this is so good!!!! i feel like the movie was trying to contrast Romy's unfiltered desires from the automation she has built her life around, but the relations end up mirroring automation, too. I also agree exploring the ethical questions would have raised the stakes. thank you for digging into all this!
What a fantastic read. I saw Babygirl with a friend, and we walked out of the theater liking it. Honestly, the joy it left me with was entirely surface level—Nicole as Romy is gorgeous, the cast was all beautiful people in idealized environments. The whole world Romy lived in was an identity politics utopia—a wife in high-paying officer position at a tech job with racially diverse and hardworking/supportive/respectful staff that elevates her own status within the company, gets to go home to a faithfully, loving, artist husband and two children. Both parents are aware and supportive of their openly lesbian teenage daughter. They live between two homes; a penthouse in the Big Apple, and a sprawling cottage in Connecticut or Pennsylvania. God, this family has it all.
But ultimately the story is too neat, or dare I say, optimized. Hmm. And now that it’s been long enough since I saw it, it’s clear it was intentional. The marketing of a sexed up psychological thriller really was entirely marketing (and it worked; it compelled me enough to go see it in the cinema), but I do think it was meant to be a film about a middle age woman safely imagining sexual fulfillment in a post #MeToo environment. The whole situation, and the way it neatly mirrors itself with a happy ending is too good to be true.
A week ago I came across a video essay on youtube by Emma Cheng-Kredl where she, too, draws comparisons of Romy’s personal life with her day job. She explicitly claims the story is about a human relationship with AI modules, with Samuel being a flat character that’s a tool for Romy to test out her own desires. It was an interesting, compelling perspective about the film.
However, everything you’ve laid out here summarizes my true feelings I experienced a day or two after seeing this film. I was happy to see sexual desire fulfillment for an aging woman at the center of a film, but it was lacking! It was stunted! There was the threat of going off the rails, but it never allows itself to (I mean, the ‘worst’ it gets is the marriage crumbling [briefly] before coming back together) fully go anywhere. Spoiler for anyone reading this comment, but the moment at the end when the board member tries to lure her home and she shuts him down immediately solidifies how much her tryst with Samuel was entirely self-serving, and that she confidently held the power in that arrangement the entire time.
This was a great and made me think about stories about sex in a more nuanced way.
> It had a kind of bland, self-indulgent quality that reminded me, in its cuts between Kidman’s earnest striving for an orgasm and the promotional advertisements for her fully automated supply logistics company, that reminded me loosely of associative Trick Mirror style personal essay writing.
I actually read Trick Mirror recently and I liked it well enough. This reads to me as (implying) light criticism of Trick Mirror for having a sort of free-association style and never coming to much of a point (hence "self-indulgent") beyond "isn't that interesting and/or fucked up?" Am I getting that right? And if not, I'd be really curious to hear more of your thoughts on it!
this is so good!!!! i feel like the movie was trying to contrast Romy's unfiltered desires from the automation she has built her life around, but the relations end up mirroring automation, too. I also agree exploring the ethical questions would have raised the stakes. thank you for digging into all this!
What a fantastic read. I saw Babygirl with a friend, and we walked out of the theater liking it. Honestly, the joy it left me with was entirely surface level—Nicole as Romy is gorgeous, the cast was all beautiful people in idealized environments. The whole world Romy lived in was an identity politics utopia—a wife in high-paying officer position at a tech job with racially diverse and hardworking/supportive/respectful staff that elevates her own status within the company, gets to go home to a faithfully, loving, artist husband and two children. Both parents are aware and supportive of their openly lesbian teenage daughter. They live between two homes; a penthouse in the Big Apple, and a sprawling cottage in Connecticut or Pennsylvania. God, this family has it all.
But ultimately the story is too neat, or dare I say, optimized. Hmm. And now that it’s been long enough since I saw it, it’s clear it was intentional. The marketing of a sexed up psychological thriller really was entirely marketing (and it worked; it compelled me enough to go see it in the cinema), but I do think it was meant to be a film about a middle age woman safely imagining sexual fulfillment in a post #MeToo environment. The whole situation, and the way it neatly mirrors itself with a happy ending is too good to be true.
A week ago I came across a video essay on youtube by Emma Cheng-Kredl where she, too, draws comparisons of Romy’s personal life with her day job. She explicitly claims the story is about a human relationship with AI modules, with Samuel being a flat character that’s a tool for Romy to test out her own desires. It was an interesting, compelling perspective about the film.
However, everything you’ve laid out here summarizes my true feelings I experienced a day or two after seeing this film. I was happy to see sexual desire fulfillment for an aging woman at the center of a film, but it was lacking! It was stunted! There was the threat of going off the rails, but it never allows itself to (I mean, the ‘worst’ it gets is the marriage crumbling [briefly] before coming back together) fully go anywhere. Spoiler for anyone reading this comment, but the moment at the end when the board member tries to lure her home and she shuts him down immediately solidifies how much her tryst with Samuel was entirely self-serving, and that she confidently held the power in that arrangement the entire time.
This was a great and made me think about stories about sex in a more nuanced way.
> It had a kind of bland, self-indulgent quality that reminded me, in its cuts between Kidman’s earnest striving for an orgasm and the promotional advertisements for her fully automated supply logistics company, that reminded me loosely of associative Trick Mirror style personal essay writing.
I actually read Trick Mirror recently and I liked it well enough. This reads to me as (implying) light criticism of Trick Mirror for having a sort of free-association style and never coming to much of a point (hence "self-indulgent") beyond "isn't that interesting and/or fucked up?" Am I getting that right? And if not, I'd be really curious to hear more of your thoughts on it!