Plot Details: This opinion reveals major details about the movie's plot.

To what extent do we defend our moral grounds? How far should a person go in the process of intervention when they know someone they love is doing something dangerous to themselves?

While Secretary doesn't have a black and white answer to this, it does manage to effectively send one message to its audience -- They are people too.

Secretary is not for the everyday individual. If you fall into the group of those born to two happy parents, who enjoyed bountiful Christmas mornings year after year, who went to private schools and have never been in a fight in their lives, your best bet is to walk away. Unless, and this is a big unless, you rank among the most morbid echelons of curiosity with regard to the slightly befuddling habits of others. (Uhh, did that make sense?)

A long time ago, in 1954, in the midst of a movie called Rear Window, Grace Kelly said something to the effect of, "People do all kinds of things in their homes that they couldn't begin to explain." Looking for a more specific example? Here you go.

Maggie Gyllenhaal plays the part of Lee, this high-strung, low-strung, every kind of strung you can imagine, individual. Her family is the left-of-center type, but aren't they always? The movie opens up at Lee's sister's wedding, where Lee's father is taking a little too kindly to the bottle. Lee tries to be comforting, loving, caring, accepting, hopeful, but it doesn't change anything. She is frustrated by the boundaries of her own mortality and her lack of an outlet. And so up the stairs she goes, to her room, to cut herself.

She tries to quit, but she can't. The scars on her body collect like cavities to the sweet tooth. Her mother locks all the sharp objects away at night. But then, Lee finds a job.

James Spader plays the part of Mr. Grey, Lee's eventual boss. And guess what job she'll be performing! Although Mr. Grey is subdued, you know almost immediately that there is a lot more to his character. As is slowly revealed through the opening hour, Grey has a penchant for dominance. And to his secret satisfaction, Lee is more than happy to be.. you know, submissive. It goes along fine, until Grey starts to become distant.

I shan't tell you the rest, or else I'd end up spoiling some neat stuff. Suffice it to say, Lee has to make decisions about her goodygoody fiance Peter (Jeremy Davies), her self-infliction habit, and how she feels about Grey's sudden withdrawal from the "adventures" into which he was starting to bring her.

Maggie Gyllenhaal looks awesome through and through. Almost any other actress would have played this role as a very disturbed individual with a few "normal" qualities. Maggie plays it like a very normal individual with a few "disturbing" qualities. I don't care what they say, her smile is so sexy. And as is mentioned in the DVD commentary, a good many unnecessary scenes were cut because Maggie's expression told you all you needed to know about how she was feeling, how bad the problem really was, how long it had been going on, etc.

The thing that surprised me the most was how good James Spader was. I was expecting some condescending, screw-you-majority character who would be proud of what he is, but that's far from it. The guy is completely lost in self-loathing, working in a not-so-competitive firm and frustrated by the fact that because he is different, he will never find someone who is "compatible". Spader nailed the guilt and the ensuing regression that comes from one too many rejections, volleying balls into empty courts, yadda yadda. Fortunately, the movie is smart enough to know that the masses aren't the reason he feels guilty, the golden rule is. And that's even worse.

But that's a conflict that I (and the movie) would probably be better off not tackling. Moreso than anything, Secretary sets out to help you believe that these are real people with real tastes. They react to situations in very human ways, sometimes even humorous ways. They feel the entire spectrum of emotional and physical stimulation, of every type from the good to the bad to the ticklish.

They're not that different from us, and for what little bit they are, it's not worth the trouble.

While it's a risky and controversial endeavor, Steven Shainberg directs this thing to a very beautiful anticlimax. All the while, painting faces with light, blurring them into dreams, forgoing the cut and capturing the primal thirst in the moment.

All controversy aside, I couldn't possibly not recommend this. It puts society into a tailspin, it may change the way you look at people. They could be your next door neighbors, those who work beside you, your mailmen. Does this not sound an awful lot like Fight Club? Maybe Secretary is like "Fight Club the chick flick". Much like Fight Club, the plot is driven more by the growth of characters than by outside events.

Secretary is not an easy movie to watch, but the reasons for it being so have little to do with violence. The only thing even close to violence is a scene in which Mr. Grey spanks Lee repeatedly for a typo while she is reading out loud the letter she typed for him. And there are plenty of more confounding things about that scene than what he is doing to her. Nudity? Well of course, but that comes later. The last ten seconds of the film are the most disarming of all, but you'll see why when/if you get there!

That's about it for the movie. But since I hastily spewed a stream of consciousness on my first draft, and don't really see any inherent value in deleting it, I'll share my take on the proverbial two towers of this confusing debate. Feel free to jettison at any time.

I don't understand some things...
If pain is "the way to go" for someone, that's none of my business. Obviously we're not talking about the kind of "beaten to an inch of your life" pain, or else they should be the ones going to Iraq, wouldn't you say? But it's not like that. It's moderated pain. I guess the problem I have is that if a little bit of pain brings on a little bit of pleasure, it only seems logical that what's bringing on the rest of the pleasure is the thought of the rest of the pain, which is safely avoided and no one has to know what was happening inside the mind. I guess I could buy the thought of a little pain bringing on a lot of pleasure, but given that the two sensations are polar opposites, it doesn't make sense. I can't think of anything else in this world in which one spectrum achieves its extreme by first achieving half of the opposite. I know it's stupid to analyze. Who can really explain human sensation? Pain is a sensation, just like any other, but it is the only one that your instinct tells you to avoid. The thing is, the instinct argument works the other way too.

...but I can live with 'em
Because of Secretary, one might see that there is no more cause to question that interest than there is to question someone liking the flavor of spinach. Some people do, some people don't. It's no different than the thousands of other interests on which we differ. Pain is the body's warning sign; it provokes the instinct to evade. But is it any different when someone eats spinach and the instinct tells them to spit it out? If a kid refuses to eat spinach, it's because he's spoiled. Are we spoiled because we spit out pain?

I have toyed with the theory that maybe pain and pleasure are like two halves of a circle, opposites, and the two extremes eventually meet somewhere. Just like the rainbow, starting at red, going to orange, yet somehow after all the "cooling" of colors, ends up going back to red again. Ever hear of "freezer burn"? Another example of two extremes "meeting up". We know so little about ourselves that in the long run, it is unfair to question anything, especially human behavior. It may well be the subject on which we have the most catching up to do.


Recommended: Yes

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: Good for a Rainy Day
Suitability For Children: Not suitable for Children of any age