “the epitome of elevating abuse” and “an incredibly unhealthy view of relationships and sexuality”.
Some put forward a populist argument saying that since the novel and the film are popular then both must be good. 'Fifty Shades' and the other two sequels written by E.L. James (her real name is Erika Mitchel) are really popular. They were translated in over 50 languages worldwide and sold over 70 million copies worldwide. The film will undoubtedly be seen by millions.
However, while I gladly concede that this argument makes financial and commercial sense it can hardly be considered to be a good ethical argument.
Why such popularity? Is there so much boredom around that the marketing ploy succeeded? Is it fascination with the darker sides of human nature? It is probably a multitude of reasons. Whatever the reasons one hopes that novel readers and cinema goers will not fall for the idea that all women are potentially willing victims of physical abuse and humiliation.