What I didn't say in the other thread is that it's often not a present-day decision to edit a movie. For example, some of the people producing the DVDs may never have actually seen the movie as presented in the theaters, so when they purchase the rights to a movie, along with the edited master, they just author with what they think is the movie.

Even if they know it's edited, they may not be able to locate an unedited version. Given the low margin in most adult movies, especially most classic releases, it's unlikely that a studio would go to the effort and expense to locate and restore missing footage.

Still, there are probably a number of content cuts made specifically for re-release. This tends to go along the lines of depictions that expose the distributor to criminal prosecution. While you could argue that some of the stuff that's cut is tame or "safe" by contemporary standards, since the obscenity bar is different in different communities, each company decides what level of risk they are willing to take. Topics such as non-consentual sex, incest, implied underage, watersports, and other things are usually the first to go.

I don't disagree with your desire to have the classics presented intact, but it's not always possible. And you can hardly blame the present-day distributors for their decision to do so since they carry all of the risk--financial and legal.

- Saki [faqs]

[Link]

All art has historic value and should be preserved before it is too late.

Art is in the mind of the beholder... you may not see them as such but as I said before some golden age classics were critically acclaimed back in "the day".

If I am not mistaken Boys In The Sand was reviewed in Vanity Fair and was critically acclaimed... critically acclaimed by legitimate film critics NOT by the porn critics we have today.

Fortunately I am not the only one who finds historic/artistic value in these films. Some are being digitally re-mastered (Boys In The Sand being only one of them) for DVD not because they are 'smut films' but to preserve an art form before it is too late.

Edited by - satyr on 2/13/2004 7:21:25 AM

[Link]

Edit:
For those of you who aren't familiar with Boys in the Sand and would like to know more about it, here's my column on the subject.

Edited by - YogaGrrl on 2/13/2004 9:15:46 AM

[Link]

I liken this to this question: "Why don't all billionaires share their money for the betterment of society?" There's no doubt that it's possible. It probably would do a lot of good. But is it likely?

I can count on my hands the number of adult companies who have shown a sincere desire to treat their products as something beyond just quick bucks. The best of those was burglarized before it released more than a handful of re-releases and never found success.

If you're looking for a more philosophical "why," I would say that money is perhaps the only universal driving factor behind adult companies. While that's more true today that it used to be, I think that making money has never been out of the equation.

IMHO, if you're waiting for someone to step in and be a Criterion for the adult world, you're either going to have to start buying the rights to the films yourself or you're going to wait a long time. I just don't see it happening, especially since the loudest proponents uncut editions do so on the basis of wanting the omitted acts back, with artistic integrity and historical value as distant secondary reasons.

- Saki [faqs]

[Link]

I don't pretend to know what 'art' is or should be (heaven forbid that I would know what it should be). I DO know that preservation and canonization should be two different processes if the preservation is to have any historical value at all. Ask any researcher of the silent era how fucked up our understanding of that era is because of canonization of, relatively speaking, a handful of works that archive keepers deemed respectable enough to preserve some odd 50 years ago.

Is it good to call attention to this problem and demand that the classics be preserved? You bet your ass it is. Is it good to base this demand on such a fickle notion as 'art'? Hell no. Like you said, "art is in the mind of the beholder" (I am willing to take your word for it). That is too shaky a ground for me to base any idea of historical value on.




EagleSpirit said:
"Picking adult films can be harder than picking a pair of shoes !!"

[Link]

That being said...

Boys In The Sand (1971), being the first film of it's kind, has forever changed the way the American public perceives adult cinema. People no longer had to sneak around in fear that their friends or family might find out they were viewing adult films. For the first time it was socially acceptable to go into a theatre and view an adult movie.

It wasn't long before other filmmakers began making such golden age classics as Deep Throat (1972) and The Devil In Miss Jones (1972). Later releases such as The Opening of Misty Beethoven (1975) and Barbara Broadcast (1977) have also undeniably reached classic status.

Fortunately (and unfortunately) the advent of video (vhs and beta) was just around the corner. For the first time people had cheap, easy access to view adult films in the privacy of their own home. They could now go into most any movie rental store, take home as many adult videos as they desired and view them to their hearts content. That is the 'fortunately' part.

The 'unfortunate' part is that video also made it easier and cheaper to produce adult movies. What ultimately suffered in the industry was quality. Today an adult video can be produced in a day or two... given this much time and effort how much quality can one expect?

Yet the adult entertainment industry brings in billions of dollars each year. This leads me to believe that 'quality' adult films will never again be in production. After all, why would one spend money producing quality films when they are getting rich from the low quality, cheaply made videos they are putting out today.

The heyday of the true classics was short lived and there weren't that many produced so yes, I would like to see them taken more seriously and preserved in a Criterion Collection sort of way.

What is sad is that VCA has the ability to do just that. Their restoration efforts have been remarkable. In my opinion, as to the quality of their work they are right up there with Criterion. If they would only release them in their unedited state...

Given their limited number, the quality of their content, the way they changed the way adult films are made, and most importantly, the way they changed public perception of adult films and the adult film industry, I would venture to say again that they play a very important role in the history of filmmaking (therefore having 'historic value') and should be preserved in their entirety before it is too late.

Edited by - satyr on 2/13/2004 6:38:44 PM

Edited by - satyr on 2/13/2004 11:43:12 PM

[Link]

As I stated before, Boys In The Sand has forever changed the adult film industry. Hopefully it will do the same again today by inspiring other distributors to give their golden age classic releases the same careful attention it has received.

[Link]

Again, I support your fight for getting the 'classics' restored. I would like to see that happen as well. But I strongly feel that the path that you have chosen to defend this, is counter-productive.




aybesea said:
"At least I'm not like Riley though... there ARE girls who really float my boat!"

[Link]

Could you explain to me what it takes? (I am not being sarcastic, I would really like to know)

Again not being sarcastic, exactly what disqualifies these films?

In what way are my statements "dangerous"?

[Link]

Anyway, what you seem to be saying when you say that "Golden age classics have achieved something no other adult film era will ever have... historic value", is that some pornographic films are worthy to be preserved, while others are not. Fair enough, but I will have to ask you how you will defend your standards against the standards of somebody else. No matter what you might say, it can't be done. I am not saying you can not do this successfully — you might very well be able to push your standard to become the 'official' canon — but it won't be because of any kind of (onto)logical argument. And you would be doing film history a great disservice.

Of course, there is a whole other side to this. I have only been focussing on the 'academic' side of things. There is also a 'practical', or 'film archeological' side to this. Here, the playing field is much more narrow, as can be expected and your restrictive and normative approach is probably much more successful than my lofty 'academic' approach.

conquistador said:
"Every couple of years my birthday is mother's day, which I have always kind of resented (because I like being selfish on my b-day), but I must have been one hell of a mother's day gift."

[Link]

Has there ever been a mainstream movie that has accomplished all this and still been denied 'historic value'?

How can anyone believe that a film such as this has not had a positive impact on the film industry?

I do not pretend to be a film critic or historian but I do believe that these attributes are exactly what gives a film it's 'historic value'.

What I believe is "dangerous" is to deny any film 'historic value' because some feel it's subject matter is questionable. Public opinion and response is taken out of the equation and that is when you have individuals (a committee?) deciding which film is important enough and which one is not. That is when you have films that are powerful, powerful enough to do the things listed above, lost forever.

Edited by - satyr on 2/15/2004 2:49:58 PM

[Link]

Edited: Let me make it clear why this thread is really beginning to frustrate me.
In your first post, you claim statement A.
I jump in and claim that statement A is fair, but has some not so positive consequences B and is based on problematic gounds C.
Now, what do you do subsesquently? Instead of either agreeing or disagreeing with my claim that A is followed by B and is grounded on C — and critically examing the arguments I have given to do so — you are only repeating A, ad nauseum.
That is cause of frustration on my part alone. But on top of that, I have this feeling that you are even thinking that my statement is NOT about consequences B and grounds C, but that I am making a claim of "-A", and that my claim is to negate your statement.
Please READ what I have written.



samurai dai said:
"I must admit to having won the lottery on many ocassions in my dreams before. The first thing I would do with the winnings is to purchase every porn title known to man and to start my own chain of porn outlets in the London.....kinda like McDonalds."
(McDonalds sells porn?)

Edited by - Walter Burns on 2/15/2004 3:19:01 PM

[Link]

"Anyway, what you seem to be saying when you say that "Golden age classics have achieved something no other adult film era will ever have... historic value", is that some pornographic films are worthy to be preserved, while others are not. Fair enough, but I will have to ask you how you will defend your standards against the standards of somebody else. No matter what you might say, it can't be done."

My last post was simply the answer to a question YOU ASKED. You asked, "Fair enough, but I will have to ask you how you will defend your standards against the standards of somebody else"

I answered the question (I thought you were asking) by giving the standards that I believe gives a film 'historic value', i.e public opinion, public response, the response of film critics, effect a film has on the industry, etc. My whole point is, I do NOT feel that ANYONE'S "standards" should be involved.

I was essentially agreeing with you when you said, "Ask any researcher of the silent era how fucked up our understanding of that era is because of canonization of, relatively speaking, a handful of works that archive keepers deemed respectable enough to preserve some odd 50 years ago." by showing that it should NOT have been a decision made solely by 'archive keepers'. (at least I think that was the point you were trying to make)

To answer your last question, yes, I have read what you have written and to be perfectly honest, I am having difficulty making any sense out of what you have said. I was honestly answering the questions I thought you were asking. I certainly did not intend to 'ruffle your feathers'.

To me it appears you are going back and forth. One minute the mere notion that a adult film has historic value is "preposterous", makes your "blood boil" and "puts film historiography back 30 years" only to turn around and when asked the honest question (concerning what it takes for a film or group of films to achieve 'historic value' in the annals of filmmaking), "Again not being sarcastic, exactly what disqualifies these films?" you responded "I am not saying that they ought to be disqualified at all. Actually, it could be said that the opposite is true."

"I am saying that I highly distrust anything to do with the phrase "what does it take for a film or group of films to achieve 'historic value' in the annals of filmmaking."
IOW, I am highly suspicious of a restrictive and normative interpretation of the concept "historic value", as you seem to be using it."

Obviously my layman's interpretation of historic value is different than your professional interpretation. I have made mine clear but instead of explaining yours, you simply evaded my question and had the nerve to blame your evasiveness on the way the question was asked.

Perhaps I am simply missing your point, perhaps what you are saying makes no sense to me but would to a fellow film historian. (I am a nurse, not a film historian).

Either way I, too, am tired of this thread and will no longer take part.

[Link]

"Golden age classics have achieved something no other adult film era will ever have ... historic value."

I hope I have made myself a little bit more clear now.
Given that above statement you made, I find it somewhat hard to believe that you really endorse this:

End of the line. We will only be going in circles, I am afraid.




conquistador said:
"Women who look comfortable look most gorgeous to me."

[Link]