You know that specific feeling when you're watching
a movie and your brain is essentially split in
two? One half is screaming, call the police,
this is a felony, and the other half is like
humming along to the music thinking, oh, look
at them fall in love. Yeah. It's that cognitive
dissonance where you just... You aren't sure
if you're supposed to be terrified or charmed.
It's a very specific type of cinematic gaslighting,
isn't it? Exactly. And today we are diving into
the absolute masterclass of that manipulation.
This is a big one. We are looking at Pedro Almodovar's
1989 explosion of color and controversy, Tie
Me Up, Tie Me Down, or Atame in the original
Spanish. This is a film that, I mean, it just...
It defies categorization. It is vibrant. It is
hilarious. It is deeply disturbing. And it is
arguably the reason the American film rating
system looks the way it does today. That is the
part that really hooked me when I was prepping
for this. We're going to talk about the plot,
obviously, because it is wild. It's beyond wild.
But the backstory here is just as dramatic. I
mean, we are talking about a movie that broke
the MPAA. It forced the industry to invent the
NC -17 rating. It did. It really did. It sits
right at the intersection of high art, romantic
comedy, horror, and a massive legal battle over
censorship. So here is our mission for this deep
dive. We have the production history. We have
the legal arguments from the lawsuit against
the Motion Picture Association of America. And
we have the critical analysis from both sides
of the Atlantic. We are going to figure out how
a story about a violent abduction became a fairy
tale. And we're going to ask the hard question.
Is this movie a romance or is it just Stockholm
Syndrome with better lighting? That is the fundamental
question. It really is. And to answer it, you
have to start with the sheer audacity of the
premise. I mean, Almodovar isn't hiding the ball
here. He tells you exactly what this is from
the opening frames. Right. Let's set the stage.
We have our protagonist, Ricky. And honestly,
protagonist feels like a generous word given
what he does. But that is how the film frames
him. It is. Ricky is played by Antonio Banderas,
who was just, what, 23 years old at the time?
So young. And the context of his character is
absolutely crucial to understanding. why the
movie doesn't just feel like a slasher film.
Ricky is an orphan. He has spent his entire life
in institutions. We meet him on the day he's
being released from a psychiatric hospital. And
the doctors explicitly tell him he is cured.
But this is where I get stuck. What does cured
even mean to a guy who has literally never lived
in the real world? Well, that's the key insight
into his psychology, isn't it? Ricky's logic
isn't emotional. It is. It's binary. It is institutional.
In a hospital or an orphanage, you follow rules
A, B, and C, and you get reward D. He believes
society works the same way. He wants to be a
normal person. And to him, normal has a very
specific, very rigid definition. A job, a wife,
and children. Exactly. A job, a wife, and children.
He treats it like a grocery list. Okay, I have
the pants. Now I need the wife. Exactly. It's
structural. He needs to acquire these things
to validate his existence as a person in the
outside world. But he doesn't just want a wife.
He isn't, you know, looking for a blind date.
He is fixated on one person, Marina Osorio. Right.
Marina, played by the amazing Victoria Abrel.
She is an actress, a former porn star, and she's
currently filming a horror movie. And this is
a major plot point later. She is also a recovering
heroin addict. And their history is, let's call
it asymmetrical. That is a very polite way to
put it. Yes. Ricky escaped the asylum once before,
just briefly. They had a one -night stand. Right.
To Marina, it was likely a blur. I mean, she
was deep in her addiction at the time, probably
high. She doesn't even remember his name. Of
course not. But to Ricky, that night was the
imprint. That was destiny. That was everything.
So he gets out of the asylum. He has 50 ,000
pesetas in his pocket, which, we should clarify
for you, is not a lot of money. It's pocket change.
Barely anything. And he goes straight to the
film studio where she is working. And this leads
to the meet cute, if you can even call it that.
It's very strange. He tried to get her attention.
And how does he do it? He has a handstand. A
literal handstand. A literal handstand right
there on the set. See, that is such a weird detail.
Why include that? What is that supposed to tell
us? I think it signals to the audience that this
guy isn't a hardened criminal or a sexual predator
in the traditional sense. He's an arrested adolescent.
He is showing off like a little boy on a playground.
It's pathetic. It's childish. And it kind of
disarms you as a viewer. But Marina understandably
just ignores him. She dismisses him as a fan
or a stalker. Which, to be fair, he is. He is.
And this is where the switch flips. Because in
a normal rom -com, this is the part where the
guy sends flowers or maybe stands outside with
a boombox. Ricky decides to break into her apartment.
And this is why the film is so polarizing. The
break -in is not played for laughs. It is violent.
She forces his way in. She screams. And to silence
her, he headbutts her. That headbutt is so visceral.
I remember watching it and thinking, okay, we
are in a thriller now. This is a villain. It
creates an immediate shock. He knocks the wind
out of her and out of the audience. He tapes
her mouth. He ties her to the bed with ropes.
And then, and this is the part that is so uniquely
Almodovar. He sits down and explains his plan
calmly. As if it's the most normal thing in the
world. He says, I captured you so you can get
to know me, fall in love, and marry me. It's
terrifying because he is so sincere. He isn't
doing this to hurt her. In his mind, he is providing
a service. Right. He says, I will be a good husband.
I will protect you. He views the kidnapping as
a necessary logistical step. How so? She can't
love him if she doesn't know him, and she won't
get to know him if she runs away. Therefore,
ropes. It's just simple logic to him. It's a
complete distortion of courtship. He's essentially
saying, you just need to sit still long enough
to realize I'm great. But here is where the movie
really challenges me. If this were an American
thriller, the next 90 minutes would be her trying
to, you know, stab him with a glass shard and
escape. But that's not what happens. No, not
at all. Almodovar throws in a complication that
shifts the power dynamic entirely. Marina has
a toothache. A toothache? That seems so... trivial
for a hostage situation it sounds trivial but
it's a stroke of genius it's a massive agonizing
toothache and remember she is a recovering addict
on methadone so over -the -counter stuff doesn't
work for her she is in physical hell so suddenly
her kidnapper is the only person who can help
her precisely ricky has to pivot from being the
captor to being the caregiver right he has to
go out into the world which he doesn't understand
to get her pain medication And this leads to
a fascinating sequence. He goes to a pharmacy.
They deny him because he has no prescription.
So he has to go to the black market. And this
is where we see his moral code is just totally
rewired. He finds a dealer, played by the iconic
Rossi De Palma, but he refuses to pay the street
price. Because he's on a budget. He's trying
to be a responsible head of household with his
50 ,000 pesetas. He actually lectures the drug
dealer on fairness. He's haggling. He's haggling.
He's outraged that she's price gouging him. And
then attacks her. And then he attacks her to
get the pills. Again, for him, violence is just
a tool. It's utilitarian. But this has consequences.
Later, the dealer spots him in the street and
gets her revenge. Ricky gets jumped. He is beaten,
robbed, and left unconscious. So he stumbles
back to Marina's apartment. He is bloody. He
is broken. He looks like a wreck. And this is
the pivot point of the entire film, right? It
is. This is the moment Marina sees him. And up
until this moment, he's been the monster. But
now, he's the wounded child. Well, that's a good
way to put it. He went out to get her medicine,
and he got destroyed for it. And instead of using
this moment to grab the keys and run while he's
passed out, she starts cleaning his wounds. She
sterilizes his cuts with alcohol. It's an act
of intimacy. Alma Dover is showing us the transition
from fear to empathy. But is that realistic?
Or is that just movie magic? I mean, it feels
like a very quick turn. Well, clinically, it's
the definition of Stockholm syndrome, isn't it?
The psychological phenomenon where hostages develop
an emotional bond with their captors as a survival
strategy. Right. But Amadova frames it differently.
He doesn't treat it as a pathology. He treats
it as an epiphany. She sees his devotion. She
realizes that no one else in her life, not the
director she sleeps with, not her sister, would
take a beating just to get her painkillers. And
from there... The slide into romance is fast.
They have sex. They plan to run away together
to his hometown. But there is one scene that
I think we need to analyze deeply because it's
literally the title of the movie. Yes. He has
to leave again. to steal a car for their getaway.
She is untied. She is free. She could walk out
the door and she says to him, tie me up. Tie
me up so I won't escape. That is such a heavy
line. She is acknowledging that she wants to
stay, but she doesn't trust her own instincts
to run. She is consenting to the bondage. She
is outsourcing her willpower to the ropes. It's
her way of committing to the relationship. She
is saying, I want to be bound to you, even if
it defies all logic. And then we get the quote
unquote happy ending. Her sister Lola shows up,
rescues her, but Marina confesses, I love him.
They drive off to find Ricky at the ruins of
his family home. The sister, who should be calling
the police, accepts him. She basically adopts
him into the family. Offers him a job. And they
drive away singing Resistire. I will prevail.
It's an anthem. So looking at this plot, it's
insane. It's a felony wrapped in a hug. But you
mentioned in the pre -show notes that... Al Madovar
considers this a version of Beauty and the Beast.
He does. And if you strip away the modern setting,
the vibrant colors, the structure is identical.
How so? You have the Beast, Ricky. He's wild.
He is violent. He is isolated from society. And
you have the Beauty Marina. The core myth of
Beauty and the Beast is that the savagery of
the male is tamed by the civilizing influence
of the female. Right, like King Kong. Or Tarzan.
Or even Frankenstein. Wait, Frankenstein? I don't
remember the monster getting the girl. No, but
think about the monster in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.
He isn't evil initially. He's unformed. He lashes
out because he doesn't understand the world,
and everyone rejects him. Ricky is a direct descendant
of that archetype. Okay, I can see that. And
in Spanish literature specifically, there is
a famous play called Life is a Dream by Calderón
de la Barca. I'm not familiar with that one.
It's a 17th century classic, basically the Spanish
Hamlet. The protagonist, Segas Mundo, has been
imprisoned in a tower his whole life by his father.
He is described as a beast man. Wow. When he
is finally released, he is violent and impulsive
because he has no social conditioning. He has
to learn to be human. Almodovar is absolutely
tapping into that cultural vein. Ricky is the
modern Segismundo. He has the vitality of an
animal, as Almodovar puts it, but he needs love
to become a citizen. So Almodovar is saying...
Don't look at this as a crime report. Look at
this as a fable. Exactly. He calls it a romantic
fairy tale. And he's also playing with the tropes
of American romantic comedies from the 50s. You
mean like Doris Day and Rock Hudson? Yes. Think
about Pillow Talk or That Touch of Mink. What
is the plot of those movies? A man pursues a
woman relentlessly. Right. She says no. He ignores
her no. He tricks her. He wears her down. And
eventually she marries him. And we call that
romance. We do. We call it persistence. Almodovar
is taking that exact dynamic and stripping away
the polite veneer. He is saying, you like it
when the guy won't take no for an answer. Okay,
here's what that actually looks like. It looks
like a kidnapping. That is a very cynical take.
So he's parodying the genre by taking it literally.
He is exposing the aggression inherent in the
idea of winning a woman. Ricky is approaching
love the way one studies for a degree. He believes
love is constructed through effort and willpower.
He forces it into existence. There is also a
layer of horror here that we can't ignore. Marina
isn't just an actress. She is filming a horror
movie inside the movie. The Midnight Phantom.
It's a Euro horror film about a masked, mutilated
man who is in love with her character. Which
is a direct mirror of her reality. I mean, it's
not subtle. It's a perfect parallel. In the fake
movie, she fights the monster and wins. In her
real life, she tames the monster. There's a great
line from the director character in the film,
Maximo. He says, sometimes love stories and horror
stories are indistinguishable. That feels like
the thesis statement of the entire film. It absolutely
is. Almodovar wants us to feel that confusion.
You see posters for Invasion of the Body Snatchers
in the background. He is constantly reminding
us of monsters while we are watching a love scene.
Let's talk about the ropes again, because the
movie is called Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down. You'd
assume this is a film about BDSM. And Almodovar
is very, very insistent that it is not. How can
it not be? She is literally tied to a bed. He
argues that there is no erotic charge to the
ropes themselves in the context of the film.
They aren't getting sexual pleasure from the
bondage. For Almodovar, the ropes are a metaphor
for the knots of a relationship. So sweeter human
bondage, that kind of thing. Right. When you
marry someone. You are tied down. You are bound
to them. Ricky just makes the metaphor literal.
He ties her down physically because he wants
to be tied to her emotionally. I want to pivot
to the production because the chemistry between
Banderas and Abril is just electric. It's undeniable.
But Victoria Abril wasn't supposed to be in this
movie, was she? No. And this is a bit of tragic
history for all Madovar fans. For the entire
1980s, his muse was Carmen Mora. She was the
star of women on the verge of a nervous breakdown,
law of desire, what have I done to deserve this?
They were the dynamic duo of Spanish cinema.
So why wasn't she Marina? What happened? Almodovar
felt she was too old. Maura was 44 at the time.
The role of Marina required a certain starlit
energy, someone who could plausibly be the object
of a 23 -year -old's naive obsession. Wow. Almodovar
cast Victoria Abrel instead. And it caused a
massive rift. Mara and Amadova didn't speak for
years after this. It was a huge falling out.
That is just the brutal reality of the industry.
But looking at the film, Victoria Abrel brings
a toughness that I think is essential. She doesn't
play it like a victim. She plays it like a survivor.
She does. She brings a gritty realism that contrasts
perfectly with Banderas' dreamy idealism. And
she had to replace a legend, which is a high
-pressure gig. Yeah, for sure. And speaking of
legends, we have to talk about the music. Who
scores this quirky, colorful Spanish comedy?
And no Morricone. The good, the bad, and the
ugly. Ennio Morricone. Are you serious? The very
same. The mission. Cinema Paradiso. The maestro
himself. That seems like overkill for a comedy.
Why him? It was a huge get. It showed Almodovar's
status was rising. But here's the kicker. Almodovar.
He didn't like the score. He hired the greatest
living composer and said, meh. Essentially. Almodovar
thought the music sounded too conventional. What
does that even mean? He thought it sounded like
Morricone's score for the Harrison Ford movie
Frantic, which had come out recently. He wanted
something more uniquely Spanish or more bizarre,
so he actually only used about half the music
Morricone wrote for the film. That takes some
serious ego. Or I guess artistic confidence.
It's an auteur knowing exactly what he wants.
But what remains in the film works beautifully
because it is a thriller score. Right. It sounds
like Bernard Herrmann's Psycho. It keeps the
tension high. Even when they're having a tender
moment, the music is telling you danger, danger.
It reinforces that idea that love and horror
are neighbors. And then you contrast that with
the pop music, the song Resistire. By Duo Dynamico.
It's an upbeat, defiant 80s pop anthem. I will
resist. I will prevail. It grounds the movie
in the Movida Modulenia. We should define that
term for the listeners. Movida Modulenia. Right.
It was the countercultural movement in Madrid
that just exploded after the death of the dictator
Francisco Franco in 1975. After decades of fascism
and repression, suddenly Spain exploded with
punk rock, drugs, sexual freedom, art. It was
a cultural revolution, and Amadovar was the prince
of that movement. This film captures that spirit,
the idea that we have survived the darkness of
the past, and now we are going to live no matter
how messy it gets. Okay, we need to get into
the big fight, the battle of the ratings. Because
while Spain loved this movie, it had over a million
viewers there, the United States had a complete
meltdown. A total absolute meltdown. You have
to remember the context of 1990 in America. The
reading system was G, PG, PG -13, R, and X. And
X didn't mean cool indie film. X meant porn.
Exactly. X was synonymous with dethrone or peep
shows in Times Square. If your movie was rated
X, newspapers wouldn't run your ads. TV stations
wouldn't air your trailers. Blockbuster wouldn't
stock your tape. It was commercial. And the MPAA,
the Motion Picture Association of America, watched
Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down. And slapped it with an
X rating. They did. And Miramax, the distributor
led by Harvey Weinstein at the time, was furious.
They looked at the film and said, this isn't
porn. This is art. Yes, it has sex, but it's
a narrative film by a world -renowned director.
What specifically triggered the X? Was it the
violence? The headbutt? No. And that's the incredible
irony. The violence, the headbutt, the bleeding,
the drugs. That was fine. Of course. The MPAA
had no problem with that. It was the sex. Specifically,
a lengthy love scene and one very, very infamous
scene involving a bathtub. The scuba diver. The
scuba diver. Explain this for those who haven't
seen it because it sounds like a hallucination.
Okay, so Marina is relaxing in a bathtub. She
has a small wind -up toy, a little scuba diver
that kicks its legs. And she allows the toy to
swim, let's say, into a very private area. It's
a scene of female masturbation using a wind -up
toy. Correct. It is quirky, it is funny, it is
completely character -driven, and it is explicit.
And the MPAA just lost their minds. They said,
that is X -rated content, period. So Miramex
sued them. They took them to the Supreme Court
of New York. This wasn't just a business negotiation.
They turned it into a First Amendment issue.
They hired the famed civil rights lawyer, William
Kunstler. That is a power move. What was their
legal argument? that the scuba diver was protected
artistic expression. Their argument was about
hypocrisy and discrimination. They argued that
the rating system was discriminatory against
female pleasure and sex in general while being
incredibly permissive of violence. Ah, I see.
They pointed out that you could show a woman
being murdered, raped, or mutilated in an R -rated
movie no problem. But if you showed a woman giving
herself pleasure, it was immediately X -rated.
They argued the MPAA was prioritizing violence
over sexuality. That is a very strong argument.
Did they win? Legally, no. The judge ruled that
the MPAA is a private organization and has the
right to express its opinion on films. Miramax
lost the case. So the movie stayed X. No, Miramax
released it unrated, which is a risky move, but
better than X. But here is the real victory.
The public outcry was so loud and the argument
Miramax made was so damaging to the MPAA's reputation
that the MPAA completely capitulated. They changed
the system. Within months. In September 1990,
they introduced a brand new rating. NC -17, no
children under 17 admitted. So the distinction
was finally made. This is for adults, but it
isn't pornography. Exactly. Tie me up. Tie Me
Down is the reason we have the NC -17 rating
today. It was the battering ram that broke down
the door. Along with a film called Henry in June,
it forced the industry to distinguish between
art films with adult content and hardcore pornography.
That is a massive, massive legacy for a strange
little romantic comedy about a kidnapper. It
changed the distribution landscape for foreign
films and independent cinema in America forever.
So stripping away the legal battle, how was the
movie actually received? You mentioned Spain
loved it. What about the rest of the world? It
was a complete Rorschach test. In Germany, it
was a disaster. At the Berlin Film Festival,
the projector broke during the screening, which
is a bad omen. Never a good sign. And then the
German press just attacked Almodovar. They grilled
him about his sexuality, about drug use, about
being Spanish. They didn't see the humor. They
just saw the perversion. They viewed it through
a very literal, very serious lens. And the UK.
British critics were mostly dismissive. One famously
called it banal and humorless. They just couldn't
get past the premise. They saw it as a cheap
thriller trying to be artsy. Which brings us
to the feminist critique. Because we can't do
a deep dive on this movie without addressing
the obvious elephant in the room. This is a movie
where a woman learns to love her abuser. And
that critique is entirely valid and very powerful.
Feminist groups and women's advocacy groups were...
understandably outraged. They argued that the
film creates a dangerous fantasy. Which is what?
Exactly. That if a man is just violent enough
and persistent enough, the woman will eventually
come around. It validates the stalker. It says,
don't take no for an answer. Just tie her up
and wait. It does. It suggests that no just means
tie me up until I say yes. Modern audiences,
you know, definitely struggle with the ick factor.
It's hard to root for Ricky when you look at
his actions on paper. Does Elmer Dover defend
this? Or does he just say, it's a movie, get
over it? He leans on the fable defense we talked
about earlier, that Ricky is an animal, not a
man. But he also offers a more cynical and perhaps
more interesting defense. He argues that the
film is a parody of marriage itself. Unpack that
for me. Meaning that traditional marriage is
a form of Stockholm Syndrome. You take two people,
you tie them together, legally, socially, and
financially, and you say, you can't leave. And
because you can't leave, you learn to love each
other to survive the confinement. Wow. So Ricky
is just speeding up the process. Exactly. Alma
Dover is suggesting that all long -term relationships
require a bit of this forced adaptation. We all,
in a way, fall in love with our captors eventually,
whether the ropes are made of hemp or a 30 -year
mortgage. That is incredibly bleak. It is bleak.
But it's also wrapped in bright colors and pop
music and humor. And that's the paradox. The
movie ends with them singing and driving into
the sunset. It feels joyful. That is the magic
of Alma Dover. He takes trashy pulp elements,
kidnapping, addiction, B -movies, and weaves
them into something incredibly complex and somehow
beautiful. They are happy in their dysfunction.
So what is the final takeaway here? If we are
trying to distill this for the listener, what
should they leave this deep dive with? I think
the takeaway is about the blurred lines. The
film forces us to look at where we draw the line
between passion and possession, between romance
and horror, and between art and pornography.
It doesn't give us clear answers, but it forces
us to have the debate. And the context matters
so much. The fact that this movie had to fight
for its right to exist in U .S. theaters is part
of the text now. You can't separate the art from
the fight. Absolutely. You can't watch it without
thinking about the censorship battle and what
that says about American culture versus Spanish
culture at that specific moment in time. I want
to leave the listener with a final provocative
thought. We mentioned the happy ending. They
are driving away singing, I will prevail, but
prevail against what? the world or each other
or maybe just maybe we love the beauty and the
beast story not because it's romantic but because
it's a survival guide we want to believe that
if we just love the monster enough if we're just
patient enough he will stop being a monster which
is the most dangerous fantasy of all exactly
on that cheerful note don't kidnap people and
don't sue the mpaa unless you have a really really
good lawyer thanks for joining us on the deep
dive