O: The Power of Submission (Adam & Eve)

– Nina Hartley, 2006

[Link]

Fortunately, the actual creator of the movie happens to disagree quite a bit with your analysis of his creation.

This is Ernest Greene posting to Nina's forum earlier this morning:

Anthony

[Link]

I have no interest in going back over already-discussed matters on this thread or re-igniting any exchanges of flames.

Admittedly I'm prejudiced, but for me, O - The Power of Submission is a beautful, hot, sexy video full of great performances and blazing sex scenes. It's intended as entertainment, not a political or philosophical tract of any kind.

I would hope people would see it and judge it on its merits rather than be distracted by arguments that really have nothing to do with what's actually in the box.

Edited by - Nina Hartley on 9/2/2006 8:14:04 PM

Edited by - Nina Hartley on 9/2/2006 8:14:51 PM

[Link]

BTW, I do respect Mr. Greene's and Mrs. Hartley's work, I just don't go oh-my-god-how-spectacular if the "O" theme is used for the umpteenth time to attract viewers, who expect handcuffs with fur - an abomination beyond imagination, on par with canes with little hearts on its end - style B&D-DS-SM, and would cry for mummy or call the dungeon guard, if actual tears are shed and blood starts to flow.

[Link]

Anyhow, the more I read about it, the more I'm certain I'll love it. I've been intrigued since April, when Ernest originally told the whole saga of its genesis. It's obvious that far more thought and preparation went into this production than is typical for adult movies.

I'm certainly not expecting any fur handcuffs or heart canes, as I've never seen any such thing in a Greene/Hartley movie, and I can't imagine that they would start now. I actually have witnessed both blood and tears shed in other directors' productions—neither particularly offends me, but I like Ernest and Nina's style the best. They convey the zing without downplaying the sting.

[Link]

If you love a signifier, set it free!

Edited by - skronker on 9/2/2006 10:54:02 PM

[Link]

When it comes to tears and blood, we've seen plenty of both in consensual play situations over many, many years. I don't recollect calling out for mummy and I've found that dungeon monitors, who perform a sensitive and important function in our community, can make their own assessments concerning when to stop a scene. As people who walk the walk when it comes to consent, we make as few judgements as we can regarding the preferences of fellow adults, even when theirs differ considerably from our own. I have, however, consistently opposed sex practices, kinky or vanilla, that I consider unsafe, irresponsible or in any way coercive throughout my career and will continue to do so. I'm grateful that my popularity doesn't seem to suffer much as a result.

Beyond that, I recognize that we all mean very different things when we talk about almost any kind of sexuality and am content with that diversity.

If as you claim you do respect my work and my husband's, perhaps you'll demonstrate it by viewing, at the very least, the trailer at www.othepowerofsubmission.com before condemning this particular project on the basis of your own expectations rather than its content.

Until then, as I said before, I do believe you and I have nothing further to discuss.

Edited by - Nina Hartley on 9/2/2006 11:08:04 PM

[Link]

Sure, feel free to use the line, verbatim or modified to your heart's content. My writing certainly isn't sacred and can be considered open source, as far as I'm concerned.

[Link]

I do apologize if my crossposting of Ernest's response underminded you in any way. I did ask specifically and he did approve for me to crosspost it...although I may have misunderstood slightly (since I also crossposted the response over at my own blog, too). All I wanted to do was to get the record straight from the actual creator of the movie, since I would assume that he knew more about the creation than anyone else.

Now, to Zartyr: Friend, since you do not know me enough, I really don't think that you have any right to call anyone a "functional illiterate" simply because they disagree with your taste in literature or erotica. All I did was challenge your baiting of Nina and Ernest and your attack on their competence in producing this adaptation of Reage's novel.

From what I see from your response, I would assume that you would prefer a depiction of O as the eternal abuse victim, driven mad and to suicide by her endless whippings and tormented with blood-curdling rape and brutality....in short, the typical stereotype of BDSM more suited to the rants of Maquis de Sade and the fantasies of anti-BDSM activists than any real BDSM players. Too bad for you that Ernest Greene's modern-day adaptation doesn't quite meet your high standards of horror...but maybe that's because unlike you, he actually IS a player of the scene who has seen and lived the reality of being a sexual deviant and a male dom in the BDSM diaspora. You may disagree with his vision and his product....but to say that he knows nothing about the history of the novel or about the underlying essense of BDSM is nothing short of folly and blatant ignorance and arrogance.

Secondly...yes, I happen to like Nina and Ernest quite a lot. That's what being a fan is all about. It's not about being a "slavering fanboy" (actually, that would be "slavering fan-MAN", since I happen to be in my mid-40s); it's about respecting their creative talent.

BTW....at least I have enough respect to use my given name, since it's the only one my parents gave me.

But, as always, to each their own. Like I said, let the movie speak for itself.

Again, my apologies to Nina for inadvertently butting in.

Anthony

[Link]

OTOH, is jamesn locking you in before he fellates you?
I did not suspect he was such a mean bastard. I mean putting somebody in furry handcuffs is a level of degradation and humiliation nobody should endure.

Edited by - zartyr on 9/3/2006 10:47:39 AM

[Link]

Of all the O-inspired porn titles, probably the best was Gerard Damiano's The Story of Joanna, starring Jamie Gillis and Terri Hall. It stands on its own to this day as one of the finest products of the so-called "Golden Age" of adult film. It was distinguished by its opulent settings, intense performances and daring approach to the material, which even included a BB scene with Gillis and Zebedy Colt, who played his butler. My favorite sequence was an erotic pas de deux in which Terri, who had been an actual ballet dancer, got to show off her performing skils for the inspiraton of Gillis' jaded appetites. Nobody does jaded like Jamie and I feel privilged to have worked for Damiano back about fifteen years ago, shortly before he retired. If Joanna were released today, it would still be considered daring and innovative.

[Link]

Hot, hot, hot! Beautifully shot! I'm really looking forward to this one.

[Link]

The later copies will still go out as double-disks sets, but they probably won't be in the collector's edition boxes unless the demand is so strong we have to reissue them.

[Link]

I just ordered it.

[Link]

Admittedly, I watched it in a nonanalytical frame of mind, because I wanted to enjoy it as a fan rather than critique it as a reviewer. If it's like most movies, I might catch a few flaws on the second viewing. No unpleasant surprises were popping out at first glance, however. The trailer plus the discussion here gives a really clear idea of what to expect.

It is a five-star movie, in my opinion.

[Link]

Nice photo, too.

[Link]

The new high-heel boots (one is visible in the photo) are also red. My camera just didn't record that very well, and my amateur attempts at adjusting the color balance looked bizarre. At 100 pixels wide, the image is more striking in b&w anyhow.

I'll keep trying to get a good one in color, though.

Or maybe it's not the boots that you miss, but the bikini?

I was envious of Nina's boots in O, by the way.

[Link]

Nice pic YogaDame!

[Link]

BTW, the sight of you in your bikini & boots made me feel . . . patriotic.

[Link]

Welcome on board over there, too, Pilgrim.

[Link]

Do you know whether the Collector's Edition will be on sale at the release party? Autographs and all . . .

[Link]

It did finally work for me when I went to the [invalid URL removed]main page, logged on there, and then clicked the [invalid URL removed]post link, and finally clicked the thumbnail to [invalid URL removed]enlarge the attachment.

Sorry about all the hoops, and I hope that helps. Like many ADT members, I used to have storage space here where I could upload images (back in the day when I included screenshots in my reviews). With all the 2257 changes, I don't know where that stands. Since I don't have my own website or even a blog, Nina.com is the only place where I currently have any full size pictures of myself posted. If someone wants to host one for me here, that's alright by me. It's not really all that exciting, though. It's only a snapshot my husband took in the backyard, with no naughty bits showing. For reasons that admittedly baffle me, it's become a notorious piece of ADT nostalgia. Personally, I always thought Heaven's asstastic avatars were much sexier.

What were we talking about, again? "O" yeah, O. Bob, I really hope you get to go to the party, because I want to hear all about it.

[Link]

The special packaging is at the printers now, so we hope to have a supply of them for he party. I'll keep you posted (if you'll pardon the expression).

[Link]

Along with this [invalid URL removed]fair trade vegan rope beautifully modeled by Violet Blue.

[Link]

Sheesh!

[Link]

For those who've expressed a concern, I'll confirm that the movie does retain the major plot points of the book. In fact, there's good correspondence even in some of the little details. There's a fleeting reference to an Hermès scarf in the novel, for example, which reappears in the movie.

However, Ernest has employed a shift in tone and interpretation that led me to like the movie much better. Much, much better.

Before I read it, I was afraid the book would trigger some unpleasant emotional reactions. As it turns out, I had nothing to worry about. At the risk of offending people who really love the novel, I just didn't find enough depth to trigger much of an emotional reaction at all.

Basically, the characters seem to be muddled people who have way too much time and money on their hands. There's a weak attempt to make O's experience sound vaguely religious. I don't doubt for one moment that BDSM can be a path of spiritual transcendence and even transformation. But no one seems fundamentally changed by the end of this book.

I can see why some readers might interpret much of the action as rape. There is a lot of rough-sounding stuff in this book. There is also a certain ambiguity about whether O's consent is truly informed. The cruelty and violence strikes me as rather cartoonish, however. Stuff happens, and pop, up she comes again for more, not very much the worse for the wear. The floggings, piercing, branding, etc. are all actions that could potentially happen in a negotiated BDSM scene, but they didn't unfold in a terribly convincing manner in the book. The plot required a bigger suspension of disbelief than I'm normally in the habit of granting.

There are some other little problems with the Story of O, including the fact that it cuts off very abruptly, thanks to the suppressed ending. And the author seems rather obsessed with fabric. Sorry, but I was thoroughly bored with details about dresses and draperies and decor long before she was done.

Now, these are just my relatively uniformed reactions. I am not a book critic for a good reason. I read very little fiction, and simply don't have the interest or experience to make many smart, insightful comments.

But for what it's worth, I am a little puzzled that this novel is considered such a classic, other than the fact that it must've been very shocking at the time it was published. It will be less shocking to modern porn consumers, I suspect. A lot of the action seems to focus on the "forcing" of O's anus, which is at the immediate disposal of any man who recognizes its availability, no warm-up expected or necessary. But that's pretty much the theme of today's gonzo productions, yes?

Anyhow, I don't mean to sound overly negative. I'm super glad that Ernest took enough interest in the book to rescue what I'd consider to be the best parts. He considerably expanded the "pleasure for the sake of pure pleasure" part, which is barely present in the novel.

Plus, his costuming is better. Clearly, what the novel needed was more boots.

[Link]

It's certainly flattering to read that you liked the movie better than the book. I think Ernest had a somewhat subversive agenda toward some of the same elements of the novel that you found disappointing. Though there are hints at hidden depths to the characters, the author doesn't let us get to know anybody well enough to really explore those depths.

And there is certainly some "épater les bourgeois" wryness in Ernest's approach. I know he finds it a bit grating when people treat what the writer admits was not much more than a hot-letter to a boyfriend as some kind of holy writ. There are still some shallow and silly individuals drawn to BDSM as to every other sub-culture. Ernest took definite amusement in nailing them where he could, as was particularly evident in Shayla's terrific performance as a somewhat jaded opportunist whose idea of being a "love slave" involves frequent visits to Rodeo Drive.

Unlike you, I rather enjoyed Reage's (or Aury's or DeClos') taste for ornamental description. I'm still a theater person at heart and I love elaborate costumes and settings. I also think those details, which we took some pains to render in updated form, add a certain richness otherwise missing from the bare-bones of the story.

I still don't get the rape thing at all. O and her friends have an odd definition of consent by our standards, though there is a certain element in the BDSM community today that embraces variants of TPE (Total Power Exchange) or the mind-boggling "consensual nonconsensuality" in which the submissive partner gives over blanket authority to the dominant partner to set the agenda unilaterally.

But that kind of arrangement is still a matter of mutual agreement and isn't enforced by coercion. O's reminded that she's free to go on her way every other page and furiously refuses to do so. At one point in the book - a great scene we couldn't fit in - a younger man falls in love with her and tries to "rescue" her. With pitiless contempt, she arranges to have herself displayed to him in a manner that makes it very clear just how little she wants rescuing.

There's even an intriguing short passage just after O's return from Roissy, recounting O's previous sexual history in which she appears to have been at least as predatory as those to whom she now seems to submit so passively. Ernest read me that passage when he was working on the script, explaining that he took more of O's character from those few paragraphs than from the rest of the book.

I think you hit on the most controversial aspect of this whole issue by raising the question of whether or not O's consent is truly informed. All too frequently, she's given a take-it-or-leave-it-choice without a lot of specifics regarding the "it" in question. Obviously, in our version, all the cards are put on the table first.

And then there's the whole nelliness around everyone's refusal to admit that they get off on what they're doing. Parts of the book remind me of the old style of "bondage video" in which, as some sort of legal fig-leaf, everyone pretends to be engaged in all this binding and whipping nonsense for contrived reasons having nothing to do with sex as we know it. Yeah, right.

I can say for sure that this was the part of the book Ernest was most determined to "straighten out." He told me the first time he read it, he literally threw it across the room at the end because he found its portrayal of submissive women so exasperatingly coy.

Which brings us to the good news. Based on the strong early response to O - The Power of Submission, Adam&Eve has already greenlighted a sequel, to be titled O - The Return, based on the author's much-later follow-up, Return to the Chateau. While not as well-writen or as widely read as the first book, it's much earthier and more realistic, having been written long after the love affair that motivated the creation of the original had cooled into a platonic friendship.

In the next part, Carmen will be back as O, more willful and paradoxical than ever, and the writer's later efforts to debunk some of the myths created around the original will be given the respect they deserve. I've had a peek at Ernest's master plan and, without revealing too much, I can say I don't think anyone who enjoys the first video will be disappointed by the second. It's full of surprising twists and turns that lead to pleasurable results.

When it comes to D/s, that's where he's at.

I'll drop some more hints as his fiendish intentions take shape. Please stay tuned.

[Link]

You make great points, as always, Nina. I should perhaps clarify my take on the "rape" issue: while I do grasp the confusion which arises from that aspect, I'm with you, and would argue that O is never once raped in this book. I don't believe it was the author's intention to portray her as raped. I do remember the many times O is asked for consent, and the way she uses those who have a crush on her, and also the scene in which she mercilessly teases her would-be savior.

The whole issue of informed consent got me thinking about life at large. Unless we're psychic (color me a skeptic), life involves a series of surprises. Some big, some small, some good, some bad, and all subject to interpretation. We don't know the infinite details of our lives ahead of time, and that's fine—that's what keeps life interesting. If kink play differed from life in this respect, it wouldn't be half as fun, now would it?

Speaking of surprises, I didn't expect to see you online for a few days, since the Dark Odyssey FAQs claim there's no Internet connection at camp. Hopefully you were able to go? As much as I love techy stuff, I always thoroughly enjoy my annual camping trip, including the part where I get away from the computer for a few days. Anyways, I'll drop by your forums today and see what's up.

I will also see if I can track down a copy of Return to the Chateau, since it sounds like more my type of book. Right now, I'm reading Three Kinds of Asking for It, which I bought in the same order as Story of O (along with several other goodies). It's the anthology which includes Greta Christina's novella "Bending." What a neat story! I like that one and also the first one very much, and I'll soon see how the third one goes.

Thanks again for your perspicacious observations. (There's an adjective I rarely use, but in your case, it applies.) Please tantalize us with those sequel hints soon.

[Link]

Seems you've let the pussy out of the bag. Late last night, I got my hands on a laptop for a few minutes and just couldn't resist after getting the good news about the sequel from Ernest by phone.

Now I must go back to my unwired status. Time for my BJ workshop.

More when I get back.

[Link]