James Spaders character revealed this about himself toward the end, about how he use to be, and i always wondered how ca
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Sex, Lies, and Videotape
rickysol82 — 19 years ago(April 04, 2007 01:48 PM)
James Spaders character revealed this about himself toward the end, about how he use to be, and i always wondered how can someone express themselves non-verbally??
-
Radiant_Rose — 19 years ago(April 05, 2007 03:41 AM)
In many, many ways. Maybe he used to hit things or kick doors. I remember one of my exes once hitting the sofa that I was sitting on, just because he didn't like that I was upset about something he had done (or not done). That was scary. In his case, he moved on to physical threats and mild violence. That isn't to say that Spader's character Graham would have done so.
Nicebat and I had to party.
-
simplypm2004 — 18 years ago(April 07, 2007 11:29 AM)
People do all sorts of things: Brood, drive recklessly or other self endangering behavior, over-eat and under-eat, drink excessively, drug abuse, promiscuous sex, paint or sing, as well as with other artistic outlets. Sometimes the character of the expression is done with the intention that someone else should understand or at least become aware of what is being felt. Sometimes it serves the sole purpose of blowing off steam. Sometimes it is compulsive and instinctive, and sometimes rather deliberate; sometimes with ill intent; sometimes benevolent.
(PRN) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-bFpYQzXE -
indymovies — 18 years ago(April 08, 2007 12:14 PM)
or they can just thump someone.
I thought that was what Graham meant when he said that he used to express his feelings non-verbally and that this is what caused the breakup of his previous relationship with Elizabeth. He came back (9 years later) to show her he was now different.
When Ann refused to stop filming him he wanted to do something - maybe wrestle the camera from her - but wouldn't let himself lose his self-control. -
simplypm2004 — 18 years ago(April 08, 2007 12:42 PM)
Indy,
That's my take on it as well. Graham didn't just change he inwardly metamorphosed. Ann was the necessary catalyst in the completion of his transformation. His impotency reflected his self-inflicted emasculation, that is to say, he suppressed what formerly rose up in him compulsively as the violence that he found unacceptable. He stilled it, but as a result stilled all outwardly directed instinctive compulsion along with it. Ann gave him a purpose and direction for an elevated, (ennobled if you will), expression of guided moral impulse - i.e. love, as opposed to reckless base animal desire.
(PRN) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-bFpYQzXE -
Radiant_Rose — 18 years ago(April 12, 2007 08:21 AM)
Good points.
However, Graham's honesty is not just a matter of either telling the truth or refusing to comment on an issue. At no point in the film does he say, "I don't want to tell the whole truth so I will not answer", or anything similar.
I genuinely believe that if he had a violent past he would have said that he used to hit people.Nicebat and I had to party.
-
simplypm2004 — 18 years ago(April 13, 2007 04:47 PM)
It is really hard to say whether or not he was violent. The fact that it was left out of the dialogue leads me to think is that it is irrelevant. What was significant was that he had a compulsive behavior which he knew was out of control and unacceptable. Furthermore he found it so repugnant that it resulted in a sort of paralysis of will. If you consider what little we know of him by his behavior, his dress, diet, habits furniture etc. it reveals a soul of an inwardly stunned person. In spite of the fact that he was impotent, when, as he told Ann, he considered the character, choices, behavior etc. of her husband and sister, he considered himself healthy. In other words, his personal particular sexual dysfunction wasn't as bad as the self-centered, and almost malicious hyper-functioning sexuality of the others.
(PRN) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-bFpYQzXE -
simplypm2004 — 18 years ago(April 16, 2007 05:34 AM)
Graham was honest and, more than usual, clear, but he was also taciturn. In the context of his conversation concerning his past, what was relevant was that he was exertive and out of control, perhaps threw things. Who knows? He probably had a host of other shortcomings, as all young adults do, but he didn't mention them either. If confronted, he most likely would have answered truthfully, but there was no such confrontation, and so, if we consider him to be truthful, the matter must not be considered relevant since he left it out. Otherwise, he would have mentioned it, right?
(PRN) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-bFpYQzXE -
Radiant_Rose — 18 years ago(April 20, 2007 03:24 AM)
I don't recall his being taciturn, there are a lot of occasions when he could have declined to answer a question but he did. Heck, he even initiated the conversation about his impotence! I think he was too hooked on honesty to give a half-truthful answer. I think he would have admitted to violence if he had actually been violent. He said he "frightened" people, but not that he physically hurt them.
Nicebat and I had to party.
-
pinkchi — 18 years ago(June 09, 2007 01:35 AM)
lol I actually thought that he went around hugging people he liked and thus scaring them in the process, like out of the blue he just smothers them with kisses or hugs. Hitting his girlfriend didn't occur to me.
-
filmprincess — 17 years ago(May 19, 2008 07:28 PM)
like, 60 to 80% of all communication is nonverbal. you just don't realize it.
Yes, and this is particularly effective when a
actor
happens to possess a talent for conveying emotions nonverbally. I always enjoy these types of films. Sometimes an extremely good script allows the actors to convey underlying subtext. Also, I think it requires a
very talented
actor to pull this off. I think this movie is a great example; and, James Spader is always very effective at conveying emotions via underlying subtext.
Another great example of this would be Harrison Ford and Kelly McGillis in
Witness
. It's a thing of great beauty; and unfortunately, not something we see very often. I'm sure there are others; I just can't think of them at the moment.
Finally, I recently watched
sex, lies, and videotape
again after all these years. I initially thought it might not age all that well; but to my surprise, it certainly has. It still remains a classic in my book. And James Spader, well, what can I say? He's a truly gifted actor.
"I've been following in footsteps all my life. Save me, Sabrina fair, you're the only one who can." -
Jem333 — 17 years ago(June 08, 2008 01:00 PM)
I agree with the post-ers who interpreted Graham's "non-verbal" expression of his feelings as a euphemism for violence, probably violence against women in particular. But Soderbergh seems purposely ambiguous in this film; that's one of the many things I like about it.
I've always wondered what John meant at his and Ann's first (only?) dinner with Graham, when he said that Graham held services in the chapel on weekends on a regular basis, or something like that Did he mean literal religious services, i.e. was Graham extremely religious in college as well as violent with women? Or was that another euphemism for some kind of weird pagan, i.e. sexual, activities in that chapel?
And when John said to Graham
: "What would the Greeks think of your somber attire?" did this mean that Graham and John were in a fraternity together, or anti-fraternity, or ??? -
Radiant_Rose — 17 years ago(June 09, 2008 04:49 AM)
My take on it is that there was something sexual going on behind that chapel. That line replaced the original one in the script book about unicycling naked.
I was thinking of the Ancient Greeks, so thank you for suggesting fraternities.
But then, I am utterly convinced that Graham wouldn't mince word if he had a history of violence. Nowhere else in the story does he gloss over things. It isn't dishonest to refuse to answer a question, but his version of honesty means saying things even if it makes the situation awkward.
"CSI" helped my DIY!!! -
Radiant_Rose — 17 years ago(June 11, 2008 05:25 AM)
violence to people rather than objects, he would have said so. He didn't mind admitting to impotence or to what the videotapes were for or to having known about Cynthia's affair with John. If Ann had asked him about the affair, I am sure he would have told her what he knew. Where Ann has asked him questions, he has provided honest answers even where they do not show him in a good light.
Okay, the bit about the money was a bit obscure, but I gather that dates from an earlier script where we were told about the source and then Soderbergh changed his mind.
But we do not have to agree about this. It's a film.
"CSI" helped my DIY!!!