But then there was the emotional–he hadn’t washed in three days. Obviously a bit pongy.

It’s as if by presenting this merging of the emotional with the financial, Chelsea loses her sense of balance.

Soderbergh really understands sexual politics. Very well done, I thought.

The scene with Chelsea moaning about her day is indeed inspired as I felt that it was quite wordlessly transgressive for exactly the reasons you mention. It was Chelsea putting a foot wrong.

My favourite bit was the scene with the Erotic Connoisseur–loved the freebie angle and the idea of online reviews (which brings up another entirely new sideshow for business). I wasn’t quite clear, though, whether or not she did give the freebie. There was a later scene with a client. He starts the ball rolling with a little ice-breaker and she mistakenly (I think) begins telling him about her ‘bad day’ and the freebie seeker. It’s another example of Chelsea confusing the economic with the emotional (I felt that the client didn’t really want to hear about Chelsea’s problems–he was just being polite and the exchange also provided that veneer of the personal relationship rather than just the economic exchange.)

That’s what makes the last scene so great–it shows the merging of the two.

A much under-appreciated film, I think, so thanks for the thoughtful review. It made me curious to see the film for myself. Glad I did.

The Girlfriend Experience does retread that ground in an interesting way though as I think it moves the argument on. Indecent Proposal is about the damage caused to a relationship by introducing money into it, this looks at the same process but suggests that it can also apply in the opposite direction : personal considerations filter into a relationship that should be purely commercial… thereby complicating matters.

However, could you apply (most) of this theory to other films which deal with ‘sex for money’/the capitalisation of emotion? Its a common moral quandry isn’t it – if only theoretically? The film ‘Indecent Proposal’ (1993) deals with a similar story: a couple are propositioned with a promise of financial wealth (and so an escape from their predicament) in exchange for sanctioned infidelity.

I remember when a friend of mine had to do military service, I thought that surely it’s a matter of political choice whether or not to defend your country because the nation doing the invading might well be better off.

For example, I’m not sure that Britain is better off not being a part of a huge European super-state. I place no value on the survival of Britain as is.

- Do we let advertisers define them for us?
(“Feel secure down there with Brand X Tampons!”; “Survive on the roads with the new Brand Y car!”)

- Do we let politicians determine them for us?
(“Feel secure under U.S. hegemony.”; “The Soviet Union will protect its neighbors from Western Imperialism”; “Survive the threat of terrorism by putting security cameras everywhere.”)

But:
A) From the moment we are born, at any time in history, we are never secure. Never. It’s called the human condition. We cling to authority figures because the existential anxiety never goes away and any pacifier will do.

B) Survival is more complex than just having food and shelter. People can be rich and still kill themselves. (Obviously, suicide is Failure At Survival. Then why is not just the poor who off themselves?)

I could say more, but that would automatically brand me as a subversive…