'Fifty Shades of Grey': The movie takes itself far too seriously

Attempts to give 'Fifty' character Christian Grey some soulfulness fall flat, but actress Dakota Johnson gives a sweet performance and deserves a more complex role in the future.

Chuck Zlotnik/Universal Pictures and Focus Features/AP
'Fifty Shades of Grey' stars Dakota Johnson (l.) and Jamie Dornan (r.).

I suspect that the many millions of readers of “Fifty Shades of Grey” will find the movie adaptation not equal to the film they imagined while pantingly devouring the tome. 

Essentially a Harlequin Romance with pulleys, E.L. James’s novel is not exactly “Lady Chatterley’s Lover,” but the movie, directed by Sam Taylor-Johnson and written by Kelly Marcel (whose previous screen credit was “Saving Mr. Banks”!) takes itself so seriously that it almost cries out to be lampooned. I’m sure the “Saturday Night Live” crew is already on the case.

Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson, the daughter of Melanie Griffith and Don Johnson) is a mousy, virginal college English major who ends up ensnared by brash Seattle billionaire Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan). She becomes the submissive to his dominant in his playroom aerie equipped with enough cable and rope ties to stock a hardware store. (Just in case we missed the connection, we see him buying cables and rope ties at the hardware store where she works before things get heavy.)

Anastasia doesn’t really know what to make of this guy and neither do we. Although he’s supposed to be strictly business – he won’t even sleep in the same bed with her during her stayovers – he’s really not such a bad sort.

He was an abused orphan, you see, and he had a submissive relationship with an older woman when he was younger, etc., etc. This attempt to give Christian some soulfulness falls flat since Dornan has all the charisma of a hologram. 

Johnson is rather sweet, though, and if she played a role that required her to look more than alternately smitten and poleaxed, she could score big. But now that “Fifty Shades” is poised to be a franchise, will she have that chance? Grade: C- (Rated R for strong sexual content including dialogue, some unusual behavior and graphic nudity, and for language.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.