IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Feb 13 2003 : 1:37PM
I have been toying with the idea for this series of posts ever since Steph wrote that she loved reading "intellectual crap". I hesitated to post this kind of thing to the forum, because I am uncertain what the response will be, if I get any at all. However, due to unfortunate circumstances, I had some time this week to be reflective on a lot of things, including my fascination with porn. Furthermore, some recent discussions on various topics both here and on RAME have brought me to the conclusion that it is probably beneficial to both myself and the forum if I tried to explain my view on porn in more detail. So, here goes. (Warning: I am afraid this is a rather long and possibly boring post. If you don't like to read that kind of post, don't.)
I have never bothered to give an answer to the many threads on both RAME and ADT about "what kind of scenes I would like to see". I have two reasons for this. First, more times than not, I really can't explain it why I like a scene. I have liked scenes and movies that are very different. This begs the question what they have in common? Trouble is, I really can not say. Second, despite the first point, I do believe that I can set 2 abstract qualities aside that really appeal to me. However, both these qualities demand a rather complex explanation, that requires a bit of film theoretical background. Things get really complex because I believe that both these qualities entertain a very complex and sometimes even contradictory relationship to one another. The two qualities I am talking about, can be described as, on the one hand "blissful rupture" (where the term "rupture" refers to a specific film theoretical concept that has be juxtaposed to another specific film theoretical concept, "suture", look below for a more detailled explanation), and on the other hand, "pure porn spectacle" (where both the term "pure" and "spectacle" have very specific meanings). Both these qualities can be found in the (combination of) little details in a video. And these details themselves can be extremely varied in nature. Hence my first point: I really can't say what elements exactly are attractive to me. This can be further explained by relating both "blissful rupture" and "pure porn spectacle" to two other concepts, which I believe are the 2 most fruitful concepts by which "porn pragmatics" can be explained: "voyeurism" and "fetishism" .
Let me start with explaining this in a bit more detail by concentrating on "blissful rupture" in this post. In a follow-up post I will concentrate on "pure porn spectacle". When these 2 concepts are explored, I can address a wider range of topics, such as the role and function of plot/story in porn.
But first: "blissful rupture". The term "rupture" was introduced in film studies in the 70s, by the so called "subject position theory". The term "rupture" was given a very specific, ideological meaning by theorists who worked within this tradition. I don't subscribe to this "ideological" interpretation of the term "rupture" at all, and I doubt that it is necessary or even interesting to fully explain this in this context. The little that is of importance here, is that they believed that classical Hollywood cinema created ideologically accepted unified "subject positions" by offering a unified and acceptable representation of the world, by means of its specific stylistic and narrative structures. "Rupture" was used to describe those moments within the classical text that "ruptured" that unified representation. It are those moments that make it clear to the viewer (or what they would call, the "viewing subject") that what he or she is watching, is not a "natural" (his)story, but a carefully constructed discours. The ideological function they believed was inherent to classical cinema, couldn't tolerate prolonged moments of "rupture" and therefor these theorist related moments of "rupture" to moments of "suture", moments when the viewing subject was again "forced" to take his ideologically accepted unified "subject position". I don't use the term "rupture" in this ideological context at all. I am more thinking about disruptive moments of any kind, moments that seem to differ form the norms of the genre to which the text belongs, without any ideological ramifications at all. You could even say that I use the term in a way that is in direct contradiction to "subject position theory". I believe that every filmmaker strives for moments of "rupture", for moments which make his film stand out from the crowd. In case of porn, I use it to refer to moments or scenes that differ from the formula of the kind of porn to which the video belongs. This can be created by a lot of things, but mainly it are moments where it becomes clear that the participants of a scene are not just there for making a movie, or when something happens that was not foreseen, that breaks the unity of the fictional world the video presents. That is the "rupture" part. However, I call it "blissful rupture", because "rupture" can also be unpleasant, as can be seen in many Max Hardcore videos, where the girls also give up the facade of making a movie.
An example of "blissful rupture" in a porn movie will hopefully make things a little more clear. Take the scene between Steve Holmes and Rita Faltoyano in "100% Natural 3". It was clear from the beginning of the scene that those two are very comfortable with each other. For instance, they start the scene by joking about the fact that Rita has won a car in a best tits contest in Amsterdam. So while the scene started out as being fun from the start, there is however a particular moment in the scene where a real sense of "blissful rupture" is expressed. Rita is being fucked by Steve in the piledriver position, laying on the couch with her ass on the armchair, so that her tits are resting on her face. For no apparent reason, she starts to giggle. While she looks at Steve, she says to him in a girly voice, while still giggling: "You are crazy." At that moment, while still giggling, she turns her head and looks not at the camera, but to a person who is obviously in the room just beside the camera and the look on her face is clearly one of "look at me, look what I am doing now, isn't it wonderful". And at that same moment, she almost subconsciously puts one of her own nipples in her mouth. Now, that was magic; that was "blissful rupture". For a moment, Rita was not making a movie and she was not "acting" but she was "reacting". Immediately thereafter, the director cuts to a different position, and while Rita is still giggling, it is very clear that the magic has disappeared; we are seeing the professional Rita again, who is teasing the viewer by looking straight into the camera.
I think that the example illustrates the importance of meaningful, salient details within a scene that makes or breaks the effect of "blissful rupture". Again, there are many varied combinations of details imaginable within the context of "blissful rupture", so it is hard to reduce "blissful rupture" to a handful of qualities or easy to follow formulas. This can be explained in more detail by distinguishing 2 abstract forms of "blissful rupture", by relating the concept to "voyeurism" on the one hand, and "fetishism" on the other.
"Voyeuristic blissful rupture" is mental/psychological in nature. It has something to do with the breaking of taboos, with being priviledged to watch something that you were not supposed to see. It has something to do with "psychological truth", with seeing the performers stop acting, but start reacting. I believe that for a long time the master of "voyeuristic blissful rupture" in porn was Patrick Collins. Steve Holmes has testified to this many times, when he stated that on a Patrick Collins set, things were different. You could say that this is the quest for "real" orgasms. "Fetishistic blissful rupture" is focussed on details or qualities of performance. It are those elements of performance which are different, which cause a scene to stand out from the rest or which cause performers "to give more of themselves" then usual. It can be a certain sexual act. If you have never seen a certain performer perform a certain act, that could create a moment of "fetishistic rupture". Think of the possibilities of Felecia doing a boy girl scene (I know she has done one), or Monica Moore doing an anal scene, or ... "Fetishistic rupture" is responsible for wanting to see the most "depraved" acts by girls you didn't think had it in them. Of course, it still has to be "fetishistic blissful rupture". Again, I concur with Steve Holmes, when he says that he loves "rough sex" as long as his costar is into it herself. I would much rather see a girl do a passionate vaginal scene, then a painful or reluctant anal scene. There are also contextual factors of the performance that can form a bridge between "voyeuristic blissful rupture" and "fetishistic blissful rupture". Some acts are both unusual in the context of "fetishistic blissful rupture" and can lead to a "breakdown" of the performer, an important element of "voyeuristic blissful rupture". Sex in public places or flashing in public is one such act, which almost always will appeal to me. Peeing (not golden showers) is another. Not only are these activities unusual, but it will offer more often than not plenty of opportunity of glimpses of "true" reactions from the performers. Seeing a girl hesitate to show her tits on a public street and then doing it anyway, while anxiously looking around her, is a great thrill, especially if she shows her "pride" afterwards, for having dared to do such a thing.
If you would ask me who I think is the most consistent director in obtaining moments of "blissful rupture", I would say it is Joey Silvera. The fact that he works with a lot of new, possibly inexperienced talent, works to his advantage. But I have to believe that Joey himself is also very much responsible for getting such magnificent results. I have seen other directors working with inexperienced talent, who didn't get a decent result at all.
Next time I will address the other quality I am looking for in porn: "pure porn spectacle". After I have explained that concept in more detail, I can address the complex and often contradictory relationship between "blissful rupture" and "pure porn spectacle". For instance, while "voyeuristic blissful rupture" is mental/psychological in nature, "voyeuristic pure porn spectacle" is visual/physical in nature; and while "fetishistic blissful rupture" is focussed on performance, fetishistic pure porn spectacle" is focussed on performers. Exploring this complex, often contradictory relationship will make it clear why good porn is not easy to produce at all.
[Link]
DenverDon Benevolent
Firmly Embedded in Depravity 5914 Posts 7/02
Posted - Feb 13 2003 : 3:13PM
Thanks Walter for your post. Lots of food for thought.True, and those that think it is easy usually end up producing generic/vanilla stuff.
And I liked your comment when you were talking about Rita Faltoyano in a scene where she was not just "acting", but she was "reacting". It is those little salient details, that are sometimes hard to describe, that will many time "make" the scene and burn it into your memory for a long time to come.
Your post reminds me a little bit of the "Get to know your reviewer" thread, but you are not asking others to reveal their thoughts. This is "Get to know Walter a little better".
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Feb 13 2003 : 3:42PM
That was a mistake I made in the post. I forgot to ask for replies. In fact, I am curious what others think of the ideas I have put on the table. Maybe some ADTers would like to give other examples of scenes than the Rita-Stave scene I mentioned, or disagree with me on my choice of Patrick Collins or Joey Silvera. Whatever. I want dialogue, not monologue. btw, thank you for your reaction.
[Link]
DenverDon Benevolent
Firmly Embedded in Depravity 5914 Posts 7/02
Posted - Feb 13 2003 : 4:25PM
Thanks Walter, but I think I will leave it at "Get to know Walter a little better".
Regarding a lot of the 'gist' of your post, it all boils down to chemistry. That is chemistry between the director and performers, and between the performers themselves. It is similar to 'real life'. If there is not chemistry, it is just a plain fuck. But if there is chemistry, it is magic.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Feb 13 2003 : 4:36PM
This is what I like to see. I hadn't thought of chemistry myself, but you are right. It is not exactly the same concept as what I am talking about, but I would definitely regard it as a necessay and fundamental prerequisite for obtaining "voyeuristic blissful rupture". The thing I really find interesting about your comment is that you didn't stop at mentioning the usual and familiar chemistry between performers, but that you also included the chemistry between the director or crew and the performers. That is a point that will reappear when I discuss "pure porn spectacle", especially "voyeuristic pure porn spectacle".
I would like to add 1 example to my original post. One of the best scenes I have ever seen with plentiful moments of "blissful rupture" did involve the participation of an ADT member: Tricia Devereaux. I am talking about her scene with John Stagliano in Buttman's Toy Stories . Hey wait a minute. John has also posted to ADT. Make that the involvement of 2 ADT members. Is this a hot place to be or what?
[Link]
DenverDon Benevolent
Firmly Embedded in Depravity 5914 Posts 7/02
Posted - Feb 13 2003 : 4:49PM
Walter,
After watching a certain amount of porn , you can see the scenes where the chemistry exists between the performers. But when the chemistry also exists with the Director (and possible staffers), it just raises it to another level entirely. Hard to describe.
And I most definitely look forward to your future "intellectual crap" ( steph quote) postings.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Feb 13 2003 : 5:24PM
That is the second mistake I made in my original post. (I hope it is the last one.) I'd better correct this, before Steph gets mad at me. The use of the term "intellectual crap" or "pseudo intellectual claptrap", to describe some of my posts, does not originate from Steph. It doesn't even orginate from this forum. There is a long history to this, that played out in a different forum, but you might check out this ADT thread to get a better idea of where this is all coming from. If you are really interested I can provide a link to the original thread where it all started.
[Link]
DenverDon Benevolent
Firmly Embedded in Depravity 5914 Posts 7/02
Posted - Feb 13 2003 : 5:47PM
steph is quite forgiving and has a good sense of humor.
However, she also corrects incorrect postings, so if you don't provide the link to where it originated, she probably will. If you do, I will read it.
(btw, your command of the English language, it's nuances, and humor, is superb.)
Interesting piece Walter. If I may, in "blissful rupture" basically you are discussing the performer losing her, or his, self in the moment and reacting out of character. When that reaction is one of pleasure, this can be a very erotic experience. The question, for me, is why? I suggest it is because we are allowed an intimacy with that performer that we associate with real life sex.
BTW, "..'rupture' can also be unpleasant, as can be seen in many Max Hardcore videos, where the girls also give up the facade of making a movie." - very well put.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Feb 13 2003 : 6:26PM
I guess you must be really, really interested. In that case, check out this RAME thread and witness a truly angry Walter Burns. If you have the stomach to wade through the entire pissing contest between me and a certain P.R., please take special note of this: despite the fact I was royally pissed off, I did maintain a certain degree of dignity and I did stay civilized. I still consider that accomplishment as one of my biggest triumphs in my short career on usenet.
About the link, you should start by reading the first post in the thread and then look for post 6 or 7, where I come in. I forgot, but my reaction to that first post is maybe a mystery if you don't know the history that went before it. Let's just say that in a previous RAME thread, I agreed with a poster that Stagliano was the best pornographer around by adding some comments that were deemed "pseudo intellectual claptrap" by the poster who started the thread I have provided the link for. Is this still comprehensible?
It is hard for me to follow your implementations but just because of my knowledge of the English language. As far as I understand it I agree with you.
It is also not possible for me to explain my opinion whether a scene is hot or not. Especially I am fascinated of a wide range of kind of scenes. One time just a beautiful girl in a hot outfit and the other time "dirty" things like enemas or golden showers.
I think it has just to make "click" in your personal lust sensation.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Feb 13 2003 : 7:05PM
That is an interesting suggestion. I really haven't thought about it that way. I also can't say if I agree with you or not. The only thing I can say, is that it probably doesn't work like that in my case, because it does seem to suggest that a process of identification or projection is involved. That is something completely alien to my viewing experience, mainly because it is not very compatible with my views on "pure porn spectacle". Then again, the fact that it doesn't seem compatible with "pure porn spectacle" is congruent with my idea of the contradictory relationship between "blissful rupture" and "pure porn spectacle". So in a way, your idea does seem to fit in the scheme of things as I have tried to explain here.
Who said watching porn is easy? Well, my dick says it is. Sometimes it is even pleasurable. Hmmm! OK, let me rephrase that. Who said talking about porn is easy? Well, ... I know some people who think this is the case. Maybe they are right, but I meant talking "intelligently" about porn. Oh, in that case, yeah, I see your point. But then again, talking "intelligently" about any subject is not easy. Why should it be different for porn? (See how I like dialogue instead of monologue. Much more fruitful and entertaining. Of course, if you are the only person who is involved in the dialogue, it is time to either check out a psychiatrist, or go to bed for some much needed sleep. And no, I didn't take any mind expanding substances, legal or otherwise, prior to making this post. btw Aybesea, is it too late to win a Honorary Whacker Award for the strangest post?)
While I've seen these moments of "blissful rupture" happen on a set--and they often are 'magic moments'--the flip-side (which I've seen too often) is what I'll call "pitiful rupture," for lack of a better term. This occurs when something happens in the scene--and often it's unclear what this catalyst is or was--and it apparently causes the perfomer to call-back something very unpleasant in their lives, which then sets in motion a variety of reactions that may be truly pitiful.
I've shot hundreds and hundreds of scenes. I've seen more "pitiful ruptures" on sets than "blissful ruptures." I'm not sharing this to cast a pall on Walter's ideas. But you can't hope to have one without the other. And the other is often emotionally conflicting for all who witness it. And when you try to create an environment on a porn set where things can get very 'real' you sometimes later wished you had not. And because of this, directors sometimes shy away from creating such an environment, which unfortunately, limits your chances of recording those sexy, erotic, blissful rupture moments.
The production of porn is sometimes very mechanical and assembly-line-like. And believe it or not, this can sometimes still produce some decent porn. But it's also sometimes very personal--very intimate. In fact, it sometimes can suddenly open doors to the insides of people's heads that you later wished remained closed.
And sometimes I wish I could write without using the word 'sometimes'so freaking often.
Walter wrote: "That is an interesting suggestion. I really haven't thought about it that way. I also can't say if I agree with you or not. The only thing I can say, is that it probably doesn't work like that in my case, because it does seem to suggest that a process of identification or projection is involved." __________________________________________________________________________________
It is identification to the degree that it translates the filmic experience into one you have had in real life, but I don't believe that it requires projection of self into the scene being portrayed. Nor am I suggesting this is the only factor by which we measure our enjoyment of porn.
I agree that fetish is a component, but for me that includes more than acts and equipment (clothes, makeup, toys). For example, certain positions are more attractive than others.
Also, what about the performers themselves? We all have women that we enjoy watching, while others may perform the same acts, use the same props, dialogue, directors, etc. and yet leave us unmoved. How do you address the human factor?
Very true, when you ask for reality you need to remember that it is not always a pleasant experience. Also, I agree that, umm, professional porn can also be engaging, and why not? It is theater as well; if limited in objective. A gifted actor can convince you of the sincerity of her/his performance.
Note that we haven't limited ourselves to Walter's "blissful rupture" as the essence of good porn, it is simply his starting point for examining what about porn attracts us.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Feb 13 2003 : 7:55PM
Neither am I. In fact, look for a to be continued post about "pure porn spectacle", which will address a whole other range of stimuli that can make porn attractive or enjoyable.I don't use the concept of "fetish" in porn industry terms. In fact, I don't like so called "fetish" tapes, with lots of clothes, make-up, leather, and so on. I use the term in the psychological-aesthetic sense: substituting a part for a whole. It is about the little things, the salient details, which often can be found in certain acts, positions or circumstances wherein the acts took place. Hence my examples of different actresses doing different acts, or of specific acts such as public sex.Aesthetic qualities of performers will be addressed while discussing "fetishistic pure porn spectacle". I am not sure what you mean by the human factor, but I did take into account that different performers can elicit different responses. Look at my Felecia example.
[Link]
DenverDon Benevolent
Firmly Embedded in Depravity 5914 Posts 7/02
Posted - Feb 13 2003 : 8:01PM
Walter,
Read the entire RAME thread. P.R. has flamed anyone and everyone. I'm pretty sure iirc, that astroknight got into it with him at one time.
I responded in your other thread of how did we find ADT, and part of the reasons I enjoy ADT was exactly because of P.R. and the like.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Feb 13 2003 : 8:26PM
Very interesting comments. (btw, it is always a sign of intelligence to me when someone uses the term "sometimes" a lot.)
However, there are 2 points that I would like to address.
1) "Blissful rupture" doesn't have to be this great, earth-moving, deeply personal thing. Very often, it can be found in the little details of a performance. My example of the Rita Faltoyano-Steve Holmes scene makes this clear. Nothing really spectacular is going on here. I am sure that lots of viewer may have missed this moment, or have interpreted it in a different way. Also, nothing deeply personal was shared by Rita and the camera. And I am certain that this moment of "blissful rupture" was created within an assembly line context, as if by accident, without the specific attention of the director or crew to make this happen. This doesn't mean that I don't share your ideas about the "dangers" of wanting to create "blissful rupture" and the possiblity of opening a Pandora's Box, which can't be closed anymore. That is one of the reasons I think I will never be able to shoot porn. I would be embarrased by the directness of the emotions I associate with good porn, as if I was trespassing on forbidden, private territory. In other words, I am afraid and embarrased of "pitiful rupture" and I would run like hell if I had to be a witness of it, let alone have orchestrated it.
2) "Blissful rupture" doesn't have to be real, it has to seem real. I am talking about the communicative talent to translate sexual pleasure into a cinematic representation that has a high degree of vraisemblance, of believability. That is why I refered to "fetishistic blissfull rupture" as being focussed on salient details of performance . In most cases, I am already pleased if there is some blurring between the "fake" and the "real".
Both these point remind me of a scene directed by Henri Pachard. In the film Viva Vanessa , I believe Henri deliberately casted George Payne in a scene, while he knew that George and Vanessa Del Rio had split up in not a very amicable way. They did the scene anyway, and there was lots of "rupture" all right, both blissful and, not so much pitiful, but frightening. All in all, this was a very memorable scene and it took a much braver man than me to shoot it.
Walter wrote: "I am not sure what you mean by the human factor, but I did take into account that different performers can elicit different responses. Look at my Felecia example." _____________________________________________________________________________________
I took your examples with Felecia and Monica Moore to be instances where they did something unusual for them and that fact made it interesting - 'It can be a certain sexual act. If you have never seen a certain performer perform a certain act, that could create a moment of "fetishistic rupture".' and '"Fetishistic rupture" is responsible for wanting to see the most "depraved" acts by girls you didn't think had it in them.'
Valid points, but I'm speaking of an attraction to a particular woman; no specific or unusual act required. I suppose you could argue that the fetish is substituting the image for the person, but I think that would be stretching the concept as you've described it.
Walter and I have discussed this a bit privately in the past, so it won't be new to him, but for everyone else, I'll mention here that I love the little details in Nacho's movies. I love the way a girl will give a less cliched, perhaps "real" performance when working with him. I just rewatched much of Killer Pussy 13 today, and it is still wonderful to watch the little signals and cues Vanessa Virgin and Nacho give each other all through their scene. Vanessa doesn't do this much in her other movies, she's too busy getting DPed and trying to act like the conventional porn actress. Later in the movie, Anjoy and Jessica Young are hardly aware of the camera; essentially it is two women simply having fun with two guys, and a camera just happens to be there recording the sex. I lack the grasp and interpretive skills that Walter has when it comes to film terminology, but to me, that entire Anjoy/Jessica scene, and much of Killer Pussy 13 overall, amount to a sustained bit of blissful rapture.
It is this sort of scene, these kind of moments, that keep the porn interesting for me. I have seen a great many Rita Faltoyano scenes, but it is only the moments such as Walter described from 110% Natural that really capture my attention anymore.Simply watching a pretty girl have sex isn't enough, and I'm fortunate to still be able to find scenes and movies that stimulate my narrowed mind.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Feb 14 2003 : 12:19PM
OK. Now I get it. Again, the attraction to a particular performer is something that will be addressed when I deal with "fetishistic pure porn spectacle". I thought I made that clear already. I didn't discuss it in this thread because it doesn't belong here. Not yet anyway. Indeed, "substituting the image for the person" is not what I am talking about, although, to some extent, this describes the basic fetishistic relation we all have with mimetic images. These kind of images are presenting objects to us in absentia, objects that aren't actually there. I use the term fetishism in a slightly different context. With "fetishism" I mean the focus to little, salient details of the performance (in the case of "fetishistic blissful rupture") that seem to be the trigger for the signifying process of the total performance.
I have to say I am pleasantly surprised by the reactions I got to this thread. I am "learning" as much as you all are.
Couldn't agree with you more on this, Walter. While there are many directors nowadays who know how to shoot technically proficient sex scenes, I think Joey is the only one who is consistently able to reach these moments. I have occasionally thought it must be his childlike sense of wonder which he often expressed as an actor.
Ever since the incredible scene he shot years ago with Careena Collins and Rocco Siffredi, I find myself wanting to re-view so many of his scenes. The Julie Night/Chloe Dior scene in Service Animals 10 is the most recent. I've watched it at least a dozen times, and although it is odd to use the term in a porn context, I find it emotionally moving. I can't really articulate why.
I found your essay very interesting although my English is not good enough understand it completely. But you mentioned me a couple of times and so I want to react.
A "hot" sex scene has a kind of magic which is difficult to describe and even more difficult to generate. In nearly 1.000 scenes I did in my six years of performance there are maybe 50 scenes which I'm 100% happy with. And I'm sure not everybody would agree with my choice.
Maybe that makes watching porn so interesting and frustrating at the same time. One is always looking for this magic moments like a gold digger.
This has been one hell of a set of threads that was stirred by a wonderful piece from Walter Burns.
My only comment to this thread - at this time - it to thank Jimmy D for his remembering that scene from "Viva Vanessa!", with Vanessa Del Rio, George Payne and Cheri Renee ?? (Eric Edward's ex-wife, whose name escapes me, dammit) Any warm or complimentary comments from Jimmy D about myself or my work are always special for me. Thanks, Jimmy D.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Feb 16 2003 : 11:58AM
I believe you are talking about Renee Summers. btw, Mr. Pachard, I hate to disappoint you, but it was not Jimmy D. who brought up the scene in Viva Vanessa , but just little old me, Walter Burns.
Aww shucks, Henri. You're welcome. The thing is, though, I didn't write that stuff, Walter Burns did. In fact, I think I only ever saw one movie with Vanessa del Rio in it-- some flick where she and this other chic get raped applying for a job, don't know the name of it. But I'll try to come up with something warm and fuzzy to write about you because I had no idea a complimentary comment from me would be so special to you.
Well, fuck, Jimmy; I can't be letting out how sensitive I can get to you hard-hitting-balls-against-the-wall-tell-it-like-it-is writers like yourself. You'd think I was a wuss or something.
Sorry for my confusion with "who said what", Jimmy D and Walter, and thanks for your notes back to me. My offer for lunch still stands though, Jimmy. Walter, I'd love to have lunch with you sometime. Do you ever get out "here to the coast"?
Jimmy, can you expand on "pitiful ruptures" by giving examples (without names)? That kinda thing is something we porn fans rarely get to see. It pops up in the occassional dvd extra, but I'd like to read examples from your own work.
One incident that comes immediate to mind was during the taping of a B&D flick. The scenes were going along fine. We were in a deserted warehouse. The plot--if you could call it that--had these private school girls being punished by the school's janitor for some ridiculous, fabricated, school-rule transgressions. I played another faculty member, but you never see me, only hear me or see my hands as the whole thing was shot POV style, and from my POV (i.e., when the girl responds to something I do or say, she looks right into the camera as if looking into my face).
The janitor already had her manacled and bent over something. He lifted her plaid skirt, pulled down her panties, and with a paddle, began administering the discipline. This went along fine for a while with the girl struggling, begging for forgiveness, promising she wouldn't do whatever it was she supposedly did again, that sort of thing. We then decided to change the tool used in the spanking. We had a wooden hazing stick--sort of looks like a smaller, wider version of a cricket bat. As the janitor threateningly held the tool up to her face to let her know what was coming, I could see her eyes grow wide, but this time it seemed they were growing wide for real--although at this point I couldn't be sure. She then seemed to grow very, very submissive and quiet. On her own, without coaxing, she bent over ready to take her punishment. The janitor touched the stick to her already red butt cheeks and it was then I noticed tears flowing from her eyes. I asked if she were ok, and she nodded that she was. The janitor again prepared to administer the punishment. The tears still flowed and her lower-lip began to quiver and her legs were shaking. I zoomed in close to her face thinking this was some rather remarkable acting. But as I did, I knew for sure something was not right--there was real terror in her eyes. We did have a pre-planned 'safety' word, but she never uttered it. The guy playing the janitor couldn't see her face from where he was standing and he took one whack at her ass before I could say anything. Immediately, the girl became hysterical, screaming "I'm sorry! No! I'm sorry!" The janitor looked at me then back to her and asked again if she were ok. She became rather passive again and just stared at the hazing stick, tears still flowing. As she stared at it, her whole body started to shake, almost convulse. She looked like she was going to feint. Janitor guy dropped the stick and tried to hold her--to calm her--but again she became hysterical.
It had only been the three of us on the set, but as she screamed, the show's producer and the PA, both women, came running in to see what was up. I kept the camera rolling the whole time for no other reason than sometimes it's easy to be an asshole when you're a pornographer.
The janitor got her out of the manacles and she nearly collapsed into the arms of the producer and the PA. They whisked her off to another room while janitor-guy and I stood there looking at each other wondering what the fuck had happened.
A while later--maybe thirty minutes or so--the three women came back in. Producer called me over to the side and privately told me what had happened. When the girl was much younger, her father or step-father, I'm not sure which it was, had often beat her with a stick that looked just like the one we were using. Nice, huh. Such a joy doing this shit sometimes.
So there you go: a pitiful, sad, horrible moment had ruptured onto the taping of this scene.
Showing the kind of resiliency that's common amongst girls in this trade--at least when they're on a set--she assured me she could continue the scene. We finished the scene, but of course the whole episode had caused janitor-guy and I to approach it with marked timidity.
Later, when I edited the scene, I cut out most of what happened, but there is that moment when the pitiful rupture is obvious--at least to me--and probably to those viewing it something seems to have emotionally surfaced into the scene that added to it's realism--a pitiful rupture.
I prefer to try and forget shit like this. But of course, how do you do that? I've seen this girl many times since. I've shot her a few times as well. Neither of us have ever brought up that day in the warehouse. I don't want to go there, and my guess is neither does she.
Someday, when I write my book, I'll include a whole chapter devoted to these sorts of incidents.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Feb 17 2003 : 9:08AM
I would really like to accept your offer (you have no idea), but unless you mean the Belgian North Sea coast, I don't think it will happen soon. The last time I was "here to the coast" was in the summer of 1996. Uhm... you DO mean L.A., don't you?
I have mulled on your original essay at length and I have attempted to assimilate its meaning to the best of my ability. My strongest learning generally comes through analogy and so I would like to draw an analog here and bounce it back off of you.
I am a big music fan. I like very many different styles of music, but two of my favorites are highly technical progressive rock and highly improvisational fusion .
In progessive rock, all of the lines are prescripted and rehearsed to perfection. When one watches these pieces performed, the closer they are to a pre-scripted score, the stronger the performance is generally perceived. I regard Antonio Adamo types of productions to be the equivalent of progressive rock.
In improvisational fusion, there is a motif of some sort that typically recurs. But, other than that minimal thread to hold things together, the musicians generally head off into dark, unexplored territory. And when playing live, the best of the bands never play the same thing twice. I regard John Leslie types of productions to be the equivalent of imporvisational fusion.
Is one better than the other? Yes and no. Yes, because they each have their elements to fascinate and woo the listener. No, because they are both artistic and have an allure to bind you to them.
Now... why the long musical discourse? Because I believe that while Blissful Rapture is far more likely in the improvisational scenario, it is far more effective in the progressive one. When I see a faux pas that isn't a faux pas at all, but rather a genuine insightful look into reality, occur in the context of a highly structured set piece, I always feel that I have been truly treated.
The problem is that these snippets are very rare in the confines of the genre. However, in the playfield of the improv, these moments are encouraged and the best of the directors can not only elicit this behavior as part of the norm, but rather require it's presence!
Am I even close to your original mindset, or have I totally derailed this conversation?
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Feb 17 2003 : 5:17PM
Aybesea,
Your musical analogy is strikingly close to what I am trying to say. If I understad you correctly, highly improvisational fusion is to ”blissful rupture" what highly technical progressive rock is to "pure porn spectacle". The only difference is that I am trying to create a systematic pragmatics of porn, by distinguishing 4 basic pragmatic functions that porn can fulfill ("voyeuristic blissful rupture", "fetishistic blissful rupture", "voyeuristic pure porn spectacle" and "fetishistic pure porn spectacle"). These 4 functions can ultimately be combined in different ways to explain different kind of viewers (or, more accurately, ways of viewing) and possibly different types of porn. I don't relate these concepts to specific genre norms, at least not yet anyway, as you rightfully do in your musical examples. At this moment of my analysis, I am more concerned with conditions of reception than with textual characteristics. And I am also more interested in an abstract, integrated, universal porn aesthetic, then in specific genre norms. In my next piece on "pure porn spectacle" (let's hope that I will be able to write it before you have all forgotten about this thread), I will be able to explain all this in more detail and, hopefully, in a more comprehensible way. Let's just end this now by stating that for me, the best porn is the porn that combines the "improvisational" strength of "blissful rupture" with the visual/technical "perfection" of "pure porn spectacle". As your 2 musical examples have made clear, combining these two sometimes contradictory qualities will not be a mundane enterprise.
Great!! Where can I pick up my check? Should I file for an official trademark or something? Or should I praise myself lucky if I get an "artist copy"?
btw, what about "pure porn spectacle"? Any takers? RLD? Anabolic? uhm.... (is there a way to write in smaller font?) Max Hardcore?
Walter, you have given me a headache! I plowed through your post and come out the other end, well, bewildered!
Porn for me is a simple matter: It helps me achieve orgasm when I whack-off! What I like is also very simple: Girl/girl, and female solo videos. Nothing with guys! The thing that mostly sets a scene apart is verisimilitude, meaning, real female orgasms caught on video.
I have recently been videoing a dancer! We have done about 8 hours of solo stuff, so far. You know, it seems to me that if I hadn't watched 50,000 hours of porno videos leading up to this, that I might be more imaginative than I am! Nevertheless, being there and doing it is really very nice! Rapturous, if fact!
Two weeks ago, while we were shooting, the Shuttle crashed, and we were following that on the news while we were working on a video. Rupture?
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Feb 18 2003 : 8:51PM
It may surprise you, but porn does that for me too. It is in fact the only reason why I watch porn, although this doesn't exclude that porn can offer more than that. However, when I try to find out why some kinds of porn will succeed fullfilling this simple purpose with great ease, while other kinds of porn will not, or not to the same degree, nothing is simple anymore. Not for me anyway.
Now, judging from what you have told, I would say that you like to watch "fetishistic pure porn pleasure" (nice looking girls) mixed with some "fetishistic blissful rupture" (a fixation on specific acts such as solo action and lesbian scenes). If you have the courage to wade through future "Personal Views", you will learn that I will describe that combination as "basic porn viewing". Nothing wrong with that at all.
I am sorry I have given you a headache, but I did warn you not to read my post if you don't like "rather long and possibly boring posts".
Walter, even such an extremely uptight person as Fredrick Nietzsche observed that our "esthetic" response to statues of naked women is a sexual response! (I don't believe that I have a gay friend who doesn't have a crush on Michelangelo's David) Once those parts of the brain kick in, there isn't much of an opportunity for "higher" appreciation! However, if a porno video moves away from the sex, and leaves us hanging, so to speak, well, maybe. But that's when I fast forward!
I'm late coming into this thread, but I did read it when it was first posted. First I wanted to say how much I look forward to your future "Personal Views" posts. When can we expect the next one? :)
Beyond that, I believe that you are absolutely correct in that watching porn is a simple matter--it arouses us or it doesn't. But talking about it and the how's and why's behind it is extraordinarily complex. This kind of discussion is something I've only barely scratched the surface on in my reviews, and you've managed to really isolate some aspects about the appeal of porn that I certainly didn't have background or smarts to figure out myself. Looking back on my discussions of the hows and whys of MY reactions in some of my reviews, I feel like I was stabbing in the dark... and quite amatureish compared to what you're starting to explore in this thread (and hopefully future threads). Of course, everyone has their own personal reactions, and what one person might find to be an arousing moment of "blissful rupture" another person might interpret as "pitiful".
_I_ think this kind of discussion is fascinating, and I don't believe that it detracts from our enjoyment of porn. I think that it helps us understand ourselves a little better, and I'm always interested in understanding myself a little better. ;-) If I can't understand myself, how can I possibly be expected to have any inkling of understanding of someone else?
I'm always trying to get a grip on what "turns me on", and if explorations of that nature can really be compared with anything else. In my developing work on my website about the role of the element of lighting in porn and how it can contribute to it's overall effect, I find that it is exceedingly hard to pin down--and that although traditional academic ideas about presentational and thematic use of lighting are good starting points, they are just the beginning in discussing how they contribute to a viewer's (or at least my) sexual response to a pornographic scene. I have no doubt that your future posts about "porn spectacle" will offer me some food for thought in this arena. :)
Anyway, I'm looking forward to more of your ideas, and more discussions related to this topic.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Feb 28 2003 : 11:36AM
I don't know yet. I am brooding on the subject. This "systematic porn pragmatics" I am trying to build, is getting more complex every day. I still have to figure some things out before making my next post on the subject. In the meanwhile, thanks for the compliments. They are much appreciated. Maybe I should start reading reviews for other reasons except to solve ID problems so I will be able to return the compliment.
