Quote:
Originally Posted by sperbonzo
Personally I disagree. I beleive that this particular portion of the story was more a reflection of the duality of man within the context of sexual politics in a modern, materialistic society, whereby although the characters begin as neutral parties, both with needs, we are left with the unsettling notion that perhaps both are equally flawed.
 . |
An insightful conjecture, however, I think there must also be a deconstruction of the relationship dialectic that provides the fulcrum of subtext; namely, the antagonist is propelled by the necessity of her inherent conditional, which is she is a stripper and strippers want money, and so requires her to request monetary compensation for her erotic performance. Then, the apparent lack of consideration for this reality becomes the basis for the conflict to ensue; thereby causing a reversal of the sympathetic identification and empathy with the characters. Whereupon, the stripper acts according to her trajectory in the arc of her character, and the dude who can't even flip a buck looks like even more of a shmuck.