'Magic Mike': A Stripper's Trite Story

Brooke sees her brother lumber around with a lady riding on his hips, then stays on while Mike walks out and begins gyrating expertly.

Magic Mike

Director: Steven Soderbergh
Cast: Channing Tatum, Alex Pettyfer, Matthew McConaughey, Cody Horn, Olivia Munn, Matt Bomer, Riley Keough, Joe Manganiello
Rated: R
Studio: Warner Bros.
Year: 2012
US date: 2012-06-29 (General release)
UK date: 2012-07-11 (General release)
In movies, generally if there's a female role in it, generally, a large part of the time, her power comes from her sexuality, and that has done something weird in society where women think their power is their sex, that their sexuality that is empowering them to be strong women, and that is a complete falsity.

-- Channing Tatum

"You're taking off your clothes like a fucking 12-year-old in the locker room." Dallas (Matthew McConaughey) means to get the attention of his new recruit, 19-year-old Adam (Alex Pettyfer), who looks suitably surprised to be so assessed. They're working out -- say, training -- in a weight room. And Adam, also called The Kid, is learning how to strip. Dallas watches himself and Adam in the mirror as demonstrates, his torso undulating and pelvis thrusting. "Fucking make it count," Dallas says.

Dallas, who owns the show at Xquisite, a hole-in the-wally-looking Tampa club, has a fixed sense of what counts. When you dance for a room full of women, "You don't lock in on any of 'em," but you remain elusive, your body an extension of your oh so propulsive mind, your genius and your control. And once you know you've got their full focus, once they're anxious and waiting and yearning, "Who's got the cock, baby? You do. They don't." Adam nods. He wants to make it count. Yes oh yes, he's got the cock.

So goes the life lesson in Magic Mike.

It's a lesson already absorbed by Mike (Channing Tatum), Dallas' previous project, found on the street and shaped into a mighty and profitable dancer, each night working his crowd, who register their pleasure with screams and dollars stuffed into his pants. When Mike dances, Dallas rhapsodizes, he's magic -- b-boyish and beautiful, rippling and rip-roaring. The movie demonstrates this effect, more than once, with neatly choreographed numbers, men with umbrellas, men with pull-away trench coats and thongs, men with prop guns and chaps and chairs.

If they are also men with rudimentary characterizations (Tarzan is large and hairy, Big Dick Richie pumps his penis), that's to be expected. For Magic Mike is indeed about Mike, and more specifically, how he comes to see that life lesson in less literal, more strategic terms. This revelation comes in the form of another perspective, offered by Brooke (Cody Horn). She's also Adam's older sister, with whom he's crashing in Tampa. A medical assistant (apparently hardworking, though you never see her on the job) with an earnest concern for her directionless brother, she charges Mike with looking after him, even as she watches them drive off for a night at the strip club.

She offers yet more instruction when she follows them to the club and watches them again, this time from the audience. Or, not exactly from the audience, because Brooke remains distant from the other women: she doesn’t sit at a table, she doesn’t drink, and she doesn't wave bills. Instead, she stands, framed in a low-angle close-up as if she's on another planet entirely. As Adam and then Mike take the stage, Brooke observes.

The scene goes on for a couple of minutes: Adam's dance is not good, setting up the ostensible magic that is Mike's. Brooke sees her brother lumber around with a lady riding on his hips, then stays on while Mike walks out and begins gyrating expertly. For all the rowdy fun the film has other, more elaborately choreographed routines, this scene -- cutting between Brooke and Mike, between Brooke and the other women -- is weirdly compelling. For one thing, it's hard to read her reaction, which might be changing or might be reflecting your own, as you wonder whether she's supposed to be impressed or repulsed, surprised or worried. The ambiguity might be a function of Horn's performance, your bad guessing or maybe Steven Soderbergh's editing.

It might also be that the several possibilities raised by the scene make a case for how stripping works, asking consumers to feel confident and insecure at the same time, to purchase the product and pretend to be someone else, to own the moment and then walk away. Magic Mike does not, on its surface, ask very hard questions about stripping. The switch of focus from women to men doesn’t so much interrogate how sex-as-product is or is not a sort of power, how it might undermine identity even as it seems to assert or at least perform it.

The scene, so weird and singular, also underlines how desperately uninteresting -- how trite -- the rest of Magic Mike now turns (this despite a couple of other oddities, when Soderbergh follows one figure with a mobile frame while you listen to someone else talking, before that mobile frame arrives on the speaker: they're peculiar, briefly enticing moments, but they stop there, at the end of each moment). Once Brooke watches Mike dance, they have a relationship, according to the film. And so he has to come to appreciate her seriousness and sense of responsibility, to understand the frivolousness of his current life (even though he tells himself and everyone else that he's only doing this so he can start his own custom furniture company: "That means you're good with your hands," Brooke notes).

He also has to realize -- via a set of increasingly abject episodes -- the risk that incessant-sex-drugs poses, because, you know, when you're 19 (or when you're Dallas, cast here as the snaky exploiter of 19-year-olds), you think you have control that you don't. It's good for Mike that Brooke is so willing to like him. But it's better for the movie when you have to guess.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

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.