Lucious porn vs art thread

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by luscious

See O__ of Misty Beethoven and I'm 100% sure you will count it as such a film.

And I agree with you about Stealth but what I am suggesting is that that kind of visceral thrill ride of special effects that is in Stealth is no more "legitimate" than a visceral thrill ride of eroticism. IIRC, even Sliver was advertised as "You know you like to watch" -- so clearly the film's intent was to give a thrilling erotic experience. So I think both kinds of thrills are legitimate.

I agree that both Stealth and porn films could be categorized as kinds of "thrillrides." But Stealth is not pornographic, which is what this discussion is about. Mainstream films can be broken down into many subcategories, with very different intended messages - comedies, action films, serious dramas, etc. all offer the audience different things. But for pornography vs. not pornography (an important distinction as some societies are very uptight about sex), those other groups are irrelevant. For the purposes of this discussion, and the framework that originally spawned it from the "why was gay porn thread closed" topic, we're looking at porn vs. not porn.

Eroticism ads atmosphere to a film just as music ads ambience to a film. Eroticism need not be part of the plot; it can simply be there to ad to the atomosphere. Obviously in a film like Exotica that erotic atmosphere is part of the setting and theme, but a film should be free to add erotic atomosphere even when the setting and theme do not suggest it (just as a film should be free to add rock music when the setting and theme do not suggest it such as in that Heath Ledger movie about jousting -- the adding of rock music vs classical music is a directoral choice that shapes the atmosphere of the film -- the same free choice should be had when it comes to adding eroticism to a film -- adding eroticism does not need to be "justified" any more than adding rock music or classical music needs to be "justified." I think my sig explains it well.

Yes, eroticism can be added to a film for atmosphere or anything you want - as long as it is not solely for the sexual gratification of the audience. A couple having explicit sex in the background of a scene may arouse an audience, but if it creates an atmosphere that is in line with what is going on with the film (and what is going on with the film is something other than the sexual gratification of the audience), then it would most likely be considered not pornographic. If there's a 15-minute long sex scene which does not further plot, character development, theme, etc., that would be a different matter - if it did none of those things, and the director couldn't explain why the scene was there and with such length and explicit detail (short of the audience finding it arousing obviously), then what can we conclude?

BTW, you may be aware of this, but some directors prefer or even insist that the actors/actresses in their films -- even when it doesn't happen to be explicitly shown -- have real sex b/c they feel that this inspires a better acting performance, that the actors/actresses get to really feel what it is like to be their character, etc. What do you think about this directoral preference? Is it a legitimate directoral preference?

I've never heard of such a thing - all the mainstream films with the actors/actresses actually have sex that I'm familiar with have that actual sex shown in the film. But if it hypothetically did exist, then I don't see how that's any different than the films that show the results in regards to the porn vs. not porn argument. The intent issue is still front and center, and just not showing the sex hardly clouds that issue in my opinion. If anything, it makes the emotions more prevalent in the film as the audience doesn't have the actual sex to distract them from it.

Artistically, I'd say it's perfectly legitimate. Practically, it's questionable. Having sex vs. pretending to have sex is a serious thing for many people, and I can't imagine many actors and actresses from mainstream film being comfortable with that. But that's a separate issue.

[luscious]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

I agree that both Stealth and porn films could be categorized as kinds of "thrillrides." But Stealth is not pornographic, which is what this discussion is about. Mainstream films can be broken down into many subcategories, with very different intended messages - comedies, action films, serious dramas, etc. all offer the audience different things. But for pornography vs. not pornography (an important distinction as some societies are very uptight about sex), those other groups are irrelevant. For the purposes of this discussion, and the framework that originally spawned it from the "why was gay porn thread closed" topic, we're looking at porn vs. not porn.



Yes, eroticism can be added to a film for atmosphere or anything you want - as long as it is not solely for the sexual gratification of the audience. A couple having explicit sex in the background of a scene may arouse an audience, but if it creates an atmosphere that is in line with what is going on with the film (and what is going on with the film is something other than the sexual gratification of the audience), then it would most likely be considered not pornographic. If there's a 15-minute long sex scene which does not further plot, character development, theme, etc., that would be a different matter - if it did none of those things, and the director couldn't explain why the scene was there and with such length and explicit detail (short of the audience finding it arousing obviously), then what can we conclude?



I've never heard of such a thing - all the mainstream films with the actors/actresses actually have sex that I'm familiar with have that actual sex shown in the film. But if it hypothetically did exist, then I don't see how that's any different than the films that show the results in regards to the porn vs. not porn argument. The intent issue is still front and center, and just not showing the sex hardly clouds that issue in my opinion. If anything, it makes the emotions more prevalent in the film as the audience doesn't have the actual sex to distract them from it.

Artistically, I'd say it's perfectly legitimate. Practically, it's questionable. Having sex vs. pretending to have sex is a serious thing for many people, and I can't imagine many actors and actresses from mainstream film being comfortable with that. But that's a separate issue.

It seems like we agree on about 99% of the issues. I'm sorry I mistook you for someone "uptight" before. One disagreement we have I think is the distinction you are making between erotic atmosphere and audience arousal. I think those two things are inseperable. A successfully erotic atomosphere will also cause audience arousal (but not just arousal -- it will also spellbind the audience -- Exotica is a good example). I agree that you can have audience arousal without it being an erotic atmosphere, but not the other way around. And it seems that you acknowledge that many non-porn films such as Stealth have the same (lack of) artistic merit as many porn films. Where I might disagree with you is that "artistic merit" determines whether a film is legitimate. In my view, the only criterion of legitimacy for a film is entertainment. So eroticism in a film purely for the purposes of enhancing the movie going experience is fine by me. And you are spot on that both Stealth and Pirates may entertain in an artistically void way but since one appeals to a non-sexual sensuality (fast, booming planes) and the other appeals to a sexual sensuality, that in societies "uptight" about it, one gets relegated to second class status and one doesn't.

Thanks for your thoughts.