“The Girlfriend Experience” Looks and Feels Indie
Shot on a budget of less than 2 million dollars, “The Girlfriend Experience” looks and feels like a true indie, in the worst sense of the word. Soderbergh’s style of shooting looks more real, but also looks like a frat guy taped it with his video camera, forgetting to white balance it. His experimental style does not translate well as a whole, rushing through events in an order that is chronologically confusing. Scenes blend events happening in the recent past at an indiscriminate point in the seemingly present, rehashing the same events from similar angles.
The focus of the film is Chelsea (real life porn star Sasha Grey), a high-class prostitute who caters to a wealthy clientele. Chelsea prides herself on offering what’s known as “the girlfriend experience,” spending time with her clients outside the bedroom, allowing them to kiss her and to talk to her about their lives. At the same time, Chelsea tries to keep a serious relationship with a personal trainer named Chris (Chris Santos).
As a prostitute, Chelsea has aspirations of moving up to a wealthier more exclusive client base for greater profit. We follow her on her quest to cultivate business strategies and consult so-called experts in the field. Meanwhile, we also see Chris attempt to move up in the world of fitness, scoping out other gyms and opportunities for management. Unfortunately, neither of them meet with any significant success due to one main reason: the bad economy.
The struggling economy and the presidential election of 2008 were relevant themes when the movie was shot, and the economy remains relevant today. Use of the economy as a plot device partly brings down the fourth wall, tying the characters to real events. This makes the film more relatable to the average person, however as a device it becomes slightly overwhelming. Soderbergh beats you over the head with references to the country’s woes, to the point where you start to suspect him of a douchey liberal political agenda.
Acting as a window into the tough existence of a prostitute and the difficulties of having a normal life in the profession, the film is an interesting peek into a life most people don’t have access to. Almost as a metaphor for concept, Chelsea spends part of her time detailing her experiences to a reporter chronicling her challenges. Chelsea doesn’t make any headway against her problems, which makes this of a portrait of a high-class prostitute is incomplete; its elements painted in a bizarre chronological order, leaving the viewer with a large empty spot on the canvas where a resolution should sit.
Sasha Grey creates a realistic character that’s cold and emotionally closed off to her clients, yet vulnerable and open to people in her life she wants to know intimately. Chris Messina also does solid work as Chelsea’s boyfriend. He tries to understand and support her career, but like most men Chris has difficulty overcoming the jealously that comes with his girlfriend’s career.
In many ways Stephen Soderbergh embarks on a noble experiment with “The Girlfriend Experience,” striving to create a story about a person that most audiences could normally never identify with. His use of the economy as a side element should make his film more relatable, but instead it becomes so overbearing that it feels more like someone trying to make douchey liberal political statements than a movie for the average man.
If you’ve got an Netflix subscription and you’re bored, watching it through their streaming player is not a horrible way to spend an hour and ten minutes. The film’s short length and easy availability of it are slightly redeeming.
My Grade: C
Leaving aside the idea that a movie becomes better because it’s short and easily available, how exactly does anything in the movie translate to a “douchey liberal political agenda”? Since when is a bad economy a liberal/conservative thing? Isn’t it just something that’s there that affects all of us? Furthermore, I feel the film reflects this.
Nobody in the film, to my recollection, directly aligns the economy to either the Bush or Obama administration, and if they do, the film doesn’t align itself with them, as Soderbergh characteristically doesn’t take sides with any character.
Also, what would’ve been a satisfying resolution? I can’t think of any other ending that wouldn’t have come completely out of left field, ruining the whole movie as a result. Chelsea’s problem is one without a solution (increasingly so as the film progresses), and the one of the major points is that she’s now stuck with the consequences of some very impulsive actions.
Scott,
Thank you for leaving such an emphatic comment. Ultimately if I can engage someone this much to talk about a movie I feel good, even if they don’t necessarily agree with me. I was being a bit facetious when talking about the quality of the film improving in regards to ease of availability and length. While I can see where you would take issue with my label of douchey liberal agenda, I stand behind my statement.
I feel that the issue of the economy and the election specifically in reference to Obama come frequently enough in the film to the point of which they indicate a liberal bias. I certainly agree with you that mere mention of those things doesn’t necessarily indicate political alignment one way or another, Hollywood bigwigs (directors and actors) have a tendency to try to speak for the common person without adequate understanding of the people they think they represent. I found tremendous irony in the fact that the movie showcases economic hardship, but finds it okay to glorify businessmen renting a private jet, to fly to Vegas for a weekend of extravagant spending. That’s where I think the douchyness comes from.
On the issue of the ending, I didn’t expect things to be magically resolved for poor Chelsea, but any sort of self-realization on her part or even acknowledgement that things were truly over between her and her boyfriend would have been nice. Since I feel like the idea of their relationship or attempted one was an important aspect to the film, I was annoyed that it was just dropped towards the end.
I see more where you’re coming from on the ending. Still don’t agree, but like you said, that’s cool.
Also, I didn’t really see it as glorifying the Vegas trip, or any aspect of high-class business (a natural setting for Chelsea’s occupation). Compare that aspect of the film (the Vegas part, that is) to The Hangover, which absolutely glorifies that lifestyle. I actually felt a little queasy during The Girlfriend Experience, sensing the desperation these guys had to live that glorified life sold in every “What Happens in Vegas” ad or any episode of Entourage. I found dishonesty and sleaze, and I felt like the film was absolutely on that train – these are, after all, exactly the kind of people who got us into the financial mess everyone in the film complains about, and they continue to live the exact same lifestyle, and those actions set against the financial crisis was, if not incredibly clever, certainly a very relevant and necessary view.
And I’m not certain the film addresses economic hardship – in fact, I thought it was sort of ironic (in the regular way, not the modern hipster way) that so many people so clearly well off, and again, many of whom contributed to the crisis, were so freaked out by it.
And for what it’s worth, not that I feel production history should bear too much weight on the interpretation of the final film, the entire film was improvised, and Soderbergh said in several interviews that, because of this, people naturally started talking about the election and the economy.