How many takes do you think the director took for that scene?
“Blowjob scene, take 53! And ACTION!”
I think there is a very large difference between “near-explicit” scenes and actually showing hardcore penetration. One is acting, the other is (for lack of better words) real. I’m not saying it would then be “porn.” Just that it would be a much different film than simply suggesting sex, and I think it’s a bit disingenuous when people pretend that there’s no real difference, as if sex is not wrapped up in all kinds of baggage (in addition to the possibility of disease, pregnancy, etc.)
It wasn’t intended to arouse, and therefore wasn’t porn,IMO. I actually bought that movie one day, when I was in a bad mood and figured that the most explicit non-porn movie ever made might be a nice pick me up.
I was not turned on. Half way through, I burst into tears, IIRC.
My question is - why is there presumed to be a bright line, one one side “porn” and the other side “not porn”? Shortbus questioned the distinction. The soft core stuff on Cinemax is often shot at the same time as the hard core version. They will literally shoot a scene, then move the camera to a different position so the penetration is obscured and shoot the “soft version” that will show a lot less sexual activity than Shortbus.
The real distinction seems to be one is a good movie and the other crappy.
You keed, but it really did need another take. There is a lens flare right in the middle of the scene.
Which is?
Sorry, but this really doesn’t make any sense. When two talented actors kiss, they can make us believe they love each other - even if you read in the tabloids that these two people loathe each other. But the kiss is, for lack of better words, real.
So you know it when you see it?
I don’t get the distinction.
Imagine two actors are in a sex scene in a mainstream Hollywood movie. The woman is on top of the man, both actors are, as far as the camera can tell, completely nude, and the woman is bouncing up and down on the man. If someone were to visit the set at that moment, they would think the pair were having sex.
If the male actor were wearing a flesh colored g-string and trying his damnedest to not get an erection - it would be “not porn”?
But if the female actor, who was in a relationship with the actor, committed fully to the scene and said “Hey, we’re grown-ups here!”, ditched the flesh colored g-string and took her partner inside herself - it would be “porn”?
The whole “disease, pregnancy, etc.” thing is, at best, a red herring. I’m sure Hollywood has better health care than the Valley. There aren’t health concerns with open mouth kissing?
I disagree about Shortbus. I think John Cameron Mitchell wanted to make a film where you cared about the characters, where the sex meant something and that was arousing.
What about non-sexually explicit films that are intended to arouse? Have you seen the two examples I mentioned, Body Heat and A History of Violence? The sex scenes in those films were pretty definitely intended to arouse. And both did so more effectively (IMO) than a lot of porn out there.
Er, well, I guess what I meant was why does everyone go, “Oh, he’s got a sex tape. Whatever” and dismiss it when one leaks, but everyone goes “OMG, she gave head in one of her movies!!!” when they hear about Chloe Sevighny in this movie? I mean, would have been BETTER for her to just release a homemade blowjob tape instead of showing it in this movie?
I think everyone should try and catch the TV series called Indie Sex, it really goes in depth about all these issues, and it’s quite a good 3 episode series. They run it on IFC a couple times a year.
I already said that I don’t automatically consider every act of real sex onscreen as porn. I don’t think “Intimacy” is a porn film, even though Mark Rylance gets a real blowjob on camera. I don’t think “Short Bus” was a porn film, even though that had many scenes of real sex. But I don’t know *why *showing actual sex would even be necessary for most films, unless like “Short Bus,” that is the topic of the film. Have you seen “Anti-Christ” by Lars Von Trier? Near the beginning is a full screen close up of a penis entering a vagina (though I do believe they were stunt body parts, and not actually the main actors.) It added nothing to the film and seemed completely thrown in to be shocking.
If you want me to try and come up with what I would define as porn, I would say it’s explicit real sex created for the sole purpose of having the viewer get off. I don’t think a mere “arousing” scene from a regular film counts.
I’m sure you’re going to now come back with a handful of titles that will try and show how wrong I am, but in general that is how I view the topic. If you want to put it in the broadest of terms then you can make it so that anything can be porn, or you can define it so nothing is porn.
As far as I can tell, what you seem to be saying is “if I think the director is respected and serious, it’s not porn”.
When I left Dogville, I decided I will never see another of that asshole’s films.
Von Trier throwing in things to shock? I’m shocked.
The problem with your definition is that it requires the viewer to read the mind of the director. I’m fairly sure that John Cameron Mitchell intended at least some of the sex scenes in Shortbus to be arousing…and others to be comic, sad, etc.
Sorry, but this still reads as “I know it when I see it”.
There are foot fetishists, for instance, who compile lists of straight Hollywood movies featuring scenes they find intensely erotic. But, as a non-fetishist, they are totally non-erotic to me. Are those scenes “porn” because a foot fetishist will use them to masturbate? What if the director is also a foot fetishist, as some people claim about Quentin Tarantino?
Just curious, gaffa - in your opinion, is there such a thing as pornography? Are you trying to say that everything is pornography, or nothing is pornograpy?
I think that this is where the controversy was. A blowjob for art is one thing, but getting your BJ on camera, given by a (semi-)famous actress whose been mislead into thinking she’s making something artsy and meaningful when really you just wanted to engineer getting a blowjob on camera as given by a famous actress is just slimy.
Let’s also not forget that this is around the same time as he offered to sell his sperm for some thousands of dollars, but not if the recipient was black. I think he did one other sleezy/creepy thing at the same time but I’ve forgotten what it was. Admittedly, these were all probably in the name of “art”, but apparently Gallo doesn’t have the ability of Lady Gaga to do bonkers stuff in a fun and cheerful way that people appreciate as anything other than the parades of an egomaniac.
So what? That’s how most people would answer the question. I’m not going to play this game with you and go line by line through your post. If you’re trying to provoke an argument, I’m done with this.
Well, he put a cancer hex on Roger Ebert. There’s that.
“I know it when I see it” is the definition of obscenity, legally.
I thought you wanted to discuss this topic. Ah well.
Right, the “Miller test”. The problem is that all three parts of this “test” are value judgments:
[ul]
[li]Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,[/li][li]Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2] specifically defined by applicable state law,[/li][li]Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific.)[/li][/ul]
I’m questioning the term “pornography”.
[ol]
[li]There are sexually explicit films that are poorly made in a day or two for less than $50,000 with performers with little to no acting talent. [/li][li]There are sexually explicit films that are professionally made with a full crew on a budget of more than a million dollars with highly talented performers.[/li][/ol]
The pejorative term “pornography” is applied to the first, but not the second. I think the term keeps all but the bravest (or most foolhardy) directors from exploring sexuality, worried that they are going to get tarred with the epithet. It keeps talented actors from the first from being able to move into the second.
Should this move to Great Debates?
Can you give me, say, three titles of movies in the first category, and three titles of movies in the second category? It seems to me that the disctinction between a pornographic movie and a non-pornographic movie is obvious, but maybe you have examples to show otherwise.
My point is that the ghettoization of most sexually explicit films as “pornography” results in a self-fulfilling prophecy - the vast majority of sexually explicit films are terrible.
Back in the 1970s and early 1980s, before home video, some people making sexually explicit films were genuinely trying to make a good film. A decent example would be Chuck Vincent’s Roommates. Coming from the other direction would be the previously mentioned Shortbus.
If the distinction is obvious why can’t anyone come up with a definition that isn’t “I know it when I see it”?
OK, here is for me what is obviously a pornographic film. Includes one or more of the following:
- advertised as showing lots of sex
- the majority of the running time of the movie (let’s say > 50%) shows people having sex
- the movie has closeups of penises, vulvas, anuses, etc. (the more closeups, the more it is “hard” pornography as opposed to “soft-core” pornography)
P.S. I would still be interested if you could give me 3 examples in each of the 2 categories of movies you listed so that I can understand better how in your mind it is really hard to define pornography.
Here’s one. Hardcore porn is anything that shows actual pentration or graphic, unsimulated sexual activities. If we define the word that way, then, by definition, anything that shows those things is porn.
I personally don’t see why you have such a big problem with the word. What do you have against porn? If you don’t think it’s a meaningful word, then why does it bother you to hear it used?
Short Bus? A terrific movie that was also porn. They are not mutually exclusive.
Because, as I said, it’s a pejorative. It tars people who have directed sexually explicit films, it tars people who have acted in sexually explicit films. Even if you go on to do award-winning work, if your “porn” past is discovered, all of the sudden you’re a “former porn star”. Even if a mainstream director wants to hire you for a film, the studio heads will refuse - even if the part is playing a “porn star”!
Earlier in the thread, Shortbus was being held up as an example of a film featuring explicit sex that was, somehow, “not porn” - in spite of the fact that it fits Diogenes the Cynic’s definition. Which sounds (to me at least) like snobbery.
I don’t think of the word as a perjorative, and changing the word isn’t going to change anbody’s perception of watching somebody suck Vincent Gallo’s cock for real in a movie. The act is what it is. People form opinions based on what the act is, not on how anyone wants to categorize it in terms of genere. You either suck Vincent Gallo’s cock on film or you do not suck Vincent Gallo’s cock on film. Saying it really isn’t porn* isn’t going to change how anybody responds, positively or negatively, to seeing an actress suck Vincent Gallo’s cock on camera.
*Which I would still argue it is, by definition, even though I would also argue that it doesn’t mean porn can’t be artistic, or that one porn scene necessarily defines an entire film as porn, just like one kung fu scene doesn’t have to define an entire movie as a kung fu movie.