Posted in March 2015

50 Shades of Nay

50 SHADES

 

So I read that Jamie Dornan didn’t attend drama school. Jamie thinks acting is ‘instinctual.’

That’s a shame. Maybe he would have been better equipped to deal with the cold slab of flesh that is Dakota Johnson. Rumours are they lacked chemistry and he found her difficult. To be honest I would struggle to act opposite a piece of wood myself. She certainly lacks je nais se quoi. (Sorry Melanie G). We know that the character of Anastasia is meant to be somewhat plain, however we are led to believe (in the book anyway) that there is something intangibly irresistible about her- which means Grey can’t stay away.

We failed to see this in the film. Unfortunately Dakota Johnson seriously lacks the sex appeal/innocence combo required for this role. Alexis Bledel would have been an ideal choice, and I think many fans envisaged her taking the role. I’m unsure as to whether she was even asked, possibly too old for the role.

A few things about the movie to consider:

 

*Why was her roommate like 35?

*Why was her roommate unbelievable as a human being? She seemed to be a caricature of a person.

*Why were Dakotas’s eyebags so fucking huge?

*Why was Dakota so bumbly?  Anastasia is naïve, but she’s not meant to be an idiot.

*Why is Jamie Dornan married (FML)

*What did Grey find so great about her? Whatever it was did not translate well to film.

Fact is that some of the bits in the book which are so hot (and of course implausible) became laughable when put on screen.  The bit where he growls ‘fuck the paperwork’ in the book is actually sexy as hell- on screen it’s just a bit… cringe.

Credit to Jamie Dornan though who acts his pants off, literally. I was disappointed that we didn’t see more of the goods though, especially as there was lots of Dakota naked.

Dakota I did not believe for one second in the role. In turns she seems positively bored, disinterested, disaffected. She doesn’t looked pained when she can’t touch him (in the book she is devastated) she’s more mildly annoyed here. This woman is supposed to be deeply consumed by him and I don’t buy it for one minute.

I think Jamie actually gets better as the movie goes on (i’m not biased I promise!) I thought he portrayed a very sympathetic Grey. It was obvious why she was so in to him. Also, a fucked up man is always so interesting/tempting/exquisite.

The one sexy scene in the whole movie is when they are sitting at either end of a very long table with a sunset type of quality to the background (even if it’s in the office) and he tells her he wants to fuck her and you wonder if they will on the table. They don’t and it actually makes it all the more sexy.

For her role I’m afraid they needed someone with a lot more gravitas.

The film itself cut a lot of the foreplay moments that the characters had in the book and I think this did it a disservice. There was no frisson or build up, or chemistry or will they won’t they ( I mean we all know they WILL but it never gave us any reason to doubt it. And that’s a serious quality that it should have striven to achieve, makes it sexier)

From the moment she fell in his office (like a dick), it just seemed to be a count down to the sex. And her writhing naked with too many shots of her twiglet nipples (while we see nothing of him – perhaps one tease of his ball – believe me I was REALLY looking)  while he does the odd spank isn’t sexy really. He should have really seduced her body – gone down on her for example (which happens in the book a lot and didn’t happen much here)  and she should have SOLD that shit like she was loving it and she simply didn’t. Disappointing. Believe me, if I had Jamie Dornan between my legs, it would have be difficult to keep it to just simulating if I’m honest.

I do wonder how different it would have been had someone more stylised tackled it – a Soderbergh or a Tarantino for example. Not that either would touch it with a barge pole, but there was potential here, and  I don’t think Taylor Johnson did it any favours.

It wasn’t terrible don’t get me wrong,  watchable – but a let down.