Lucious porn vs art thread

[luscious]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

Yes, The Girlfriend experience stars a porn star - but she does not have sex in the film, and the film is directed by Steven Soderbergh, a well respected film director who works on both indie and popular films.

Radley Metzger is well respected also, certainly more respected than Uwe Bowl. (His porn films were often directed under a pseudonym Henry Paris -- IIRC, he is the director of the cinematic masterpiece O__ of Misty Beethoven)

And Romance -- that's a name of a film -- is a mainstream film with a porn actress as its lead and she has real explicit sex in the film. So you are wrong on the facts again.

The point of the work is not sexual arousal - the film explores the psychology of relationships and the world of expensive escorts.

Yes just as 9 Songs explores psychology with real explicit sex in case you didn't realize. But a film need not be cerebral to be legitimate. "Stealth" for example has a joke of a plot but I still enjoy it just for its special effects. I don't see why enjoying a film just for its special effects is somehow more legitimate than enjoying a film just for its eroticism, especialy when eroticism in mainstream films like Exotica is praised and the lack of eroticism (according to most critics) in I Know Who Killed Me is criticized.

But besides that, there are many "porn" films that "explore the psychology of relationships" just as much as 9 Songs. For example, O___ of Misty Beethoven does. There are also many classic French films starring Bridgette Lahayie which are cinematic masterpieces. What you say is absolutely right when it comes to a lot of porn titles but you can't paint them with a broad brush. Many porn titles are cinematic tour de forces.

No one is going to sit there during The Girlfriend Experience and think they're watching a porn, just like no one is going to watch Pirates and think it was made as a serious film and not for sexual gratification.

You keep on narrowing your focus to The Girlfriend Experience which I brought up as one example among many to refute a specific point you raised. Your counter-rebuttal falls flat when you come against the film Romance as I mentioned. And if people did not know the provenance of 9 Songs, I suspect that over 50% of them would think it was a porn film. In fact some critics have labeled it porn. So is it porn or not? The critics disagree (about 9 Songs and also some other films that feature explicit real sex)/

Removing the graphic portions of the sex scenes does not change the reason it was made, nor the audience it is playing to.

By your definition of "audience it is playing to", Bikini Destination Triple Fantasy is porn since that title exists only for one purpose.

And the cinematic classics of "porn" to do not play to the audience you think it does. They play to serious minded people. The sex scenes in O___ of Misty Beethoven comprise maybe less than 10% of the film. The sex scenes in 9 Songs comprise maybe 30-50% of the film and thematically all the drama is centered around them. Yet 9 Songs (at least for most critics) is not porn but O___ of Misty Beethoven is "porn." And .... you may not realize that O___ of Misty Beethoven is often described as not just a good "porn" movie, but a good movie period. If you don't mind this kind of stuff, give it a watch sometime. I am 100% sure you will be pleasantly surprised at what kind of serious cinema it is (not that cinema has to be serious to be legitimate).

You can fact-check or bring up obscure cases all you want, but the point remains that people know pornography when they see it.

"Mainstream" films with real explicit sex are not obscure cases. There's like maybe a hundred of them. Americans don't know about many of them because of the American taboos. In Europe, it's no big deal. Here's just some of them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...nsimulated_sex

It can be difficult to comprehensively explain, but that does not mean a very obvious distinction doesn't exist.

IMO, the distinction is all about money, prestige and perception. I bet if you showed 9 Songs to people who did not know anything about the film and also showed them O__ of Misty Beethoven, they would have no idea which was "porn" and which wasn't. The reason you have difficulty coherently, comprehensively accounting for the difference is because it is not obvious -- if it were obvious, accounting for the difference would be as easy as it is obvious.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by luscious

Pirates has more plot than 9 Songs.

You think so?

You can't say that Pirates has more production value, and cinematography though.... I haven't seen Pirates even..... but from the clips, it's god awful acting, poor camera work, and ridiculous dialog....

[My_Two_Cents]

So not only has the ban-hammer continued to be kept in check, we now give legitimacy to these mindless ramblings by breaking this tripe out into its own thread? Simply amazing.

[PH3AR]

Porn vs. Art thread?

[b0bby]

Originally Posted by luscious

9 Songs is not rated X. It's not rated anything (not in the U.S.). "XXX" is not a rating but a marketing gimmick some companies use. It's just made up. And the sex in 9 Songs in case you don't realize is unsimulated and as fully explicit as in Pirates and also more prevalent ... so if anything Pirates is less of a "porn" film than 9 Songs is. Pirates has also been reviewed by at least one mainstream home theater publication.

are you sure you are watching the right version of pirates? there is like a watered down mainstream version (never seen it, why bother) and a real uncensored full out xxx version. i don't know how you can say pirates is less of a pr0n film than 9 songs after watching the real version. pirates is only being reviewed because of its massive production costs in relative to other pr0n films and the fact it looks great in HD. other than those reasons there is nothing mainstream about the real pirates.

[mikejet]

Art:
Bangbus
Street****jobs
InTheVIP
Exploited Teens

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by luscious

Radley Metzger is well respected also, certainly more respected than Uwe Bowl. (His porn films were often directed under a pseudonym Henry Paris -- IIRC, he is the director of the cinematic masterpiece O__ of Misty Beethoven)

And Romance -- that's a name of a film -- is a mainstream film with a porn actress as its lead and she has real explicit sex in the film. So you are wrong on the facts again.

You are listing exceptions, and ones that don't even prove a point. Romance having a porn star who does have sex doesn't change the intent behind the film.

Yes just as 9 Songs explores psychology with real explicit sex in case you didn't realize. But a film need not be cerebral to be legitimate. "Stealth" for example has a joke of a plot but I still enjoy it just for its special effects. I don't see why enjoying a film just for its special effects is somehow more legitimate than enjoying a film just for its eroticism, especialy when eroticism in mainstream films like Exotica is praised and the lack of eroticism (according to most critics) in I Know Who Killed Me is criticized.

I never said a film had to be cerebral to be legitimate. To be legitimate, a film's reason for existing has to be something other than the sexual gratification of its audience. Stealth has no plot to speak of, but is meant to be watched from beginning to end as a kind of "action thrillride." Pirates has special effects, but they are secondary to the sex scenes, which are there for the sexual gratification of the audience. You and a handful of others watching the film just for the special effects do not change what the creator's intent was, nor society at large's interpretation of the product.

But besides that, there are many "porn" films that "explore the psychology of relationships" just as much as 9 Songs. For example, O___ of Misty Beethoven does. There are also many classic French films starring Bridgette Lahayie which are cinematic masterpieces. What you say is absolutely right when it comes to a lot of porn titles but you can't paint them with a broad brush. Many porn titles are cinematic tour de forces.

I don't doubt that porn films can have cinematic qualities - not in the least. And while there may be a handful of films that truly straddle the line, Pirates and 9 Songs definitely do not.

You keep on narrowing your focus to The Girlfriend Experience which I brought up as one example among many to refute a specific point you raised. Your counter-rebuttal falls flat when you come against the film Romance as I mentioned. And if people did not know the provenance of 9 Songs, I suspect that over 50% of them would think it was a porn film. In fact some critics have labeled it porn. So is it porn or not? The critics disagree (about 9 Songs and also some other films that feature explicit real sex)/

I only discussed The Girlfriend Experience because that is the film you brought up. The point of my rebuttal wasn't even that Sasha Grey doesn't have sex in TGE - the point is that the film is not primarily (or even at all) for the sexual gratification of the audience. Sasha Grey could have sex in the film, and the manner it was filmed in and the context of the rest of the film would decide if it was "pornographic" or simply erotic. 9 Songs has explicit sex and is not pornographic because of the context of the sex within the film, and the effect on the audience it is intended to give. It is not shot in a way to play up to sexual fantasies the audience may have - the explicit details of the sex are not purposefully front and center. The intent is realism, showing how a real couple interacts in their moments of greatest intimacy. An audience watching these scenes out of context would perhaps think it was real sex between amateurs or a real couple - true. And maybe some would find that sexually gratifying. But it does not purposefully play up standard pornographic qualities even within those scenes, and serves decidedly un-pornographic purposes within the context of the entire film. Just because some may use it for pornographic purposes does not make it so given all the other contextual information.

By your definition of "audience it is playing to", Bikini Destination Triple Fantasy is porn since that title exists only for one purpose.

I 100% agree that Bikini Destination and GGW titles and all similar things are pornography. Simply being softcore does not change the intent. I don't disagree with you here. This logic is exactly why I consider even the edited Pirates to be pornographic in nature, just simply softcore.

And the cinematic classics of "porn" to do not play to the audience you think it does. They play to serious minded people. The sex scenes in O___ of Misty Beethoven comprise maybe less than 10% of the film. The sex scenes in 9 Songs comprise maybe 30-50% of the film and thematically all the drama is centered around them. Yet 9 Songs (at least for most critics) is not porn but O___ of Misty Beethoven is "porn." And .... you may not realize that O___ of Misty Beethoven is often described as not just a good "porn" movie, but a good movie period. If you don't mind this kind of stuff, give it a watch sometime. I am 100% sure you will be pleasantly surprised at what kind of serious cinema it is (not that cinema has to be serious to be legitimate).

"Mainstream" films with real explicit sex are not obscure cases. There's like maybe a hundred of them. Americans don't know about many of them because of the American taboos. In Europe, it's no big deal. Here's just some of them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...nsimulated_sex

IMO, the distinction is all about money, prestige and perception. I bet if you showed 9 Songs to people who did not know anything about the film and also showed them O__ of Misty Beethoven, they would have no idea which was "porn" and which wasn't. The reason you have difficulty coherently, comprehensively accounting for the difference is because it is not obvious -- if it were obvious, accounting for the difference would be as easy as it is obvious.

I am not apposed to the concept that some films may straddle the line between pornography and not pornography. But more often than not, I'd say that these films that attempt to be multiple things including pornography simply become movies with pornographic scenes. If the sexual scenes are necessary for the intent of the work (that intent being something other than sexual gratification), then by my previous definition those scenes would not be porn. If the sexual scenes are done in explicit detail only for sexual gratification, then their inclusion in a work with other intents does not negate the fact that they are pornographic. I definitely leave open the possibility that some film will truly make me consider whether it is pornography or art, but I have yet to see that film (and I have seen a lot of films on both sides of the line).

But regardless, Pirates and 9 Songs (the two films you initially brought up that spawned this argument) are definitely not examples of those kinds of films - the intent in regards to sexuality of every scene in both of those films is clear as night and day.

[mikejet]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

I am not apposed to the concept that some films may straddle the line between pornography and not pornography. But more often than not, I'd say that these films that attempt to be multiple things including pornography simply become movies with pornographic scenes. If the sexual scenes are necessary for the intent of the work (that intent being something other than sexual gratification), then by my previous definition those scenes would not be porn. If the sexual scenes are done in explicit detail only for sexual gratification, then their inclusion in a work with other intents does not negate the fact that they are pornographic. I definitely leave open the possibility that some film will truly make me consider whether it is pornography or art, but I have yet to see that film (and I have seen a lot of films on both sides of the line).

But regardless, Pirates and 9 Songs (the two films you initially brought up that spawned this argument) are definitely not examples of those kinds of films - the intent in regards to sexuality of every scene in both of those films is clear as night and day.

Like how Brown Bunny can be an art film but shows full on fellatio right? I like your point of view and agree. The intent of the film makers for most pornography is what separates it from other types of film.

[luscious]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

You think so?

You can't say that Pirates has more production value, and cinematography though.... I haven't seen Pirates even..... but from the clips, it's god awful acting, poor camera work, and ridiculous dialog....

Maybe a better example would be O____ of Misty Beethoven than Pirates like I explained in a post above. But 9 Songs' lead actress -- that was her first and AFAIK only role.

[luscious]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

I definitely leave open the possibility that some film will truly make me consider whether it is pornography or art, but I have yet to see that film (and I have seen a lot of films on both sides of the line).

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. 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.

BTW, you may be aware of this, but some -- mainstream -- 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?

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by luscious

I'm a little confused. Are you saying 9 Songs is porn? Most critics say it is not porn.

No, I'm saying it is not porn. I wrote a whole paragraph defending it as not porn around the middle of my last post.

If it is the last paragraph that is confusing you, let me clarify - I am saying Pirates is decidedly porn, and 9 Songs is decidedly not porn.

[mikejet]

Did you see that great film Houston 500? It set a world record you know. Great documentary.

[luscious]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

No, I'm saying it is not porn. I wrote a whole paragraph defending it as not porn around the middle of my last post.

If it is the last paragraph that is confusing you, let me clarify - I am saying Pirates is decidedly porn, and 9 Songs is decidedly not porn.

Yeah sorry about that. I edited my post just now and I would like to hear your thoughts on it (especially the last paragraph I just added that starts with "BTW").

[luscious]

Originally Posted by mikejet

Did you see that great film Houston 500? It set a world record you know. Great documentary.

I haven't but I'll look into it. Thanks for the tip.

[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.

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by mikejet

Did you see that great film Houston 500? It set a world record you know. Great documentary.

That record was passed. Last I heard, it was 919. Another great documentary.