the boss, we saw this film too. It was about 6 months ago, before Dan and I started DD, but still years after I had realized I was submissive to Dan.

I had the same reaction as the other reader, at first: *WHY* did they have to show such damaged people and such odd stilted scenes? It seemed to give the message that feelings like ours are bad and wrong.

Then Dan pointed out the movie-makers make films for a mass audience. That the people making the film felt the surreal effect was necessary in order to make money. The producers' thinking goes like this: your ordinary, everyday movie-goer would not find it interesting to watch a real DD or D/s or BDSM couple falling in love in a realistic way.

I don't agree with that attitude, but I can see how the producers of a film would.

My favorite part, and maybe the only part I really enjoyed because I could relate to it, was the end. I won't spoil here it for others who haven't watched it, but the way he treats her at the end, when he carries her up to his room, was very sweet and romantic. And you are so right about the redemption. Especially when he orders her to stop the cutting; that was a great scene.

I can't say I'd ever recommend this movie, because it is so bizarre in so many ways, but it was a good film, as long as people don't take it as some kind of blueprint for BDSM or D/s relationships.

Btw, "Secretary" was based on a short story of the same name that I have read since. Don't bother with the short story, IMO; it bears little resemblance to the film.

Great review of this mesmerizing movie. I agree you have to set aside your own likes and dislikes and not forget that what the secretary and her boss have works for them. The spanking was pretty hot too!!

Tap

I agree with you, Ash, very much, but I did not actually call cutting disgusting. I did indeed find it off-putting though, because the character is clearly troubled and in a bad state of mind with respect to it. As it happens, I know someone who is into cutting, and in her case it does not seem to be associated with any sort of psychological problem. There are many things people do that are not my cup of tea, but if those things are a source of joy rather than an angst-ridden compulsion, I say more power to those who enjoy them. That is not the case here. The character does the cutting and burning when everything is going wrong for her, when she feels awful. She looks full of anguish, not full of joy, and it seems to be a reaction to her ghastly childhood rather than anything more positive. It can be seen as a physical representation of the psychological pain she is in. Her relationship with Mr Grey releases her from that pain.

the boss,

I'm delighted to read to your review of what is one of my favorite recent movies. I think you're absolutely right that "Secretary" is about redemption (and self-discovery). As someone who is passionate about both the subject matter and about film itself, I just wanted to add my own two cents.

I did want to say something in answer to the reader who thought that "Secretary" was insulting, offensive garbage for portraying the romantic leads as flawed characters in a flawed world. I've read this sort of comment before on other blogs and bulletin boards and I have to say I feel that to say that I feel this viewer is missing the point not only of this movie, but of what movies in general do and how they work. Reading this kind of comment reminds me of one of my favorite screenwriter's observation that "one film that no-one wants to see is 'Village of the Happy Nice People.'" A film that followed a nice, normal gal and a nice, normal guy as they got into a relationship with a "Taken in Hand" dynamic and everything basically worked out just fine might be a wonderful representation of the kind of relationship we want to have and the kind of people we are -- but it would make for a dreadfully dull movie, one that few people would choose to see.

Saying that Lee and Mr Grey are terrible misrepresentations of healthy submissive and dominant partners is to me missing the point in the biggest possible way. Movies move -- not only in their images, but in the development of their characters and scenarios -- and to understand what a movie is about, you have to look at where it moves from and where it moves to.

Lee starts off as a sympathetic but very weak character, chronically uncertain of herself, unable to truly connect with anyone else and unable to express her emotions in any way except through deliberately harming herself. By the end of the film she has gained exceptional emotional strength and self-knowledge and acted in a truly courageous way to first of all claim and then develop a genuinely loving relationship.

Mr Grey develops in a similar way. Although he is apparently the stronger, and certainly the more experienced of the two, he is in many ways just as weak, vulnerable and confused as Lee. He is aware of his dominant nature but does not really understand it (and even fears it) and is unable to use it to form any kind of satisfying emotional relationship. Even though he tries to run from it when it becomes too intense and too intimate for him, his relationship with Lee brings out the best in him, and gives her the strength to bring him back to her.

In the end both characters are healed and empowered by their relationship -- and quite specifically by finding a form of dominance and submission (or domestic discipline) that works for both of them. Although both of them have a lot of learning to do in terms of what loving D/s and DD is, their "kinkiness" is something that makes them happier and healthier. Both Lee and Mr Grey have flaws they need to overcome to be able to be with each other in a loving and romantic way, but their dominant/submissive dynamic is entirely associated with their move towards a "happily ever after" -- it's not something they need to be "cured" of.

All good romantic comedies take us on an emotional journey that leads to a happy ending, an ending which gives us a sense that both characters have overcome their own flaws to be in a relationship that we know will work. In this sense, however quirky its surface, "Secretary" is as conventional a romantic comedy as one could hope for. What makes it truly subversive to me is that while the film lets us know without doubt that both characters have reached that happy ending, the relationship they have ended up in together is one that is unrepentantly unconventional.

Dove asked Amber:

"Are you saying the eponymous short story didn't depict the secretary as cutting and burning herself? That that was just added by the movie makers"

Dove, no, not at all. The original short story ends with Lee leaving and never going back. There is no redemption, there is no love story at the end. It's ends quite...starkly. And nothing like the movie.

I am a romantic. :-) I like the happy ending in the movie; I admit it.
:-) I'm sappy; sue me.

I watched secretary, and really felt something click in my own understanding of what spanking really does to me.... It made me realize that following a spanking there is a peace in my mind, similar to what Lee felt after cutting herself... and I think that's why when I'm most frustrated I find myself literally "craving" a spanking.... That seems to be the only way to quiet all the thoughts and help me to either rest or focus.... far from discipline or sexual, I think that's the effect I look for in what you all call either a "reassurance" or "maintenance" spanking.... I think that message was either totally missed by the creators of the movie, or understated, but made sense to me because I already know how I'm wired, and am comfortable with who I am and what I need.

The character does the cutting and burning when everything is going wrong for her, when she feels awful. She looks full of anguish, not full of joy, and it seems to be a reaction to her ghastly childhood rather than anything more positive. It can be seen as a physical representation of the psychological pain she is in. Her relationship with Mr Grey releases her from that pain.

I am going to have to watch this movie again. I watched it the first time under advice from my next door neighbor, a single woman who as far as I know is vanilla. After seeing the movie, I asked her what it was about the movie she liked so much(she confided in me she had seen it five times already) and she replied simply: "Because it's so strange. I like strange movies." Okay. That's a lot of useful information. I hope she doesn't mind me thinking there must be some deeper thoughts going on.

I mentioned to her what I liked about the movie the best was the ending because the sexuality the couple was exploring is the way they would have of relating and this was clear in the end. However, and like I said I will need to watch this again to be sure of myself, but it really seems to me the tactic of connection the movie maker makes mixes two themes, one of sado-masochism as a paraphelia or pathology and the other (in the end) of sado-masochism as a sexual orientation or way a couple gains the deepest intimacy.

I think the cutting scene and self mutilation symbolized inner rage in a Freudian description of masochism being hatred directed inward, defended by descriptions of an unhealthy childhood (Freudian). This is a troubling aspect of the film even if it is a 'theatrical representation' because there is simply no relationship between masochism as paraphelia and masochism as a sexual experience in intimacy. It seemed to me the film tried to make a connection between the two, suggesting in the end that this love affair would 'cure' what amounted earlier to be a Freudian pathology. I do not believe this is possible any more than I believe hitting one on the head with a hammer or electric shock will 'cure' any other mental disorder....and pathological masochism as described in her behavior of self mutilation did appear to be a mental or emotional
disorder.

I have read all the reviews here and I do not really see anyone disagreeing with my own impression that her early behavior was essentially unhealthy. I do agree that for many of us taken in hand readers finding someone 'like us' is the only way we are going to find true intimate happiness (the same is true for 'vanillas,' for gays and for whomever),

but the truth is that every sexuality will have a relationship to it that is simply not healthy. Hetero vanillas might be abusive or even rapists. This has no relation to healthy vanilla sexuality and a vanilla sexual love affair will not cure a rapist nor will it cure abuse. I think it is a mistake to identify healthy dominant/submissive love relationships with even the possibility that this dominance and submission is in any way related to the paraphelia of sexual masochism or sexual sadism. It simply is not. I think the film Secretary over emphasized the once supposed connection between what was presumed inner rage as the catalyst and original source of dominant/submissive love making. I think this interpretation of what we do and how we live and love is an error.

Frank

I agree that if I could separate myself from the characters, and appreciate them for who they are with their idiosyncracies, the movie was easier to watch.
My disappointment in the movie had more to do with my expectations in hoping for a movie that had characters I could relate to more. The writer/Director revealed the characters they wanted. For the mainstream audience, I think there would be more broad appeal with characters that looked for a release through BDSM, or intimacy through submission/dominance in otherwise "normal" non-self-degrading lives.

Rocket

My first progression toward moving to a Taken In Hand way of life was pulling the belt from my husband's pants and handing it to him. Later in the week, when he was wanting more information about my "new" inclincation, I asked him to rent this movie. After watching it without me, he told me he got it - and he did. On our date the next week he pulled into a seclued area, ordered me out of the car, had me bend over the back of the car, took off his belt (no prompting from me) and administered 3 strikes, the punishment we had previously agreed over dinner.

I am now working hard on submitting myself in all areas - emotionally, spiritually - and of course - physically.

Did anyone notice the expression of delerious happiness on Lee's face when Mr. Grey put the saddle on her and the carrot in her mouth?

Remember in her narrative (via newspaper article) how she said she'd found someone with whom she could play with among other things.

Also, she totally understood his pain of trying to integrate his natural dominance into his conventional societal programming.

For me those two things were extraordinarily beautiful. I have a man in my life who once told me "most women would not except me "the way I am"...i.e. dominant. He now knows that I will and with total joy.

Diane

And that sublime moment at the end of the film where she drops the dead cockroach on the bed, the film is sheer bliss!

I agree! And I have thoroughly enjoyed your post here and those in other threads, Louise. I laughed out loud at many of your insightful comment, esp. the 'slipping away of submissive veneer.' Some of your barbs, like this one, hit close to home for me and that really makes me smile.

I learned something too about literature and it's always a good day when I can say that.

I thought Mr. Grey 's obsessive behaviour and Lee's self-multilation were good metaphors for the consequence of self-denial or an unfulfilled life.

Maddy

Thanks very much for your kind comment about my comments, I'm glad you like them. I felt that I had perhaps been a bit too ferociously critical in some of them, so I'm relived someone likes them! The thing I love about that bit in Secretary where she looks so sulky becuase Mr Grey doesn't respond to her overtures is that I have felt that expression on my own face several times, when I've been just longing for my husband to spank me and he hasn't responded to my provocation because he's just too busy, absorbed in something else, because real life gets in the way. You just can't do it ALL the time, which is why I have found some of the articles on this site a bit disconcerting, there seem to be people who CAN do it all the time, at least they write as if they can, and I find myself reading them with a mixture of envy and bafflement. I mean sub/dom relationships are great fun, but in much of life, my life anyway, it just isn't relevent. I mean, being submissive isn't what's on your mind when you're trying to get the children ready for school and you can't find their shoes and the cat's just thrown up on the carpet.

I had a very positive reaction to the film. While noticing that Lee was a cutter, I didn't infer that this was a negative portrayal of kinky people (using that term broadly and non-derogatorily of course), but rather waited to see what would happen. This was perhaps especially easy since I had been a self-pincher for a while in adolescence, although I managed to overcome this well before fully coming to terms with my kinkiness. And I notice at least one of your other members describes having been a cutter too.

Anyway, like you I saw that the film shows the growth they achieve by learning to accept and respect what they are. I found it very validating and, as a predominantly submissive male, could identify strongly with Lee Holloway. I could just sigh during the first spanking scene.

It's true that in movies the woman generally responds favourably to being spanked, but I wonder whether this actually reflects reality? In how many instances would the spanking just have caused resentment or anger if it had been done in real life? This is something I often wonder about, because although I find these spanking scenes in movies very enjoyable, I have never personally found being forcibly spanked at all beneficial.

There's one film I remember 'Bluebeard's Eighth Wife' with Gary Cooper and Claudette Colbert, in which he spanks her and she bites him in the leg. In the next scene you see him looking mortified, while she's putting iodine on his leg "I always bite people when they spank me" she explains calmly. I feel that this is perhaps just as accurate a reflection of reality as those films where the woman responds favourably.

I personally thought that 'Exit to Eden' was great fun, though I was disappointed that the only spanking was by a woman, I did think it was a very funny film though.

The fact that 'Secretary' did so well at the box office maybe suggests that more people are attracted by that kind of relationship than one might think. I was quite surprised when the spanking scene came in at, I think, No.47 in a Channel 4 poll of the sexiest moments in films and TV.

My own personal guess though would be that spanking a woman if you don't already know that she likes that kind of thing would be just as likely to produce a negative as a positive reaction, and would be a rather dodgy thing to try. All those cinema heroes who did it and got away with it are lucky they didn't get bitten in the leg like Gary Cooper.

Whether Kate is healed in 'The Taming of the Shrew' is debatable. Personally I think she's more squashed and crushed than healed. I mean, saying the sun's the moon etc, what kind of man wants to reduce a woman to that state? It's degrading.

"By the faith I have in mine own noble will, that childish woman that lives a prisoner to her husband's pleasure, has lost her making and become a beast, created for his use, not fellowship." - John Fletcher 'The Tamer Tamed' Act One, Scene Two.

Well, it would be very nice if that was the case, if the Liz Taylor interpretation was the correct one, but how can we know? Is she meant to be teasing when she tells him the sun's the mooon etc, or is she just too squashed to say anything else. i must say that the method Petruccio uses to 'tame' her, wearing her out until she's too exhausted to do anything but submit doesn't suggest to me a terribly happy outcome.

The 1929 film version with Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford makes it palatable by having her overhear him boasting how he'll tame her and decide to play him at his own game, when she's making that speech about how women should abase themselves before their husbands, you see her nodding at the women behind his back, and they get it. I do think that it is rather difficult to see anything 'teasing' about that final speech, the abject grovelling that Katherine recommends is not what I understand a Taken In Hand relationship to mean, at least it's not what I understood it to mean when I first started reading this site, although some recent material has made me wonder.

At the beginning of 'The Tamer Tamed' John Fletcher's seqeul to the 'Shrew', Petruchio's friends, discussing his new marriage to Maria, say "she must do nothing of herself, not eat, drink, say "Sir, how do ye do?" or piss, unless he bid her." Not quite a happy Taken In Hand relationship. By the end of the play, however, Maria has made Petrucchio realise that she is not a woman who can be browbeaten. This exchange takes place between them:

Maria: "I have done my worst, and have my end: I've tam'd ye, And now am vow'd your servant. Look not strangely, Nor fear what I say to you. Dare you kiss me? Thus I begin my new love."
Petrucchio: "Never no more your old tricks?"
M: "Never, sir"
P: "You shall not need, for as I have a faith, No cause shall give occasion."
M: "As I am honest, And as I am a maid, yet all my life, From this hour, since ye make so free profession, I dedicate in service to your pleasure."

What has happened is that Petrucchio has realised that Maria is not a woman who can be browbeaten or bullied like poor old Katherine, she will not be 'tamed' by coercian, but only by kindness. To my mind, what Maria and Pettruchio have at the end of the 'Tamer Tamed' is much closer to a Taken In Hand relationship (at least how I understand it) than what Katherine and Petrucchio had.

My own submissive desires were always suppressed because my husband's occasional attempts at domination always made me feel as if he was trying to bully me into doing what he wanted, he was the TS version of Petrucchio, whereas now I feel more that he is the TT version. I can allow my submissive feelings free rein because I can trust him not to abuse his ability to exert authority over me, he's not going to try and crush me or force me to do something I really don't want to or anything like that. i prefer TT to TS.

I watched it from the second view in the article. Pitfalls - yes they did not talk about having this relationship that bothered me but hey this was a movie. They ultimatly saved each other. And Mr. Grey cared for her he demanded that she stopped cutting and there was a beautiful scene where he loved her body and bathed her scars. It was rapture of the souls. Same with the story of O if you take about the hollywood what is left is a finding of a soul.

If you enjoyed the film then you might like to read the screenplay which is available in book version. It contains a very interesting introduction by the author who writes about her own submissive feelings and reaction to being spanked for the first time, and how she feels about submission in general.

The screenplay also contains several scenes that were omitted from the film, mostly with Lee's family and friends, who are more prominent in the screenplay than in the finished film. One of my favourite deleted scenes is where she sees her sister and friends waxing their legs, and you see her looking interested, realising that here is another way of inflicting pain on herself. Then you see her in the chemist buying a stack of boxes of leg-wax.

There's also a good scene where she has got friendly with one of her sister's friends, a committed feminist, and plucks up the courage to tell her about her boss spanking her when she makes typos etc. However, the friend is so shocked by this that Lee pretends it was just a joke.

I don't think there is any comparison between Mr Grey and Petrucchio. Mr Grey is genuinely concerned for Lee and wants to help her when he tells her she's not going to cut herself again. Petrucchio doesn't give a damn about Kate, he just wants a docile wife. There's nothing Zen-like about him, he's just a bully. Kate isn't healed at the end of the play, she's broken. The only version I ever saw of 'Taming of the Shrew' that was palatable was the Douglas Fairbanks/Mary Pickford film where she is just humouring him to get her own way, and nodding at the other women behind his back while he sits there smirking smugly.

I don't know, it's a very long time since I saw the film, and I don't really remember. The bit that has stuck in my mind is the scene where Petrucchio is making his speech about how he's going to tame Kate, and you see her overhearing him. she looks absolutely furious, but then her face changes as she realises that she can gain more by playing Petruchio at his own game than by fighting him. He is absolutely dumbfounded when she starts agreeing with everything he says, but then becomes very self-satisfied when he thinks it's worked. She meanwhile is having fun playing the submissive wife while nodding at the other women behind his back.

How the play was viewed in Elizabethan times I don't know, it would be interesting to find out. If you view it purely as knockabout farce then it's palatable. That seems to have been how the Lunts thought about it anyway, I think I mentioned elsewhere how they were still arguing about a scene Alfred Lunt had cut from a production they'd been in together many years earlier "I could have got a laugh in that scene, Alfred".

When John Fletcher wrote the sequel "the Tamer Tamed" he seems to have taken the view that Katherine led a dog's life with Petrucchio, at any rate that's how the characters in his play talk about Katherine, and they envisage a similar fate befalling Maria, only she is made of sterner stuff than Katherine.

As for Petrucchio not striking Katherine, well, from what I remember he deprives her of food and sleep until she is too exhausted to fight him any more, which seems pretty brutal to me. I personally think that Nicholas Bentley summed it up quite well in his 'Tales from Shakespeare' when he says "The idea that you can tame an hysterical bitch by treating her rough is not one with which many psychologists would agree".

I hate the end of 'Taming of the Shrew' where Katherine is grovelling so abjectly to Petrucchio. I don't like to see women grovelling to men. That's why I enjoy seeing Petrucchio getting his comeuppance in 'The Tamer Tamed'. I don't like seeing women with their spirit crushed.

While I think when one looks at any one else's relationships (where they are now and/or how they got there) there will always be things we like and things we cannot relate to, understand, and do not like...

That is why I loved the movie so much though; its underlying theme is that they really can do it 24/7...that they don't have to be ashamed of who they are...

OOO...I also loved when she tried spanking herself, it is so not the same...

I loved it. It isn't what I'm looking for in a relationship either, I thought most of the things Mr Gray made her do were terribly silly, but she obviously loved it, and that was what I liked best about the film, that she was getting what she wanted. There are some bits in the film that I thought were absolutely wonderful.

The spanking scene of course, that goes without saying.

The bit where he's put the carrot in her mouth and is putting a saddle on her and you see the expression of utter relish on her face, because she is enjoying it all so much.

The bit where she is emptying her typ-ex into the river while her voice says in disgust "he started treating me just like a regular old secretary again".

The bit where she tries whacking herself with a hairbrush and you see the expression of disappointment on her face as she realises it isn't the same thing AT ALL (I know I tried that when I was young and felt exactly the same way)

The bit where she drops the dead cockroach on the bed, and you can imagine what he's going to do when he comes home and finds it.

My husband was very impressed with the spanking scene when he first saw the film some time before I did "He doesn't half give her a walloping" was how he put it to me. His favourite bit though is the last shot of the film, where she gives a sort of sideways glance directly into the camera, he thinks that's a really brilliant shot.

Altogether what I liked about the film was that it was about two people fulfiling their desires and being happy, which I think is what any relationship should be about.

Louise

Although the movie Secretary comes very close to summing up a happy D/S union at the end, for the most part movies involving BDSM do more to hurt the cause than help it. Movie producers seem bent on pidgeon holing D/S relationships as wierd, perverted, disgusting and far from the main stream. In the Realm of Senses, a very disturbed young woman takes the life of her lover through auto-eroticism and cuts off his penis. In Venus in Furs the movie concentrates on how much his girl friend dislikes D/S and has him begging like an animal. The Night Porter brings out the least attractive traits of human emotion by showing her tormentor's cut off head in a box and uses the Jewish holocaust as the background for the movies D/S relationship. (Very poor taste...even if the movie was written by a woman). Preaching to the perverted has a politician embroiled in proving the world how disgusting D/S really is. The list goes on and on. The Story of O, Belle Du Jour and most all D/S films tend to make the experience appear depraved and unattractive. I guess the reason I like The Secretary so much is that it truly does have a happy and well adjusted ending. Very rare in the world of D/S movies. The point I am trying to make is...if you are planning on using a mainstream movie to entice or instruct your partner in the mechanics and beauty of D/S, I would be very cautious. The exercise may backfire and bring out his or hers already established preconceptions of D/S and make matters worse. Tread very carefully here.

I thought this was the most positive movie I've seen so far on this topic. It doesn't really matter where the characters start out, it's where they end up. I thought the movie was raw and honest and very sweet. It's one of my favorite movies.

A lot of times this type of thing is depicted in the movies and then portrayed as something bad or something that can't work in real life. 9 and 1/2 weeks did this. They presented a kinky D/s, BDSM type relationship and then they ran from it. (it's been awhile since I read the book, so I'm not sure if the book made the same choice or not.)

It felt ultimately like judgment. Like: "Ohhh look at us, we're being naughty." But then there was a big moral at the end, a "You see kids, this can't work in real life. It's just too screwed up and dangerous. It's Bad!"

In fact most movies that play with this theme, the ending is the same, they don't end up together. I saw another movie of this nature but can't remember the name of it. The girl thought her husband had killed some people but really it was his sister, but in the end she thought it was too risky being with him because of how violent he could be, though it was never dangerously expressed toward her or any other female.

"Secretary" was refreshing in that they showed us this, and then instead of freaking out and taking it away and giving us a story with a "moral" about how it's nice to play but you can't live that way, they gave us a very romantic happily ever after.

I felt like the movie just deeply "got" it. I don't think the movie would have worked on the same level with less extremeness, because to me, the point was the depth of their humanity and that that isn't something necessarily divorced from kink. I think rather than showing kinky people as freaks, it showed kinky people as human.

I had some idea of what I wanted in a relationship but when I saw this film it all came together and made sense for me.

I think it was the day after that I found this site and read the stories that I was longing to hear for what seems like all my life now. There are many issues which surround each of our relationships and, I guess, that boils down to the individual but the premise is the same. The Secretary was an enlightment and groundbreaking in my world.

The carrot bit is too whacky for me but all the discipline that is sent out is perfect for the crime. Don't we all crave the fairness but firmness that is depicted here? I could watch it all day long but my protector wouldn't let me! LOL. Oh well there are some bugs to bear in a Taken In Hand relationship.

Thanks for this film and especially thanks for this wonderful site.

Rhythm Stick

This film is a personal favorite of mine. I think that, although it originally hints more towards BDSM with the slave collars, etc..., Lee explores her kinks in a methodical way. When Mr Grey dismisses the relationship and her employment contract, Lee experiments by advertising for partners who are into domination/submission type relationships. This leads to a string of dubious and doubtful alliances. When reunited with Mr Grey, the relationship seems to adopt more Taken in Hand overtones, such as domestic discipline. This appears to embrace the relationship in a more favourable light. Mr Grey can be dominant as Head of the Household and take charge without too many hang ups. Lee can experience the delights of a submissive miss and gain the love and respect she craves through her particular kink. One of the main problems Lee and many others who discover Taken in Hand, is that t