In no small amount of irony, I’m about to write a post about a “perfect
crime” that I would appear to have gotten away with – until I decided to write
this post about it. But what can I say, my dear viewers? You deserve my
innermost thoughts, even when they implicate me.
So my wife was away in Sydney for a couple nights last week,
and on the second night, I belatedly remembered that I usually use her
trips out of town as an opportunity to watch a thing that I wouldn’t feel comfortable watching
while she was there, or that would just invite too many questions. I don’t
necessarily mean something titillating, although sometimes I do, and in this
case, you will see that I do. Sometimes it’s just watching a movie where if my wife
were here, and she walked through the room, she’d say (or at least think) “Why
the hell are you watching this?” Sometimes easiest just never to
have that question come up at all.
I didn’t have a specific choice in mind that fit this
description Friday night, so I went digging for one. I typed the word “erotic”
into the search area in Stan, our Australian streaming service, and indeed, it
came back with a bunch of choices that seemed to kind of plunge beneath the surface
of what they usually promote on the site. I felt like I’d unlocked a secret
door.
Now, I didn’t want to watch just any tawdry, sleazy movie.
There’s porn if that’s really the type of thing I’m looking for. But it’s
interesting sometimes to watch classic instances of tawdry sleaze, ones that may
have actually had some level of artistic credibility at the time they were released, or have developed that in the years since. As an example, one time she was out of
town last year, I watched the notorious Japanese film In the Realm of the Senses, which is, for all intents and purposes,
pornography. And which I really hated.
There was a good candidate on Stan: The Story of O. I had heard this whispered about when people talk
about well-known smut, and I was thinking about queueing it up when I called an
audible at the last minute. Maybe it was the memory of In the Realm of the Senses, which was also made in the early 1970s,
but at the last minute I changed horses.
“Just any tawdry, sleazy movie” it is.
The choice I pivoted to was The Receptionist from 2016, as you will see from the poster above. I won’t
go into why I selected it, but this poster certainly had something to do with
it.
It’s not a very good movie, but neither is it as bad as you
might think. It was directed by a woman, Jenny Lu, and in the end, that could
certainly explain why I didn’t get the titillation I admit I was seeking. I
knew it was about the receptionist in an illegal massage parlor, but I didn’t
guess that it would be more of an exposé of illegal massage parlors and the
women who feel like they are forced to work there because life didn’t go their
way. And it has some nice moments, some honest moments, examining this subject
matter.
In the end, though, it was a total bait and switch. I ended
up watching a reputable movie which actually had nary a moment of female
nudity in it. A reputable movie with a disreputable poster.
A disreputable poster that was now in my Stan viewing
history.
It was a problem I anticipated before I even started, which
is why I first looked on iTunes (though didn’t know what I was looking for) and
Kanopy before settling on Stan. I don’t share a watch history with my wife on
those other platforms, but do on Stan. However, we watch Stan a lot less, so I
thought it was a better option than Netflix, anyway.
Now, I should remind you that I was not really trying to “get
away with something.” More than anything, I was trying to avoid an immediate
moment of embarrassment or an implied question by my wife walking through the
room. I don’t actually have a problem with her discovering that I watched The Receptionist while she was out of
town, and I think the very existence of this post should be proof of that.
But if I could avoid
it …
I thought about doing some artificial viewing on Stan in
order to push The Receptionist down
in the watch history. Maybe I couldn’t purge it, but I could push it off the
first page of most recent viewings, if she ever landed on that page. In fact, I
had a fairly easy way of doing it. My younger son watches a show called Henry Danger, and there are about 30
episodes of Henry Danger after the most
recent few things we watched, each of which assumes its own distinct slot in
the viewing history. I could have just gone in and pressed play on those
episodes consecutively until enough of them had pushed The Receptionist into the nether regions (pun intended) of the
viewing history.
It turns out, it was much easier than that.
I don’t know why this only occurred to me belatedly, but
Stan makes it very easy for you to delete something from your viewing history,
kind of a streaming service equivalent of deleting your browsing history. But
you don’t even have to delete the whole history. You can just go into the
history, choose the movie you want to remove, and remove it. There’s a button
that says REMOVE right there.
Fifteen seconds later, it was done.
“And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for
you meddling blog post writers.”
So why did I write
about this?
Because it occurred to me that a viewing history on a
streaming service is an option, not an audit. And now you finally understand
the title of this post.
I had always assumed that a viewing history was intended as
some kind of irrefutable record of what has been watched on the service,
something that would hold up in a court of law. You could see the value of that
type of thing if you wanted to know what your kids had been watching, and I’m
sure you can actually set it so that titles cannot
be removed, just for that purpose.
But for normal adults who just want to get away with
watching a softcore skin flick while their partner is out of town, it’s only an
option to have an unmolested viewing history. You can tweak it how you see fit.
I don’t suppose you can add movies to it, not without pressing play, but
subtracting? Sure, why not?
And if my wife does learn about my viewing of The Receptionist by reading this post,
well, more power to her. She’s not a frequent reader of my blog so I doubt she
will. But better she finds out about it this way, through a transparent dialogue open to
the whole world, than by wondering why a viewing of a softcore skin flick –
that’s actually really not a softcore skin flick – is buried deep behind 30
episodes of my younger son’s favorite TV show.
No comments:
Post a Comment