Reviewers Recommend Keeping Their Pact - review by Captain Jack Director: Avery Black Starring: Anissa Kate, Ember Snow, August Skye, Jena Larose, Gal Ritchie, Asteria Jade. Read review
What do you think is the difference , if you think there is one ? Is Erotica just the acceptable face of porn or is there a clear delineation in your mind ? If so , what is it ?
My own thought is that much of what gets labeled as "erotica" (especially in photography) is more or less artistic nudes which have been stripped of any sexual zing . Erotique in fact . So much of it doesn't strike me as having anything the least bit sexy about it , and as soon as it does it'd get labeled as pornography . Does that mean the purpose of pornography is to arouse but the purpose of erotica is blandness ? What's up with that .
I don't know the answer LeeO but I like some of the lines in this article.
"In a more general sense, the meaning of the term pornographic constantly shifts along a vast continuum moving between two equally slippery concepts, the erotic and the obscene."
Back during the porn wars of the Eighties, more "moderate" voices who wanted to have their cake and eat it too always seemed to protest that they weren't against erotica, just porn. This always amused me, because it was pretty clear that erotica was defined by what they liked jacking (or jilling) off to.
Ten years ago, even five years ago, I eschewed the use of the word "erotica"; to me it connoted pretense, sexophobia, and jismophobia. I called what I did porn, and delighted in correcting people when they tried to call it something else, pointing out that I had cocks and cunts and comeshots (and fisting and anal creampies).
But over the past few years I've become increasing uncomfortable with the word. Porn used to mean sexy or outlaw; now it just means badly made and boring to watch. Who wants to be known for making something like that?
-T.C.
Comstock Films: Red State Values, Blue State Visuals
"Jismophobia" would be a non-slippery concept then?
Maybe it's just easier (not necessarily "correct") to say there is no difference bewteen erotica and porn, it's all one thing and the sliding scale concept above, exists in each individual's mind?
Anyone seen the 'Coupling' episode where Steve's girlfriend finds a porn tape in his VCR? He tries to justify himself by calling it 'erotica', and tries to convince her it's a piece of art.*
I think that's what it's about: erotica is porn, but disguised as art = the obscene element is missing. The problem is that this lack of obscenity makes it incredibly boring.
* That's actually a hilarious scene - the movie is called 'Lesbian Spank Inferno' and Steve has a hard time explaining the plot, trying to make it sound like a proper movie: 'A group of lesbian filmmakers... a 'collective' you might say....'. And so on...
Ask people what art means and you'll get many different answers, and I think the same applies to porn/erotica. After all, many images that would be considered pornographic fifty years ago (bare breasts and stockings) is now considered erotica, if that. Personally I think erotica refers to an image more carefully considered (and I do find much erotica arousing); whereas in pornography there is very little thought process behind the images being recorded beyond the technical, and the images are usually showing penetration of some kind. (But then what about the photographs of Gunter Blum and Dahmane, or movies such as Zazel?)
The boundaries between the two are very blurred, and becoming increasingly so.
As for the pornography found in Pompeii, well that was just porn.
But many soft core (pornographic) movies have attention and care put into them - Shannon Tweed movies , Emmanuelle , etc - but that doesn't mean they're not soft core porn . And I'd argue that Andrew Blake movies have far smaller budgets and less collective effort put into them yet still strike me as being Erotica . I'm not sure time , money or effort is what separates the idea of porn from erotica in the minds of many people .
Still , maybe it all just rests on how you choose to define pornography within your world . There are some people (Will Self is one , I'm another) who consider some soft drink adverts as pornography in all but name . The lascivious licks of the camera over some nubile babe's body , followed by her simulated orgasm when she necks this latest nectar of the Gods . And all for the delictation of the viewing audience . Or put simply : sex sells . Seems like porn to me .
In my other life as a documentary filmmaker I deal with a lot of really horrrific footage (Rowandan genocide, Indian Ocean tsunami, squalid refugee camps where people drop dead right in front of you, etc.) As I'm trying to figure out how, when, and where to use such provactitive footage, I often think about how people react to sexualy explicit footage.
I think one of the things that makes people so upset about sexually explicit footage is that it provokes a reaction in them whether or not they wish to have that reaction. Images of women with their legs spread, people sucking and fuck, etc. can make you feel good, but they can make you feel other things as well. It seems that where ever there's sexuality, guilt, shame and embarrassment are always lurking, ready to pounce.
Similarly, it's very easy to "ambush" people with images of swollen-bellied babies, eyes covered with flies. Is the footage powerful? Of course. But when you ambush people with it, they're just as likely to shut down and tune out; to stop feeling anything at all.
Does that mean I never use such footage? No. (Off the top of my head, the most atrocious thing I can think of that ever found its way into a film that I produced was footage of a man kneeling next to a pile of bodies, then being beheaded, then his murder continuing to hack at the corpse as it lay on the ground.) But if you're going to show something like that, you have to give the audience a good reason I work hard to try and contextualize things like this so that the audience will stay with me. I try to do it in a way that they feel the experience of seeing one of my films, when taken as a whole, is a positive, uplifting experience.
If feel the exact way about sexually explicit footage. I love the way pussies look. In the stills from Nin's new video there were some great shots of some wonderfully well fucked cunts, lips swollen and distended – really wonderful stuff. But images like these are strong medicine. Handled carelessly or with contempt and they will turn on producer and audience alike. What might have been powerful and provactive becomes offputting, and ultimately boring.
-T.C.
Comstock Films: Red State Values, Blue State Visuals
Do you think that's because we haven't been exposed to enough of these images for them to become bland for us , or because sex is such an intrinsic part of human nature ? The same question could equally apply to pain and suffering (now that's Christian , to think suffering is part of human nature !) which we also rarely see - mostly it's all stylised and 'safe' violence .There's an advert on British telly which plays just this trick , and it pops up in all the most unusual and unexpected places . Without fail it demands I change the channel pronto , but then again I do tend to flick around anyway during ad breaks . I've rationalised in my mind the decision to ignore the guilt trip that that particular ad is trying to place on me , but even with that I can't help but feel a little shame . And with that comes the inevitable anger .It's difficult to ask any really meaningful questions about that which won't pry at the veil of anonymity you've sensibly woven for yourself . Intended audience of your films would be the most obvious . But could I just ask why you think it's important that the finished product end up being uplifting ? (if I'm not missunderstanding what you're saying) Nick Broomfield was given a special BAFTA this month for his contribution to the genre of documentary , and I can't remember ever feeling uplifted by his work . Entertained ? Mostly . Educated ? Partly . Enthralled ? Definitely . (for anyone who's interested Nick Broomfield is the bloke who did the pieces on Kurt Cobain , Heildi Fliess , and Aileen Wuornos)
Oh , and I get the point about context grounding the extreme aspects of what you're showing and keeping the audience's stomach from turning or their mind out of fantasy land . But isn't the larger part of pornography actually about the viewer entering their own private fantasy state ? Too much context doesn't help that , even if some fantasies could do with a good dose of reality IMO (say double anal) . It's like turning porno super heroes into greasy oiks like the rest of us .I'm not sure it'd be desirable in any setting except a porn documentary .
Human beings can become innured to almost anything. I don't really know what I think about this. I have some sense of what I feel , which is what I use to guide my work.We have the same sorts of ads here. I hate them. The conventional wisdom is that these ads are effective, that they are what will provoke people into giving money, that they are what the market wants . Sound familiar?Maybe "uplifting" is the wrong word. Entertained, educated, entralled (I might be reaching on this one) are all good words. Mostly I'm happy if people don't feel like the 10-60 minutes they might have spent with one of my films was a waste of time. If I can get as far as making some of them feel it was an enriching experience, I'd call the work a triumph.This is a big reason that ultimately stills are so much better than moving images – aside from the fact that it takes much less money to create a nice, satisfying, well-crafted portfolio of still, there is so much more room for the viewer (or if you prefer, stroker) to bring her own imagination. Written smut tilts this equation even further in the direct of success for both the producer and the stroker.
Technology is one of the big reasons that smut has shifted from paper to DVD. Once upon a time film (and then video) was the most expensive way to produce, replicate and distribute porn. But cheap video cameras and cheap DVD replication have changed things in favor of DVDs.
Whether it's on paper or DVD, pulp porn has always been a low volume per edition game, and it's a lot less expensive (per copy) to shoot 6 scenes on a PD150 and make a 1000 DVDs than it is to shoot the same seven scenes as stills and print 1000 four color magazines. The economies of scale don't really start don't kick in with printing until you get into tens of thousands; and even then no one's going to pay $29.95 for a magazine. (They used to.) What this shift fails to accomidate is that it's a lot easier to fill up an 80 page magazine with craftsmanly imagery than it is to fill up a 4.7 gig disc.
(Aside: At least in the market we serve, small(er) business commications is starting to catch on to the fact that lush, thoughtful printed piece convey a successful company with money to burn better than Web site or under-produced DVDs. Because of the scale of the endevour, small(er) business can never hope to produce credible promotion videos, no matter how much money they spend. But if they dig deep they can make a really nice printed piece. Think about how that relates to porn packaging.)
As usual, your comments about documentary are astute. I use the documentary conceit because it's what I know, and it seems well suited to the problem of how to present hardcore (explicit shots of cocks, cunts and cum) in a way that is (somewhat) arrousing and (somewhat) cinematatically satisfying, all while working with a budget that wouldn't cover crafts services on a feature.
I'd be the first to acknowledge that it's an imperfect solution, especially where the fantasy aspect of porn and jacking off is concerned. Because of weakness in the approach, I try to use identification, instead of fantasy, as the primary force in the attempt to transport the audience. It sometimes works.
Ah , here comes one of those questions you might not want to answer - how do you tell if your audience has gained anything from your work ? Do you somehow get an opportunity to talk to them , or do some people write to let you know their feelings ? I can only speek from the side of the viewer , but I've enjoyed many documentaries in my time - mostly on TV - but can't imagine any of the makers are aware of my enjoyment . If you think the answer would reveal too much of your mainstream persona then please just ignore the question .Isn't part of the problem also the laziness of us viewers - why put the effort into reading a book when you can sit like a zombie and watch the movie free of effort ?! I'd not realised before how much it cost to produce a magazine , guess I'd always thought that paper was cheep so the mag's must be as well . By rights it should be the other way round , that DVDs are far more expensive than mags to produce . Is the issue that mainstream photographers have dabbled in erotica/porn so the public have become used to a higher standard of smut in still form , but in movies it's still at an amateur standard due to a lack of mainstream involvement ? There have been a few recent European arthouse flicks which might start to change that trend , if only a little . 9 songs for instance - rubbish as it is - has real sex and is being shown in normal cinemas . Interesting times over here .Make a good cover , and it shifts units ? Yeah , I've wondered how much the best cover designers in Adult earn , as they must be some of the most highly sought after people in the biz . It must be one of the first things someone starting a new company worries about : how to make appealing covers . Either that or they ignore the idea of covers altogether and focus solely on the content , I guess .
Most feedback comes from colleagues, most of the time most of it polite and non-commital. Like anyone else, I have a few people I trust to believe in me, but to also tell me the truth – their praise means a lot. Every once in a while someone writes out of the blue and tells you what an impact something you made had on them. When that happens it's exhilerating and humbling.I just took a quick look to see what you have to pay to get a thousand of something printed in four colors (KCMY) and found 1000 11"x17" posters, one-sided, no fold or per, $499. How much do you think it might cost to print an 80 page mag in four colors? Without even looking for a deal, I can get 1000 DVD-9, silk-screened discs, amarary case with four color insert, shrink-wrapped "ready for retail" for $1500. By the time producing a mag starts costing less per unit than pressing a DVD, you're into numbers that 99% of video porn doesn't even dreams about.
The point about still photographers is a good one too, and it cuts both ways. The guys who shot for Playboy and Penthouse in the Seventies could take their editorial work and parlay it into better paying commercial work. Upon a time I could name national campaigns shot by photos that were best known for taking glamourous photos of sultry, spread legged, engorged vulva'd women. I suspect those days are long gone by. I'd also be surprised if many (any?) of Chatsworth's lensmen are including any of their porn work on their mainstream reels. Porn may (or may not) be "more mainstream than ever", but what small measure of professional crediblity it once had seems to have evaporated.
Keeping Their Pact - review by Captain Jack
Posted - Mar 6 2005 : 6:27AM