Babygirl is a thriller, more boring version of Fifty Shades of Grey

Babygirl is a thriller, more boring version of Fifty Shades of Grey. The most exciting parts were all in the trailer, which I had already watched countless times before the movie came out. For the rest of it, I could barely sit still.

The movie's plot is weak: the worst part is being the unconvincing relationship between the male and female leads. On one hand, whether due to Harris's acting or simply my own preference, I find Harris's portrayal of Samuel far less charismatic than his other roles. The character feels very superfical and not sexy enough, which makes all the scenes where the female lead Romy is supposed to be attracted to Samuel unbelievable.

On the other hand, I feel sorry for Nicole Kidman, although she won Best Actress at the Venice Film Festival for this role. The character setup initially seems fine: a perfectionist career woman whose inner sexual desires have never been truly satisfied. It is not until one day, a young, sexy intern joins the company and sees through to her wild thoughts that things took a change. So she boldly embarks on an extramarital affair, finally fulfilling her long-repressed SM desires.

There are some details that make Romy's character feel inconsistent and unconvincing. For instance, the movie states she graduated from Yale, went into investment banking, quit after five years to start her own business, and is now a successful female CEO of a tech company. But in her interactions with Samuel, she acts like an unworldly innocent girl. Not only has she never experienced SM, but she hasn't explored the complex, messy, and even somewhat taboo world of adult sexuality. I find it hard to believe that in all these years, she's never encountered other men trying to seduce her.

If I'm being bolder, I might even assume that someone as successful as Romy must be attracted to power. Not just in her career, but in her sexual preferences too. This would fit with her character as an M wanting a stronger S to dominate her. But is Samuel really powerful and charismatic enough to attract Romy? Throughout the entire movie, he shows no professional competence or intelligence. The audience doesn't even see him working. As an intern, his multiple boundary-crossing behaviors are interpreted by the movie as sexy moments that make Romy's heart flutter.

But if we remove his plot armour as the male lead and assess him objectively, from a workplace manager or colleague's perspective, Samuel is an ignorant, immature, and arrogant intern, completely, absolutely, without a doubt. He can't communicate clearly and challenges rules and authority regardless of the situation. Would a CEO who's used to being in charge really tolerate this so easily? If someone like this can be seen as charismatic, powerful, and capable of conquering a female CEO, then this is just a gender-swapped Mary Sue story: a powerful CEO who's seen it all falls in love at first sight with an intern and remains inexplicable devoted to him, despite his incapablity to speak clearly, his mediocre work abilities, and his occasional threats to ruin the CEO's business.

Even if we set aside the criticism of the character logic and view Babygirl as a gender-swapped version of Fifty Shades of Grey, it's still not a good movie. The film's portrayal of desire is terrible. The mysteriously dim lighting and excessive use of medium and long shots make it impossible to capture the subtle inner feelings of the characters. Although the story is told from Romy's perspective, it fails to shape Samuel as a fully realized character through her eyes. As a result, their relationship feels unconvincing, with both characters acting furtively and even appearing somewhat sleazy.

As a working woman, Babygirl kept me on edge, not with excitement, but with fear. I feared the exposure of the female protagonist's affair with the male intern, the destruction of her family life, and most of all, the potential ruin of her career! It's not exciting, it's scary - this really could count as a thriller. Romy and Samuel's situation makes it clear that economic status reversal does not equate to gender reversal. Women's fear of sexual scandals differs from men's, and societal power dynamics remain unchanged despite the shift of workplace power.

We saw countless stories before the Me Too movement. Take a recent example. Adèle Haenel, the French actress known for Portrait of a Lady on Fire, accused her former director Christophe Ruggia of sexual harassment, claiming it started in 2002 when she was only twelve and continued for three years. She walked out of the César Awards ceremony and quit the film industry in protest of Roman Polanski receiving the Best Director award.

Look at Roman Polanski himself - a director convicted by U.S. prosecutors in 1978 for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl, who then fled to Europe and is still wanted in the U.S. Despite his notorious record, he successfully directed and released 8 films between 2002 and 2019, winning numerous awards including Oscars, Cannes, Berlin, Venice, and César awards. Whenever he's mentioned, there's always a voice saying: "We should separate the art from the artist," "Film is art, not politics," "We shouldn't deny someone's artistic value because of political correctness."

OK, Fine. This review isn't meant to discuss whether we can truly separate creators' personal lives and moral standards from their work. In fact, if I'm being completely honest, I admit there are times when I believe artistic value and moral values should be viewed separately. But the question is, can we apply the same standards to different groups and genders? I don't know if it's possible in the future, but we've never managed it in the past. Let's not forget: Clinton's scandal didn't prevent him from continuing as president, but Lewinsky was mocked by public opinion for years. Even after the Me Too movement, she still struggles to find decent work. After being out of the public eye for over a decade, she still faces difficulties in interviews with NGOs and other organizations due to past scandals. Even after the Me Too movement, women who speak out still bear enormous social pressure, often risking their careers.

So when watching Babygirl, I was anxious, not so much worried about (or rather, hardly worried about) Samuel the intern being sexually harassed or bullied, but worried about Romy being destroyed. Her career, her family, her carefully cultivated public image - if Samuel were to make sexual allegations against her, would anyone stand up to defend her like they do for men in power, arguing that these are merely minor moral flaws that should be separated from her career and character?

Of course, the movie doesn't go in that direction but instead opted for a warm and tender happy ending. At the end, Romy and her husband's sex life seems to improve after this incident. When a male colleague attempts to threaten her with workplace gossip, she coldly rejects him. She appears fearless. But I have my doubts about this.

Overall, Babygirl has good packaging. We can imagine the many issues this story could explore: female desire, workplace power dynamics, female relationships, married life, and so on. While the intention might be good, the actors' performances and plot setup result in poor execution, leading to disconnected storylines where no issue is properly addressed and no scene is truly exciting. The movie ends up being an inconsequential fantasy farce, like a more boring version of Fifty Shades of Grey.

Rather, I might as well watch Fifty Shades of Grey again. At least the two main characters' chemistry is real.