And having now watched it twice, I'm still unsure if I think it's a good film. But it certainly is a cultural object worthy of discussion, and that alone perhaps attests to a certain quality it possesses.
Central to this film is Nicole Kidman's character, Romy. The high-powered, wealthy CEO of a "robotic automation company," Romy presents as highly capable, yet clearly discontent. Through a fairly contrived scenario, she is introduced to Samuel, a 20-something, chiselled man who is employed as an intern at her company. Samuel is played by Harris Dickinson, who gives an extremely impressive performance. Nicole Kidman, at 57, is basically double Dickinson's age. The age dynamic is present throughout. Immediately, Samuel identifies something in Romy, what the source of her unhappiness might be and, crucially, how he could be the person to give her what she isn't quite sure she needs. Her unhappiness, he seems to instinctively understand, is a type of sexual frustration that has lasted for decades and is centred around having never acted on a strong desire to be sexually submissive. Samuel, for reasons never really explained, is a man comfortable with fulfilling her desires, which are presumably in line with his own.
The film succeeds or fails on the dynamic between Samuel and Romy, and I found it compelling. Who was exploiting whom? Or was nobody being exploited? Except, perhaps, Romy's husband (Jacob), and Samuel's girlfriend, another senior colleague. Romy's relationship with her husband, excellently portrayed by Antonio Banderas, provides a grating realism affecting Romy from fully enjoying the intense sexual ecstasy as she gradually, and then completely, enters into a fully sexually submissive role with Samuel.
I found the film most interesting when it contrasted those with a deep interest in BDSM with those who didn't. Romy variously told her husband that she wasn't like other women, that she "wasn't normal" and that she'd had "dark" and "depraved" fantasies as far back as she could remember. Clearly contemptuous of what he perceived as the selfishness of her acting on these impulses, Jacob spits at her that she jeopardised "what was most important … (their children) for banal sexual fantasies." Romy never revels in her fantasies, and even when in the midst of the highly charged sexual affair she has with Samuel, her visible torment never really seems to lift.
Samuel, unsurprisingly, is not a one-woman man, and Romy is clearly threatened by his dating his senior colleague, Esme (played by Sophie Smith). At a club night, Samuel texts Romy, who lies to Jacob about where she's going (and disappoints her daughter). When she gets there, she sees Samuel dancing, clearly on drugs, and euphoric. He gives something to Romy to smoke, and she does. She then asks Samuel, "do you do with her what you do with me?" - to which he replies "no, she's not like you. I'm not like this when I'm with her. That's why I like you. And why I like her." This is as close as we get to understanding Samuel. Romy repeatedly said, in the early days of their entanglement that she was "worried" about him, or felt "protective" – Samuel retorted that she "keeps saying that – I'm OK" and that she should be worried, because he could make one phone call to the company’s hierarchy and reveal all and she'd be finished. Later on, Samuel asks Romy if she wants to lose everything and is using him to do this, a sort of "suicide by cop" scenario. This shows that Samuel has at least some awareness of the conflict raging in Romy's inner world.
But Samuel's inner world is never really fully explored. Why does he do what he does? What drives him? He doesn't seem depressed, but he doesn't seem particularly happy either. Many men would envy the charisma he possesses and his ability to seduce women from a range of backgrounds, but he seems to pay some sort of psychic price for his actions. Or perhaps he's just a sensualist, and the sex, drugs, and NYC EDM are him living his best life. But I didn't think that's the whole story. He wasn't like the tortured lead character in Steve McQueen's film Shame, living a life in the throes of sex addiction, but neither was he a sexually liberated hedonist. So what was going on? It is a testament to Dickonson's skill as an actor that we are left curious about this complex, confident, yet quiet character. Perhaps Samuel would in time develop the crushing addiction issues featured in Shame, but I don't think they're cut from the same cloth.
Apparently, Reijn was inspired by films such as Basic Instinct and 9&1/2 Weeks, but I think Baby Girl would make a good companion piece with Shame. Samuel and Michael Fassbender's character in Shame are both men for whom seducing women is easy but who have difficulties maintaining loving relationships (Samuel to a lesser extent). And Romy is not as troubled as the character Sissy in Shame. But neither is she untroubled. In fact, her alienation from her outwardly successful life has shades of Shame to it. For me, what was missing was the inner world of Samuel. Dickinson said that he devised a backstory for Samuel, and that part of his inhabiting the character was imagining that Samuel was "wading around in his mess." This is interesting and hints at what I believe was missing from the film.
Samuel and Romy are both participants in a game, and both believe in what they are doing. To the extent that Samuel challenges someone who bluntly states that BDSM means nothing with a simple "sorry, but you are wrong." For Romy, clearly, it is almost a form of therapy. Is it the same for Samuel?
Whilst almost everyone is possessed of a sexual drive, not everyone risks the fabric of their lives to act out in a transgressive way. In this film, it is the female lead who does this and takes serious risks. It's a much less hazardous scenario for Samuel, who simply doesn't have the stakes that Romy does. But would he be so driven to engage if the consequences for participation were potentially so serious? I don't think so.
Baby Girl is a conversation starter. Should we actualise that which we crave? Or should we be careful what we wish for?
It's worth a watch. And it's given me a few appreciation for a George Michael song, and some modern EDM.
Baby Girl is a conversation starter. Should we actualise that which we crave? Or should we be careful what we wish for?
It's worth a watch. And it's given me a few appreciation for a George Michael song, and some modern EDM.
⏩ Brandon Sullivan is a middle-aged West Belfast émigré. He juggles fatherhood & marriage with working in a policy environment and writing for TPQ about the conflict, films, books, and politics.
How does it compare with The Piano Teacher?
ReplyDelete@ Christopher
ReplyDeleteI've never fully watched it, though I bought it and started it a while ago.
Worth a watch?
I thought Shame was also a good companion piece for Lost in Translation
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteI certainly think so. Isabelle Huppert is astonishing in it.
In recent times, there's been a spate of cougar led films, some serious (May December) and others less so (The Idea of You). It's been interesting to observe as they're obviously reflecting changing trends in society but The Piano Teacher is much more unhinged.
Shame, I thought, was OK. I get what they were trying to depict but it left me cold (and not in a good way). I get what you mean re. Lost in Translation though.