Smitty wrote:
[/quote]

What sanctimonious garbage.

[/quote]

[Link]

I also believe that the more a work departs from expectations (form, subject matter, production values, etc.), the greater the burdon on the artist to actively and humbly engage the audience, to invite the audience into the artist's vision, and give the audience some reason to accept the invitation. (I've had some small success offering the promise of gentle depictions of hardcore sex .)

Unless put before an audience that has overtly expressed a desire to be challenged, a work (porn or otherwise) that "demands any sort of conscious suspension of disbelief" seems likely to fail – and if my, or your, or John Leslie's best work can't connect (and sell), it's not because the audience has failed to meet our works' demands, it's because we've failed to meet theirs.

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

Edited by - TonyC on 1/20/2006 12:55:48 AM

[Link]

I am sharply, even annoyingly critical of what I see as easily corrected deficiencies in porn. There's just no reason to leave in flash pops, off camera directions, or the street clothes the starlet was wearing before changing into her neon green fishnet stockings.

I am also somewhat outspoken about what I believe are retrograde attitudes (and by retrograde, I mean attitudes that can and must change as we continue on our journey to a more just and humane society) about gender and sexuality, especially as I perceive these attitudes are expressed on both the creative and business sides of the adult industry. (And no, that doesn't mean I think someone is a bad person if they get off on seeing a girl getting fucked in the ass while wearing a leash and a dog collar.)

But while I hope that the work I produce is reasonably consistent with the views I express on these and other issues, I absolutely do not believe that my work is the only, or even the best answer to the questions or complaints that I raise. I don't even think that someone who tends to agree with what I say is obliged to enjoy my work, either as cinema or porn; or that someone who doesn't enjoy what I do is unsophisticated. The enjoyment of art is personal, the enjoyment of porn even more so.

If this gets lost in the vigor with which I express myself, the fault lies with me.

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

Edited by - TonyC on 1/20/2006 2:36:43 AM

[Link]

But seriously, Tony, nowhere was or am I holding up my own work as the only or even a valid "answer" here -- you're the one who was the initial provocateur here, quoting a Frenchman, for gosh sake! To examine how the onslaught of mass media images have in fact altered our perceptions, attention spans, values, aesthetics etc is an extraordinarily valid topic for debate & discussion. In addition, I think if anything I'm probably coming from a place of love for the form of porn as pop art -- & a familiarity with its history beyond that of the casual user -- that I've never noticed you evidence.

For you to fall back on the dead-end of "Well, art/porn is a personal experience, & therefore beyond our judgment" kind of makes the entire enterprise of aesthetic criticism -- or even examination of the human response to exterior stimuli -- pointless, doesn't it?

Also, even if it's porn we're discussing, Quaze: if I give you that porn is an inherently disposable artform (like, oh say, comics & jazz? LOL), don't you think it's still a worthy area to seriously examine if for no reason than a comprehensive forensic investigation of society's values must always include its ostensible "trash" ?

For instance, comprehensive & serious examinations of the evolution & allure of the comic-book super-hero myth end up becoming a lot more germane when the audience we're talking about is no longer a relatively small population of mylar-bag-happy collectors but the majority of the American movie-going public who eat up BATMAN BEGINS, X-MEN, et al.

[Link]

Well, out here in the West we call it gonzo, Tony. On serial television they call it "reality tv," & I think on the higher plane of "Cinema" it's referred to as "documentary filmmaking."

[Link]

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

[Link]

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

[Link]

"I don't even think that someone who tends to agree with what I say is obliged to enjoy my work, either as cinema or porn; or that someone who doesn't enjoy what I do is unsophisticated. The enjoyment of art is personal, the enjoyment of porn even more so."

You're perhaps being a little coy there, Tony -- I suppose the use of the word "enjoy" as opposed to "appreciate" or "respect" does put a delicate spin on what came off to me as a statement designed to "play to the cheap seats" -- which is kind of what you're claiming is the responsibility of the artist in the beginning of your statement, in a manner that strikes me as befitting the most educated of Hollywood moguls justifying why they won't fund David Lynch's movies.

God, it's good to be back in the saddle, if even only for a day or two (editing responsibilities will soon relieve the forum of my excessive participation for a week or so, much to the relief of many).

[Link]

I'm sorry I didn't get the chance to meet you in person last week, Quasar. I would have been nice to put a face with your name.

Comstock Films:+Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

Edited by - TonyC on 1/20/2006 3:07:12 AM

[Link]

DAC
Ernest or Walter? Now you're striking below the belt, Mr. Comstock, at least in the former case. :) Walter, I actually have far more respect for than I imagine he does for me, if for nothing else than his elegantly droll wit.

BTW, I'm very curious to see John Root's work. If anyone wants to trade, please feel free to email me.

[Link]

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

[Link]

Now if we're going to talk about types of craft and production quality... well...I have to say that I don't watch very much porn compared to a lot of people on this board. And it's not because I find it offensive, it's because I find it baffling . Again, I am no film scholar -- so I am perfectly willing to grant that my hopelessly bourgeois, mainstream American popular media bred artistic and aesthetic sensibilities are simply too unsophisticated to decode the carefully crafted, rich and complex visual language on display in the popular porn productions I've seen. Hey, I don't get most of the art that's hanging in the Guggenheim either.

But honestly, I look at these things shot in all ultra wide angle close up and... yeah, okay, I understand that it puts the female performer's pussy and face in focus at the same time. It also, to me, makes an otherwise attractive woman look fantastically distorted to the point that she more closely resembles a trussed turkey on a platter than a desirably rendered human being. And maybe the fact that everything is in focus and that I'm so distracted looking at the weird art prints on the walls, or the discarded item of what sure looks like a crew member's clothing occupying the center of the screen, to even be paying attention to the disembodied parts banging away there in the lower left-hand corner, is all a deliberate choice on the part of the filmmaker. If so, clearly, my priorities as a viewer are not in line with priorities of the producers of the work in question. In other words, it's not made for someone like me because I cannot relate to it. Obviously, this stuff is effective porn for someone , but that someone is not me.

Uh, then you said a bunch of other densely worded academic-y sounding stuff that presumed I knew things I don't and whistled right past my head. Sorry! *g* But unless I'm mistaken, I also agreed with vodka tonic in the hopes that a cinematic language for porn will develop in time. I also hope that it won't leave me as a viewer on the sidelines the way today's popular porn does.

I'm out of steam to address why written porn often does work for me. Perhaps another time.

P.S. I should add that I have no quarrel with those for whom the dominant current porn aesthetic works just fine -- bully for you! If anything, I'm envious that I cannot count myself among your number. I suspect, however, that there are lots more like me out there, and that the potential market for porn is still mostly untapped.

Comstock Films

Edited by - Mrs.C on 1/20/2006 11:55:58 AM

[Link]

I am a "user" myself. I see the divide between porn and film as fairly logical. Porn caters to the Animalistic/Uncivilised facets of the human mind. Traditional cinema to the Intellectual/civilised.

Why not have both? I do think it will happen, and it will be the Indie movie industry that will bring forth the revolution.

I freely admit to fastforwarding through the "talky parts" of a porn movie. This is because I know I will not find any value in them.

I think its interesting to look at boundaries that are present between the two and when they are crossed. A movie like American Pie blatantly depicts a blowjob in a scene, yet it is not pornography. But I got aroused... how strange (yet it's still not pornography?) Had the movie shown the boyfriend's penis enter her mouth and being fellated, oh well, yes, of course. It's quite silly, but we are led to believe that the comfort level isn't there yet in the mainstream for such an image.

Give it 50 years ;) Penetration/Oral will be in the mainstream hollywood sex scenes.

That leads me to wonder, where the hell will porn be in 50 years (I dread to think!) ;)

Other movies that push the boundaries: Salo, Irrevesible, A Hole in my Heart

[Link]

Edited by - kierkegaard on 1/20/2006 10:17:44 PM

[Link]

If I had to shoot, edit and replicate a 5 scene, 12 player video for $50,000, I don't think I would try to do much more than strap on a wide-angle adaptor and try to be a human steadicam either.

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

[Link]

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

[Link]

Artists -- oh, I know how many here hate that word -- gotta eat, too, so in fact much of what most of them do is designed in fact for a quick paycheck .... In their day, the likes of Jim Thompson, David Goodis, Fritz Lang, Jack Kirby, etc, etc, etc, etc etc etc were not considered "artists" by the general public or even the cultural elite, but at best craftsmen.

Now we know better.

[Link]

I doubt that the “educated porn fans” to whom you refer would regard well-executed SHIELD-like porn as crap if they intended to watch it as viewers. However, if they intended to watch it as users, its “unwankability” would make it crap for those purposes by definition.

Perhaps because you disdain the “unlaid” masses, you seem to be judging the participant in porn-sex by a different standard than you (or, at least, most people) would apply to the participant in partner-sex.

Given that partner-sex is experienced in real time, do you have a good reason for denigrating the desire to experience porn-sex in a context in which reel time corresponds to real time? Would you say that a person who was engaged in partner-sex had a “stunted imagination” because he couldn’t achieve a satisfying orgasm with his lover while having images derived from hand-panned camera work and quick-cut storytelling running through his brain?

Do you? Would you?

Oh hell, I’m just a hardened user -- what do I know?

<typos>

Edited by - bob on 1/20/2006 9:35:54 PM

[Link]

Certainly there's ample evidence that many people who make porn despise the people who watch porn, and I suspect they're none to in love with themselves either. In my mind, it comes back to that metaphysical blowjob. I wouldn't want to get sucked off by someone who was embarrassed to have my dick in his mouth, and I wouldn't be too happy about sucking someone who was ashamed of letting me blow him.

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

[Link]

The very reason my porn looks & plays out the way it does is because I refuse to give in to financial imperatives & shoot material in the style & with the intent I so often deride here.

Anybody with the camera experience of Tony -- or very certainly Quaserman -- could tell you that it's not very difficult for a competent camera person to imitate the basic tropes of what passes nowadays for gonzo porn well enough to make a name for himself -- or even rise to the top of the field. The hard part is developing enough of a sense of bitter mysogny & calculated contempt for themselves & their audience that they can put on the blinders & churn out 15 volumes of TEENAGE CUM FART O-RING BLOW OUTS OF ASS DESTRUCTION.

However, to the derision of many of my peers -- not to mention a lot of consumers -- I trade the empty allure of spinner-equipped SUVs, plasma tvs & ugly bling with my company initials on it for a hand-to-mouth existence making exactly the porn that I think is worth making, in the hopes that it finds enough of an audience to sustain itself.

Do I have contempt for, or look down on, this audience? Of course not. In fact, I show them the utmost respect by creating a product -- and sometimes art -- which reflects my standards, rather than some cynical, deliberately stupid, cruel or (to me) visually unpleasant lowest common denominator. Which is not to say that a goodly number of your gonzo heroes are necessarily cynical -- in many cases, the relationship between consumer & audience is just as honest as the one I strive to create -- we're just dealing with very different mindsets & worldviews.

Does this mean I only respect porn shot exactly like I shoot mine? Of course not. Does it mean I have to respect whatever garbage the public is eating up at the moment? Of course not. I've been passionate about pornography/erotica as a legitimate form of expression AND a jolly good wank of a pastime for most of my life, & explored it in other mediums besides videography/filmmaking. My belief in the medium has not dulled. My belief that nobody ever went broke (or was voted out of office) underestimating the intelligence of the American public, however, has intensified.

Do I think that somebody sucks just because they might prefer not to jerk off to porno made in the style of THE SHIELD? Of course not. Do I think it's a shame that they're so close-minded & conservative & fixed in what they think constitutes proper entertainment AND/OR wank fodder that they only want to even bother to sample anything but whoever the latest "gonzo" shooter who shoots just like the last guy is? Yeah, I think it's a shame, & I think people like that end up getting the porn -- & the entertainment, & the politicians -- that they deserve. An uneducated, close-minded audience is the easiest to fool & manipulate, as any good hellfire & brimstone preacher will tell you (in private).

Do I have contempt for what to me seems like the taste of sheep & lemmings? Sometimes. I have my own standards & aesthetics, whether crackpot or sublime. I happen to applaud diversity & originality, whether it's up my alley or not -- should I apologize that I don't find Donkey Punches & swirlies to be in any way original or reflect anything other than a frat-boy follow-the-leader gangbang mentality? Sorry, no can do. My tastes are probably broader than the majority's, & although I don't want my standards to be enforced on everyone else, I'm not about to pipe down when it comes to espousing them. & I've never put forth the idea that if you don't like what I like, you have no taste. Unlike some rich & beloved pornographers, I have no problems with negative reviews or reactions to my work -- as long it's not coming from a place of ignorance & agendas based on issues other than the work itself.

No, ironically enough, it seems to me the "hardened end user" (read: gonzo nazi) has more of a problem with porn that diverts from their narrow definition ("Oh, that Wicked stuff sucks!"), in fact because that's exactly what they are: hardened & jaded to the point where nuance, suggestion & anything less than hyper-athletic bread & circuses with multiple orifices & partners can no longer register as erotic. Does it piss you off that I make note of what many gonzo fanatics make explicit in their own statements of opinion? It's a matter of record.

As much as it might anger some to imagine that there's some of us out here who've been there & back & might possibly have a broader perspective on sexuality than your average American male carrying his post-adolescent views over into his 20s, 30s, & 40s, we do exist. & we have no interest in condescending to anybody or insulting ourselves by cynically churning out two or three DVD cases full of forgettable, unpleasant crap per month. & while I firmly believe its both the option & the right of anybody who wants to live on a diet of Big Macs & fries to do so, it doesn't mean I have an obligation to pat you on the head for it.

So, Tony, how am I doing at selling my point of view to the audience? ROLF

P.S. to the Dane who posted -- I'm not in favor of artists who suck at the poisoned teat of the state, either. Jim Thompson died a penniless drunk because even though working in a supposedly disposable medium, he could/would write not a word that wasn't from his heart, even though the vision in that heart was so dark & honest that it kept him from the mainstream legitimacy of James M. Cain, Raymond Chandler, etc. Now that's an artist. Spinners or no spinners.

[Link]

Care to answer them directly and from the ground, rather than from your soapbox?

<typos, natch>

Edited by - bob on 1/21/2006 12:29:09 AM

[Link]

Bob asked:
"Would you say that a person who was engaged in partner-sex had a “stunted imagination” because he couldn’t achieve a satisfying orgasm with his lover while having images derived from hand-panned camera work and quick-cut storytelling running through his brain?"

[Link]

Main Entry: imag·i·na·tion
Pronunciation: i-"ma-j&-'nA-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin imagination-, imaginatio, from imaginari
1 : the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality
2 a : creative ability b : ability to confront and deal with a problem : RESOURCEFULNESS c : the thinking or active mind : INTEREST <stories that fired the imagination>
3 a : a creation of the mind; especially : an idealized or poetic creation b : fanciful or empty assumption

[Link]

First, I was referring to the visual aspect of partner-sex -- seeing your lover's face, her body, how she looks while sucking your cock, how her pussy looks up close, how your cock looks entering her . . .

Then, I was asking you to imagine how you might feel if, instead of enjoying that straightforward, immediate perception of your partner during sex, your visual experience while fucking her was composed of complex, fractured cinematic images.

Wanna try that?

[Link]

I am convinced there are those who are out to throttle the life out of it for no other reason than money.

[Link]

"Would you say that a person who was engaged in partner-sex had a “stunted imagination” because he couldn’t achieve a satisfying orgasm with his lover while having images derived from hand-panned camera work and quick-cut storytelling running through his brain?"

That's what you asked. Not if while having sex with my partner I was seeing reality in "fractured cinematic" mode. Which, by the way, is closer to how we actually perceive reality than the idea of a smooth, flatly focused camera capturing a flatly lit, wide-angle-distorted "reality." Though of course everyone has their own preferred mood lighting for sex -- I guess some people prefer the sexy mystique of an operating theater to all those darn shadows!

As well, our brain “edits” the flow of images in order of importance; overly familiar or unimportant images are flushed from our conscious memory – kind of like a jump cut, in a way.

As Ben Grimm would say: "Sheesh!"

& anyway, please read the definition of the word "imagination."

“1 : the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or NEVER BEFORE WHOLLY PERCEIVED IN REALITY

3 a : a creation of the mind; ESPECIALLY : AN IDEALIZED OR POETIC CREATION”

I am hardly the first – or the best & brightest – to note that “hardcore” pornography of the sort most dear to the “hardened end user” is based on, as Prof. Linda Williams defined it a decade ago, “the frenzy of the visible.” I, however, campaign for a broader definition of pornography that blurs the Maginot Line so often drawn between the ideas of “pornography” and “erotica.”

I don't subscribe to the school that in fact defines explicit pornography as the enemy of the imagination -- the "organ" that controls our desire is called the libido, & it's a psychological concept, not something a guy takes a viagra to get hard enough to stick up somebody else's ass.

I posit that you CAN include the sort of physiological triggers associated with the “frenzy of the visible” with a visual narrative that’s both packed with detail besides that of orifice & genitalia mixing it up that contexualizes the sexual experience in a larger, more human theater than the mechanics of biology.

I understand that this is a hardwon overview unavailable to the vast majority of young men who are at the mercy of both their massive hormonal urges & their precarious emotional relationship to the vagaries & demands of love and/or desire – when I was 25, I didn’t get it, either.

& yes, Quaze, we’re still talking about porn, in case you feel the need to check again. :)

[Link]

Anyway, now that you know what I'm asking -- How would you feel if, while having sex with your partner, you were forced (by the Divine Filmmaker) to see reality in "fractured cinematic mode"?

DAC, your capacity for civilized discourse astounds.

[Link]

(BTW, "a sense of unity" is the impression your consciousness organizes a very fragmented & chaotic mass of memories & thought into.)

I quoted the definition of the word "imagination" because obviously you're unfamiliar with it -- & rather than paraphrase so you can stubbornly claim it's my interpretation, I referred you directly to Meriam-Webster's words. It's good to actually consult & refer to reference texts rather than imagine that you can somehow know it all without actually having to learn anything.

At the risk of, God forbid, "talking down to you" -- because of course the ability to make a post on the internet means that we are all of absolutely equal education, experience & cognitive skills -- you've become boring in your inability to both hold up your end of the debate as well as not take every general observation I make about hardcore porn viewers & the complex vagaries of the human sexual response as if it were a remark personally directed towards & therefore inspired by you, you, you. So who's the egocentric party here, really?

I'll resume debate with you when and if you figure out how to load a few rounds into that empty pistol you're waving around. Until then, I fear my imagination is too stunted for me to suspend my disbelief that you have any sort of integrated philosophies or fully formed ideas on this topic to bring to the table. Now I feel sorry for being so pissy to Tony earlier in this thread -- at least there's a meeting of the minds to be had there.

Or, in the venacular of your namesake:

"Geez, Stretcho, why you do gotta use all them blasted big words & all them egghead ideas? You're making this orange rock I call a noggin hurt! Hey Johnny, I just got the latest volume of CUMFART COCKTAILS! Y'wanna heat up some popcorn & watch it together?"

[Link]

Couldn't it just be a matter of preference? Preferences of equal value, even?

Not being bothered by a glimpse of a lighting stand or the model's sneakers while watching a gonzo, does not equal being an undiscerning yobbo.
The fourth wall is more often than not broken in RLD style gonzo. They're not fooling anyone into thinking it's not a movie production with paid performers.

Now, I'm no fan of RLD (in fact, they're on my no-buy list) but the ones I have seen had fairly competent camera work and lighting.
Granted, I would have liked more full body shots like Mike Quasar does them, but that's a personal preference, and their style worked well enough for their style of gonzo.

I don't know if I've ever seen any of your work, so I can't say what your style is.
I have seen other professional productions going for some thing very different from both the current porn-features and gonzos, while apparently trying to maintain something of an artistic vision. And let me tell you, I didn't like it at all .

Be it soft focus, slow-motion segments, grainy picture, frantic editing, surreal plots, or jerky camera movements, looking like a virgin cameraman, who picked just that week to quit sniffing cocaine, frantically trying to capture a glimpse of pussy in between the moving guy's hairy legs and sweaty balls, it just doesn't appeal to everyone.
And that does not make the tastes of people who don't 'get it', any less mature.

It doesn't mean they have narrow tastes either.
It's quite possible to like an expensive feature like Pirates, and cheap, gimmicky gonzo such as Squirtwoman, while also being able to enjoy a movie of an amateur couple, shooting themselves with a single fixed night-vision camera, with all the problems of poor angles and highly visible blood vessels, that carries with it, and still find the latter both more strokeworthy and also vastly more well done technically than the artsy stuff described above.

[Link]

To put where I'm coming from in perspective: On my relatively sparse "keeper" porn shelf, there's several vintage Max Hardcore titles right next to the John Leslie & Joey Silvera right next to Rinse Dream right next to a couple of Ed Powers right next to a few transcendent Vivid titles right next to a few recent Amorz/Kokeshi titles right next to BUTTMAN CONFIDENTIAL and BUDAPEST, both of which have more to say ot me than FASHIONISTAS (certainly not putting down that landmark achievement, just exposing the quirkiness of what catches my interest).

Being a professional reviewer for a living for nearly ten years forced me to broaden my horizons where I otherwise may have not, & I can't help but feel the better for it.

As to your reactions to the "art porn" you saw, I can't really offer any opinion without knowing what it was except that the first time I tried spinach, lobster & Guinness I didn't like any of them very much, either but God knows I took to the Tasty Cakes & hamburgers all too readily. ;) I also fell asleep the first time I saw Ozu in college film classes.

But it could have been that we would be in absolute agreement that those particular titles were indeed lame; I've seen my share of the kind of sophomoric would-be "art-porn" you describe -- as well as commited a few indiscretions in that direction of my own that are buried in the closet rather than stuck up on the "official shelf" here in the edit bay.

But is there any chance it could have been the shock, disorientation & intital disappointment of not seeing what you expected to see that hung you up? Honestly asking here -- over two decades later I find Ozu mesmerizing & Tasty Cakes to be ... well, not all that tasty anymore. :)

[Link]

I'm absolutely certain you've watched far, far more porn than I have.
Still, I have watched some varied stuff too. Including Leslie, Powers and Kokeshi (not a person, I know). None of whom, I care for.
I do have a couple of old Max Hardcore titles on my shelf. The two Costa Rica titles he shot for Private, to be specific.
And while I haven't seen it, I can easily tell by the descriptions here on ADT, that Fashionistas is not for me.
Heck, I didn't even care all that much for the Buttman movies shown on satelite here in the 90s.

As for which "art porn" titles I disliked so, I'm not sure of all the titles of directors.
The porn that has been shown here on satelite and sold on VHS is a mixed bag of random stuff.

The two directors that I can remember the names of are Blake and Ninn.

Blake's stuff was just boring, but at least there was some inoffensive eye-candy to be had from them.

Ninn's titles were pure junk, IMHO. The 'sex' (I'm using the word in it's broadest interpretation) was the worst I'd seen at the time. Going by the trailers of his newer outpourings it's no better these days. Some like it, I hate it.

And another style, totally incompatible with my personal expectations of good porn, is Comstock's movies.
The end result may look exactly as he wanted it to all along, and it's fan-base is certainly a broad one.
Personally, the only positive thing I can say about the one title I've seen, is that the sex was blessedly inoffensive. With my distaste towards rough porn, that's not an unimportant quality. But not enough for me to disregard the problems I had with the rest of it.

With a few exceptions, I also generally dislike continental European productions. Especially the French and Italian jobs.
But that's mostly due to hideous looking guys, and eeeevil dubbing.

[Link]

Also, your definition of "well-lit" & mine are obviously not the same. I don't happen to consider the flatness of a couple of tote-a-lites propped around the fringes to chase away any mood or flattering modeling of the model's features to be "well-lit." But honestly, I really, really don't mind if that's what you prefer, & sleep easy knowing I don't think less of you for it. LOL

It's mildly ironic that a lot of folk here who have nothing but insults for anything THEY don't like -- such as non-flat lighting, camera work that's sensitive to the subtle geometries of the anatomy & the backgrounds against which it exists, or scenes without ATM -- get their panties all in a bunch when someone else says, "Well, I don't like what you like. I like this!" Look at all the people who got riled up by John Root's general comments regarding the state of porn when poor hapless Frenchie didn't even directly address the stylistic concerns we're wrestling over here.

Let's identify the syndrome -- to repeat the phrase I invented earlier in this thread: Gonzo Nazis. I like this term. I expect a lot of Valley misanthropes & the audience they empower will wear the title as proudly as if it were a gold medal from the Special Olympics. First one to put up an avatar wearing a t-shirt declaring them as such gets a free Donkey Punch (the act, not the dvd).

[Link]

As for Tony's work, I respect it highly from viewing MARIE & JACK, but that title lacks turn-on value for me simply & only because of the casting & the sexual style of the couple portrayed. I'm very, very interested to see what he does with his promised foray into "more adventurous couples" & expect it to be likely I can offer such projects the one-handed clap of approval that at the end of the day is what we're all trying to find inspiration for ...

[Link]