Aren't (2) "I am not afraid of 'porn formulas'. I am only disappointed when a 'porn formula' is executed in a formulaic way."
and (4) "'Good porn' delivers the same old same old as before, only better." essentially the same?

Oh, sod it.
My favourite is: (7) "There are pink 'holes' and brown 'holes'. Isn't this the true color line in porn?"

Remember the Pink or brown buttholes poll?

[Link]

“When a boob isn't round but square, I lose all interest in it.”

... and thank goodness I haven't seen many square ones.

DenverDon

[Link]

I could expound at length, but don't you think this is covered by Sturgeon's Law?

[Link]

I believe that 'good' porn, first and foremost, depends upon the viewer's reaction to the talent. In other words, if I don't like the girl then I'm not going to like the scene. So, the simple fact is that if one is picky about the talent, then most porn isn't going to suit. OK so far?

Now, if you get a new DVD containing a scene with your favorite actress, are you automatically happy with the result, or are there factors within the scene that determine your level of enjoyment of it? Laying aside fetishistic acts, I think there remains the 'moment of truth,' or connection, in which the viewer forgets that these are performers being paid to do pre-agreed upon acts during a set piece of time, and comes to believe (s)he is watching an emotion-laden sexual congress in which the performers are honestly reacting to each other, rather than to the director's commands. I say that realizing that the 'true expression' we're reacting to may simply be the usual performance rendered more convincingly by the combination of performers, direction and editing. Nevertheless, I think of this 'moment of truth' when I think of a performance rising above the porn formula.

Assuming you're still with me, we can now ask how many producers and directors know of or care about the 'moment of truth?' I'm guessing that one could count them on the fingers of both hands, maybe even one hand. After all, we are talking about something which cannot be created by mechanically following a formula. Certainly, even the 'successful' scene can be described in formulaic terms, but the human condition doesn't exist in that formula. Furthermore, it is clear that many people don't even care about anything but the enactment of their particular fetish, and so there's no compelling reason for the average producer/director to bother with something so intangible.

One merely has to realize that most directors aren't even trying to rise above the formula, then consider that the average porn shoot is going to have any number of factors which combine to prevent the performers from realizing that 'moment of truth' by themselves, and the end result is that, in accordance with Sturgeon's Law, 90% of everything is crud.

[Link]

I'd quote a Walter if I had the time and energy.

If I guessed that:
(9)
“If you don’t want to be disappointed by porn, do what I do. Start with very low expectations.”

was said by TonyC, would I be right, and what do I win?

Nothing? Figures. That's the catch to this place.

[Link]

Still (3 "stills" in two lines, Walter, that is some bad writing), I recognize that I am a weirdo and that things work like this for most people. So, I will go along.

I realize that most directors aren't trying to rise above the formula and have no clue about the 'moment of truth' (or as I once said, 'blissful rupture'), but what I am talking about is a slightly different thing.
What I am trying to say is that I am not afraid of the porn formula itself, so in a way I have no need for anybody to rise above it. In fact, when I look at porn (or popular genres of any kind), I expect some formula to be there. So I have little to no need to focus my attention to that aspect of the work at all. Instead, I focus on the (hopefully) many interesting details in which the formula was realized in the actual scene. How (hopefully) many little things seem to create variations from the norm, which may very well mean nothing for another viewer, but which keep me on my toes as a viewer. In extremely simple terms: I don't watch porn to see a formula, I watch porn to see people fuck.
Furthermore, like you said yourself, many of these details, which make it interesting for me, are often of an intangible nature. They are difficult to plan or to 'direct', but this also means that they often creep into a scene without a director even knowing about it. I agree that the human condition doesn't exist in the formula, but a scene is never the result of JUST a formula. A formula always has to be created by people, again and again, in scene after scene. And wherever there are people, the human condition comes into play.
Remember my old 'blissful rupture' thread of a long time ago? I used an exemple there from a RLD video, a scene between Steve Holmes and Rita Faltoyano. Now, I am sure we can agree that RLD makes some of the most formulaic and fetish/act driven porn on the market, especially when certain directors are involved, as was the case with the scene I am refering to. And yet, for a brief moment I saw a 'moment of truth' between Steve and Rita. It was brief, but it was there... at least for me. I am sure that VV, who was behind the camera, had no clue what he had. And if he had a clue, I am sure he didn't do anything to get to that moment.

And still, I agree with Sturgeon's law and with your assessment, as is evidenced by the fact that I don't like 90% of the RLD scenes I have seen. Why? Because the attitude of 'it's just porn' rules the porn market, both on the production and the consumption side. Producers can get away with doing a half-assed job and not caring about any 'moments of truth', and they know it. A prime example: Skeeter Kerkove boasting that his good friend Jim Powers can shoot a complete movie in less than half a day without worrying what potential customers think of that — I am exaggerating, but not by much.

And yet (don't you like it how I keep changing my 'story' — with all these 'plot twists', I should write Hollywood action movies), in another recent thread, I wrote that just because the porn makers were lazy, that is no reason for me, as a viewer, to be lazy as well. 90% may be crud, but that still leaves 10%. That is still a lot of porn, which may be of some interest to me. I guess that is why I watch so much of it. I am hunting for truffles, so my snout is in the dirt a lot, trying to locate the rare treat.



JackPoint said:
"If you want a reason to kill yourself, go ask Jim Holliday what a double penetration is and isn't."

[Link]

Somehow, having very low expectations doesn't always work. I have bought porn that not just failed to meet my very low expectations but failed to meet it by a huge margin.

[Link]

I also have an opinion on one factor that can make a gonzo film more interesting. I plan to use two of your technical terms from the previous thread. I hope I have understood them correctly.

I interpret the "filmic reality" to mean the "story" that the movie is representing to me when I play the disc.

I interpret the "pro-filmic reality" to mean the real-life experiences that happened to the people on the set while the movie was being shot.

With those interpretations in mind, my interest level grows higher when the filmic reality depicts more of the pro-filmic reality. This could almost get to the level where the movie becomes a documentary about making a gonzo movie.

I think this could be a factor in the high popularity of "behind the scenes" shots.

The suspension of disbelief is perhaps an important part of this. I like to be able to think "These are real people, and they really are enjoying fucking each other." If the movie can convince me on an intellectual level that this was literally true in real life, then I don't need to believe any more, I can simply know. That is far more erotic.

Of course, if the pro-filmic reality was that everyone hated each other, had hangovers, sore asses and aching backs, there is not much erotic potential in depicting that.

edited for better formatting

Edited by - licker on 1/12/2005 10:53:58 PM

[Link]

I am fascinated by the degree to which intellegent, normal and well-adjusted people are willing to lower their expectations in order to have a satisfying experience watching video porn. I've done, and I sure I will continue to do some pretty embarrassing things to get to see a little pussy, so I can understand to some degree. But despite being an unrepentend poonhound, no matter how much I lower my expectations, I find porn utterly unwatchable. I guess I'm just jade, a snob, or both.

I am also fascinated that of those who are willing forgo nearly any expection of craft is it's generally understood in the cinematic arts, there is such a profound skew in gender. In my experience, women are every bit as filthy-minded as men, but for some reason they won't (in general) put up with as much crap as men will just to see people fucking.

I've hypothosized that this might be because sexually enthusiastic women already have enough crap that they have to put up with just to get enough real-life cock served up the way they want it. Maybe it's about deminishing returns, and asking them put up with even more shit just to see people fuck on the TV is just asking too much for too little in return.

-T.C.

[Link]

Ok , how about a different analogy . When I watch sports I'm not interested in most of the same things I am with a movie . Story , characterisation , emotional resonance ... I'm watching to become absorbed in the contest . Frankly the camera work is only useful to capture the action as cleanly and 'transparently' as possible - no fancy ass tricks please - and the commentary is pretty meaningless . Again some of my writer friends can't bear to watch because of the stream of inane comments pouring out of comentator A's mouth seemingly without any filter between his brain and microphone . And again : that's not the point !

Surely the purpose of porn isn't to capture on camera the sexuality of human beings , it's to enable the viewer to get off . (though sometimes and for some people it's probably both at once ) Do the moving images and sloppy sounds have to be the only elements of the viewers fantasy , of course not . This isn't cinema where masses of people sit zombie eyed in some multiplex or on a sofa . It's more interactive than that and I'd guess most people who enjoy porn are able to bring their own fantasies and desires to the table and use the moving pictures to just sublimate them , not replace them .

It's a different form of viewing than cinema , at least for me . Are my expectations lowered ? Probably . At least in some of the less important areas ( the areas I feel are less important to this art form ). But then again they're raised in others - how many Hollywood movies feature so many scantily clad women ? And in such variety ?

Not saying most porn isn't a huge stinking pile . But the same could - and often is - said about most things in life .

Lee : somewhere searching for truffles ...

[Link]

"Porn is a performance based genre. Many factors play important roles when judging a filmic representation of a performance, but none so vital as the relation between ‘real time’ and ‘reel time’.”

Yes, I am willing to forgive many (but not nearly all) infringements on classical film style in porn. Why? Because I realize that the stylistic system of porn serves different functions than the stylistic system of the classical Hollywood cinema. Many infringements on 'good' filmmaking are simply not relevant in my porn viewing, au contraire. I am prepared (but not here and now) to argue that the formal structures and the aesthetic aims of porn and mainstream cinema differ in such fundamental ways, that it is often counter productive to try to adhere to classical filmmaking rules when making porn.
In conclusion, yes I use a different set of standards to judge porn than I do mainstream cinema. But it's a different set of standards, not necessarily a lower one.



Wally said:
"fuck me fuck me fuck me fucya fucya!<> ....yeah, yeah, you already convinced me you are having fun girl, now could you please show some real emotion and look to the guy's eyes for once!"

[Link]

Howard Harks is far too ambitious, at least for me. I just hope that the audience isn't bored.

-T.C.

Edited by - TonyC on 1/13/2005 1:39:49 PM

[Link]

btw, 'classical Hollywood style' is a pretty big circle too.



Max Booty said:
"I'd rather be dealing with the cold than the heat. You can always put more clothes on than you can take off to make yourself more comfortable."

[Link]

-T.C.

[Link]

Edited by - MLyons on 1/13/2005 2:24:44 PM

[Link]

Of course it does take some additional time . I don't know that spending the extra time makes sense unless you care about what you're doing, care about the people in your video, and care about the people who are going to see your video and jerk off to it.

-T.C.

[Link]

Then again, I don't know what kind of porn you are watching, but in the stuff I am watching, these things are not that prevalent. I am sure it is in a lot porn, but I guess my trial and error experience of several years has been successful enough for me to be able to avoid those titles.

Mike, this is all pretty basic stuff Tony is suggesting here. Perhaps not in most porn (but I wouldn't know that, since I don't watch most porn), but certainly I teach this kind of stuff to my students, who have no prior experience with video at all. Making use of sound bridges and recording room noise to cover up sound glitches is really something I expect my students to do, even after only two months of (very limited) experience.

Now, recording decent sound, that's a real bitch... especially with the consumer material I (or better, my students) have to work with.



melissalauren said:
"Beer, party, sex... Makes me happy"

[Link]

I expect that you Walter, Mike, and myself are in the same camp (along with many others) in that we're looking more a little authenticity , whether real or confected, with a side order of humanity . Seeing cunts and cocks and cum up on the screen presented with a little authenticity and humanity is a rare and precious treat.

-T.C.

[Link]