Edited by - skronker on 1/19/2006 5:23:57 AM

[Link]

"Contrast today with the early '70s, when movies like "Straw Dogs," "The Devils," "Last Tango in Paris" and Nichols' own "Carnal Knowledge" promised a future of truly adult depictions of sex. At the same time, the first wave of porno chic lured the curious to the burgeoning genre of hardcore. It seemed as if these two types of films might meet — that cinema might learn to depict the ordinary, universal and melodramatic collision of two bodies, two souls, in bed...

"It's terrific that a part-time moviemaker [Nichols] has directed so many films that cogently exploring the language of sex. But it does suggest that the rest of Hollywood isn't really trying. Seeing "Closer," teetering from empathy to exasperation with each of its characters as one would with a real lover, a moviegoer has to wonder: Why can't there be a dozen, a hundred films like this? Where's the good and bad sex in movies? Why can't directors locate where we live, how we love and lie to each other, and get closer to it?"
– Richard Corliss, Time Magazine
What Ever Happened to Movie Sex?

"[In a theater watching Inside Deep Throat]Yet, for all my nostalgic pride, I couldn't help feeling a bit sad as well, because, as my beloved grandma might say, "They just don't make ‘em like they used to." I'm not trying to bite the hand that feeds me, mind you, but it must be said that - for every one above-average entry in the adult canon that treats its audience with some modicum of respect, there are at least 10 or more sub-par clunkers that treat us like we are intellectually barren zombies drooling over the television screen with one hand down our pants and the other on the fast-forward button. And personally, both me and my dick are getting a little sick of being patronized...

"It sure would be something if someone were to make an adult film today that carried the same potential for the cultural shift in ideology that Deep Throat inspired - something to really stir the pot and get people talking again. I say screw the House of Justice and the government; now is exactly the time to be making waves - when we have the most opportunity to be heard. (And remember that old adage, folks: controversy sells!) If it was done once before, it can certainly be done again. Of course, it would take something extremely original, innovative, and incendiary to ignite that kind of flame in the social consciousness again, but just think about what might happen if it did.
– Colt Spensor, AVN
Porn-Again Fundamentalism: Is Adult Entertainment Dying a Slow Death?

"I don't think the mechanics are dangerous, and I don't think they're banal either. I like looking down when I'm having sex – I always have. I love the way my erect cock looks, I have never been anything less than thrilled by a glimpse of my wife's pussy, and I am always captivated by the sight of me going into her. I think making love is beautiful and I think its details are beautiful too."
– Tony Comstock
More Grumpy Old Men

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

Edited by - TonyC on 1/19/2006 9:51:57 AM

[Link]

Sounds like you have an idea that I like. Sex is a very spontaneous thing that everybody does a little different looking for the big "O". I would like 1) directors to say nothing 2) women to say ohhh, yesss, hmmmm, ohhhh, yesss, more, ohhh please, don't stop only if they mean it 3) men to say the same things only if they mean it. Nobody should say the same thing over and over for twenty minutes. If somebody is wet or cumming they shouldn't have to tell us .... the director should make it obvious. I hate the barking seals on the pier in San Fran and in porn. I'm so glad we have DVD's and can fast forward or jump from scene to scene.

Porn is not dying by any means but it sure could be a lot better and more profitable and the ingredients are all there.

Edited by - pornsnickety on 1/20/2006 5:00:57 PM

Edited by - pornsnickety on 1/21/2006 6:53:27 AM

[Link]

And skronk, not in spite of, but because of your enthusiasm for porn, I am flattered that you like my work.

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

[Link]

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

[Link]

Does good porn necessarily have to be a good film too?





gia jordan said:
“Performing on camera leaves you open to scrutiny. No problem. Sometimes the only difference in criticism from the public between what Eva Longoria reads about herself and what I read about myself is like being on the best dressed list instead of the best gape list.”
(Who is on which list exactly?)

[Link]

But in part, the conceit was built on two consideration I no longer see as absolutes.

One was that shooting porn on film was financially untenible, and the other was that I couldn't get the performances I wanted from my on-screen talent in any other approach (my own lack of directorial skills being a prime factor in this assessment).

It turns out the first consideration is utterly eroneous. In the scale of both the endevour and the potential rewards, the cost of shooting film is trivial. Knowing what I know now, we could have shot Xana and Dax on film for about 5% of what it's grossed to date. The figures for Marie and Jack are even more attractive, because it's been on the market longer and earned more money.

I have no proof (yet) that the second consideration is wrong, but several things I've seen both in my work and the work of others leads me to think I've judged my own (lack of) skills too harshly. There are bright and charismatic men and women performers who post to this board who I believe could give me what I want in something other than a documentary-like context. I spend a lot of time thinking about the 20,000 feet of film I have in my freezer, and what we could do together if the right factors fell into place.

Cheif among those factors is finishing the films we have in the can, which will hopefully confirm rather than dissprove any of the above. Whether what follows is more filmish or more pornish, I can't say. I do hope that it will be good.

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

Edited by - TonyC on 1/19/2006 11:25:10 AM

[Link]

"There's no earthly reason why a porn film shouldn't also be a good film. I want the product to respect me."

What do you make of that, keeping in mind that he made this arguement to support his claim that pronography is dying?





SpongeWorthy said:
“Condoms should be given away at school along with your lunch. Turn it into a Happy Meal with a prize inside”

[Link]

"Viewers" primarily categorize porn within the broader world of "filmed entertainment". Before you start laughing, no, I'm not so naive as to think that people are actually buying and watching porn expecting it to be of the same quality as prime-time television. But I do think that there is a class of porn consumer for whom porn performs more as mood setting than actual masturbatory aid. Production values and competency of craft are more likely to be matters of concern to "viewers" -- they're certainly more noticeable when watching the screen from this more stepped-back POV. If you're coming at porn from a "viewer" perspective, shoddy production alone can be so distracting as to render the entire experience unsexy -- or even insulting.

To the "user", for whom porn is performing the role of a sex toy or masturbation aid -- there's pretty much only one vital consideration: are the desired parts on screen, performing the way they're supposed to, for a long enough period of time to take care of business at home. I think people who primarily fall under the "user" category find all this railing about "quality" from people like TonyC to be head-scratching at best. For them, "good" porn is effective porn, and while better production might be appreciated, I sense more of a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude.

I guess for me the question is one of whether true synthesis is even really possible. The kind of editing and pace needed to create a technically good and emotionally satisfying cinematic experience, may just work against the requirements of screen time and repetitiveness needed to make a genuinely good and effective masturbatory aid. I don't know.

Comstock Films

[Link]

For one thing, to me porn needs to fulfil the 'user' criteria to be any good.

On the other hand, production values matter a lot to me when watching pro porn.

Anyway, what constitutes good porn in that regard is up for debate too. And Tony and I wildly disagree there.
For me, Jim Holliday's style of camera work, editing and lighting stand head and shoulders above the rest. That style contrasts greatly with Tony's.

[Link]

I take his use of 'good film' simply to mean crafted with some basic level of competency, and the cheif appeal of his arguement (to me) is that current financial and creative conditions make it difficult to attract competent filmcraftsmen (and women) to porn productions. This has certainly been my experience, most recently when I met Tricia at AEE and she explained that the reason she looked so good was because she had been done up by a "mainstream make-up artist who doesn't do porn". (Tricia was wrong. The reason she looked so good is because she is a beautiful woman. If her "mainstream make-up" artist deserves credit for anything, it should be for not spoiling what was already there.)

I didn't realize you were laying a trap, so I took your use of "good film" to mean a viewing experience that leaves a kind of satisfaction one would recognize as being similar to the experience of other "good works" of cinema. I suspect, but I'm not sure, that the requirements of giving the viewer a satisfying masturbatory experience may untimately be at least fracturing to the kind of spell one tries to cast in a "good film".

There is another way to think of this question that I think is more interesting and wholistic: to more fully respect and develop "cinema as masturbatory aid". In that respect, I think VT is correct, that porn is just starting to bloom, (although I might put us more squarely in the Winter of our discontent, rather than in a Prague Spring). This would require embracing the radical notion that using one's cinematic skills to give someone a metaphysical blowjob is at least as worthwhile an undertaking as producing a gameshow or a football match.

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

[Link]

Anyway, sorry for drunk posting on a serious thread.

Which will die first: pornography or film itself?

[Link]

Lately, I am getting more enjoyment out of porn that combines visual/"narrative"/"film" qualities with cock-stiffening sex scenes. That's why I keep making slurpy noises about Bryan Xin and Jonni Darkko's videos. And why I dig the new "Neu Wave Hookers" and Joanna Angel's funny little vignettes (not technically polished, but old-school in their humor and faux-bad acting, etc.)

It's why I always have liked John Leslie's videos, and Fashionistas . If you could make features that were more "gonzo" in spirit, instead of campy versions of Hollywood movies, I'd be as happy as Biff Malibu at a gang bang clambake.

I know John Stagliano hated 21 Grams . but I thought if someone could take that kind of edgy, off-Hollywood type approach -- more like Nicolas Roeg, really -- and just have more graphic sex, that would be killer.

I need coffee ... I was wrecked last night. I may have stalked! But this is all very interesting ...

[Link]

When you refer to the “folk who are the most upset about Root’s declarations”, which “folk” are you talking about? How are those loaded words “used” to sell porn to those folk?

Please expand on your thesis.

An even more effective method is when the placard is emblazoned with insults.

[Link]

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

[Link]

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

[Link]

and btw, the above opinion on why B. Root is failing has nothing to do with the presence or abscence of production values or cinematographic craftmanship. It has all to do with the way both production values and cinematographic craftmanship are used by B. Root to create porn.

An additional question for Tony:

You have hinted at fundamental differences between the 'porn experience' and the 'cinematographic experience'. Yet until now, I have only see you bring up contextual reasons for this -- film versus video, a lack of good actors, a lack of good craftsmen, a lack of financial clout in general -- instead of textual reasons. So, do you believe that the divide of which you speak can be resolved once all the problems you brought up are dealt with?



Pocketcomb_Pimp said:
“I've had white women do me wrong, but I still fuck em in the ass whenever possible.”

Edited by - Walter Burns on 1/19/2006 1:58:56 PM

[Link]

Skin on skin, slapping of flesh against one another and loud guttural moans for the female is all I need.

[Link]

Whether one is striving to create a porn experience or a cinematographic experience, craft counts. The presence or absence of craft in one or the other maybe a result of this "divide", and maybe make the divide easier to see, but I don't think it's the cause. If craft seems to count less in porn, it's because people are willing to accept gaffs in their porn that they wouldn't accept in their televised game-shows, sporting events, or bass-fishing shows. Banal as they may be, images of pussy (or a cock-penetrated asshole) still hold some power and preciousness, and each of us makes compromises to see this sort of imagery in accordance with our needs and desires. I don't think wanting to see this sort of imagery is wrong, nor do I think finding sexual pleasure from seeing it is wrong.

Regardless, I have my doubts about the "divide" between porn and cinema can be resolved. People tolerate, and even embrace what we've done to date at much for the fact we're trying as for the fact that we (on some levels) succeed. But along with my doubts I have hopes. These things can only be discovered empirically. We may succeed better, using this or other formats.

Aside from what we've already shot, there's more exploration I'd like to do using our current form, especially with respect to more intense and/or exotic sexual imagery. Amoung other things, I'm curious to see how bolder imagery interacts with this porn/cinema tension. Plus I think it will sell like hot cakes.

But I'd also like to do work that is more firmly anchored on one side or the other; pure stroke or traditional fictional narrative, but with explicit sex as an important ingredient. I'd like to show that explicit sex is a worthwhile subject matter for cinema, and that pure jack off material is a worthwhile place to dedicate one's film-craft.

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

Edited by - TonyC on 1/19/2006 2:30:32 PM

[Link]

I’m not attracted to “less vanilla” sex (and its depiction) because it’s “forbidden”; I just happen to like a wider array of flavors than some do. Transgression may be a collateral effect of my nature, but it's not my purpose.

[Link]

We both believe that porn and traditional cinematic forms -- let's face it, primarily narrative cinema -- are fundamentally different. I believe -- and your last response seems to corroborate this -- that you believe that this mainly a question of the differences in craft, knowledge and money on the part of the people who make porn versus the people who make traditional cinema.

I won't deny that those differences are there. At the same time, however, they are also not the reason why I believe both are fundamentally different. In fact, I don't consider those differences in craft, knowledge or money as fundamental at all since they can be overcome in the right circumstances.

I believe that porn and other forms of cinematographic art (not craft) are fundamentally different because of aesthetic -- or if you like poetical -- reasons. I only hinted at this in one of my old quotable reflections on porn:

“The easiest way to explain the difference between porn aesthetics and classical narrative cinema. Imagine a story in which a boring sex scene is compositionally motivated. For classical narrative cinema, no problem. For porn, an insurmountable problem. You either end up with a boring sex scene – which is bad porn – or an interesting sex scene that is NOT compositionally motivated – which is bad storytelling.”

But there are other reasons as well, which have to do with the difference between formal and functional qualities of cinematographic stylistic figures/devices and the way they are regulated by a hierarchy of poetcial norms involved in porn versus narrative cinema. It is my believe that the porn hierarchy is fundametally different than the mainstyream hierarchy.

btw, I don't use the concept of 'norms' here in the sense of a standard for making value judgements, but as rules of conduct.




CumBuckets said:
“Beastiality? Just cuz you don't like donkey's is no reason to degrade them. Animals have feelings too just like us. Sure maybe they're not as intelligent and can't drive cars or play Pinochle but that's no reason to call them beasts.”

[Link]

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

[Link]

I've been looking at this thread since it started, trying to come up with my own thoughts. I've been unable to do it as of yet, but Mrs. C. really has something there, I think.

I fall under the category of "user" and "viewer" depending on my mood. And being a member of both camps (although spending most of my time on the "user" side of the fence these days), I can appreciate the problems inherent in creating "Artistically" (for lack of a better term) satisfying pornography, while at the same time truly appealing to the masturbatory id within each of us. I'm not at all positive that both goals can be perfectly achieved simultaneously (although The Fashionistas came pretty close for me).

I want to be satisfied by pornography as a narrative, filmic experience, but I also want to feel the chills up my spine that can only happen when my deepest, darkest sexual fantasies are being catered to. To date, NO porn movie has managed to achieve both of these needs for me, and only a precious few have managed to achieve ONE of them.

In one sense, yes, I think that Root sounds like a whiner. I don't necessarily agree with him that all porn SHOULD be "joyous ... art". Give me a break.

Respectful of its performers? Sure! But... what does that mean? I mean, I don't know. What girls like Melissa Lauren and Kami Andrews find "respectful" might be unnacceptably degrading to someone else.

Respectful of its audience? Sure. But... what does THAT mean? Sure, I've felt a little belittled on occasion when watching some porn movies (Vince Voyeur anyone?). I've even started threads on this subject. But on the other hand, some people might consider porn that looks like it was produced by kindergardner's disrespectful of its audience. (I do.) Some people might consider porn that explores darker themes, rougher sex, and humiliation disrespectful of its audience. (I don't.) Some people would disagree on both fronts. I think its dangerous to sit back and arm-chair-quarterback what porn SHOULD do, because... fuck if I know what porn SHOULD be doing. And I'm a pretty smart, and pornographically literate guy.

Sometimes I want to be so turned on I get chills. Sometimes I want to have some happy-fluffy feelings that coincide with the "joyous sex" and "celebration of life" themes. It's rare that those two phenomenon go hand in hand, and to be honest, I'm not sure I want them to go hand in hand. The process of porn production and the process of my reacting to what I see on the screen are two completely different things, and I think we all at ADT tend to get caught up in trying to evaluate both process and product at the same time--as part of a bizarre integrated whole. Sometimes that just doesn't work.

Anyway, yes... fair treatment of performers. It could be compellingly argued that that exists right now (particularly among the bigger players in porn). It could also be argued that it doesn't. Anyway, I'm all for fair treatment of performers. I just get annoyed when the presentation of darker fantasies get dismissed as "bad porn" when in fact what I consider bad porn to be has more to do with how well that fantasy was presented--not the content and intent of the fantasy itself.

Anyway... Clearly I'm rambling. My point is, I suppose that I really didn't agree with much of anything Root had to say, because it seems like he's trying to make rules for all pornography, and how it should be perceived--what it is doing, and what it could do. When in reality, all I see is another guy expressing an opinion of taste. An opinion that I, as a well educated man who's watched a lot of porn in his lifetime, don't necessarily agree with. ::shrug::

I'll shut up now. :) Like I said, though. +1 Mrs. C. She seems to be expressing ideas that make sense to me.

Edited by - MLyons on 1/19/2006 3:10:42 PM

[Link]

And whether you mean to or not, I thinking reading it that way plays into a whole gonzo/feature, harder/softer, man/woman, fantasy/reality paradigm that seems to be taken as God-given. It's not.

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

[Link]

I also certainly didn't mean to add fire to the gonzo vs. feature, hard vs. soft, or even the fantasy vs. reality (although that's kind of another subject) argument. That was not my intention at all. I'm simply relaying my own personal thoughts about the possible rift between content that truly "gets me off" versus content that is a satisfying experience from a traditional filmaking point of view. I'm not SURE they can't work together, but I just don't know that I've really SEEN them work together yet. The closest I've been to feeling that way is in watching certain mainstream movies, not porn, and even then, its been somehow unsatisfying.

[Link]

Well, I disagree with that too. Adding explicite scenes to mainstream films does not equal porn. The fundamental difference between porn and mainstream cinema is more than mere subject matter and its potential to titillate. Look up my old blissful rupture thread and see how different both forms deal with rupture.

If I am misinterpreting you again, please say so.

btw, Mike, I know I must have sound awfully hard for John B. Root and I see that you are as well. However, I really do believe that you would find his porn interesting at the least. You should try some of his videos, if you can find them.




rogrtipe said:
“I gots nothing but love for everyone in this business, even those I don't love so much.....”

Edited by - Walter Burns on 1/19/2006 3:32:35 PM

[Link]

Edited by - Walter Burns on 1/19/2006 3:35:42 PM

[Link]

I've said I believe that both the lack of filmcraft in porn and the forbearence of porn viewers on this score are largely due to porn's marginalized status, both socially/artistically and financially, which I ascribe to porn's subject matter and imagery. You say you disagree.

You've said that putting (some) explicit imagery into a mainstream film would not in and of itself turn it into porn. I agree.

You've said fundamental difference between porn and mainstream cinema is more than mere subject matter and its potential to titillate. I agree.

You've gone on to say that this has something to do with "blissful rupture". I don't know if I agree or disagree.

Your turn to tell me if I've misinterpretted you

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

[Link]

What VodkaTonic said earlier is very interesting -- that maybe filmed pornography is still developing its own language, separate from traditional cinematic language, and it just hasn't quite found its way there yet. I suppose that's a more optimistic thing to think than that its hopeless.

Comstock Films

[Link]

So the chain of events is: (1) porn's subject matter/imagery --> (2) marginalized status --> (3) lack of filmcraft?

Not unreasonable, but I have some follow-up questions.

Why did you say this in this thread in connection to John B. Root's arguements? How does this tie in with what you quoted from Root and other sources?
And/or, which parts of the chain are fundamental and which are not? And as a consequence, why do you still have hope?

btw, why do you seem to regard socially and artistically as a whole? Are they interchangeable or in direct relation to each other?

Oh, and you seem to have interpreted me correct, except there is no need to refer to "blissful" when discussing the fundamental difference between porn and mainstream cinema. Just rupture is enough.




daredevil2025 said:
“I'm wondering if girls request diet fake cum, for their swallowing scenes. They have to watch their girlish figures you know”

[Link]

This supposedly argument-trumping litmus test is obviously nothing but subjective, & even more so than less physiologically involved "ways of seeing." The true issue here is the perception level of the viewer. If one has been so stunted by various factors which can include --

1. Limited -- whether in frequency or activity -- sexual history on the part of the viewer. This includes a failure to address sexuality & desire as part of a larger continuum of human experience.

2. Limited exposure to and therefore understanding/appreciation for sophisticated and/or challenging visual storytelling techniques.

-- then one is likely not to appreciate -- or even be hostile to -- porn that demands any sort of conscious suspension of disbelief of the sort we acquiesce to when walking into the movie house, turning on cable tv, picking up a book, etc.

Just because porn ostensibly, or at least on a visual level, "leaves nothing to the imagination" I hope doesn't mean it has to be anti-imagination to be effective, though the proof that post-gonzo porn fosters exactly that sort of mindset has been rife through fandom for years now. That some posters to this thread mistake Root's opining on the death of porn to mean some sort of literal economic apocalypse rather than a plaintive cry (easy to apply to other art forms, including novel-writing) that the more of this shit there is, the more it's alike & the less it all means, only points out that we're dealing with a viewing public that, de-educated by the empty candy of lifetime mass-media exposure, is left with a stunted ability to grasp or recognize much past the literal, i.e. "physical," in an idea or concept.

What I do think "state-of-the-art" current porn does -- & I've said this before -- is basically cater to & encourage little but hormonal knee-jerk reactions and/or the kind of childish, removed sadism marked by a defiant lack of self-examination.

It's a phase we all go through, though I'm using "we" here to refer perhaps more to men, who are hardwired with the breeding circuit in such a way that before higher levels of reasoning or perception kick in, all that matters is to stick it in -- that's where the solipsism of simple objectification and rape come from.

I do think that in its capitalistic zeal to make the quick buck at whatever cost, the industry has (largely unconsciously) embraced the sexual equivalent of surveillance tape of wings being pulled off flies because it's brought them the biggest bang for the buck -- one need only reference the work of Skeeter Kerkove to understand the lure of such material for the capitalists -- it's cheap & easy to produce, & you can get misogynists, lowlifes, etc to crank it out without irritating side-discussions about aesthetics, intent or societal impact.

I know that there are several educated porn fans on this very board that seem to be quite open to adventurous form & content on the pop culture board but despise it in their porn. For example, somebody might adore a tv series like THE SHIELD but if their pornography is full of the same available-light, hand-panned & quick-cut storytelling, they declare it crap & unwankable.

Though I understand intimately the relationship between eyes, brain, wrist & cock for the porn viewer -- once you've found that exact image that lets you transcend reality and BE in the porn moment long enough for a satisfying orgasm -- it does reflect a failure of the personal imagination to come half-way out of the aridity of self-absorption & engage with the tableau before them.

The fascist demand for material that caters to such remove has always been a part of our nature as viewers, & indeed still photography is a better (pornographic) art form to satisfy this need -- though in terms of explicitness, today's average gonzo porn aficionado would not be satisfied by anything less than autopsy-quality lensmanship, I fear. & as well, the stunted imaginations of the current average viewer, overwhelmed by a lifetime of too many meaningless images, may not be able to make the necessary leap of spinning their own mental scenario efficiently enough to produce the desired arousal/satisfaction.

Cinema -- which, like it or not, naysayers -- is the larger art form of which filmed/videoed pornography is by physical reality a lesser branch of, has at its finest been the concrete proof of our dreams, fantasies, & nightmares. Thanks to the relationship between human biology & the technology we create, it's more complex & demands a greater engagement than any pre-20th Century artform that comes to mind.

I'm sure I'm not the only person here who back in the days of the late 20th century jerked off in an adult movie theater. Please note that in the heyday of such activities, the material being used was projected at a fixed rate that allowed for no pause or rewind or fast-forward, & that the average length of a sex scene was somewhere around seven to twelve minutes (to pull an approximate # out of my ass). Yet the masses still wanked, happily.

That was before They stole our imaginations from us. But hey, who needs an imagination when you have a lighted speculum & a twelve-inch dick? (Try not to make any droll replies to this remark too painfully obvious & unfunny, please)

In closing, I'd like to welcome Mrs. Comstock to the board with a broad rictus grin befitting Eddie Haskell at his best -- "Very nice to have you here, Mrs. Comstock, you're looking quite smart today!"

(Unless of course, this is one of those Norman Bates things, & there IS no Mrs. Comstock, only Tony in a gray wig & dress, hiding in the shadows behind the rocking chair, waiting for one of us to discover his awful secret).

Edited by - dac on 1/19/2006 4:51:09 PM

[Link]

You could say I am -- well, I was -- primarily a 'user' according to your definition. As such, I found your description of a 'user' both interesting and lacking. No doubt I am misinterpreting you.

The crux is WHAT kind of craft and production quality are we talking about. IMO, you kind of muddied the waters for me in this regard, when you wrote:

I guess you are familiar with the three basic filmic textual formal (sub)systems: story (or any other kind of formal structure), space and time. In mainstream cinema, the dominant one is story. As a performance based genre, the dominant one in porn is time. Classical pacing and editing are geared towards turning cinematic space and time into story space and time. No such thing is necessary for porn. In porn, editing and pace are geared towards creating a believable relation between real time and reel time. And so because editing and pace serve different functions in porn vs. mainstream cinema, they also often have different formal qualities.

However, just because editing and pace in porn has taken on both different formal and functional qualities, does not mean that they are less cinematic. On the contrary, that is what film DOES. It's true that most pornographers just do it uninteresting ways.
And then I agree with vodka. Porn is still relatively young and most of the time it has been aping older formats. Maybe it's time to explore if porn can create its own cinematic idiom. I believe sincerely that Stagliano's work at the end of the 80s was a major step in this regard.

Now, I must also say that my prefered smut these days is written porn as well. Still, I found this quote quite puzzling and I wonder if you explain a little more in depth what you mean exactly:

[Link]

Guy Capo did some fun stuff at Evolution when he first started, but I'm betting the strokers did not respond to the editing style or the split screens.

[Link]

& I agree, Leslie came closest out of anybody with FRESH MEAT (A GHOST STORY) and its more amazing if less self-consciously narrative follow-up DROP SEX (WIPE THE FLOOR). I think DOGWALKER is a bit over-rated -- I know when I reviewed it at the time, I adored it to an extent I find impossible now, probably because it did represent such a big leap forward for shot-on-video porn.

Unfortunately, Leslie has been quite vocal (when asked) for at least ten years on why he doesn't make art like that anymore -- not only don't titles like that (which demand an enormous amount of time-consuming work that, oh say, FRESH MEAT: THE SERIES or THE VOYEUR series don't) sell any better than less ambitious stuff, they tend to actually sell LESS. Which, I suppose, if you're truly a fine artist, shouldn't matter, but since in porn the economic line for survival of the auteur is much more harrowing than the grant-heavy and/or Sundance route afforded "legit" filmmakers, in reality it becomes a roof-over-the-head survival issue.

[Link]

Isn't it a problem that you get 5000+ titles out there every year. Customers stick to their favorite actresses and actors and it's difficult to pick or discover something remarkable when you act like that.
I suspect that in the 80's or 70's there were less movies on the market.

But isn't producing a milestone movie something for eternity (more than 5 years in porn, maybe) that can compete with regular titles, as long as it is credited as something special( AVN award, review etc..)?
And generate money on this way, slow but steady?
Or is porn missing the kind of customer who cares about it?

[Link]

Putting aside the awards ceremonies in Spain & Germany, which get nil coverage in the American porn community, there is no equivalent of Cannes, Sundance, the Golden Globes, etc. etc. -- & to get real for a moment, even the AVN Awards can't compare to the Oscars, where the voting is done not by the hired, easily-influenced & overworked staff of a trade magazine dependent on advertisers, but by actual filmmakers themselves, from directors on down to make-up artists. The editor of AVN can bluster all he wants about such remarks being the equivalent of sour grapes & whatever other schoolyard retorts occur to him, but this is an unassailable fact that points out the difference between the two competitions that makes them terminally non-analagous ....

Which does bring up the burning question of why doesn't AVN organize a voting procedure among the actual industry itself, as opposed to their historically closed-door method? But of course, that question answers itself ...

We do have true believers like Roger T. Pipe who strive to be fair, inclusive & open-minded in their annual round-ups/awards, but these are, at this point, voices in the internet wilderness compared to the financial support & organization afforded to, oh say, The Independent Spirit Awards.

As well, the state of "official" (read: print) porn criticism has hit an all-time low, thanks in part to the economics of magazine publishing. Except for a sparse handful of well-versed, literate & thoughtful old-school critics, the best porn criticism is without a doubt being published on the net, with its purveyors doing it out of enthusiasm as opposed to a need to make that big $15 for turning in 150 words on a DVD they didn't really watch & really didn't want to look at in the first place.

Of course, finding these new voices in porn criticism in the vast ocean of idiotic, grammatically laughable slop being dished out by every retard with a DVD player that hasn't been jammed up by too much Vaseline on the disc tray is a Herculean task, & yes, we are referring to the Augean stables here ... For every Crucifixio Jones, Picman, etc, etc, there's a thousand unemployed, unlaid nose-pickers who build the tower of Babel where the sheer volume of their uninformed & ill-thought opinions drown out the possibility of any universal debate & contemplation of the art of porn on a mature, intelligent level.

& that's the way the production houses prefer it. They don't WANT to have to rise to the challenge of an economically powerful viewership that demands more from their porn than this week's atrocity, next week's ho-hum ... That would cut into their obscene profit margins, which are already being whittled down by the bloated surfeit of idiots who think they're going to be the next Larry Flynt, Stagliano, etc. etc.

[Link]

Every now and then someone says this and that is dying... hip-hop was dying, the internet was probably dying, everything is dying I guess, it just takes a very very long time for some things.

Personally I think porn is getting better and better, all I want to see is people who like fucking fucking like crazy, and somewhat camerafriendly conditions. If that's cheap so be it...

[Link]