Andrew Blake

On second thought, I can think of a few outdoor scenes from Michael Ninn. There are some in Sex and Sex 2, and I have seen a trailer of one with Asia Carrera on a grand piano in the desert, which I believe is from Fade to Blue. However, the point I was trying to make (and evidently could not get across clearly) was a little different. One of the problems with porn films (the "features" most of all) that there is not much of a sense of place. Everything is usually shot indoors or else in some secluded place. This is, of course, almost a necessity for sex scenes, and I suppose the people who supply the locations do not want everyone to know where the movie is shot, which restricts the possible views. The result is a feeling of not-rightness, that the people in the movie do not seem to belong to the settings. (A tight schedule can be another reason for this. I remember that in the audio commentary of Raw, Kylie Ireland alludes to the fact that they had a very limited time frame for the bedroom scenes. If that is the usual case, I can see why the actors do not look like they are "at home" in the settings even if the script requires it.)

And what does Andrew Blake's 90-minute music video have to do with all this? It is just that when he shoots the women walking semi-nude in the streets of Rome or kissing bare-breasted on a balcony next to the Colosseum, the feeling of space (or place) is much greater than in the average porn production, even with all the artificiality of the situation. This is not a movie in hiding, and that in itself is refreshing.

I went back to browse the contents of this French edition of High Heels. One thing I like are the poetic sounding chapter titles ("Levres de feu", "Langues de velours", "Anus Dei" and so on). There are also six trailers for other Blake movies. Watching those (especially some beautiful shots of a woman exposing herself by the Venetian canals) I started to get another angle on what I found interesting in this one in the first place. One way to think about it is food. I would say the vast majority of porn that is made today is fast food, just like some greasy hamburger cobbled up in a hurry. The difference between fast food and a gourmet meal made with care is that one of them attempts to elevate the act of eating beyond attending to a basic physical necessity. In other words, the key is the desire to create something transcendent from the materials offered by the mundane. What I see in a Blake video is a creation of a secret world inhabited by graceful female creatures with some kind of secret knowledge in their eyes. Because the lack of live sound screens part of this world from us (while the music tries to hypnotize us), it somehow also makes it more sublime. Looked at this way, the things I initially saw as flaws which prevent me from getting involved in the action are, in fact, the very things that prevent the action from becoming boring, meaningless and mechanical. They protect the dreamworld from the ennui that sets in on the second or third viewing of virtually every porn video or DVD. The women in Blake's video universe are of a fairly uniform physical and racial type, and they seem to exist in a constant state of pure voluptuousness, surrounded by beautiful things, and they seem to move very freely in their world. As paradises go, it may be somewhat limited, but who wouldn't spend at least some time there?

This is one way to go, I believe: away from boring porn and towards a celebration of sensuality. Not that I believe Blake to be perfect, but apparently there are not many people who have this kind of vision. Perhaps I should be looking beyond the porn industry for this kind of erotic vision.

One viable alternative I can see to the stylized approach Blake uses would be extreme realism. There is something intrinsically appealing in the idea of capturing spontaneous moments. But that is another story.

[Link]

After over a year lurking, your most excellent posts have drawn me out. Although I am not quite sure what I can say. I am in complete agreement with everything you said.

I would add a few things. First, Blake does not just have an incredible sense of place outdoors, but indoors as well. His use of stairwells, fireplaces, furniture, doorways, etc. causes note. Look at the careful attention to lighting, and ambience. Even just a stinkin' piece of pottery on a table, or a piece of art on a wall, might be enough to amuse him to build an entire scene around it. My favorite? I don't know if it counts, but the phallic crystal that gets passed around from scene to scene in UNLEASHED.

Secondly, Blake has an incredible sense of the female form, and he exploits (gotta love that word in this context) it. Check, he does not exploit the women, but their form. Check out the way he dresses them up. He pays great attention to the littlest details. The make-up is carefully chosen, as are the costumes (especially the shoes). The jewelry is picked out with the particular woman in mind -- the earrings, the bracelets, the waist-chains, the ankle-chains. But most incredibly, he even uses the male form to act as a foil, and thereby frame the female form. It is brilliant.

[On a side note, did you know he said in an interview published in Playboy that if he could get away with it, he would never use men in his films? That comment is often misquoted, thinking he means he just wants to do all-girl stuff. On the contrary, I was told he was lamenting that the male form is necessary to showing off the female form.]

Finally, we have the camera techniques themselves. Regardless if you like them or hate them, he is not just doing it for effect, he is doing it for reason (again, no pun intended). Watch his films, and ask yourself -- why slow-motion here? Why black and white here? Why slow-motion AND black and white here? It often doesn't take much to identify his reasoning.

Is it any wonder he only does two movies a year? Look at all the hard work he must put into them.

I would argue that Blake is not a pornographer. I would argue he is an artist. I would argue he is not intending to produce stroke-material, but rather eye-candy. Which leads me to still further ask the question -- why is he in the porn industry, when he by all appearances does not belong there? I wonder if it is not because society has forced him there? And if it is only there that he finds an outlet and acceptance (generally speaking)? I can't help but wonder if it is not unlike what DaVinci, Michelangelo, and Botticelli were experiencing during their lifetimes when they were doing nudes?

But less you think I am a "true-believer" on Andrew Blake, let me set you straight. I also find fault with him. First, I do not think the mood music on his films has been anywhere near as good as it was for his first four films he did for Caballero. Nor even as good as the music on the softcore videos he did for Penthouse.

Second, I am very disapppointed with what he is doing with DVDs. He is charging premium prices for DVDs without premiums. He did a director's commentary track for the LES FEMMES EROTIQUES laserdisc, but hasn't done a single one for DVD.

Lastly, and perhaps most critically, I think he is in a rut. His last five or so films have all looked the same to me. His work has become stale and monotonous. I find no reason to recommend owning more than one or two of them.

Yet he remains my favorite director (unless and until Philip Mond begins follow-ups to ZAZEL, which is my favorite film).

As for finding more like Blake, good luck. I have been arguably his biggest fan for five years, and I starve for more erotica like his. I suck on the teats of Golden Age porn, mainstream hard-R, foreign art-house, and well-made softcore, and am yet left hungry. I have found more nutrition digging through eBay and the Internet searching for his long out-of-print softcore Penthouse and Playboy works, that he did under the name Paul Nevitt. Once in a long while a Cameron Grant or even Paul Thomas will give me a little taste. But none offer the sweet milk that Blake does.

When and if you find any, let me know.

_______________________________

"The greatest argument for the existence of God,
is the beauty of the female form."

Edited by - blake_fan on Feb 5 2001

Edited by - blake_fan on Feb 5 2001

[Link]

Andrew Blake: "No. Actually, if I could pull all the men out, I would."
Susie Bright: "Tell me why!" This is the tenth porn director who's told me this. I wonder if it's universal, 4 out of 5, or what. No wonder most straight porn looks so uninspired.
"I guess I just like looking at women rather than men," he answers. "But your films don't exclusively focus on women," I press him. "They focus on men with women. Isn't that as beautiful as women together or alone?" "I look at the man as a prop. A piece of furniture."

Anyone who wants to read the whole interview can go here --
Blake interview.

_______________________________

"The greatest argument for the existence of God,
is the beauty of the female form."

[Link]