I love this movie. But upon watching it again, I ask myself, "Is the whole subplot part about the sexual harassment eve
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Disclosure
stazza — 15 years ago(December 07, 2010 11:42 AM)
I love this movie. But upon watching it again, I ask myself, "Is the whole subplot part about the sexual harassment even needed for this plot?" I don't think it really is. I understand the tie in of her being his new boss, and the inequality of men and women and her turning the table on him to get him removed, but the entire segment of the harassment law suit, laywers all the way through to the phone call that recorded everything, could have been replaced with a "You didn't file this report on time, and showed up to the meeting late, there fore I need to get rid of you." I don't mind the story AS IS and enjoy the whole movie, but kinda don't see how the harassment, and pseudo rape part REALLY supports the main agenda of the story: her screwing him out of a job with sabotage.
How is the sex stuff required for this story? Even the ending had nothing to do with it.
Opinions on this? -
Disclosuredude — 15 years ago(February 03, 2011 10:00 PM)
It is the way the late Michael Crichton wrote the book. His main concern was his focus on the "role-reversing sexual harrassment" theme throughout, although it does seem like a sub-plot in the movie. True, you could have left out the sexual harrassment stuff and made a great movie just based on the corporate BS, infighting, & deceit, but you have to admit, the sexual harrassment made the movie all the more interesting. This movie had a lot of stuff going on, including fast moving dialogues, inuendos, & comments. I had to watch it several times to pick-up on lots of stuff I missed the first time.
Watch your back, trust no one, stay one step ahead, always have a backup! -
stazza — 14 years ago(July 11, 2011 08:44 PM)
hey I just read your back story from the book in another thread. I think that sort of explained why the sex harassment is in the movie, even though the movie didn't cover the purpose well enough. it's a great story and movie, and I enjoy where they go with the sex harassment stuff, but it seemed sort of sub plot-ish while watching. Now, with the backstory of Meredith climbing the ladder, cutting costs and pinning in on him, makes the movie make a little more sense in that. Thanks!
-
puirt-a-beul — 10 years ago(October 08, 2015 10:41 PM)
That was pretty much Michael Crichton's thing, though finding developments in technology and society that he found intriguing/promising/concerning, and weaving a story around them that set them up to pay off against each other. It's one of the main reasons I enjoy his books.
In this story, I would say part of his interest was the sexual empowerment of women, and also its dark side: women's ability to misuse that power just as much as any man does. It was a shortcoming of the film, I think, that it let that subplot overpower the rest of the story; although it was a major dilemma for Tom, it was really just the way Meredith and Garvin chose to get at him.
I personally find it a bit problematic to have Garvin knowingly complicit in a set-up for sexual harrassment, and yet have Stephanie be apparently completely unphased by that. What were Crichton/Levinson saying? That it was "just business"? That because women are "only" doing what (some) men also do, that makes it okay for them?
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment. -
treach33 — 9 years ago(September 05, 2016 12:27 PM)
You raise some really good points. I'm reminded of a quote by George Carlin where he talks about how women ended up being just as a bad as men when given the opportunity and the power to make a difference, even going as far as to copy men right down to the way they dress by wearing pantsuits, lol. This was quite disappointing to him and to me as well. I think Catherine Alvarez' quote also summed up this point nicely. "What you have proven Ms. Johnson is that a woman in power can be every bit as abusive as a man"
~What if this is as good as it gets?!~ -
al666940 — 9 years ago(November 20, 2016 09:26 AM)
The movie serves 2 purposes:
- To thrill us with a clever plot about office machinations
- To showcase the inconvenient truth about sexual harassment: it's about POWER, not GENDER. Meaning women, when in power, are just as capable of doing it as men (something taboo back then, but proven true with time as more and more women get into positions of power).
-
Melton1 — 2 months ago(January 20, 2026 01:45 AM)
Probably not for the plot but this thing was designed to sell tickets with:
‘Michael Douglas in another erotic thriller! This time he’s ****ing
Demi Moore
!’
and
‘The latest thriller from Jurassic Park author Michael Crichton!’
The trouble is that the corporate thriller half eats into the steamy thriller half to the point that there’s very little steam left - there’s no nudity, so people who enjoyed Sharon Stone’s minge didn’t even get a nipple… and the steamy thriller half ate into the corporate thriller half to the point that we were left with a complicated but rushed corporate cyber thriller that left most people scratching their heads.
The VR headset computer graphics stuff also felt very jammed in to capitalise on Jurassic Park’s CGI wow-craze.
Barry Levinson did a decent job of trying to stitch it all together but it’s kind of a mess. Douglas wins the sex plot because of a deus ex voicemail message, and wins the corporate plot because of a deus ex conversation he overhears in the next room. Very clunky writing, and that dream sequence with Donald Sutherland smooching the camera was way too silly for this otherwise quite slick drama.
I’d be interested to see if the book works better than the film. -
P.Error — 2 months ago(January 20, 2026 04:59 AM)
Isn't that
the movie?
It's been a while since I've seen it, but I remember this movie specifically as the one where Demi Moore accuses Michael Douglas of sexually harassing her, and ruins his life until he finds evidence he didn't.
Without that, it's a forgettable movie.
Never lose your desire.