While I enjoy watching the rougher/kinky stuff which is what he usually specializes in, do the girls geniunely not enjoy being around him as I see so often? Or is this just part of his schtick?
Even if it is part of his gimmick, why do these girls agree to do these scenes? Nothing kills my wood more than watching a girl who is totally uncomfortable doing anything - and that's what I find everytime I check out his stuff.
Khan Tusion actually isn't for real. He's very much like Keyser Soze from The Usual Suspects. He's a fairy tale that agents, directors and producers tell new and naive, fresh off the bus talent to keep them in line. "If you don't blow me, I'll make sure your next booking will be with Khan Tusion." It generally works.
Edited by - Crucifixio_Jones on 9/6/2006 6:46:15 PM
[Link]
nietzsche Deactivated User
5470 Posts 8/03
Posted - Sep 6 2006 : 8:15PM
I've heard Khan is a really sweet guy in real life.
Not really, but I was dissapointed. hit me up AlexPanzerADT@aim.com, I think that you Skronk sent me an email but I cant reply back.
[Link]
Alfredo92 Deactivated User
Honolulu 127 Posts 2/06
Posted - Sep 6 2006 : 10:44PM
IMHO, He's just a director that caught on to a gimmick and ran with it. The girls who work with him must know exactly what's in store and are most likely getting paid handsomely for it.
Khan wants to see the real girl in his scenes. If he can only get to the real person by making them uncomfortable, then so be it. Uncomfortable is the only real emotion some girls will give. He might have to break their hard candy shell before he can get to their choclate center.
And he's a misogynist.
[Link]
nietzsche Deactivated User
5470 Posts 8/03
Posted - Sep 7 2006 : 12:41AM
I can't believe he couldn't get her to submit to his pimp hand.
I would have bananacreamed to that, my friend! Even if the devil was waiting ... That's the hottest piece of ass going.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Sep 7 2006 : 12:54AM
Crucifixio_Jones wroteI guess it never occurs to them that they can just say No on both counts.
From what little I have seen of Khan's movies, the girls never look all that uncomfortable to me. In fact, most of them always seem to enjoy it despite all the stupid bullshit he says to them. Also, many of them are not exactly unknown to the rough sex niche. Although I've heard stories about how girls break down and cry on his sets, I've never actually seen it myself, unless I just haven't seen enough of his movies, which is likely the case.
does anyone else get the vibe that he's like deniro's max cady in scorcese's cape fear? in the daylight he's all smiles and sunshine, but the second he's alone with a girl he'd rip her to shreds.
i don't doubt he has a serious criminal record.
the guy has this skewed perception that every girl that works for him is subhuman because they fuck for money, yet he high fives his male talent. if you want proof of his misogyny, it's in that double standard.
the schtick works better if it's a playful act, but it's clearly an extension of his personality. and he so clearly masks his insecurities and cowardice by never revealing his identity.
Personally, since watching some JM and Max Hardcore... I avoid the similar. I don't care if it's an act or not, I just don't approve of the way our girls are depicted. I like them fucked hard, but never disrespected.
ma meeshka wroteIn all fairness, this is not an uncommon practice for directors and other BTS porno people. Aside from directors who perform in their own movies or who were already performers before becoming directors, I can't think of one single porn director who has ever made it a point to show his face on camera. Concealing his real identity behind his unseen porn persona is not unique only to Khan, but is common for basically anyone in porn who does not perform in front of the camera. I thnk the reason is obvious why they seem to never want to be seen on camera. For example, I remember once reading a magazine article about a particular amateur porn series, as well as amateur porn in general. The writer of the article directly pointed out the irony that all of the directors and executives he interviewed had no problem putting the faces of young naive girls getting fucked on display for all the world to see, yet they all refused to allow themsleves to be photographed or even provide their own real names to the magazine. I can't really say that I blame them though.
[Link]
nietzsche Deactivated User
5470 Posts 8/03
Posted - Sep 7 2006 : 7:05PM
Khan is a real estate developer in his real life, and a very successful one at at; and so he has a reputation to protect, insofar as anyone in the real estate business can be said to have a reputation in need of protection. Degrading nubile young girls is an avocation.
Why isn´t he helping the dire American automakers Ford or GM and orders a new limo as replacement for the old midnightprowl vehicle that was confiscated by the cops?
nietzsche wroteOK. But the point remains that he, like mostly all other non-performing directors, will not bring himself to risk showing his own face on camera, whatever personal rationalization he may have for it.
I think the bottom line here is that he has a number of successful themed DVD's that make money and feed the market that wants this material. There was a great line in Meatholes 2 after Nicki Hunter went psycho and started wailing , kicking and punching her male scene-mate. As she was calming down, Khan asked her if she wanted to stop. He said he'd pay her the same money whether she continued or not. Nicki chose to complete her DP but before staring up again, she and Khan had a conversation where he offered up an apology for hitting the buttons he hit. She said it wasn't necessary. She said she knows that he he makes these movies b/c people buy them. She said she understood.
And I think most of the "experienced" ladies appearing in his films feel the same way. They all know the score. In fact, some of them cannot help but to smirk or giggle as Khan tries to break them down (Venus and B. Pureheart come to mind).
he takes down the fourth wall, inserts himself right into the action, and exemplifies gonzo. i think he takes his directorial role to the point where he is the narrator, who is also a cast member. There's a difference between 'concealing your identity' and simply not being seen on camera, rather than going to the point of blurring your own face and alledgedly altering your voice (as if anyone can't detect that irritating lisp).
i understand that he may have conflicting interests, or a 'reputation,' but the guy pushes rough sex to the point of rape and advocates female degradation. he's not just making happy fuck films on the side, he's committing crimes. he's happy to humiliate women on camera, but he's not confident enough to be the figurehead for his testosterone-overloaded brand of bullshit.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Sep 8 2006 : 12:02AM
bigfoot wroteI have never seen this scene, but if this is the theme he's going for, I would think that him offering up an apology would just counteract the fantasy of it all.This is also the impression that I get from his scenes that I have watched. As I said before, from what I've seen, the girls just always go along with it, and most of them actually seem to enjoy themselves.
ma meeshka wrote
I'm with you on everything else you said, but accusing him of committing crimes and comparing him to a rapist is outlandish and just a dramatic overaggeration. His style of directing is definitely not to everyone's tastes, including mine, but he's still not forcing anyone to do anything against their will.
I can think of others. Mike Quasar or Mike Quasar, whatever he wants to be called, may not ever appear in the actual movies that he shoots, but he's not at all shy about being seen in the Behind the Scenes. Jim Holliday often had non-sex roles in his features, or he would appear with Jill Kelly as a presenter in some of the vignette releases he made. Not to mention in BTS.
My feeling is that if you are some kind of make-up person or other assistant with limited authority, or you edit the porn in post-production but were not actually on the set, and you want to maintain your anonymity, that's fine with me. But if you are the director who is at least helping to make the decisions about what is to be filmed, depending on whether you own your own movies or are hired by the studio, and how much freedom you give the performers to improvise, then trying to not show your face even on BTS seems just a bit hypocritical to me. This is even more true if you know your scenes push the envelope of what might draw an obscenity prosecution than if you direct vanilla porn.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Sep 8 2006 : 5:23PM
Jonni Darkko is not a non-performing director. He performs in some of his movies. However, since all of his scenes (at least that I've seen) are shot in POV, his face is still never shown on camera. He is alot like David Luger in that regard: They both are directors who make movies starring themselves with female talent, but never show their own faces on camera. All we see are their dicks fucking random women.
ma meeshka wrote
That's arguable. The girls always have a choice in the matter, and they can always refuse to do anything he asks them to do, which alot of them will. The girls don't have to do anything they don't want to do, and there's no way he can make them do anything they refuse to do.
By the way, out of curiosity, I picked up the DVD of Meatholes #2 when I went to the video store last night to return some movies. I must have walked past that movie on the shelf about a million times and never bothered to pick it up, but the comments about it on this thread made me decide to finally check it out. I watched it when I got home last night. Having now watched the scene, I can honestly say that it was defintely the craziest porn scene I have ever scene. I don't know if this was the first time that a porn actress has ever freaked out like that on a set, but this was the first time I've ever seen it in anything I've watched. It was somehow both disturbing and fascinating at the same time. Just by watching the scene, it was obvious that she was on the verge on losing it at any time, especially by some of her eerie verbal comments during the scene. I think one of the "realest" moments in the scene, and probably in any porn scene period, was when she screamed to Khan (and therefore to the audience), "Do you think I like doing this!? Do you think I want to do this?! This is what I am!!" As weird as it may sound, there was just something really chilling and unsettling about hearing her exclaim that, especially given the pained tone of voice in which she said it. Eventually, she just lost it altogether. I've never seen anything like it, and I'm really both surprised and gratified that it wasn't edited more than it was. With the way alot of directors and studios like to walk on eggshells nowadays and not show anything original, I would have thought that a scene like that would have been much more heavily edited, and probably never even released on DVD.
After that wild and crazy scene was over, I continued to watch the rest of the movie. And I must say that the most awesome scene on the DVD is the scene with Brandon and a girl named Chloe. I don't think anybody is as versatile in rough sex as Brandon. As always, whenever he does rough sex, he never fails to deliver an outstandingly hardcore scene. Nearly her entire body was bright red by the time he was through. He completely ravaged that girl like there was no tomorrow, and I just watched the scene is complete amazement. That was definitely the best scene in the movie. Nobody does rough hardcore sex like Brandon Iron. He never disappoints.
ma meeshka wroteThis is exactly what I have been talking about. Khan Tusion has a formula and it works on various women in various ways. There is no way I would have expected a veteran like Nicki Hunter to fall into pieces, especially since she knew the score going in to the scene.
It was absolutely riveting viewing and justifies further productions if only for the homeruns like this scene. Those who say Khan Tusian is bad for porn must remember that there has to be porn at all ends of the spectrum for the industry to survive. Not everybody wants to see the same old, same old.
I've met Khan personally, I used to work for his brother, who is also very VERY well known. He's a great guy, and just happens to have found a niche.
He's not the most successful producer, his real estate ventures make him far more money, but hey... he makes more money than I do in the industry... so more power to him for it, I say.
His POV scenes are excellent. I think you see him a little in BTS stuff. But even when he shoots other guys in scenes with girls, his angles and framing feel very POV. He does an amazing job at keeping the girls faces in the frame nearly ALL the time, which creates a sense of intimacy with the viewer – stylistically, we're on the other side of the moon from Khan, etc. Even rough gagging BJs are kinda pretty.
because success is measured by money, right? and as long as he's successful there's no need to question the ethical nature of his methods and his product.
phew.
shit, i can rest easy tonight knowing that he's a great, rich guy.
). Bukkake is singled out in this case. What comes next? I'm not a profit, but those who say Khan Tusian is bad for porn must remember that there has to be porn at all ends of the spectrum for the industry to survive. After all those negative reasons I just gave, why would I say that? The answert lies in the Hollywood movie "Quiz Show" when the great Martin Scorsese playing the head of the company that makes Geritol says to the government guy, "there was no reason to cheat. Think about it, they could have simply made the questions easier. It's not the knwledge they are watching...It's the money." (or something like that). Khan Tusian, is able to tap into the shame and humiliation of the women who he films. While he uses props - the slapping, peeing on them, yelling at them, calling them names, and a man to fuck hard - he would be just as successful in a format with plain vanilla sex (with a few sprinkles on the side), because he is able to tap into the females he shoots.
I would also like to point out how empowering the experience has been for some of these women. Why on earth would I say this? First, it has to do with release and acceptance of the situation. Second, some of the women who were in ealier versions of his movies come back as the dominant role doing the same things to other women that they endured when they were on the hot seat (i.e., Venus, Delilah Strong, etc.,)
Sorry to have verbally thrown up, but it is early in the a.m. and I want to climb back into bed.
Is there a word limit on these responses? I typed an eight paragraph response which no longer appears. Most of it got cut off and you only saw the last few words.
Damn! That was a great response too -
Hey, Webmaster - any way of retreiving what was lost?
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Sep 9 2006 : 4:50PM
I think I've been talking way too much about Khan on this thread. I had a dream last night in which I was a reporter conducting a sit-down interview with Khan Tusion, and his face was blurred out in the dream. For some strange reason, none of the questions I asked him had anything to do with the product he directs. Instead, I was mostly asking him crazy questions that made no sense, such as if he prefers the sliding board to the swings at the playground, or if he thinks that Bugs Bunny is actually gay, etc.- stupid stuff like that. I would attribute this crazy dream to the fact that I did go to bed just a little tipsy last night, but I know that's not the reason. I just have weird dreams all the time anyway. It's a regular occurrence for me, though this was the first time I've ever dreamed about interviewing a blurred-face pornographer about his playground preferences or the sexual orientation of a cartoon character.
theteedogg wrote
I've never heard of his brother, though he is listed on the [invalid URL removed] Internet Movie Database. It also mentions on that site that their parents are Holocaust survivors. Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the son of Holocaust survivors would find a way to capitalize on a niche using humiliation and torment as its main theme? I find this very intriguing.
skronker wrote
I agree that Darkko's scenes are generally very excellently shot, which is saying alot for me since I don't even typically care for POV scenes all that much. His are exceptional though. However, I was just using him as an example to back up my point that most non-performing directors, and even a few performing ones, seem very reluctant to display their own faces on camera, even if they're in the scene.
I'm not sure I'd want my face on camera, except in the BTS and only fleetingly ... If only because I don't want to ruin anyone's viewing experience in mid-whack. Do you know how wrong it feels to be getting your whack on watching some hot fuck flick and suddenly there's Bono or Morbidthoughts grinning away in the corner?
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Sep 9 2006 : 5:16PM
skronker wroteI must say that I nearly had this experience when I saw them both in Von Swine's Pork B-B-Q. There wasn't much whacking going on though. The movie was that dead.
By the way, now that you mention it, and out of curiosity, how do you guys get to be able to hang around on porn sets? Are porn sets just open houses where anybody can come in and watch, or is it by invitation only?
I liked the BBQ. Though those group sex house party flicks are haphazard by nature. Some directors are open to visitors, particularly if they are ADT regulars (directors and guests), or if you've made some effort to chat, like in Vegas.
Actually, I think it's funny to see ADT people hovering on the fringes of a blowbang.
skronker wroteIt certainly wasn't anything to write home about. The best scene of the movie was the bonus blowjob scene when the guy jizzed all over the corn chips and had Georgia eat them. That was something I had never seen before, and I really liked seeing something different like that. Anything unique or different is always good to see, so long as it's decent and nothing that crazy enough to give me nightmares. But even that scene had a drawback. That scene would have been alot better had it not been for that one dude who was in the scene fingerpopping Georgia the whole time she was giving the blowjob. I kept wondering why the director or somebody else just didn't tell him to get the hell out of the scene. He had no point to being in the scene whatsoever except to have his face distract us from a perfectly good blowjob. I was trying to see Georgia give the blowjob, not see this dude's face right behind hers fingering her the whole time. I can't understand why the director allowed him to stay there and ruin what would otherwise have been a great bonus scene. It seems like there always has to be something to bring a good scene down.
Khan Tusion @ AEBN
Posted - Sep 6 2006 : 6:18PM