Sigh. Make that last sentence read:
“There’s no line you can point to that clearly delineates mainstream from softcore …”
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
Actually, the thing is, this thread was inspired by the thread about how many well-known actors had done softcore.. .
[/QUOTE]
Ah, but were these done before or after they became big names? Unknown starlet + hot sex = softcore, while known, ‘serious’ actress + hot sex = mainstream.
Though I do agree that the line, like any other marker, blurs upon very close examination.
This is an interesting thread. I know it’s off topic, but hardcore porn has penetration close-ups. Last Tango in Paris and Brown Bunny were not hardcore films. And those two titles brings me to the other issue: quality. A lot of the distinctions being made here involve the quality of the movie. Yesterday, Slate’s movie critic said that In the Realm of the Senses was the movie she’d watched the most. I haven’t seen it, but it certainly sounds like softcore. So can a softcore movie be a good movie, and not just a good movie to watch with the missus when the kids are asleep?
I don’t think the answer is production quality, since in the good old days even some hardcore films had decent production quality. I don’t think it’s the actors, since some of the mainstream films mentioned, like Betty Blue, have plenty of nudity. In softcore, the plot revolves around the (softcore) sex and nudity, in mainstream the sex is dependent on the plot. You’d be hard pressed to find a reason for a softcore film’s existence except for the sex.
Not that I’ve seen any. 
I have to go with Potter Stewart on this one.
[QUOTE=Stonebow]
I would almost have to say that it’s the talent involved. Mainstream, known actors= mainstream movie. Unknown/ porn actors or models= softcore porn.
[/quote]
I think that solution has two flaws: as has been noted already, celebrities are increasingly doing films that are softcore and even hardcore in nature, and some indie films have scenes that are softcorish, sometimes a lot of them, and of course, no “name” actors.
Still, there are certain actors whose presence is a strong indication that the film is softcore: Nikki Fritz, Kim Dawson, Tane McClure, Jennifer Rubin, Julie K. Smith, Kira Reed. Of course, all of these actors have happily taken roles in non-softcore films as well. For example, the IMDB lists Kira Reed’s most recent role as an appearance in the TV show “Gimme A Break.” Nikki Fritz of the “Bare Wench” series also played “Fran” in “Diamond Men.” The list goes on and on, as they say.
Feel free to say it, then.
[QUOTE=Askia]
I think the line between mainstream and hardcore pornography has been blurred since at least the early 1990s. There’s very little of the formerly “hardcore” that doesn’t make regular appearances into the mainstream. Homosexual porn barely bats an eye. Even in non-pornographic sexual and dating circles, fellatio and cunnilingus are touted as “safer sex” alternatives to vaginal and anal sex. Where was this acceptance when I was a teen?
If we look at it from the viewpoint of what’s still taboo?
I suppose S&M, rape fantasies, dom/sub, gang banging, orgies, animal acts, pederasty and sex acts with overt scatological themes (bukakke, golden showers, analingus and similar) are all still considered more hardcore than “mainstream,” but YMMV.
If I had to suggest a common theme to all those it would be, “the degree of domination and humiliation.”
[/QUOTE]
I get it, you’re thinking difference between mainstream porn and kinky porn. That’s not the issue. By “mainstream” films I simply mean films that are not pornographic.
[QUOTE=Sublight]
Umberto Eco had a good definition, though it worked better in the pre-VCR era. If too much time passes between sex scenes, then you are watching a pornographic movie (hard or soft).
Meaning that in a mainstream film, the viewer is focusing on the plot, in which there may be occasional sex scenes. In a pornographic film, the purpose is the sex scenes, and everything else is just filler that serves no purpose other than to build up frustration in the viewer who is waiting for the next sex scene.
The corollary is that depending on the person, any film can be pornographic.
[/QUOTE]
Well, that corollary reveals the problem with Umberto Eco’s standard standard. Although it is interesting to note that his standard puts the nature of the movie entirely within the context of the viewer’s perception of it.
I’d say it’s intent. In porn, the plot exists to give context to the nudity and sex (and to pad the film). In mainstream film, sex and nudity is of secondary importance to the plot and character development, and sometimes (I won’t say always, mainstream film does throw in sex and nudity just for its own sake) exists to add to the plot and/or characters.
Here’s an experiment to tell the difference: if all of the sex was removed or toned down to the point of PG-13, and there’s no nudity, would the film still make sense? Does it still have a point? Maybe it wouldn’t be as effective or entertaining, but most of the sexy mainstream films mentioned above would still work on some level. Porn would be rendered incoherent and utterly useless, as its entire reason for being has been taken away.
[QUOTE=saoirse]
Yesterday, Slate’s movie critic said that In the Realm of the Senses was the movie she’d watched the most. I haven’t seen it, but it certainly sounds like softcore.
[/quote]
That movie depicts explicit penetration, so it could be classified as hardcore. But my position is that it’s not porn at all, neither hard nor soft. It’s a genuine movie that just happens to have real sex in it.
[QUOTE=Menocchio]
Here’s an experiment to tell the difference: if all of the sex was removed or toned down to the point of PG-13, and there’s no nudity, would the film still make sense? Does it still have a point? Maybe it wouldn’t be as effective or entertaining, but most of the sexy mainstream films mentioned above would still work on some level. Porn would be rendered incoherent and utterly useless, as its entire reason for being has been taken away.
[/QUOTE]
I think Last Tango fails your test, unless you really like the tango. My question is, does “softcore” automatically carry a value judgement? It sounds like such a dismissive term, implying that a film hasn’t the quality of a real movie, or the authenticity of real porn. But what if the subject matter is sex. Shouldn’t sex feature pretty prominently in such a movie?
[QUOTE=saoirse]
Yesterday, Slate’s movie critic said that In the Realm of the Senses was the movie she’d watched the most. I haven’t seen it, but it certainly sounds like softcore.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve seen it. Definitely hardcore.
[QUOTE=Walloon]
I’ve seen it. Definitely hardcore.
[/QUOTE]
I haven’t, but it seems odd to characterize it that way. Were there wet shots and/or closeups of pentration? I think you have to have one of those elements to be hardcore. According to imdb, it has a rating of NC-17. Hardcore porn would be X, I think.
[QUOTE=saoirse]
I haven’t, but it seems odd to characterize it that way. Were there wet shots and/or closeups of pentration?
[/quote]
Yes, it does. As I said a few messages back:
Unlike the other ratings, the MPAA does not have sole control over the “X” rating. In fact, that’s why they quit using it – I think early on there were one or two mainstream movies that were rated X. They created NC-17 in the early 1990s to replace what they originally meant by “X” – an adult movie. The original X and the current (disused) NC-17 did not mean that the movie was necessarily hardcore pornography, only that it was for adults only.
[QUOTE=saoirse]
Were there wet shots and/or closeups of pentration?
[/QUOTE]
And more.
[QUOTE=saoirse]
I haven’t, but it seems odd to characterize it that way. Were there wet shots and/or closeups of pentration? I think you have to have one of those elements to be hardcore. According to imdb, it has a rating of NC-17. Hardcore porn would be X, I think.
[/QUOTE]
The thing is, “X” is no longer a movie rating in the USA. In fact, since it was a non trademarked designation to begin with, the rating could be (and usually was) self applied to a movie by its producers to designate its hardcore status. Since the makers of hardcore really liked the X designation, and even better the entirely fictitious “XXX” designation, it became useless for the MPAA to use it on any mainstream movie, since to do so would automatically flag the movie as unplayable in anything other than specialty theaters. So the MPAA finally decided on “NC-17” to denote movies that would’ve otherwise been assigned an “X” rating.
My general breakdown of the difference between mainstream and softcore is whether or not you can see open labia and semi hard dicks. The difference between softcore and hardcore is that the dicks are fully hard, and they’re inside the open labia. Oh, and cocksucking is hardcore, unless it’s just filmed from behind the guy standing with a lot of implied activity going on in front… The ultimate definition of hardcore is the money shot.
It works well enough as a rule of thumb… of course, thumbs inside labia is kinda skirting the bounds of hardcore…
It’s so confusing! :smack: 
Hardcore: The actors are unambiguously having sex. Penetration and ejaculation are visible, if a man is involved. (See: Dirty Debutantes, anything with the word “Anal” in the title)
Softcore: They are simulating sex, but we don’t see actual contact with genitalia. We don’t even see genitalia, except perhaps briefly. (See: Emmanuelle, The Story of O)
Mainstream: Actual depictions of sexual encounters account for less than 5% of the film’s running time. Or more, but they are not the element of main focus. If it’s editable for network television, then it’s mainstream. (See: Body Double, Crimes of Passion, The Lover)
There are films that straddle these definitions, like Vincent Gallo’s Brown Bunny, Lizzie Borden’s Working Girls or anything by Peter Greenaway, but I submit that these are irrelevant because they have minimal influence on other films. I call these “Art House” films.
[QUOTE=SmartAleq]
it became useless for the MPAA to use it on any mainstream movie, since to do so would automatically flag the movie as unplayable in anything other than specialty theaters. So the MPAA finally decided on “NC-17” to denote movies that would’ve otherwise been assigned an “X” rating.
[/quote]
Yes, if I recall, Midnight Cowboy and A Clockwork Orange were rated X when they were originally released. At the time, X was just the “no children admitted” rating. By the time Henry and June came around, they needed to create the new NC-17 rating, because X was no longer usable. Most theatres simply would not run a movie with the “X” label. Of course, now, most theatres won’t show an NC-17 movie either, so we effectively have no commercially viable rating for movies that are for adults only.