The Girlfriend Experience

Richard Dower

Anybody seen it yet?...heard about this ages ago. Steven Soderberg directed and star very very hardcore pornstar Sasha Gray. While i'm NOT a fan of Gray and her hardcore work it seems that (according to her) she's been acting and taking classes for 10 years and her ultimate aim is to move out of the porn set.

Very few pornstars have moved into mainstream, but i wanted to see this to see if her boastings and arrogance on Facebook and MySpace match her actual abilities. What did you think?

liah

I watched about half of it last night before I finally fell asleep.

She doesn't seem like much of an actress tbh. Maybe her character is just meant to be very dull and monotone, I don't know, but the movie definitely did nothing to help me stay awake.

I'm not sure why it's so highly acclaimed. It's not bad, mind, but it's nowhere near the level people are professing it to be. The other actors seem to be alright, though.

The movie's filmed from a very "human" perspective. It's mostly hand-held and you feel quite like a voyeur, which I assume is the point, but it also made things a bit dull in parts.

I have yet to watch the second half so I guess I'll leave it at that til I watch the rest, maybe it'll improve.

I read up a bit about her and she just seems incredibly arrogant and full of herself. She did an interview for rottentomatoes.com and they asked her her favourite films-- they were all rather arty, pretentious types but when asked to describe them she basically said fúck all and definitely didn't make herself out to be as intelligent and arty as she claims, quite the opposite tbh.

She tries too hard imo. Doesn't surprise me though.

Richard Dower

I guess the hype comes from her, she's one of the top rated/watched and sought after pornstars...personally i don't see the appeal, i'll be watching it later to shall report back.

Richard Dower

"Unfortunately it looks like Soderbergh exploited her as a gimmick more than any hardcore gonzo scene could ever do."

Rather interesting observation....but one could say they exploited each other, Grey wanting the publicity and kudos of being in a Soderberg movie....i doubt she's an idiot airhead, quite calculating it would seem.

Richard Dower

Just finished watching it, it's kind of an interesting movie....but, you really don't learn anything at all about Chelsea/Christine or why she is an escort. It's very very slow paced, for those expecting nudity or sex...outta luck!

Little to nothing, couple of brief scenes and one is blurred, but...wait until the credits roll, there is an additional scene right at the end. The movie is about, what?...a high class escort and the rich clients she dates. The script as it were seems to be more conversations, long takes, average everyday conversations one might expect these high fylers to discuss.

Politics, Obama, financial crisis, bailout...all pretty recent and relevent topics. But alot of these dialogues are conversations and guy and his girlfriend might have after a days work.

Ergo, they are paying for "the girlfriend experience", as for Grey...i find it difficult to quantify her "performance", because to me i'm not sure if Soderberg gave her a specific direction or if it's essentially Grey playing herself.

I read some forums whereby posters said they had seen Grey in alot of other interviews and she was the same as playing Chelsea in the movie, thus one must conclude is that Grey is playing Grey...and if this is trye then she is very wooden, evasive, gaurded, and well....boring.

The movie addresses this, there are parts wherby a reporter is interviewing her and asking her tough and probing questions and she avoids giving any real answers or insights, a huge wall is put up.

MY reading of these scenes and how Soderberg has her "play" Chelsea is that Soderberg must have interviewed Gret himself and audition her, what he saw during that time he basically wrote into the script, or had someone else write it in.

When i saw that journalist interviewing Chelsea i felt it was a carbon copy of Soderberg interview Grey about her appearing in the movie, they also delve a little bit into the business of escorting, there again i think Soderberg asked Grey the same questions and wrote that stuff into the script, but changed it to Chelsea.

From a purely acting standpoint Grey as i said comes off cold, distant and very guarded...like she dosen't want you to know "the real her", that it's like an act, a business transaction....but i guess it is.

I'm not saying how she acted was the worst in history, i just feel she wasn't acting at all but basically playing herself, if that's the case then it's hard to say she's a bad actress when in fact that's Sasha.....but then what is Sasha like?

To me she comes off as dull, cold, slightly deluded, not as intelligent as she'd like to think she is and manipulate. I would like to have seen more from her in the movie, but maybe there is no more depth to her?

Will she succeed in other projects?...perhaps, the indie/arthouse films i think would be an option. But i honesty can't see her moving to mainstream, she has no screen presence, the lighting is pretty good and the locations such as the penthouses and restaurants all look very nice and classy.

Lots of long shots, hand held, but the movie has no real plot per se nor is the "script" a script as one would expect. It's interesting for a one off viewing, it's only 78 mins....just don't expect a ground breaking porrnstar-esque move into mainstream deal, don't watch it expecting Sasha Grey to be blowing guys for 75 mins.

Richard Dower

Actually one might watch this hour long video of Grey, she discuus the movie and her life at a university

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/files/2009/05/sasha-grey.html/

Richard Dower

Any further opinions from others on this movie?

johnny_ultimate

I felt it was stylistically interesting and structurally ambitious. I heard that Soderburgh changed the themes of the film on the fly to reflect the economic downturn, which probably benefited the film. Chelsea is a symbol of the hyper-commericialisation of society, emulating human emotion for the super-rich. She tries her best to give meaning to her profession, but the reality is that this isn't reality - the clients don't view this as particularly real (she is easily discarded by the man she thinks she makes a real connection with). It makes it difficult to continue a normal relationship in light of her unnatural job. The scene with the 'Erotic Connoisseur' was very effective - thought it was a sly jab at criticism, but amusingly he is played by a real-life film critic! Again, I think the scene represents the general falsity of the job - perhaps the same could be said of porn as an industry?

It isn't the kind of film that jumps out as being extraordinary, but there are plenty of ideas here. It feels low scale, and the jumbled chronology helped the film IMO, giving new relevance and insight into character revelations. I did like it a lot, and am glad Soderburgh still makes these kind of films alongside his big studio stuff (although the Informant! was hilarious).

Richard Dower

One scene i remember was Chelsea and her BF in the apartment, Soderberg shoots with a long lense/long shot....and very VERY slowly zooms in, i thought this scene was shot very well. I'll also note Sasha's clothes for the movie....very nice and classy.