The Girlfriend Experience

Soderbergh satisfies because he is fearless in a way that Herzog could never be. Herzog goes toward danger in order to capture experiences, but he relies on cinematic methods and narratives models that are safe. Indeed, he never innovates or experiments here. As a result, we get lush operas about violent nature.

Soderbergh on the other hand seems ready to risk his soul, to destroy his career, to make an audience very unhappy if it allows him to surround his art. You never know; you never do. This is structurally less risky than the film he make with and about his wife, 'Schizopolis.' But it is about much the same experience.

The risk is only partially in building the character of a hooker around a genuine porn star. It is more in the assumption that close observation of the near-real will snap us into the ultrareal. Who else does this? Who else among successful filmmakers would put themselves on the line like this. Jarman perhaps, if he had been more widely seen.

And that is what happens. Because the insights here come not from what is written or what the actors do, but by what we see. The filmmaker is the character that is revealed because we define ourselves by the world we make. And he makes this, by looking for certain things between men and women. The killer risk is that he won't find it, or worse, if he does, he shows us who he really is.

The idea is remarkable. The we see through is actually interesting; he makes Sasha an attractive subject and casts his own foibles onto her boyfriend.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

OK, somewhere between 1 and 5.. Look, I'm a fairly big Soderbergh fan, Solaris - perfect!, Kafka (where can I buy this now!!), Sex Lies., The Good German and etc.. But what the heck was this movie? I was waiting during the entire movie for the "it's about to get interesting", it has to get interesting because the acting sucks.. right?.. "it's just about to get.. " nope. It never was interesting. And oh I had high hopes for Sasha, not that I know who she is because I had to look her up on Google. But because I love to root for the underdog - thinking just maybe a porn star really could break into mainstream. Oh right, that kinda sorta did happen once from that porn star from the 80's Traci lords.

Despite how 'high brow' Sasha is supposed to be, she was anything but barely interesting during the entire movie. I'm not sure if it was her acting or the script. Hard to tell.

Seriously, this is bad indie at best. It was almost like it was trying to be an indie film, but Sasha Grey didn't have really any interesting lines, she just sat there with uninteresting (understatement) responses. She did cry well, that was about the most challenging part - again the script.

Too bad, I thought this was going to be good by reading those reviews on the box (ah, suckered in by the reviews again!),

I never write reviews about anything. I had to sign up for IMDb just to write this. :) Other than this film, however, Soderbergh rocks, and Sasha Grey probably could act if challenged. She is certainly interesting to look at both in the screen charisma sense and in the other sense.

Well, it was only 5 bucks at BB and 2 hours of my time.

Here in Australia there is an extraordinary statistic which tells us that the majority of students at the biggest university in the country work in the sex industry. You see, study is expensive. Who wants to slave away at McDonald's for hours after class to buy books and pay off student loans when you can make ten times that much for a fraction of the time spent? There is obviously an interesting movie to be made here. This is not that movie. I knew a girl who paid her way through law school by working as an escort. Any one of her stories about "clients" would be more interesting than this.

As the title implies, Chelsea/Christine, the main character, is an escort who also goes out on dates with her clients. She also meets regularly with a journalist who is apparently writing an article about her. This is funny, because as either Christine or Chelsea, the prostitute alter ego, this woman doesn't say a single interesting thing throughout the entire movie. The only interesting characters are the "clients", and yet they're paying Chelsea for her time, not just for sex.

It is tempting to critique Sasha Grey's performance, but the script doesn't give her much to do right, let alone wrong. It's a one note character, and a one note performance.

"The Girlfriend Experience" also refrains from making any kind of statement about this strange, shocking situation that so many students are in now. It's just Chelsea visiting different men.

It has occurred to me that the repetition of these scenes makes it deliberately confusing as to who the men are. At first, you assume they are all clients Chelsea is servicing. Then, you realise that Chelsea is Christine with some, one is a boyfriend, the other is a journalist interviewing her. Is the point that for someone in Christine's situation, men are interchangeable, and it is hard to tell clients from spouses? This is not the way any of the real-life sex workers I have heard from describe their work and private lives, but hey, I'll take meaning where I can get it.

This movie felt like it had potential. It's not often that films try to take a serious look at the world of prostitution. This, however, was a downright mess. It was a terribly contrived attempt at being being hip, indie, and sexy and only managed to land the part that it was independent. The script was AWFUL. The only thing any of these characters ever spent any amount of time discussing with one another was the economic crisis and the presidential elections and that's it, quite literally. If I wanted to listen to more financial rhetoric I would have turned on the news. What about exploring the effects the sex trade has on personal relationships? Or the people involved? Look elsewhere if you're interested in the humanity of these individuals because none is displayed here... And sexy? Please. There is no sensuality to this film and barely even sexuality, which is surprising considering how the entire premise of the film is built around sex. There is no sex and only one or two nude scenes that I can recall, which has become pretty standard for practically any independent film these days.

Sasha Grey is a downright disaster. There's a reason why she does porn - she can't act! This girl maintains the same stone cold, dead-eyed expression and tone throughout the ENTIRE film (save for ONE scene where she laughs with a client). Apparently she only has two expressions, bored and orgasm (referring to her adult films). In this film we only see the first... For that matter, all of the characters are one dimensional, flat, and boring.

I had to quite literally force myself to watch this garbage. Save your time and money and skip over this dud.

And don't get me wrong. I like those movies too: In the mood for love, from WKW. Genius!

But here... nothing does really work. First of all: Sasha Grey - she might be good at moaning and stuff, but as a real actress: she looks bored out of her frickin mind the whole movie! And that was how i felt the whole movie! Once again, not much happens in the movie, what would be fine if you compensated it with character development, or beautiful shots, or even some nice editing not to mention soundtrack. But nothing of that is really there. Im a big fan of fragmented editing but it doesn't work if you have no story to tell! Also the excessive comments about elections and the economics moment in the movie, will just make it look outdated in a few years. hell, i just watched it and felt it a lil outdated.

there's no commercial appeal in this movie, and no art appeal either. there were exactly 8 people in the theater besides me and my GF. And none of them seemed very enthusiastic when the lights were on again.