For a Movie that Wants to Depict Fringe, 'Secretary' Is Surprisingly Didactic

Secretary is a quirky feature from the early 2000s about BDSM and lonely damaged people wearing sexy stockings. A critical darling in theatrical release, the film is still thought-provoking and disconcerting.


Director: Steven Shainberg
Cast: Maggie Gyllenhaal, James Spader, Jeremy Davies
Release Date: 2010-10-05

When it was released in 2002, Secretary was widely praised for its subversive, liberal themes, incisive writing, and sharp performances. Directed by Steven Shainberg, the film launched Maggie Gyllenhaal to movie-star status, and revived the career of costar James Spader, who’d been wallowing since his glory days as John Hughes’ high school playboy. While the writing is good, Gyllenhaal is subtle and vulnerable as Lee, Secretary goes too far--or does not go far enough—in its attempt to portray BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, Sadism, Masochism) as the focal point of a love story.

At the beginning of Secretary, Lee Holloway (Gyllenhaal) has just been released from a mental institution where she was treated for self-injury (SI). Once she’s back home, Lee is quickly back to her old ways, sneaking into her childhood bedroom to reunite with her glittery stickered tool box of razors, pen knives, and letter openers. Her father is an alcoholic, her mother powerless. (Lesley Ann Warren plays Lee’s mother, and the character is bizarrely named Joan Holloway, like the Mad Men secretary). To escape her monumentally depressing family, Lee takes a job as a secretary at the offices of Peter Grey (Spader) attorney at law.

Grey’s office is a '70s LSD trip featuring gold-lamé wallpaper, purple shag carpet, and dozens of rare orchids. Lee is preternaturally shy and insecure, and she’s only hired because she can type freakishly fast. Grey is cold and perfunctory, but almost immediately, Lee wants to please him. Their dominant submissive dynamic establishes itself minutes into their first meeting. Grey orders Lee to perform menial tasks during the interview (like replacing the too-heavy-for-her water cooler) and she eagerly does her best.

Soon, though, their relationship becomes something more. It all starts when Grey spanks Lee for the first time, after she’s made a typo in an important letter. Almost immediately, the two recognize one another as the yin and yang of a BDSM relationship. Lee thrives off of Grey’s direction. She stops hurting herself (easily and quickly, and just because she promises Grey) and acquires adult agency: talking back to her parents and even dating another loser-boy, Peter (Jeremy Davies). Secretary depicts a classic coming-of-age arc, a young woman’s discovery of her sexuality, independence, and true self. However, the film simplifies SI and BDSM in ways that are potentially harmful and also very weird.

In post-modern, nothing-shocks-us-anymore America, few would argue that there’s anything wrong with BDSM in the context of two adults in a consenting relationship. Secretary takes great pains to show us that Lee grows emotionally, that being a submissive frees her, and that she and Peter truly love one another. These assertions, particularly the latter, feel false.

Lee and Peter just don’t succeed in making us believe they’re in love. The film simply replaces Lee’s SI with her BDSM relationship with Grey. Equating the two is misleading and unrealistic. Lee’s SI tendencies may have nothing to do with her BDSM affiliation, but the film renders the two interchangeable, and they’re just not. Secretary doesn’t quite draw this corollary, but it simplifies Lee’s problems to the point of making them two-dimensional. Lee stops SI only because Peter tells her to, and only after he allows her the agency can she make decisions for herself. Lee’s behavior comes across as childlike and somewhat stunted, especially before, but also after Peter starts smacking her.

Spader’s performance can feel one note and generally odd. We see little variation in Grey—a few close ups are meant to convey sensitivity and depth, but for 95 percent of the movie, he’s a one-dimensional, screwed up, lonely dude. Gyllenhaal’s Lee is a more nuanced character, but attempts to portray the conventional aspects of their love are strange and unconvincing: Peter washes Lee’s hair at his house, where he apparently has a huge free standing steel bathtub. He worships her naked body in the accepted way (caressing, kissing) and they get married. Lee tells us “for the first time in my life I felt beautiful. Part of the earth.” The fact of Lee saying this does not make it true. The film’s retreat into the trappings of a more traditional love story at the end is jarring and unpersuasive.

The best part of Secretary occurs before the love crescendo of the movie. It’s a short and sweet montage of various blind dates Lee finds by responding to ads for submissives in the newspaper. It’s funny, and handles BDSM with a defter touch than elsewhere in the film. There’s a guy who wants Lee to pee on his patio, the balding computer geek who tries to pinch her nipples on the way to his car, and one masochist who wants to be chained to a fast-food range while she pelts him with tomatoes. This sequence succeeds because it’s amusing and resides firmly in the realm of satire.

In Lee’s newspaper-dating montage we are freed from: 1. James Spader being boring, and 2. Secretary’s own assumption that SI and BDSM are two sides of the same coin. For a movie that wants to depict fringe, alternative material, Secretary is surprisingly didactic when drawing emotional conclusions for us. Marriage ultimately validates Lee and Grey’s sexual relationship (and proves that they “love” each other), as easily as Lee’s SI is halted when Grey commanded her not to do so anymore.

In voice over at the end of the movie, Lee tells the audience again and again that she’s just fine, she’s happy; she has a marriage that allows her to express her submissive self. Still, Lee and Grey’s relationship is too pat, too neatly packaged for us at the end, instead of realistically messy and indeterminate. The film ends with a shot of Lee looking straight into the camera. She’s daring us to call her bluff, taunting us with the veneer of having figured things out.


The year in song reflected the state of the world around us. Here are the 70 songs that spoke to us this year.

70. The Horrors - "Machine"

On their fifth album V, the Horrors expand on the bright, psychedelic territory they explored with Luminous, anchoring the ten new tracks with retro synths and guitar fuzz freakouts. "Machine" is the delicious outlier and the most vitriolic cut on the record, with Faris Badwan belting out accusations to the song's subject, who may even be us. The concept of alienation is nothing new, but here the Brits incorporate a beautiful metaphor of an insect trapped in amber as an illustration of the human caught within modernity. Whether our trappings are technological, psychological, or something else entirely makes the statement all the more chilling. - Tristan Kneschke

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.