When watching The Girlfriend Experience I was reminded of the book American Psycho. I think the initial comparison was in the scenes where Chelsea is documenting her "dates" and she lists her clothes and her make-up, in a way very reminiscent of American Psycho. I think the comparison can go further than that - in a way the world of The Girlfriend Experience is the world created by those satirised in American Psycho.
The Girlfriend Experience is more of a portrait than a satire, perhaps this makes it more suited to the economic conditions - rather than the satire of American Psycho matching the excess of the times portrayed, here we have a quiet portrayal of the way capitalism affects, well, everything. The only glimpse we get of the previous world is via the trip to LA, a trip which it is stated that they can't really afford, and which is shot to look different to the rest of the film, coming across as a nostalgia trip, for the times they used to have...
Enough seems to have been written on this aspect of the film already so I shall concentrate on something else, Chelsea's "personology". We never really get to know much about this, several hints suggest it is a type of numerology. The mysterious status of it is enhanced by the way we only see the books as parcels being delivered to the flat - wrapped, hidden - we have a metaphor for the way the books form the core of Chelsea's "self" - when Chelsea and her boyfriend argue it is the fact that he never really believed in her books that gets to her. This is the closest we get to Chelsea, she is constantly distant, in the scenes of arguing she remains emotionally detached, while Chris is getting emotional, she remains calm, but also refusing to really say anything, to give him any explanation or reason, beyond the "personology", beyond "I must".
This "personology" leads her to go away for the weekend with her client, in the hope of something else. It is tempting to suggest that this is her opportunity to become a subject, outside of the economic, with a relationship that begins as economic transaction leading to an escape from such transactions. The impossibility of this is then made obvious to her. And these scenes, showing her struck at the core of her subjectivity are followed by her being struck in her objectivity with the bad review of her work by the erotic reviewer. Here we see two things; firstly the false objectivity of the critic, in this case the very presence of the critic changes the act. We can also see a reflection of what Lacan says about the position of the analyst, that the changing hands of money allows the analyst to step outside of the personal relationship, "we neutralize it [the transference] by equating it with the signifier that most thoroughly annihilates every signification - namely, money." The economic becomes a barrier, separating her from the act, which allows Chelsea to have sex, play the girlfriend of strangers, without it affecting her (and is this not the same on the other side, on the side of the man who pays for an intimacy (both sexual and communicative) which is only possible due the economic transaction removing the usual building of intimacy). Once the economic distance is removed she finds it hard to perform the act, she describes the reviewer as "dirty", and this is what the sex act becomes once the economic distance is removed. This is the other side of the coin to the film's central message of the alienation of capitalism, on the personal level it intervenes badly; on the level of work, it intervenes all too well, enabling us to perform acts we would not otherwise consider (is this not, on some level, true of all work? Without the economic wouldn't most of us look at what we did at work and say "No!").
It should also be noted that it is the fact of her work, her economic freedom (which she says was one of the reasons for going into the work) that allows her the power to risk things with her boyfriend to go away for the weekend with the client. So the economic is not just damaging, but enabling at the same time. What we have is a world in which the economic affects everything, there is nothing outside of it. All the talk throughout the film is of the economic, there is obvious comparisons made between Chelsea's work as an escort and her boyfriend's work as a personal trainer, the personal aspect of the economic is shown when Chelsea sees one of her clients with another escort and hides from him, the economic loss also affects her personally, she wonders why she is no longer good enough for him.
Which is to say that the objective and the subjective are not so easily seperable. Imagine if she had successfully met with her client and "live happily ever after", wouldn't the economic questions, the alienations of capitalism have simply returned? The question becomes, can one find a system to live by with the power to break the spell of capitalism? Can one find a subjectivity outside of the economic?
To return to the "personology", the question is whether this is just a way for her to live with her economic situation - allowing her to vet her clients, giving her some control, or whether it is possible that such a system could help her break from the economic - it leads her to take the risk and go away for the weekend with her client. Of course that attempt fails, but has it changed the situation, allowed her to see a way out? The film leaves the question open, it is a portrait of the situation, all relationships in it are tied to the economic, and as such does not need to provide answers, it's beauty lies in asking the question.
An addition. it occurs to me that the nostalgic trip to Las Vegas should be seen in the same context as Chelsea's weekend with her client. Chelsea tries to escape the economic via a future outside of the economic, the boyfriend recoils from the event into the past, ignoring the economic via a nostalgic trip when everything was okay. What both overlook is the need to change the economic itself. Both options are just ways to avoid the real question, which is how to live as a subject in the economic - or how to change the economic so we can live as subjects.
The Girlfriend Experience is more of a portrait than a satire, perhaps this makes it more suited to the economic conditions - rather than the satire of American Psycho matching the excess of the times portrayed, here we have a quiet portrayal of the way capitalism affects, well, everything. The only glimpse we get of the previous world is via the trip to LA, a trip which it is stated that they can't really afford, and which is shot to look different to the rest of the film, coming across as a nostalgia trip, for the times they used to have...
Enough seems to have been written on this aspect of the film already so I shall concentrate on something else, Chelsea's "personology". We never really get to know much about this, several hints suggest it is a type of numerology. The mysterious status of it is enhanced by the way we only see the books as parcels being delivered to the flat - wrapped, hidden - we have a metaphor for the way the books form the core of Chelsea's "self" - when Chelsea and her boyfriend argue it is the fact that he never really believed in her books that gets to her. This is the closest we get to Chelsea, she is constantly distant, in the scenes of arguing she remains emotionally detached, while Chris is getting emotional, she remains calm, but also refusing to really say anything, to give him any explanation or reason, beyond the "personology", beyond "I must".
This "personology" leads her to go away for the weekend with her client, in the hope of something else. It is tempting to suggest that this is her opportunity to become a subject, outside of the economic, with a relationship that begins as economic transaction leading to an escape from such transactions. The impossibility of this is then made obvious to her. And these scenes, showing her struck at the core of her subjectivity are followed by her being struck in her objectivity with the bad review of her work by the erotic reviewer. Here we see two things; firstly the false objectivity of the critic, in this case the very presence of the critic changes the act. We can also see a reflection of what Lacan says about the position of the analyst, that the changing hands of money allows the analyst to step outside of the personal relationship, "we neutralize it [the transference] by equating it with the signifier that most thoroughly annihilates every signification - namely, money." The economic becomes a barrier, separating her from the act, which allows Chelsea to have sex, play the girlfriend of strangers, without it affecting her (and is this not the same on the other side, on the side of the man who pays for an intimacy (both sexual and communicative) which is only possible due the economic transaction removing the usual building of intimacy). Once the economic distance is removed she finds it hard to perform the act, she describes the reviewer as "dirty", and this is what the sex act becomes once the economic distance is removed. This is the other side of the coin to the film's central message of the alienation of capitalism, on the personal level it intervenes badly; on the level of work, it intervenes all too well, enabling us to perform acts we would not otherwise consider (is this not, on some level, true of all work? Without the economic wouldn't most of us look at what we did at work and say "No!").
It should also be noted that it is the fact of her work, her economic freedom (which she says was one of the reasons for going into the work) that allows her the power to risk things with her boyfriend to go away for the weekend with the client. So the economic is not just damaging, but enabling at the same time. What we have is a world in which the economic affects everything, there is nothing outside of it. All the talk throughout the film is of the economic, there is obvious comparisons made between Chelsea's work as an escort and her boyfriend's work as a personal trainer, the personal aspect of the economic is shown when Chelsea sees one of her clients with another escort and hides from him, the economic loss also affects her personally, she wonders why she is no longer good enough for him.
Which is to say that the objective and the subjective are not so easily seperable. Imagine if she had successfully met with her client and "live happily ever after", wouldn't the economic questions, the alienations of capitalism have simply returned? The question becomes, can one find a system to live by with the power to break the spell of capitalism? Can one find a subjectivity outside of the economic?
To return to the "personology", the question is whether this is just a way for her to live with her economic situation - allowing her to vet her clients, giving her some control, or whether it is possible that such a system could help her break from the economic - it leads her to take the risk and go away for the weekend with her client. Of course that attempt fails, but has it changed the situation, allowed her to see a way out? The film leaves the question open, it is a portrait of the situation, all relationships in it are tied to the economic, and as such does not need to provide answers, it's beauty lies in asking the question.
An addition. it occurs to me that the nostalgic trip to Las Vegas should be seen in the same context as Chelsea's weekend with her client. Chelsea tries to escape the economic via a future outside of the economic, the boyfriend recoils from the event into the past, ignoring the economic via a nostalgic trip when everything was okay. What both overlook is the need to change the economic itself. Both options are just ways to avoid the real question, which is how to live as a subject in the economic - or how to change the economic so we can live as subjects.
No comments:
Post a Comment