The term "gonzo" was first used to describe Stagliano's Buttman series. The term referred to "Gonzo journalism" which was popularized by Hunter S. Thompson. In gonzo journalism, the reporter is part of the story, so "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" was as much about the 1972 campaign as it was about the press corps and Thompson's unique perspective on events. Similarly, the Buttman series was about a pervert with a camera making a porn film. This style can be compellingly authentic, for instance, fans of gonzo porn can see how John Stagliano and his future wife (who performed as Tricia Devereaux) talking to each other within hours of meeting, and then witness the first time they had sex together. Stagliano has a butt fetish, and he has a taste for hardcore porn, so "Gonzo" became associated with hardcore and anal. Still, I like to imagine that the original "Girls Gone Wild" videos might have qualified as "Gonzo porn" (until the series devolved into just one more piece of mass-marketed garbage). Some directors still make Gonzo in this original style. Mason's best films are about Mason making a porn film, and her showcases are about Mason making a porn film with a particular performer. Obviously, the word "Gonzo" has changed its meaning, and there's nothing we can do about it. But I wish there were an easy way to discuss three categories of porn: Features Gonzo (with its original meaning) Simple jerk-off fodder (similar to the loops of an earlier era).
As a follow-up to my above post, Mason's showcases seem to be about performer agency. Since the performers are different people, these themes play out in different ways. So "Annette Schwarz is Slutwoman" is about a woman who seems to be exploring kinky sex for its own sake, and is doing porn as part of that exploration. On the other hand, "Keisha" is about a young woman with a backstory: She realized she wasn't cut out for 9-to-5 work, knew that guys found her sexy, and decided to try porn. In "Keisha", she commits to porn as a career. She's still young, and she does not know how this decision will shape the rest of her life, but that's part of the film's appeal. Both films show performers doing hardcore sexual acts that they have ever done before, which helps market the films. But the films are less about hardcore on-camera sex than they are about women deciding to have hardcore sex on camera. I've never seen "Dani Daniels Dare", but I assume it explores her decision to do BG.
^^ I would be happy to use the terms "All-sex" and "Vignette", as distinct from "Gonzo". As I understand it, the four categories refer to: Feature: An extended story involving fictional characters who have sex. Vignette: A single scene in which fictional characters have sex. All-sex: A single scene or a series of scenes showing people having sex. Each scene may or may not be preceded with a tease. The question of whether the people having sex are fictional characters or real human beings is besides the point. Gonzo: An extended film or a single scene about human beings making a porn film. As much as I might like this language, I doubt the rest of the world will ever adopt it.
Edited by - cumminglinguist on 1/31/2016 12:55:38 PM
My understanding is "Gonzo" is mostly about performers acknowledgement of the camera being present and being filmed. In Gonzo the performers talks to or acknowledge the person behind the camera (or the audience). "Vignette" are scene that have a short story (set-up) that may or may not have the performers acknowledging they're being filmed. "Wall to Wall" just implies sex happening with no set up or reason behind it. All these can fall under the "Gonzo" description because in each case there might be some acknowledgement of being filmed.
That is indeed what gonzo means, but people seem to use it to mean a specific kind of sex, which makes things confusing. I am all for clearer language. I find it annoying when people use the term "hardcore" improperly, also, to describe rough, aggressive, or extreme sex.
^ I don't think people really care. From what I'm seeing people just divide everything into "features" vs "everything else". It seems most people are more concerned with the genre labels like "MILF", PARODY, BIG BUTT, "IR", etc...morseo than "Gonzo", "Wall To Wall", or "Vignette".
As I have always seen it, feature, vignette, and all sex define the type of movie it is. Whereas gonzo is a style that it is in, like film noir, etc. As has been pointed out these days gonzo seems to be used to describe all sex films that "aren't vanilla" where vanilla stands for whatever people think are too unremarkable for the time.
So our discussion of porn takes us to the very heart of the problem with language and human thought. We cannot think or talk about the world without making distinctions. Thus our minds assume that the words "cat" and "dog" refer to truly distinct things in the world, and it takes thousands of years for biology to move from Aristotle to Darwin. Without making the distinction, we cannot ask the question of why there is such an amazing variety of living things in the word, yet the fact that we make distinctions prevented us from seeing how simple the answer is for thousands of years We still assume that "life" and "non-life" refer to truly distinct things in the world, and the origin of life remains a mystery. Yes, the distinctions we make are artificial: We make them. Yet, without them we are incapable of thought and language. Without them, we are incapable of wonder.
I think Girlsway go for this from time to time.I'm not so dismissive. The conclusion 'hence why porn is both declared to be more 'mainstream' yet also kept marginalized and outside 'polite' or even just honest public discourse' delineates a real bifurcation in 21st century media and society. Porny imagery (dick pics, lingerie selfies) and fashion penetrate youth culture, references to characters consuming Internet porn abound in mainstream TV programming, anal sex is fetishized in mainstream media - the massive private consumption of porn has led to these manifestations and will intensify. And yet, while everyone knows porn is here, there and everywhere, the social silence is deafening - an elephant in the room situation par excellence. Back to the OP (sort of): Porn for me has never been exactly what I want but has always been almost what I want. It's asymptotic. Just as I watch the perfect scene I experience the ecstasy of fantasy fulfillment and the resignation that the search must resume again. New talent, new formats, new acts - it's a long way from the days when reading the words 'I never thought I'd be writing...' were enough to boner me up.
^ Utterly brilliant post. At the same time they're (hopefully) satisfying us, the pornographers need us to keep coming back. Complete fulfilment from porn is like chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
[Link]
fredgee Deactivated User
350 Posts 12/13
Posted - Jan 31 2016 : 3:05PM
Whats going on in business in general is based on the belief people are followers, will conform and adapt to anything. Now companies tell consumers what they can have take it or leave it...it is the dumbest idea in business history because every one has a breaking point at which they rebel and fight. Porn is entering the time when only hardcore loyalist will support it. More and more people will turn away and find alternatives or give up on porn completely.
I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13
Posted - Jan 31 2016 : 3:29PM
Your quote from Angela White on her thread illustrates all of this perfectly. I'm not sure where the assumption came from that there's something inherent in the shooting of "extreme" content that requires passivity on the part of the woman participant. When I look back at gonzo queens such as Kelly Wells, Sandra Romain, Amber Rayne, etc. I see people who were giving active, energetic performances regardless of how crazy the content was.
^ It strikes me as latent sexism and a buying into the idea that taking a dick in an orifice = passive. One and the same, of course. Edited by - Gore Gore Girl on 1/31/2016 3:40:06 PM
[Link]
Ben Mockridge Deactivated User
382 Posts 9/15
Posted - Jan 31 2016 : 4:14PM
^ A better term might maybe be that taking a dick in an orifice = receptive. And that reception can be undertaken with any degree of enthusiasm from disgruntlement , through indiference and on to great enthusiam.
^ I'm very much in favour of enthusiasm (feigned or otherwise) from female performers. It's simply more of a turn-on for me. Which is not to say I don't also enjoy the kind of material meted out by Duke Skywalker and Max Hardcore when the fancy takes me. Watching that stuff is like rubbernecking - sometimes the curiosity just gets the better of you.
I don’t see much point in watching porn if it’s not on the harder side like evil angel, hardx, legalporno. I prefer 1-on-1, it’s usually better than the group scenes with 3 or more guys and 1 girl, but there are some pretty good scenes like that too. It’s not that I fantasize about being one of the blokes myself, it’s more about seeing the girl who talks and behaves nasty during the scene (and then maybe I fantasize about her later without the guys). I don’t fantasize about real humiliation either, I see it more like rough sex where the girl can call it off anytime if she wants to stop.
"You have sacrificed nothing and no one." 3689 Posts 8/10
Posted - Feb 1 2016 : 3:46PM
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." -- Justice Potter Stewart
