By the 'official' definition it is....but does it have to be? I assume it is done in an attempt to include the viewer in some way, but it always kills it for me. I stop believing that they are into what they're doing and it only reinforces the feeling that they are just 'acting.'
When they're alone it's fine, but when the sex starts I think it would help if they looked more interested in their partner. At first I thought it creeped me out because I was a female, but I would feel the same way if the male did it. I mean, even if Tony Ribas looked into the camera and said "¡Blondie, béseme fucking rápido! " I wouldn't like it. Well, not that it would ever happen, but you know what I mean.
I hear ya, SB. I've grown quite weary of this practice myself.
It could be just a sign that I'm kind of weary of most porn these days, but I find that my ability for suspension of disbelief is seriously waning when it comes to porn lately. Again, there's still good stuff out there that does it for me, but it's damn rare. :)
The thing is, I really do like some aspects of the broken fourth wall, and the idea that the camera is an invited part of the action. Heck that's part of the definition of gonzo, like you said. But on the other hand, out and out mugging, or fulfilling that "stare at the camera" requirement, (especially when it looks like it's a requirement) can be an absolute scene killer for me. It just feels so... empty--especially during a facial when the girl is sitting there not knowing whether to watch the camera, watch her partner, close her eyes... or just freakin' fall asleep.
Once more though, for me it's all about mood. What I find fuckin' awesome one day (an Andrew Blake scene, or any scene with a specific performer that I happen to be interested in that day etc.), might be ice cold death incarnate to me another day (because my attraction for the performer isn't enough to counteract her bored expression, etc.). It's the unfortunate and maddening life of a fickle porn fan. I can only imagine how maddening my fickle demands must be for the producers. :)
I expect that it's damn hard to balance fly-on-the-wall chemistry with the need to properly capture the action. Those two aspects don't necessarily compliment each other, I imagine. It's why there are so few out there who do it well--not that I could do any better.
I don't think mugging should be mandatory, but when it works it is a bonus, for me anyway. Vanessa Chase, Tiffany Mynx and Sophie Evans all spring to mind as women who know how to look through the camera at the person behind it. That's the secret. Don't look at the camera. Look at the person it represents, the person you want to know how fucking hot this is for you.
[aside] This discussion puts me in mind of Vanessa Chase looking at the camera in Hotel Sodom 6. I can't tell you how many times I lost it to that look! [/aside]
OK, back on topic. Your statement, "I stop believing that they are into what they're doing and it only reinforces the feeling that they are just 'acting,'" suggests there wasn't any heat to begin with. Looking at the camera isn't going to solve that, but neither does it create the problem, eh?
Thanks for your replies, guys. Since you've seen more gonzos than I have, can you tell me if ALL gonzos employ this technique? I guess I have a hard time believing that there are that many sexual encounters hot enough to make this effective.
Hardware writes: "Your statement, "I stop believing that they are into what they're doing and it only reinforces the feeling that they are just 'acting,'" suggests there wasn't any heat to begin with. Looking at the camera isn't going to solve that, but neither does it create the problem, eh?"
It DOES create the problem, for me anyway. I didn't mean to imply that there was no heat to begin with, it's just that as soon as they start looking into the camera, it evaporates. That's just my opinion however, and obviously I'm in the minority.
Dumblonde, I don't think you are in the minority. This annoys my wife and she asked me, "Why do they do that?" The obvious answer is to put on a show for the audience.
This works well for a solo tease scene, when the person actually is putting on a show for the audience. I've even seen this work well in solo male masturbation videos (obviously targeting the gay male market).
When it comes to hot sex, that's where I want the performers attention focused on, not the camera. If it's not sex, having the performer break character to directly address the camera can work if done properly. Keri Windsor did this quite well when she watched two guys board the plane in the Mile Bi Club, and gave us (the audience) a conspiratorial smile and nod.
I don't think that's quite right. They are putting on a show from beginning to end, after all. The purpose of looking at the camera is to involve the viewer in the show. Rather than being a spectator, you become a participant. As I noted before, some performers understand this and are capable of playing to the camera, while others don't get it and simply look blankly at it. Obviously that doesn't work, but the prerequisite for it working at all is that the viewer must be willing to play along with the illusion. Not unlike magic tricks.
Dumblonde, it would appear that you are simply unable or unwilling to play along, so it's no surprise it doesn't work for you.
Hardware wrote:I have seen it work with girls who know what they are doing. But probably 90% of the girls have a floundering, aimless blank stare, and I whine about it, same as blondie and Mrs. Hammer.
If the girls do it well, it's fine to instruct them to look at the camera. The mistake is to ask every girl to do that. Arghhhh.
This is no surprise to me. After all, the ascendance of gonzo meant that acting ability was no longer a necessary prerequisite to being a porn starlet.
I too find nothing erotic in an actress blankly staring at the camera. For this, I blame the director, who must be simply following a laundry list of acts that was compiled to satisfy the fans' requests, but which makes no allowance for the abilities of the talent performing said acts. This is an abdication of his/her responsibilities, and he/she should rightly be condemned for it. What I will not do is condemn the act itself, for reasons I've already cited.
The ones who can do this effectively are rare indeed. When they're fucking and the chick's going through her "ooh aah" routine while looking into the camera, it's FF>>> time for me. I recently saw Ginger Lynn do this very well, but not excessively, and only during the BJ.
Searching for blonde and red bush 1985 Posts 10/02
Posted - Aug 13 2003 : 1:15PM
The best laugh of the day so far! Thanks Blondie! I really dislike the mugging. Rather than bat her eyes for the camera, the starlet should make her brown eye wink at lens.
I am probably one of the blank starers - I absolutely admit, I have no idea what the director is getting at when he is telling me to look at the camera during the sex. I don't want to look at the camera - I want to look at what I'm doing, and what's being done to me, and who is doing it. (if I happen to want to open my eyes at all)
Now I undestand "turn your face towards the camera" - yeah, no grief, they want my face, not the back of my head.
And I WOULD understand saying something TO the audience, or winking, or something specifically outside of the scene directed towards the viewer - but I've never been directed to do such a thing, other than those little interview snippets pre-scene, and I don't think that's what we're talking about here.
I take direction well, (okay, I think I do...) tell me what to do and I'll do it! Maybe the problems don't lie just with the performers.
"Breaking the Fourth Wall" is probably the most difficult thing to do in all of theater (broadest definition). It's also probably one of the most over-used/poorly used devices in novice productions, be they student films or gonzo porn.
Of course when it works, it's brilliant. Check out Ian McKellen in Act 1, Scene 1 of Richard Loncraine's RICHARD III. I'm sure there are equally worth examples in Gonzo Porn, but I don't know the genre well enough to name any.
Count me in with the minority .. it totally turns me off... and the european girls seem to do it more.. another thing that irritates me is the camera repeatedly moving to get a close up of the girl's face.. trying to catch something noexistent .. i wish they would stay where the action is or step back and show us the total picture..
(to dumblonde: cute toes .. when's the right foot joining the left one?)
If the minority doesn't like this, then I am also a member of said minority.
Even when done well it doesn't add that much that it makes up for the other 90% of the time it doesn't.
DB- Where did the screenshot of Ginger come from? I notice the word "Taboo" in the bottom left corner. Please tell me that they have finally released "Taboo 4" on DVD(one of my all-time favorite Ginger movies).
"I'm going to give you a little advice. There's a force in the Universe that makes things happen. All you have to do is get in touch with it, stop thinking, let things happen, and be the ball." Always HoldenMagroin
I'll add my voice to those who object to mugging. I can't stand it either. I don't see anything that's being done in "gonzo" that can't be done all the better for NOT having this happen.
First of all I don't think "mugging for the camera" is mandatory. However I think Hardware frames my general opinion on this well in his first post. Women who can seduce you with their eyes as they look right through the director's lens are a rare thing, but the ladies that can do it are some my favorite stars. As a fan of beautiful women, why wouldn't I want to see the expression on their face and feel the gaze of their eyes. The human face is capable of so so many subtle expressions and can communicate so much with every little facial movement especially the eyes. On the other hand it can be a total turn off if she is staring blankly into the camera or even worse she looks like she is uncomfortable and not enjoying herself.
I'm all for "mugging for the camera" and couldn't imagine porn without it these days. There are some looks from Laura Angel and Cassandra Wild in Antonio Adamo's "Sex Shot" that can melt your soul they are so hot.
From a female viewpoint I can totally see how this could deter from the action. I know I would eject the disc instantly if I had to endure Ron Jeremy staring me straight in the eyes lovingly as he was about to bust a nut.
Well now we're getting somewhere. No one is advocating the abolishment of the practice totally, but apparently it annoys many people, including the performers. I don't think it's necessarily their fault or the fault of the director either - they probably just assume that that's what people want. That's why these boards are so great. btw - if RJ looked at me that way, I think I would have the same reaction as Gold Member
goldhat writes: "to dumblonde: cute toes .. whens the right foot joining the left one?) "
thanks.. i think i need a different lens or longer legs to get them both in.
goldhat writes: "to dumblonde: cute toes .. whens the right foot joining the left one?) "
thanks.. i think i need a different lens or longer legs to get them both in.
goldhat writes: "to dumblonde: cute toes .. whens the right foot joining the left one?) "
thanks.. i think i need a different lens or longer legs to get them both in.
goldhat writes: "to dumblonde: cute toes .. when's the right foot joining the left one?) "
thanks.. i think i need a different lens or longer legs to get them both in.
Before I derail my own thread, here's another good pic from Dr. Ginger: Pretty As You Feel (btw, guess who's *member* is in her mouth)
But oh I keep watching you until I see right through Oh I keep watching you
Some people love it, others hate it. Is it just me or what? Isn't porn all about the fantasy? If i had the ability to get some super hot chick to screw me, I've got the creepiest feeling I want to see her face.Ugly broads are a dime a dozen and give their shit away for free, well because they are ugly,right. Saving myself the embarrassment of being seen with an ugly one i choose hot chick porn and I want to see their faces as well as the action. Keeping in mind I am hung like a hamster and can't envision half of these cocks I see as being mine going to the face and seeing the girl look at ME keeps my little fantasy going.
When you are addressing a large audience say as in a theatre it's undesirable to look directly into camera except in special circunstances. In theatrical applications you're trying to create a suspention of disbeliefe to a large audience. Gonzo video on the other hand is a one on one experiance the person more often than not wants the feeling the girl is looking at them and appealing to them personally. Theatrical productions are geared to the masses. Video is geared to a one on one experiance.
Cal444 Somewhere making the viewer the object of the girls desire
This is why "couples porn" is in some ways the worst porn there is. It lack the finesse/craft needed to work for an audience (more than one person watching), and it lacks the viseral appeal of porn specifically designed to be watched alone.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Aug 16 2003 : 1:52PM
The way you express this, makes me believe that this is not a problem of "couples porn", but of the people who make it. As such, it is an ideosyncratic point rather than a structural point; and it seems to confuse a normative point (what "couples porn" ought to be) with a descriptive point (what "couples porn" is). Whatever the case, it is an interesting point.
The reason that Gonzo has been so successful is because it spends very little energy worrying about what porno (couples, or otherwise) should be, and concentrates instead on what porno (give present economic and social realities) can be.
The only Gonzo title I've ever watched was years ago. Some Buttman Goes to Europe or some such thing. It was mostly unwatchable, but there was one revelatory moment:
The America Porn stars who were on their way to leave a slimey fuck-trail across Europe were in Heathrow airport waiting for a plane. One of the female stars, a cute brunette who's (later to be reveiled as quite shapely) figure was conceeled by the bagginess of her T-shirt and sweatpants travel outfit sat in one of those ubiquitous molded blue plastic airport chairs. Her heals were pulled up under her ass, knees to her chest in a way that seemed that she was hiding a little, but it also pulled her sweats into one of deepest, most delicious camel-toes I've ever seen.
The cameraman asked her where they were and what they were doing, she responded with the expects "We're in Heathrow, we're going to Prague..." etc. Then she added that she hated flying and she was really tired and didn't want to get on another airplane, but she was really looking forward to Prague and having some fun with her co-stars and the local talent.
There, right then, I had my revelation. That little bit "not everything is perfect" and suddenly I believed everything else she said about how much she was looking forward to fucking and sucking. One little confession like that and I couldn't wait to see her out of those baggy sweat with a big fat cock in her mouth. Of course the rest of the movie unfolded like any other porn flick and it was a terrible let down. But the memory of that one moment in the airport stayed with me, and has had huge influence on my production style, both in "ligit" and smutty films.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Aug 16 2003 : 3:07PM
Now I know you are making a normative statement. You have already decided what porn should be. As a filmmaker, that is definitely a positive. You, at least, know what you are trying to accomplish. However, if you intend to promote your personal, normative aesthetic to/as a general, descriptive one, I loose all interest. A little devil is whispering the following comment in my ear: "I know you are trying to sell, but I ain't buying."
RonK said: "Perfection is an unattainable goal and my perfection is not the same as yours." (Again, pure coincidence. It is getting creepy.)
No, I haven't decided what porn should be. I've only decided what the porn that I make should be.
As to Gonzo, you may be right – my analysis of why it has been so successful may be wrong. I doubt it. My experience in the business tells me that many things fail for being overly ambitious; few things fail being under ambitious. Gonzo lacks nothing more than it lacks ambition.
Reasons aside, a trip into any porno shop on Eighth Avenue will leave no doubt that Gonzo is the genre of the moment. The reasons why are only important if your in the business of trying to figure out what's next.
The girls eyes should be looking through the camera lens directly to the home viewer and subliminally say ing to him "Don't you wish this was you". All too often unfortunately they stare like mental patients at a shiny object and subliminally say "Is this almost over? I have 2 more scenes today".
I also dislike the strange habit some shooters have of shooting with a wide angle lens and putting the camera two inches from the girls face causing her features to warp into a bug-like state.
Tom Byron in the final scene I beleive (Pretty as You Feel I think was the first porn film I ever saw if I am recognising the two screen shots correctly - I think Ginger Lynn plays a doctor, doesn't she and Tom is having an erection problem which she cures)
Regarding the directors, I'm sure they do assume people want it. However, if I ask for a filet mignon and the chef presents me with a T-bone who do you think I should blame?
I doubt most people want to see the 'dead-fish' look, so just telling the actress 'look at the camera' misses the point entirely. If the director and editor are too jaded (or incompetent) to tell when the shot is ineffective then they need to go work in some other business; maybe making hot dogs would be within their capabilities. God only knows what's in those things.
Yes Red-Triangle-UK, that is indeed Tom Byron, playing a sufferer of erectile dysfuction who checks into an impotence clinic run by Ginger.
hardware writes: "regarding the directors, im sure they do assume people want it. however, if i ask for a filet mignon and the chef presents me with a t-bone who do you think i should blame? "
but you didnt ask for filet mignon, before i started this thread. we consumers have to share the blame equally for being too apathetic.
this all goes back to my original question however. if mugging for the camera is indeed *mandatory* in gonzo, then the performer and director have little incentive other than to go with what they can get, since i suspect that bonecrusher is more typical of the gonzo consumer and he apparently has no problem with t-bone.
perhaps we need a new genre. mug-free gonzo?
hardware writes: "regarding the directors, im sure they do assume people want it. however, if i ask for a filet mignon and the chef presents me with a t-bone who do you think i should blame? "
but you didnt ask for filet mignon, before i started this thread. we consumers have to share the blame equally for being too apathetic.
this all goes back to my original question however. if mugging for the camera is indeed *mandatory* in gonzo, then the performer and director have little incentive other than to go with what they can get, since i suspect that bonecrusher is more typical of the gonzo consumer and he apparently has no problem with t-bone.
perhaps we need a new genre. mug-free gonzo?
hardware writes: "regarding the directors, im sure they do assume people want it. however, if i ask for a filet mignon and the chef presents me with a t-bone who do you think i should blame? "
but you didnt ask for filet mignon, before i started this thread. we consumers have to share the blame equally for being too apathetic.
this all goes back to my original question however. if mugging for the camera is indeed *mandatory* in gonzo, then the performer and director have little incentive other than to go with what they can get, since i suspect that bonecrusher is more typical of the gonzo consumer and he apparently has no problem with t-bone.
perhaps we need a new genre. mug-free gonzo?
hardware writes: "regarding the directors, i'm sure they do assume people want it. however, if i ask for a filet mignon and the chef presents me with a t-bone who do you think i should blame? "
but you didn't ask for filet mignon, before i started this thread. we consumers have to share the blame equally for being too apathetic.
this all goes back to my original question however. if mugging for the camera is indeed *mandatory* in gonzo, then the performer and director have little incentive other than to go with what they can get, since i suspect that bonecrusher is more typical of the gonzo consumer and he apparently has no problem with t-bone.
perhaps we need a new genre. mug-free gonzo?
Must be something only you can see But girl I feel it when you look at me
i hope they go back to basics.. a couple fucking.. the guy coming .. the woman coming .. cock coming inside a pussy or ass and pulling out to let the spunk ooze out.. I wouldn't mind a mug shot of that.. reminds me of Brit Morgan in Queen of Hearts where the guy comes and pulls out and you see the spunk running down the crack of her ass .. and her pussy and asshole clenching and relaxing.. now a shot like that makes me hot and feel like I am in there .. not a cheap trick like looking into the lens..
I hear you goldhat, that's another major annoyance. If it was just me, I would drop the subject because I'm well aware that I am not the target audience, but since many guys apparently dislike this as well, I've got enough screenshots and song lyrics to keep this sucker alive longer than the "Is TAP possible?" thread. So keep those opinions coming.
And I saw you in my nightmares But I'll see you in my dreams And I might live a thousand years Before I know what that means
<