Seriously, you're going to have to expand on 8 for my layman's brain. Otherwise, I agree completely.

[Link]

"Filmic reality" = the representation of "reality" we see on the screen

"Pro-filmic reality"= the "reality" in front of the camera during shooting.

It is a simple and crucial distinction. Alas, it is also a complex and often confusing one. The basic rule is that of the surrealist motto: "Ceci n'est pas une pipe."



Ramsey said:
"The downside was that not all scenes had midgets in it."

[Link]

btw, I am not antagonistic to the idea of regulating aspects of the "pro-filmic reality" (and some vital aspects are already regulated anyway). I just doubt very much if "obscenity" is a useful tool to do this, precisely because of the point you made.



BigFerret said:
"She looks adorable with semen on her face too!"
(Sounds like an agent trying to get his girl booked.)

[Link]

Thanks for these interesting quotes.

Some of them are immediately accessible to me (#s 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7), and I agree with them wholeheartedly.

To better grasp #5, I'd like to know whether the word "functionality" means "whether the plot functions well" or rather "the functional purpose of the plot as part of the whole". (If it means the former, I take it that you're saying something like, "Porn is failed/deficient erotica."; if the latter, it would seem that you're making a more technical point, on which I'd appreciate your elaboration.)

For me, #6 begs for further articulation from the standpoint of my better understanding your philosophical point.

For #9, further elaboration of your definitions of the terms "stylistic qualities", "formal qualities", and "functional qualities" would be helpful (and in this connection, I wonder whether "functional" has the same connotation here as when used in "functionality" in #5).

Regarding #8, to the extent you are making a philosophical point, a meta-legal point, and/or a wry observation about "obscenity", I agree with you. As a legal matter, however (i.e., as a matter of current "First Amendment" doctrine), "obscenity" inheres in the "expression" itself (the "filmic reality"); the reality in front of the camera (the "pro-filmic reality") is the province of criminal law, employment law, public health and safety law, etc.

I have a huge problem with #10!

Edited by - Bob on 8/12/2003 3:32:17 PM

[Link]

As for having an accountant's mentality when appreciating porn, I'll wager you're referring to raincoaters who will buy their porn in regard to the numbers of anal, dpp, threesome, g/g listed on the backcovers or in reviews. I'll agree with you because i'm mainly interested in the performers and will generally discover the tape's specialties as I screen it, which is part of the pleasure. Unless of course it's called "Anal Lesbians in Boobsville vol.7", in which case I'd be pretty dumb not to know what to expect. Which leads to another point. I think one of the reasons gonzo was created was to avoid the pitfalls of features (5 scenes, b/j then mish then cowgirl then facial, throw in one anal, one b/g/g and one b/g/b) which had become utterly formatted and unimaginative.

But now you get the opposite effect, where gonzo has compartmentalized itself in an endless series of fetish-specific boxes (double anal, rough sex, gagging, lolitas...) and refuses to budge out of its self-imposed restrictions. Whether you like them or not, there's nothing as formatted right now in the porn market than a RLD production. And if I'm not mistaken, they're among the best sellers. Gonzo has created a situation where viewers will rent "Triple Anal Bonanza" and then write a whole topic to complain that the scene w. Layla o'LaLae was actually a dpp and single anal and it's a f****** rip-off, & you can't get any more "accountant" than that. But that's where the market is.

i should be so lucky, lucky lucky lucky

[Link]

Edited by - Walter Burns on 8/12/2003 8:47:51 PM

[Link]

Here's my take on #4: I think (and I think you think) that viewing is an incredibly active process. I also think that we viewers often have much more than simply "a willingness to believe"; I think we frequently have a desperate desire to believe. Have I intuitively grasped your point or have I missed the mark?

and (on #5):

and (on #6):

On #8: Okay. You’re making a philosophical and meta-legal point.

On #9: To clarify your definition of the term "formal system" within the analytical structure you're employing, are "narrative" and "non-narrative" forms the only "modes of form" (excuse my lay usage) from which to choose, or was your parenthetical meant to be illustrative rather than exhaustive? To clarify your definition of "stylistic techniques", would "smell" be added to your list of techniques if the movie in question were presented in "smell-o-vision"?

On #10:

Thanks for taking the time to do this, Walter. I like this kind of pedantry!

<typos>

Edited by - Bob on 8/12/2003 9:15:59 PM

[Link]

It should be clear to anyone who has read my posts on any kind of regular basis that I agree wholeheartedly with #1. Again, Vodka Tonic pointed out fantastic examples of this.

#3 is a fascinating perspective... and why I love having Walter Burns around. :) For me, it's right on the money, and something I've never put my finger on before.

Again, #4 is ... I'm still processing it.

Anyway, good food for thought, I think. Thanks, Walter for coming back out of your shell a little bit, even if it's only for a little while.

Mike L.

[Link]

There -- I hope that's better now!

[Link]

the term "suspension of disbelief" has become widely accepted, to the point where it has become part of everyday language. so i thought it would be hard to accept for laymen that by now the concept basically has lost a great deal of support within the area of film studies. that you are unfamiliar with the far-reaching consequences for different aspects of film studies of your intuitive conclusion, is only natural. you are not a film scholar, so it is unfair of me to expect that you are familar with these aspects. that doesnt mean however, that your understanding of the basic premisse is any less valuable.

the term "suspension of disbelief" has become widely accepted, to the point where it has become part of everyday language. so i thought it would be hard to accept for laymen that by now the concept basically has lost a great deal of support within the area of film studies. that you are unfamiliar with the far-reaching consequences for different aspects of film studies of your intuitive conclusion, is only natural. you are not a film scholar, so it is unfair of me to expect that you are familar with these aspects. that doesnt mean however, that your understanding of the basic premisse is any less valuable.

the term "suspension of disbelief" has become widely accepted, to the point where it has become part of everyday language. so i thought it would be hard to accept for laymen that by now the concept basically has lost a great deal of support within the area of film studies. that you are unfamiliar with the far-reaching consequences for different aspects of film studies of your intuitive conclusion, is only natural. you are not a film scholar, so it is unfair of me to expect that you are familar with these aspects. that doesn't mean however, that your understanding of the basic premisse is any less valuable.

Your second question on smell and smell-o-vision is a real tough one. The first problem to be solve, is to determine if smell is part of film form at all: is it a textual property or is it a part of the viewing experience and thus contextual? If we answer this question by claiming that is a part of the film form (which I am inclined not to support), than we have another problem to solve: where in the scheme of things does it belong? It is clear to me that it would have to be a stylistic feature and I am inclined to go for the mise-en-scène. My reason? Well, smell can be used as a part of the theatrical mise-en-scène as opposed to the cinematic mise-en-scène.


lindi said:
"It always amazes me how long it can take for the courts to realize things that seem so obvious.

Edited by - Walter Burns on 8/13/2003 10:20:02 AM

[Link]

I can't wait for the day Walter applies his concepts to an actual porn movie, say Service Animals 10 or 11. Not a review exactly, but a description of what he thinks is going on in all the texts and sub-texts.

And if not Joey, how about applying them to Anthony Mann's brilliant western Man Of The West which was just on TCM?

[Link]

Not only porn. But in all of the popular arts you have to "deliver". So you have to be an accountant, though not only.

(2)
A video is better too short than too long. If it is too short, it means I really enjoyed it and wanted it to be longer. If it is too long, I was bored long before it ended. I prefer enjoying myself over being bored.

What is "short" and what is "long"? These are meaningless terms.

(3)
A still picture provides ample opportunity for fetishistic pleasure. Therefore, it ought to concentrate on models posing and on 'meaningful' details. Moving pictures are better suited for voyeuristic pleasure. Therefor, they ought to concentrate on models in motion or being active and on the relationships between 'meaningful' details.

Generally speaking, the problem with all kinds of "poetics" is that as soon as you lay down the rules you find that there are plenty of works , aesthetically satisfying, that have been composed in disharmony or outright contrast with those rules you so carefully laid down. But to deny the "fetishistic" pleasure as a basic motivation of the porn viewer is, I think, a self-evident absurdity.

(4)
There is no such thing as a "suspension of disbelief". Instead, there is a "willingness to belief".

You're playing with words, meaning the same thing, though you justify it with the distinction between "active" and "passive" viewers: because the willingness to believe wouldn't exist if there wasn't the consciousness at the start of the necessity of suspending the disbelief.

(5)
The difference between erotica and porn is not the lighting, but the functionality of narrative structures.

Why the "lighting", of all things? Why not the scenes, the acting, the direction, the money? Anyway I firmly disagree on this. To say that the difference lies in the "functionality of narrative structures" just means that, normally, the erotic movies have better production values. But this can be countered by the fact that old porns like the Metzger's or the early Gerard Damiano's demonstrate that porn can be better produced than a whole score of soft-cores. Without resort to high-faluting lingo, it is enough to say that the difference is that porn invariably delivers, while soft-core, isn't supposed to.

(6)
Whenever aesthetics and ethics get mixed up, moralists of the lowest order are having a field day.

What do you care?

(7)
'Real' perversion lies in the intention of the act, not in the act itself.

Agreed.

(8)
It is pointless to seek for obscenity in the "filmic reality". Obscenity can only take place in the "pro-filmic reality". Thus, if you want to regulate something, regulate the "pro-filmic reality".

So, I presume, you advocate the free circulation of snuffs, pedophily, mass murder videos, waiting for reality to take care of the "pro-filmic" one?

(9)
When judging stylistic qualities, always make a distinction between formal qualities and functional qualities.

In other words, that formal proceeds ought always have a reason for their use. Why the remark?

And finally...

(10)
No, Ashley Long and Angel Long are NOT sisters.

I don't know the both of them.

[Link]

Could you please Fed Ex me one of those Mr. Yuk stickers that you told me about, ASAP? (You know, the ones that look like .)

[Link]

Edited: I think I am beginning to understand what you meant by "waiting for reality to take care of the "pro-filmic" one". Guess what, they already have in some of the most vital areas. And what is more, I support that. Again, read some of my posts in the other thread.

Edited by - Walter Burns on 8/14/2003 11:54:15 AM

[Link]

Thought the talk was about you.

(2)
A video is better too short than too long. If it is too short, it means I really enjoyed it and wanted it to be longer. If it is too long, I was bored long before it ended. I prefer enjoying myself over being bored.

What is "short" and what is "long"? These are meaningless terms.

>I am not talking about "short" and "long" but about "too short" and "too long". And I explain what they mean, as in "If it is too short, it means..." I know what you are saying: "Time is relative."

You are saying it. I'm trying to establish what do you mean by "long" or "short" apart from your subjective experience.

>That goes double for "reel time" versus "real time". But guess what, that is what my quote is all about as well.

I'm still waiting to know what a short (or long) "reel" time ought to be.

(3)
A still picture provides ample opportunity for fetishistic pleasure. Therefore, it ought to concentrate on models posing and on 'meaningful' details. Moving pictures are better suited for voyeuristic pleasure. Therefor, they ought to concentrate on models in motion or being active and on the relationships between 'meaningful' details.

Generally speaking, the problem with all kinds of "poetics" is that as soon as you lay down the rules you find that there are plenty of works , aesthetically satisfying, that have been composed in disharmony or outright contrast with those rules you so carefully laid down. But to deny the "fetishistic" pleasure as a basic motivation of the porn viewer is, I think, a self-evident absurdity.

>I am doing what here?? Where do I deny "fetishistic" pleasure for any porn viewer. I don't understand this at all.

Read yourself again, carefully this time.

>Furthermore, when you say that "the problem with all kinds of "poetics" is that as soon as you lay down the rules you find that there are plenty of works , aesthetically satisfying, that have been composed in disharmony or outright contrast with those rules you so carefully laid down", you are believing that ALL "poetics" models are normative or prescriptive and none of them can be descriptive.

Poetics cannot be only descriptive, they are usually "also" descriptive: their normative aspect is the predominant one, though. You are laying down rules, which means you are prescribing, which is what poetics (without quotes marks) are about.

>I have to laugh at that notion. I didn't "lay down any rules" in the sense you are thinking about.

So you are not laying down rules. You're doing what, then?

>Maybe it is time you learned the difference between "le fait filmique" and "le fait cinématographique".

Sure. Post a bibliography. Glad to comply.

(4)
There is no such thing as a "suspension of disbelief". Instead, there is a "willingness to belief".

You're playing with words, meaning the same thing, though you justify it with the distinction between "active" and "passive" viewers: because the willingness to believe wouldn't exist if there wasn't the consciousness at the start of the necessity of suspending the disbelief.

>That "consciousness" itself is evidence of an active viewer.

It is a question of time (real or reel). That consciousness may be active before sitting through the viewing experience and (and it usually is, expecially if the viewing is satisfying) being completely suspended during the projection. Some theoreticians, with whom you surely are acquainted with, have made a comparison between the film viewing and the dream experience: you may disagree with this opinion, but it is a respectable one nonetheless.

>Sure, I am playing with words, but "meaningful words". "Suspending" anything means you give something up. That is not the case when you are watching a film. You are not giving anything up, you are investing something.
And btw, there is no such thing as "the necessity of suspending the disbelief".

Is it not strange that a subtle and learned reasoner as you are hasn't made yet the distinction between the videos, that are being watched at home, and the movies, watched in theatres? Of course, the viewing experience is radically different in the two cases. But you keep using the word "film" as an equivalent of "video". I'll abstain, anyway, from recommending you to learn the difference between your home and a theatre, or between the tape and the film. No bibliography needed.

(5)

The difference between erotica and porn is not the lighting, but the functionality of narrative structures.

Why the "lighting", of all things? Why not the scenes, the acting, the direction, the money? Anyway I firmly disagree on this. To say that the difference lies in the "functionality of narrative structures" just means that, normally, the erotic movies have better production values. But this can be countered by the fact that old porns like the Metzger's or the early Gerard Damiano's demonstrate that porn can be better produced than a whole score of soft-cores. Without resort to high-faluting lingo, it is enough to say that the difference is that porn invariably delivers, while soft-core, isn't supposed to.

>Oh boy, there IS so much misunderstood here by you, that I don't even know where to begin.

Thanks for trying, anyway.

>Why lighting? Because this is a very famous quote, by I believe Pauline Kael, or another well known film critic. Or was it the writer Erica Jong?

So famous you don't even remember who said it.

>I don't get this at all: "To say that the difference lies in the "functionality of narrative structures" just means that, normally, the erotic movies have better production values." Excuse me, but that is a terrible misjudgement on your part, based on a personal, normative aesthetic value.
I don't make any of those in this quote. I am pointing towards structural formal differences, without making any value-laden judgement whatsoever. Therefor, it is also completely besides the question to point to ideosyncratic factors, like the work of this or that director, to justify anything in this discussion.

What you say must be verified on facts. And I'm not expressing any "value-laden" judgment, only saying that some porn movies (I could add others to the ones quoted) made with the money usually spent for soft-cores, are undistinguishable from them if not for the explicit sex. But if you wanna please point out to the presumed structural formal differences between the erotic (you're loath to call them soft-core, apparently) and porn (hard-core) movies, I'll be glad to change that opinion.

>I like your last sentence: "Without resort to high-faluting lingo, it is enough to say that the difference is that porn invariably delivers, while soft-core, isn't supposed to." However, maybe you ought to explain what it is that porn invaribaly delivers and soft-core isn't supposed to?

Explicit sex.

>That reminds me. I didn't say anything about soft-core or hard-core. THAT is another discussion entirely.

In fact you made use of the words "erotica" and "porn". Which are, in common language use, though not in your idiolect, equivalent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(6)
Whenever aesthetics and ethics get mixed up, moralists of the lowest order are having a field day.

What do you care?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Are you serious?

Always.

(8)
>It is pointless to seek for obscenity in the "filmic reality". Obscenity can only take place in the "pro-filmic reality". Thus, if you want to regulate something, regulate the "pro-filmic reality".

>So, I presume, you advocate the free circulation of snuffs, pedophily, mass murder videos, waiting for reality to take care of the "pro-filmic" one?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Sigh. Apart from the fact that the first part of your sentence INSULTS me,

It wasn't meant as an insult. I never insult anyone, as an habit.

>the last part is complete and utter nonsense. I really don't have a single clue what you mean by "waiting for reality to take care of the "pro-filmic" one".
I guess this is because I fail to explain what I mean in terms you can understand.

You know I'm dumb.

>Maybe, you will understand if you read some of my posts in the thread about the Extreme Associates indictment.

I won't. I'm not planning to write a study on your theories.

Edited: I think I am beginning to understand what you meant by "waiting for reality to take care of the "pro-filmic" one". Guess what, they already have in some of the most vital areas. And what is more, I support that. Again, read some of my posts in the other thread.

See above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(9)
>When judging stylistic qualities, always make a distinction between formal qualities and functional qualities.

>In other words, that formal proceeds ought always have a reason for their use. Why the remark?

>Because almost ALL discussion on stylistic qualities end by the what or how question.
What are "formal proceeds"?

The how.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And finally...

(10)
No, Ashley Long and Angel Long are NOT sisters.

I don't know the both of them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good for you.

Sir Noel Plum said:
"I am genuinely astonished that in America lard is hard to find, having seen the size of many Americans I assumed it was given away free on street corners."

Edited by - Walter Burns on 8/14/2003 11:54:15 AM

[Link]

i should be so lucky, lucky lucky lucky

[Link]

Please make that two Mr. Yuk () stickers!

Walter Burns said:
"Always acknowledge an asshole, otherwise you will be rude and become an asshole yourself."

[Link]

btw mark, I just saw an incredible public sex DVD released by DVDrama, which easily can compete with the best Ralf Dorman stuff of a couple of years ago. It is called Open Air: Fast erwischt , catalog number DVD89153. I am sure you will like it. I know this is off-topic and that I should post this in the original thread about public sex videos/films/DVDs, but I am not certain that you will read that thread, am I.
And while I am talking to you, get your ass over to the EGAFD. Those guys need a knowledgeable man like yourself.



DenverDon said:
"I don't want to spill my coffee so I walk slow."

Edited by - Walter Burns on 8/15/2003 9:02:54 AM

[Link]

>Thought the talk was about you.

>???

????Who did start this thread?

_________________________________________________-

>Then you can wait a long time, since the quote was specifically meant to undermine the idea that a video (or film if you like) should have a certain absolute length.

OK, let's start all over again. You specifically advocated a shorter lenght for videos. Shorter than what?

________________________________________________

>That goes double for "reel time" versus "real time". But guess what, that is what my quote is all about as well.

I'm still waiting to know what a short (or long) "reel" time ought to be.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>That is a very silly remark. I am pretty sure you are confusing the terms "reel time" and "screen time". Guess what: one of these terms IS subjective/relative, the other IS absolute.

Then I have to admit I don't know what a "reel" is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>"Poetics cannot be only descriptive" and "you are prescribing, which is what poetics (without quotes marks) are about". Hmmm, try to read some Russian formalism, or if you rather stick to film studies, some neo-formalism. In fact, add some structuralism too.The time when academic film theories were normative is, well, for the most part, 40 years behind us.
Why should I post a bibiliography? However, if you want to start somewhere, try the book I already mentioned somewhere else in this thread. But oh, that may be too much trouble for you, since you are not planning on "writing a study on my film theories".

Well, you never know.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4)

>It is a question of time (real or reel). That consciousness may be active before sitting through the viewing experience and (and it usually is, expecially if the viewing is satisfying) being completely suspended during the projection. Some theoreticians, with whom you surely are acquainted with, have made a comparison between the film viewing and the dream experience: you may disagree with this opinion, but it is a respectable one nonetheless.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>It was respectable 20 years ago. Now it largely belongs in the arena of pop-science.

Who decided this? You? Single-handedly?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Watching a film in a theatre, or watching video images at home, doesn't make a damn difference in the discussion about "suspending of disbelief". And "in common language use", films displayed on video cassettes (or now DVD discs) are still called films.
And please, indulge me, do explain to me the difference between my home and a theatre, or between the tape and the film.
I think you are trying to pull off a "Riley" here.

Have to admit that this is the first time that I hear somebody saying that watching "Ben Hur" at the theatres and watching it at your home's tv set is the same kind of experience. You silenced me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(5)

The difference between erotica and porn is not the lighting, but the functionality of narrative structures.

Why the "lighting", of all things? Why not the scenes, the acting, the direction, the money? Anyway I firmly disagree on this. To say that the difference lies in the "functionality of narrative structures" just means that, normally, the erotic movies have better production values. But this can be countered by the fact that old porns like the Metzger's or the early Gerard Damiano's demonstrate that porn can be better produced than a whole score of soft-cores. Without resort to high-faluting lingo, it is enough to say that the difference is that porn invariably delivers, while soft-core, isn't supposed to.

>Oh boy, there IS so much misunderstood here by you, that I don't even know where to begin.

Thanks for trying, anyway.

>Why lighting? Because this is a very famous quote, by I believe Pauline Kael, or another well known film critic. Or was it the writer Erica Jong?

So famous you don't even remember who said it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Because it is so famous that I have seen it many, many times, expressed by many different writers. Whatever, it was famous enough that somebody else besides myself remembered it.

I'll extend my thanks to him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>I don't get this at all: "To say that the difference lies in the "functionality of narrative structures" just means that, normally, the erotic movies have better production values." Excuse me, but that is a terrible misjudgement on your part, based on a personal, normative aesthetic value.
I don't make any of those in this quote. I am pointing towards structural formal differences, without making any value-laden judgement whatsoever. Therefor, it is also completely besides the question to point to ideosyncratic factors, like the work of this or that director, to justify anything in this discussion.

What you say must be verified on facts. And I'm not expressing any "value-laden" judgment, only saying that some porn movies (I could add others to the ones quoted) made with the money usually spent for soft-cores, are undistinguishable from them if not for the explicit sex. But if you wanna please point out to the presumed structural formal differences between the erotic (you're loath to call them soft-core, apparently) and porn (hard-core) movies, I'll be glad to change that opinion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't loathe anything. See below.
When you use the term "better production values", you are making a value-laden judgement. You are stating that the difference is not formal, but due to quality and talent involved; or, the difference is not structural, but ideosyncratic.
I realize that my statement has to be "proved". I already explained in this thread that this will involve a lot of new (to you), specific and "technical" concepts, both from narratology and neo-formalist poetics. That merits a thread of its own, so I won't "proof" my statement now. And I don't expect from you to belief me at this point either.

OK. So can I assume that you agree with me in considering your thesis well, if not a "Riley", at least a bit daring?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>I like your last sentence: "Without resort to high-faluting lingo, it is enough to say that the difference is that porn invariably delivers, while soft-core, isn't supposed to." However, maybe you ought to explain what it is that porn invaribaly delivers and soft-core isn't supposed to?

Explicit sex.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please define this. How do you categorize some of, say, Tinto Brass' movies? And what do you make from the presence of visible penetration in films such as The Idiots , or La vie de Jesus or Une vraie jeune fille , or ...

>...Oshima's The Empire of Senses, Breillat's movies with Siffredi, Maruschka Detmers's blow job in "Diavolo in corpo". Want me to categorize them? OK. Let's call them "not well made" porns: with the exception of Oshima's masterpiece and Brass' Caligula, which are, in my opinion, the two best porns ever made (the same maybe goes for, but my knowledge in the field is practically nil, Genet's "Un chant d'amour" for gay porn).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>That reminds me. I didn't say anything about soft-core or hard-core. THAT is another discussion entirely.

In fact you made use of the words "erotica" and "porn". Which are, in common language use, though not in your idiolect, equivalent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Erotica is much more than soft-core.

Much more what? Money?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(6)
Whenever aesthetics and ethics get mixed up, moralists of the lowest order are having a field day.

What do you care?

>Are you serious?

Always.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But not serious enough to take the time and effort to read some other threads on this board to try to understand what I mean by this quote. And then you have the guts to ask me to give you a bibliography. Come on Mark, I know you are a smart man, but now you are just pelling my leg, aren't you?

My dear friend, a forum is not a neoformalists' congress or a series of essays on porn. As rule, I think it's only discorteous of you not to give me a straight answer and telling me to read your other posts. We are discussing and when two people are discussing one doesn't say to the other: "Read my book or what I wrote, I won't waste my breath". This about the method.
About this particular point, I'll admit my answer was provocative, in a measure. But, believe me, I don't have the time to read all of the threads of this or of other forums. So, if you had somebody in mind when doing your remark, I was unaware of it. I just took your opinion in a general sense and answered with my own. And probably I was wrong in doing that at all, as the point is, as far as I'm concerned, unessential.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(8)
>It is pointless to seek for obscenity in the "filmic reality". Obscenity can only take place in the "pro-filmic reality". Thus, if you want to regulate something, regulate the "pro-filmic reality".

>So, I presume, you advocate the free circulation of snuffs, pedophily, mass murder videos, waiting for reality to take care of the "pro-filmic" one?

>Sigh. Apart from the fact that the first part of your sentence INSULTS me,

It wasn't meant as an insult. I never insult anyone, as an habit.

>the last part is complete and utter nonsense. I really don't have a single clue what you mean by "waiting for reality to take care of the "pro-filmic" one".
I guess this is because I fail to explain what I mean in terms you can understand.

You know I'm dumb.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No I don't. I just know that you are ignorant (or pretends to be) in certain highly specialized areas of film studies. In fact, I know you are smart. You have shown that many times.

If I went to a neoformalist congress and started talking about "felching", DAP, TAP, "reverse cowboy" and so on, what would people think or say? And what would I say to them: "Read my threads"? The basic point of my disagreement with you is your insisting in adopting a specialized lingo (which, but is my particular opinion, is also high-falutin') to describe theories which could be better discussed by everybody here, and with more equanimity, if reported with a more generally comprehensible language. Maybe the "rigour" of the discussion itself would get lost; but I think that many precious opinions (also, or expecially, the contrary ones) would come to the fore which are now blocked by the wall of your (in my opinion) useless and inopportune technicisms. The fact that you're not a stupid makes me think that you do this to prevent a discussion of your thesis and not to encourage it. Have you thought about it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Maybe, you will understand if you read some of my posts in the thread about the Extreme Associates indictment.

I won't. I'm not planning to write a study on your theories.

Edited: I think I am beginning to understand what you meant by "waiting for reality to take care of the "pro-filmic" one". Guess what, they already have in some of the most vital areas. And what is more, I support that. Again, read some of my posts in the other thread.

See above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Well, I guess that is the end of all intelligent discussion then. If you are not interested in reading any arguments I have to offer, why argue with me in the first place?

See above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(9)
>When judging stylistic qualities, always make a distinction between formal qualities and functional qualities.

>In other words, that formal proceeds ought always have a reason for their use. Why the remark?

>Because almost ALL discussion on stylistic qualities end by the what or how question.
What are "formal proceeds"?

The how.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Examples?

If I remember well, I stole the expression "formal proceeds" (but maybe it should have been translated as "formal procedures") from the russian formalists. You're acquainted with them.

btw mark, I just saw an incredible public sex DVD released by DVDrama, which easily can compete with the best Ralf Dorman stuff of a couple of years ago. It is called Open Air: Fast erwischt , catalog number DVD89153. I am sure you will like it. I know this is off-topic and that I should post this in the original thread about public sex videos/films/DVDs, but I am not certain that you will read that thread, am I.

If you title it INCREDIBLE PUBLIC SEX DVD! I certailnly will.

>And while I am talking to you, get your ass over to the EGAFD. Those guys need a knowledgeable man like yourself.

Oh, come on! Let's get not so chummy. We're here to discuss. Let's not make this become one of those bogus forums where you get blocked by "moderators" who keep under tutelage some "star poster".
And, BTW: what are you doing for EGAFD?

DenverDon said:
"I don't want to spill my coffee so I walk slow."

Edited by - Walter Burns on 8/15/2003 9:02:54 AM

[Link]

Mike L.

[Link]

On a personal/subjective level, I can't understand that you say that Caligula is one of the best two porns ever made. But I can respect your opinion.

Edited: Talking about being curteous to your discussion partner, maybe you should take the time and effort to learn some of the formatting of this forum. Maybe that way, I don't have to search carefully for your newly added responses.




Skeeter Kerkove said:
"Everybody loves everybody!"
(Pure coincidence. Ain't life on ADT great!!)

Edited by - Walter Burns on 8/16/2003 1:29:46 PM

[Link]

>btw: you have to deliver what?

>Thought the talk was about you.

>???

????Who did start this thread?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>You don't know that? It is not so difficult. Go to the first post of this thread and read the name of the poster on the side.

That's it: it's up to him to deliver.

>You said that "in all of the popular arts you have to 'deliver'". Since you put "deliver" between inverted commas, I was (and still am) curious about what you mean by it. Hell, even if you didn't put it between inverted commas, I would still be curious what that means. Are you saying that some sort of quantitative standard (remember the accountant) should be met? If so, how can that standard be measured? Hence my question: "deliver what"?
What this question has to do with me or the fact that I started this thread, is still a mystery to me.

You know (actually, I seem to remember to have read it also in one of your recent posts) of the necessity for popular arts to offer always something new within a slightly varied pattern (you can call it a series of cliché). The pattern must be there, invariably. Otherwise you have no "popular" arts. The "eversame" pattern is the "delivering".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Then you can wait a long time, since the quote was specifically meant to undermine the idea that a video (or film if you like) should have a certain absolute length.

OK, let's start all over again. You specifically advocated a shorter lenght for videos. Shorter than what?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know you won't like this answer either, but: "shorter than my tolerance level for boredom." (Yes, I realize that is different for different viewers; that is why the quote is referring to relative values, not absolute ones.)
btw, I did nothing like "specifically advocating a shorter length for videos". Just because I am syaing that I prefer a video to be too short over too long, doesn't mean I prefer short videos. If a video of 2 hours 20 minutes can hold my interest till the end, why would I want it to be shorter? In fact, if it could be made longer and still hold my interest, I probably would want it longer. OTOH, if a video of 90 mintues is boring me to death long before the half way point is reached, why would I want it to be 120 minutes?
Again, what the quote WAS about is the absurdity of demanding that every video should have a mimimal (or maximal, for that matter), duration. So no matter how often you are going to ask me, I will not give you an absolute figure, since that is what my quote is pointing out to be absurd. Like you said yourself: "short" and "long" are meaningless.

>Thanks. I have finally understood that your point was pointless. Sorry for having taken so long to realize it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>That goes double for "reel time" versus "real time". But guess what, that is what my quote is all about as well.

I'm still waiting to know what a short (or long) "reel" time ought to be.

>That is a very silly remark. I am pretty sure you are confusing the terms "reel time" and "screen time". Guess what: one of these terms IS subjective/relative, the other IS absolute.

Then I have to admit I don't know what a "reel" is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>The fact that you are talking about "a" reel in this context, is proof of that.
If you want to experience the difference between real time and reel time (and these terms are pretty widespread, not just neoformalist jargon; they are even being used in the widely used BBC instructional video for aspiring video makers, with no prior experience whatsoever)

Everybody's favourite video! I had completely forgotten about it, though in my country is every home's talk! My fault, I'll admit that.
And, yes, I always wanted to be a video maker: like all the participants at this forum who, as everybody can easily argue, would rather shoot Rocco fucking his partner than fucking her themselves.

>, just perform the following simple experiment. Take a camera (film or video, for this experiment, the difference between the two is irrelevant for the point I am trying to make, although the "exact" (between inverted comma's because they are hardly exact) results will differ slightly) and take a 60 second shot of the street in front of your house. Now, watch those 60 seconds on the screen, and you will definitely experience them as being much longer as the time it took you to make the shot (as long as nothing spectacular, as a car crash or a naked girl on a bicycle, happens to appear in the shot). So, while in absolute terms real time = reel time, this is not true in relative/subjective terms. I can explain why this is so as well, but that is irrelevant here, isn't it?

But why, instead of giving me this whole unpaid lesson, didn't you simply said that there is a subjective perception of time as opposed to the objective one? Maybe because that would have been understood by each and every one? Were you afraid of making yourself clear? Or you just wanted to demonstrate to someone that inside your BBC cover there's really a instructional video? Or you just wanted to demonstrate to everybody that I don't have seen (and, I promise you, never will) ths BBC instructional video, while you did?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why should I post a bibiliography? However, if you want to start somewhere, try the book I already mentioned somewhere else in this thread. But oh, that may be too much trouble for you, since you are not planning on "writing a study on my film theories".

Well, you never know.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Well, I doubt that very much. Why? Well, because the first thing you would have to do, is acquaint yourself with the "specialized lingo" I am using and you already made your "informed" (yes, I am being sarcastic here, I realize that in my previous post, you didn't notice when I was being sarcastic,

Maybe I noticed it and passed it up.

>so I better spell it out unequivocally) descision that it is just high-falutin' and only used as a way to prevend discussion.

So you post a discussion-proof topic in a discussion forum... Are you feeling well? If you want to talk by yourself you don't need to talk with anybody. Or are we other participants the subjects of some experiment?

>You remind me of a student I once had. She told me that she didn't think that a certain semiotic model had any value. When I asked her why she thought that, she answered: "Because I don't understand any of it." (And no, I am not saying you are dumb. Neither was the student in question.)

Sincerely, I couldn't care less. Unfortunately I'm old enough not to care anymore about what anybody but myself could think about me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some theoreticians, with whom you surely are acquainted with, have made a comparison between the film viewing and the dream experience: you may disagree with this opinion, but it is a respectable one nonetheless.

>It was respectable 20 years ago. Now it largely belongs in the arena of pop-science.

Who decided this? You? Single-handedly?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, me single-handedly (you know, sarcasm).
See, I am not sure now what to do. Should I give you some "bibliographic references" or not? Because, oh my, there sure is a lot of high-faluting going on in this discussion. Nevertheless, for a nice historical and theoretical overview of this issue, read the two introductory chapters in David Bordwell's and Noel Carroll's "Post Theory: Reconstructiing Film Studies".

Are you Bordwell or Carroll? (And this is not "single-handedly" anyway. Unless they're bogus names, of course)

>Oh, how rude of me. I suggest that you read about this elsewhere, instead of giving it to you "straight". Let me know if you are interested in this discussion

Are you?

>and I will (try to) explain the gist of this to you, as straight as possible. In case you want to prepare yourself, try looking up (what AM I asking of you, again), the differences and similarities between "contemporary film theory"/"subject-position theory" (the film theoretical model of the 70s, that came up with the analogy of the dream experience)

I don't know about that. I picked it up in a Roland Barthes' essay.

>and its successor, "cultural studies".

Finally I got your name!

>And then try to relate to the fact that these two film theoretical models are best described as "grand theories". If there is any high-faluting to be found, it is in these "respected" (I can explain the inverted commas here, otherwise I wouldn't have put them there) theoretical models.

You keep not getting my point. I don't intend to follow a post-graduation course in film theory, I have no time for that, sorry. Furthermore, I was always instinctively against all kinds of formalism, whatever the label they choose to stick to themselves, as I deem them absolutely uncapable to cope (thank God) with human complexity. I know, there's a new one born every 15-20 years: now, I apprehend from you (and in a porn forum at that!) they call themselves "neo-formalist" (would like to know what happened to the "old" ones. Well, I think you know that: they all recanted) and, after they will have been swept away from the cultural scene, will emerge (with a new nick) with another "scientific", "explain it all" theory. Which is always the same.
But all this is beside the point: I am simply inviting you to explain to yourself (and also to me) your presence "here" as a theoretician.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Watching a film in a theatre, or watching video images at home, doesn't make a damn difference in the discussion about "suspending of disbelief". And "in common language use", films displayed on video cassettes (or now DVD discs) are still called films.
And please, indulge me, do explain to me the difference between my home and a theatre, or between the tape and the film.
I think you are trying to pull off a "Riley" here.

Have to admit that this is the first time that I hear somebody saying that watching "Ben Hur" at the theatres and watching it at your home's tv set is the same kind of experience. You silenced me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Where did I say "that watching Ben Hur at the theatres and watching it at your home's tv set is the same kind of experience"? I guess you didn't appreciate the sarcasm in "please, indulge me".
Here is what I DID say: "Watching a film in a theatre, or watching video images at home, doesn't make a damn difference in the discussion about "suspending of disbelief" ." I have highlighted the most important words, but, in all honesty, I should have written THIS discussion instead of the discussion.
Let me ask you a question, in order to make myself clear (I hope). Are you saying that "suspension of disbelief" can't take place while watching Ben Hur on your tv-screen? If, OTOH, you wanted to make the point that "suspension of disbelief" is accomplished in a different way in the theatre versus the home situation, why did you make that point in THIS discussion? Does this point have any relevance for the discussion of "suspension of disbelief" versus "willingness to belief"? If so, please do explain (as I asked before). If not, why bring up a totally irrelevant point to the discussion. As I said, I think you are trying to pull off a "Riley".

It's me who's not making himself clear. The "suspension of disbelief" it is "the" most crucial point where the difference between home and the theatre vision can be best appreciated. And this for the reasons that, as you have surely read the Barthes' essay, is no use for me to explain. And you have a very simple proof of the solidity of his thesis: in spite of all, people keep on going to the movies instead of limiting themselves to watch them on TV.Maybe that is not only because of the different viewing conditions: but when I ask people why they don't watch movies on pirate DVD, the answer I got is invariably the same: "it's another thing, at the theatre".
About my bringing up the point, it was because I thought inopportune for you to keep using the expression to describe an experience which is less compatible with the mainstream movies-watching at your home and absolutely incongrous with the "porn" watching, both at the theatres than at home. Porn watching has little to do, in my opinion, with common mainstream film watching, in whatever locale that may take place.
(Of course, I'm rather curious to know your - or the neoformalist - opinions on the presumed affinities between the two kinds of experience.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK. So can I assume that you agree with me in considering your thesis well, if not a "Riley", at least a bit daring?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daring? I can live with that. It may even be overambitious, since I hardly have done any serious formal analysis of different kinds of porn at this times. I just have watched lots and lots of it, and well, some general formal (and stylistic, but they don't matter much in this discussion) characteristics are so predominant (normally I would use another term here, but I might confuse you some more), it is hard to ignore them. But you never know what the results may be of careful formal analysis. Maybe you will have more reason to dismiss my claim in the future? But by then, if my claim was "disproven", I will join you in the criticism, although I suspect that my eventual criticism will differ greatly from yours.

Well, don't have great hopes about it. You never know.

>btw, I am using the concept of "Riley" in a different way than you. For me, a "Riley" is an attempt to direct the discussion away from what is being discussed to some vaguely related topic, which can than be discussed in great detail by the person who diverted the thread. It is one of Riley's favorite tactics, when he can't respond to an issue as he wants to. I know you are familiar with all this.

You're wholly naive on this subject: The tactic you mention is only secondary. The primary is to let the forum's (the only one to which he dares to post: did you ask yourself why?) "moderator" take care of his opponents.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please define this. How do you categorize some of, say, Tinto Brass' movies? And what do you make from the presence of visible penetration in films such as The Idiots , or La vie de Jesus or Une vraie jeune fille , or ...

>...Oshima's The Empire of Senses, Breillat's movies with Siffredi, Maruschka Detmers's blow job in "Diavolo in corpo". Want me to categorize them? OK. Let's call them "not well made" porns: with the exception of Oshima's masterpiece and Brass' Caligula, which are, in my opinion, the two best porns ever made (the same maybe goes for, but my knowledge in the field is practically nil, Genet's "Un chant d'amour" for gay porn).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me get this straight. Explicit sex = porn.
Besides the very problematic fact that you are using a single semantical criterium for defining a genre, how do you apply this criterium? Is it (1) a quantitative criterium (presence/abscence of explicit sex, maybe with an added criterium of a minimal duration?), (2) a qualitative criterium (does the formal way in which explicit sex is presented (I am NOT talking about "quality of presentation" as in good or bad) matter?) or is it (3) a combination of the two. If it is merely a quantitative criterium, I can't understand why you agreed with quote #7. If it is one of the other two possibilities, you have as much explaning to do as I have. Hell, even if it is a simple quantitative criterium, you have some explaining to. Like, how do you define "explicit"?

On a personal/subjective level, I can't understand that you say that Caligula is one of the best two porns ever made. But I can respect your opinion.

(It's not mine only).
Well, of course you took some borderline example to put me in difficulty on a matter which has been discussed (and will continue being discussed) for centuries to come if the morals will keep on remain unchanged. You know better than me that, if I made you the same question and you would give me an answer (I mean a straight one, without recurring to some bizarre quoting, expecting me - only apparently, of course - to decipher it) I could raise a whole load of objections.
My personal opinion, far from being original and which is not the provocative one I gave you above, is that porn is that which is meant to cause arousing in the viewer. This poses the problem of how to decide what can be considered arousing. The answer is, of course, cultural.
The borderline cases you mentioned above (though I'm not sure that would be a correct term toward, for examples, the Guccione's inserts, which are undiluted porn) I would rather call them obscene, as they are not meant primarily to arouse though, depending on periods and the viewer they can sort an effect like that of porn.
So, when I say that a porn invariably delivers explicit sex I could have added "meant to arouse" and make my reply more articulated. But I could even let the definition stand, stressing the accent on "invariably": (unfortunately) mainstream cinema isn't supposed to deliver that, though sometime can.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Erotica is much more than soft-core.

Much more what? Money?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>No, not money. I am saying that the arena of erotica is much bigger than what you describe as soft-core.

Is this distinction wholly yours or have you mutuated it from someone?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(6)
Whenever aesthetics and ethics get mixed up, moralists of the lowest order are having a field day.

What do you care?

>Are you serious?

Always.

But not serious enough to take the time and effort to read some other threads on this board to try to understand what I mean by this quote. And then you have the guts to ask me to give you a bibliography. Come on Mark, I know you are a smart man, but now you are just pelling my leg, aren't you?

My dear friend, a forum is not a neoformalists' congress or a series of essays on porn. As rule, I think it's only discorteous of you not to give me a straight answer and telling me to read your other posts. We are discussing and when two people are discussing one doesn't say to the other: "Read my book or what I wrote, I won't waste my breath". This about the method.
About this particular point, I'll admit my answer was provocative, in a measure. But, believe me, I don't have the time to read all of the threads of this or of other forums. So, if you had somebody in mind when doing your remark, I was unaware of it. I just took your opinion in a general sense and answered with my own. And probably I was wrong in doing that at all, as the point is, as far as I'm concerned, unessential.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The quote was meant in a general sense and I explained what it means and why it matters by applying it to a case that is happening right now, in a thread where it matters. The ongoing discussion in that thread and the specifics of some of the reactions to it, formed an ideal ground for explaining what the quote meant. By using that context, I at least hoped that a lot of my high-faluting and abstract reasoning would be given some more concrete and easier to digest meaning.
I don't expect of you to read ALL the threads of this forum. I just expect you to read this ONE thread. Would it be any better if I copied and pasted some of the other thread here, or if I created a link to it?
No, Mark, I am not wasting my breath when all you have to do is click two or three times to get to a contextual explanation of the quote. And I think it is a bit hypocritical to ask for a "bibliography" elsewhere, while you don't even want to spend the time and effort to check 1 thread in the same forum.
And, if you haven't noticed thus far, I strongely believe that most "straight" answers are highly suspect. Unless, of course, it answers a question like the very first in this post.

If you accuse me of not having made a direct connection between your point and the other discussion, I'm wholly guilty. But, believe me, if I had made that, I wouldn't have answered, or I would have done it on the thread in question.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I went to a neoformalist congress and started talking about "felching", DAP, TAP, "reverse cowboy" and so on, what would people think or say? And what would I say to them: "Read my threads"? The basic point of my disagreement with you is your insisting in adopting a specialized lingo (which, but is my particular opinion, is also high-falutin') to describe theories which could be better discussed by everybody here, and with more equanimity, if reported with a more generally comprehensible language. Maybe the "rigour" of the discussion itself would get lost; but I think that many precious opinions (also, or expecially, the contrary ones) would come to the fore which are now blocked by the wall of your (in my opinion) useless and inopportune technicisms. The fact that you're not a stupid makes me think that you do this to prevent a discussion of your thesis and not to encourage it. Have you thought about it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have I thought about this? Yes I have. And there are other threads to prove this. To spare your precious time and to give you as straight an answer on this as I can, here is a quote from one of those threads:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Walter Burns wrote:
>My command of the English language isn't subtle enough to allow me to express myself in the way I would want to, without using specialized jargon, that may be only familiar to me. If I have to chose between expressing my thoughts with less precision or with less intelligibility, I go for more precision everytime. This way there is at least a remote chance that my exact thoughts are being communicated the way I intended them.

Oh, come on, man, whom do you want to take for a ride here? You know very well that your command of the language is as good as everybody's here, even the people who speak english as their mother tongue. My whole point is (and you confirmed my opinion at the start of this thread) that you're not interested in discussing your theories. Don't try to prove me wrong by playing shy, I won't fall for it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>You claim that my "technicisms" are "useless and inopportune". I agree they may be inopportune, but they are far from useless. This is about the only stupid thing I have seen you do in this thread.

Thanks!

>You are dismissing something you don't know much about or at least pretend to don't know much about. I have had a similar discussion about this before in RAME. The result of that was that I completely lost all respect for the poster in question. THAT was no great loss to me. If it were to happen again this time, it will be.
I realize this is not a "neoformalist congress". But you can be sure if you were to start 'talking about 'felching', DAP, TAP, 'reverse cowboy' and so on", the members of such a congress would be interested in learning as much about your "theories" as possible, if they believed that your "theories" are interesting or relevant for them.

Well, I hope they would be more interested in the practice, actually.

They would surely investigate every bit of information (be it bibliographic references or otherwise) you could produce. And they would not dismiss your "discours" beforehand, just because you might sound high-faluting to them. They would ask lots of question and many of them would be "stupid" questions. But, if they were genuinely interested, they would investigate and probe until they understand.

Now it's you who is "Rileying" (in your acception of the term): the paragon I made was not to be taken wholly seriously, it was only for the sake of clarity. I failed, sorry. What I mean (but you really must have understood this) is that "you" (impersonal) have to keep in mind the contest in which you express yourself. If you don't do that you're a nincompoop.

>My guess is that you are not really interested. Sure, the topics may interest you, by not my take on them. And that is OK by me. You don't have to participate in THIS discussion. In fact, if the only serious criticism I get, is that I am using inappropriate and high-faluting language, I would prefer it if you didn't participate in it. I have heard too many variations of that kind of criticism in the past (usually disguised as a complaint that I am boring.)
If you can't wait to demonstrate your possibly opposing views until you properly understand mine (so you have at least a clue what you are opposing), I would suggest you start your own thread, so we can discuss your views. Maybe, just maybe, I will be interested enough to participate in that discussion.

How come it's only me and you discussing this thread?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>And while I am talking to you, get your ass over to the EGAFD. Those guys need a knowledgeable man like yourself.

Oh, come on! Let's get not so chummy. We're here to discuss. Let's not make this become one of those bogus forums where you get blocked by "moderators" who keep under tutelage some "star poster".
And, BTW: what are you doing for EGAFD?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>If you are asking if I am in any way involved with them, the answer is, I am not. I am just an enthusiastic fool, collecting some data.

Sorry, I'm losing you: you want me to collaborate with them while you don't?

>AI am willing to share that data with other enthusiasts,
so that in the end, we all will hopefully have a better picture of what is out there. I remember you once made a remark about hoping that something like this, where different enthusiasts could exchange information, would see the light of day. What is more, the people from the egafd themselves are most interested in the period you so dearly love: 70s and 80s European porn. I just thought you would be interested, that is all.

Ask them about that.

>And sorry if I sounded "chummy" when I wrote that I believe that you are very knowledgeable in this area. If you object to that, I will make sure I won't do it again.

Oh, it's only that I don't like you sounding so corny. I much prefer you when you attack me. You know that I'm very "knowledgeable" (though actually you don't. see above); and I know you are. So there's no need to write it.

>Edited: Talking about being curteous to your discussion partner, maybe you should take the time and effort to learn some of the formatting of this forum. Maybe that way, I don't have to search carefully for your newly added responses.

I really don't know where to start about that and I'm sorry. Really didn't think the discussion was going to be so long and complicated (I spent almost four hours to write my answer. So, you see, I'm dumb).

Skeeter Kerkove said:
"Everybody loves everybody!"
(Pure coincidence. Ain't life on ADT great!!)

Edited by - Walter Burns on 8/16/2003 1:29:46 PM

[Link]

You've single-handedly turned this thread into a toxic-waste dump. Why are you trying to wage an intellectual jihad against Walter, may I ask? Does his intellect make you feel insecure, make you feel competitive? That's my reading of the situation, because the leading tone in all of your posts -- from the very beginning -- has been one of unleavened personal antagonism.

When you write something such as "Or are we other participants the subjects of some experiment?", it's as if you've arrogated to yourself the moral authority and responsibility to defend the rest of us hapless ADTers from Walter's *dangerous pedantry*. Well guess what, Mark -- you certainly haven't done me any favors with your diatribes. Don't fool yourself into thinking that this is about anyone but you. Grind your own axe and leave the rest of us out of it (as you've so clearly chosen to do anyway)!

[Link]

p.s.1: Don't bring your troubles on another forum here. I am not being "protected" by anyone. Some past exchanges with different moderators are proof of that.

p.s.2: Maybe it is time you appreciated that both porn and (academic) thinking on film/humanities continued well past the 70s and 80s. Stop living in the past (some strange advice from a professional film historian, no?).

p.s.3: If you really want to know what I have done (and will continue to do) for the EGAFD and what you can do for them, just ask them. Why are you so cynical about this? And, oh yes, it must be common knowledge that I don't share my data with anybody, right?

Bob said:
"Some dreams do come true -- liquor dreams, mostly."

Edited by - Walter Burns on 8/17/2003 10:39:50 AM

[Link]

Walter, I was wondering. Cal had a fantastic thought in another thread, and it brought to mind your point about suspension of disbelief. Obviously, I think it can be argued that watching a movie (porn or otherwise) with an audience can be a different experience than watching the movie alone. And even more so when it comes to porn, that most of today's porn is indeed GEARED toward that single audience member, rather than a group. Does this change our method of participation in the process as viewers? You've said that you believe viewing is a very active process, that we have a willingness to believe rather than a suspension of disbelief, do you think this holds equally true in the company of an audience, as it does when we are alone?

And finally... although this may have little to do with porn, I would submit that the process of watching is vastly different in a live entertainment environment such as a play than it is for a film or video--as the performers and spectators have a relationship together in that case. The audience becomes a participant in the presentation, and because of this environment the term "suspension of disbelief" seems to be more accurate to me. However, unless I'm incorrect, the term "suspension of disbelief" was really coined in mind of an audience watching live actors, and, perhaps inappropriately, it was carried over to the process of watching film.

What are your thoughts on this?

Mike L.

Edited by - MLyons on 8/17/2003 10:55:51 AM

[Link]

Regarding the nature of viewers' participation in film-watching, I just ran across these two interesting sentences at the end of Kenneth Turan's review, in the August 15, 2003 edition of the Los Angeles Times , of Kevin Costner's latest directorial effort, "OPEN RANGE":

Thinking back, I believe that the full expression setting forth the more passive notion of the nature of the viewer/film interaction is "the willing suspension of disbelief". This seems a strange coinage, insofar as it's hard to imagine an unwilling suspension of disbelief. If, on the other hand, one were to think of the term "willing" in this context in its sense of "active vs. passive" rather than "free vs. coerced", then the old conceptualization would have it that the viewer is causing a suspension of his/her steady-state sense of disbelief to occur by a conscious act of will (i.e., the viewer is willing the suspension of disbelief). That does not accurately describe what the act of film-viewing feels like to me. To me, it's more like I'm passively falling into a state of actively believing . . . if that makes any sense (it does to me, anyway). Of course, when I speak of passivity in the previous sentence, I'm referring to my conscious mind -- forget the desperate, iron will of my pesky subconscious mind, where so much of the "activity" that I'm talking about here takes place.

For these reasons, I think that the distinction Walter has drawn is an important one, and not an instance of his "playing with words, meaning the same thing", as Mark Shanon asserted.

<typos>

Edited by - Bob on 8/17/2003 7:32:03 PM

[Link]

You might have guessed that I detest Lacanian psycho-analysis, Althusserian neo-Marxist ideology criticism, and Saussurian semiotics . . . and their ilk.

I'm always annoyed when anyone with a particular socio-political axe to grind claims that he/she is one of the few fortunates who have escaped "the dominant ideological constraints" and thus is in the rare and semi-exclusive position ("We few, we lucky few!") of being able to see and speak *THE TRUTH* for the benefit of the rest of us deluded, robotic morons.

<typos>

Edited by - Bob on 8/17/2003 3:37:49 PM

[Link]

Down with "grand theories", long live "middle level research". (Although these are problematic in their own right.)
Yep, I am pedantic.


BIGmike said:
"I just hope that pornosumers will not get lost in the sea of smut."

[Link]

I liked this one a lot.

[Link]