Edited by - medit on 9/15/2003 9:22:24 PM

[Link]

You are dead on with everything you've said about the fundimental problems with integrating sex scene, especially extended sex-scenes into an effective narrative structure. If I didn't know better, I'd say you've been hiding out under my bed while my wife and I have been hashing these issues out over the last few years (she's a published author with remarkable insight into structure.)

But you've only hit on half of the problem. But since I'm such a nice guy, I'm going to let you in on the other half:

Shooting hot sex is cheap and easy. These days you can get a cute young thing to do a DP for less than you can get a no-name SAG actress. If you're going to show explicit sex, you cut yourself off from the riches that ligitimate distribution has to offer, and that puts a cap on the amount of money that any reasonable person will invest in a porno film.

Shooting scripted/acted narrative film is motherfucking hard. A lot harder than what I do, and way way harder than what any professional pornographer does. It's also unbelievably expensive. $500,000 might be a big time budget for a porno film, but it's a bag of shells for a feature. Whenever porno tries its hands at the Feature game, it does so without the resourses or talent even the most modest mainstream low-budget independent has to work with. Not surprising, even if the sex elements in these porno features are good, they get dragged down by the amateurish attempt at filmmaking.

T.C.

Edited by - TonyC on 9/15/2003 9:54:39 PM

[Link]

I agree generally with what you say, and I've echoed your statements in articles of my own...

Porn As Art?

[Link]

professorwolf

[Link]

There's no denying that a lot of sex in features is extraneous (I could even use the word laughable) because it's not justified by the plot. Some classic example's of this can be found in Brad Armstrong's filmography. Movies like Conquest , Flashpoint and, to a lesser extent, Kink all illustrate how difficult it is to produce a convincing adult feature when the plot has little or nothing to do with sex. No matter how many stars are on screen, no matter how spectacular the sets are, these movies just grind to a halt for ten minutes at a time when the bump and grind action gets underway. On the other hand (and to continue using Brad as an example) movies like Wild Thing and Red Dragon - a sex-themed feature and a vignette movie respectively - are far more coherent. The premise of Wild Thing , Alexa Rae suffers minor brain-damage in a car accident and is transformed into a raging nymphomaniac, may be unlikely, but the resulting film is much more balanced than the likes of Conquest . Red Dragon is essentially just a vignette movie but manages to achieve a certain formal harmony because it isn't burdened with trying to resemble a 'mainstream' movie. So, the evidence is pretty compelling. If you're going to commit 70% of a movie's running time to sexual acts, the movie had better be about sex. Except it's not that clear-cut.

In the previous paragraph I referred to the difficulty in making a convincing adult feature if sex is not the primary concern of the plot. I think the word 'difficult' is crucial here because we shouldn't underestimate the role of the director (among others). Neither Bobby Sox or The Awakening have plots centred on sex (although sex does play an important part in the momentum of the latter) but they work wonderfully due to solid performances, convincing scripts and Paul Thomas' excellent direction. Likewise, Dog Walker isn't really about sex but the mood generated by John Leslie (et al) is so intoxicating that the movie can withstand the 'stop/start' effect lengthy sex scenes tend to produce.

So, while I agree that a lot of adult features suffer due to the inclusion of sex scenes regardless of whether or not the plot requires them, I don't think we should disgard the genre as a whole. There are plenty of examples of movies that remain compelling despite the self-imposed structural constraints of the adult industry. To quote The Opening of Misty Beathoven , "Never let the fact that they're doing it wrong prevent you from doing it right".

Incidentally, while we're on the subject of the delicate balancing act of narrative porn, do we really need every sex scene to be 10-12 minutes long?

SDC

Edited by - sdc on 9/16/2003 8:35:46 AM

[Link]

Edited by - steph on 9/16/2003 10:18:09 AM

[Link]

You state that the sex is the thing in porn and on the face of it this would appear to be self evident . But I'd like to suggest another alternative . Perhaps power is the thing behind porn . The exercise and seek to exercise power over the other person ( people ) through fucking them . I realize that I'm not stating anything new or startling here but it does seem to slip past the directors of most of the porn features I've seen .

A good many features seem to tell a story where the characters are only interacting in the most cursory or tangential of ways so that when the cut to the sex scene there has been no build up of tension in their relationship . Great porn films on the other hand spend the necessary time establishing the true dynamic between the characters so that when the resulting sex scene breaks out not only is there already sexual tension present but the actions of each person make sense within the context of the film .

In the Fashionistas the power balance changes gradually through the film as each sex scene has its impact on the relationships between the characters . For example when Taylor St Clair can't stop herself from touching and then fucking Belladonna the power gulf between them shifts because even though it it Taylor who is doing the dominating they can both feel that she was in some way drawn into the encounter which hands at least some power to Bella . There are other and perhaps more important reasons too but I'm too fried right now to think of them .

I totally agree with you that with sex absolutely having to be shown this cuts down dramatically on the amount of time left for any plot formulation . However I completely disagree with Tony C that features are poorly made because of lack of money. If that were the case then wouldn't all Hollywood movies be good and Independent ones be poor ? The split seems to be about the same for both .

In the end it does seem to all come down the director and how well he understands ;the relationship between sex and power , the film making ( editing ) process , and which plots work for porn and which don't . The Hollywood version of porn is probably late night erotica isn't it and there the directors all seem to understand that only very specific plots revolving around their characters' desires and insecurities will work . Maybe there is a lesson there for porn directors .

Got a Mark Dorcel film in the post yesterday ( was beginning to think it would never come ) and I could sing its praises till the cows come home . All the things I love most in porn including gorgeous stockings ....mmmmm . I can't recommend this film enough and am very , very thankful to Aybesea for reviewing it so well . Each sex scene could be seen as a new vignette as they are so well done . If you are interested the film is Harcelement au Feminin.

[Link]

The majority of Hollywood movies and Network TV shows are good enough that they get released for public scrutiny. The overwelmning majority of independently produced films/pilots/etc never see the light of day. Yes, some small part of this is because independents don't have the marketting muscle of the studios, but mostly it's because most independent productions are unwatchable trash, not fit to be a Lifetime Movie of the Week. Of course if a porno movie (feature or otherwise) ever managed to reach the level of story-telling, production competence, and over-all "watchablity" of a Lifetime Movie of the Week, we'd all hail it as a masterpiece.

I don't mean to suggestion that such praise would be unjustified; it just needs to be kept in context. Porn is a different from anything seen in the mainstream distribution channels. It's watched for different reasons, and is judged by different standards. Just try to imagine Tom Fontana telling people they can just "fast-forward" through the parts of Oz they don't like!

T.C.

Edited by - TonyC on 9/16/2003 11:23:54 AM

[Link]

Among vignettes, the most consistent for me are John Leslie's Voyeur series and Fresh Meat movies. I'd also feel comfortable recommending 5 Tales of Sin and Seductions 4 to people who normally buy features and might like to try something different.

[Link]

When you say that porn is watched for different reasons than mainstream material I'd agree , for the most part . But doesn't erotica stand alongside porn ? After all both , when it comes down to it , are used for wanking . The only real difference I can make out is that in the case of erotica no willies or pussies can be shown so they have to focus instead on the dynamic between the players and make the whole thing as , well , erotic as they can . But in porn they can show the whole caboodle . This seems to lead to a certain laziness on some directors part where they feel that simply showing the act is enough .

Most feature porn is in my opinion deeply flawed so I'm in agreement with what you say about movie of the week level projects being a possible high . I love your idea that porn is a different art form (possible) so maybe the standards we apply in terms of plot and character development shouldn't be carried over from mainstream but left at the door and new ways of looking used . After all I couldn't care less in porn about the financial or other growth of the characters , except possibly in a sexual sense .

I guess in a longwinded way I am agreeing with Bob that the only plot worth watching in porn is one that uses sex as its central focus . Maybe after watching that great film last night my hopes for the whole porn industry were badly over-inflated . There would seem to me to be a vast number of scenarios of sexual conflict or desire that could be used . But then again this thread is teaching me a lot about what porn really is and how I view it .

Steph's post sure made me think . When she said that tease isn't just before the sex but gets the viewer going long before the act this is the crucial thing for me in porn features . Maybe I'm just speaking bollocks here ( it hasn't stopped me so far ) but for me the tease is the plot in porn . All the rest is fast forward fodder . The tease might be sophisticated or simple but if the teases are strung together in the correct way then you have a feature , and maybe one that will also work as porn .

Edited by - Lee O on 9/16/2003 4:47:08 PM

[Link]

I look at feature porn similar to the way the director has to look at his movie when he is editing it. I ask the question, "Does this need to be in this film?" If not, I cut it out and keep it for the deleted scenes. The problem is that in this process the finished product would be completely devoid of any storyline because they are all so thin that they do nothing to advance things and just get in the way of the sex scenes.

The best features I have seen, "The Fashionistas" and "Fade to Black", deal with sex. One of them delves into the fetish fashion underworld while another basically chronicles the ascension of two amateur pornographers into the mainstream. With sex at the center of everything, the scenes flow naturally. However, when it's "Oh, I'll be right over to help you with your problem, but not until after I let my boytoy fuck me up the ass" things just seem boring.

In other words, I completely agree with everything you said Bob.

Kelly

Isn't it funny when you to put somebody else's thoughts into your own words?

[Link]

Given that it’s true that sex in an otherwise “non-sexual” plot is inherently gratuitous, I wonder why it hasn’t occurred to filmmakers to attempt to develop a kind sexual language that would allow the story to move forward even DURING sex scenes. Viewers would have to accept that not every scene in a film will provide the same sort of action—and I don’t know if the majority could do that, though I think porn might be the better for the additional variety, not to mention the increased coherence (for those of us who care about such things).

Stereotyping is a relatively simple way to go about this. I think the reason vignettes work—and why many of us like them—is because they tend to rely on stereotypical characters and situations with which we can all identify, and this simply because there isn’t time to develop anything more complex. But in porn, complexity isn’t necessarily a virtue. (I don’t think it’s coincidental that this is also true of sex. Variety, for example, is more important than complexity.) In a feature, stereotypes would at the base level serve to streamline the plot—no need for complicated setups, backstory, and suchlike. We see a Virgin, a Wife, a Seductress, we know who we’re looking at without all that nonsense.

Now, the key for filmmakers is to rigorously stick to the stereotypes they create. Over the length of a feature, this is absolutely mandatory. Given this, at a higher level, stereotypes—being imbued with certain characteristics and behaviors—could advance a story at any time in the film, including during sex scenes. For instance, if a guy goes to bed with a chick he thinks is a Seductress but we see that she behaves like a Virgin, we know something more about what’s going on in the story than we knew before the sex scene gave us this information. Moreover, since the behaviors in question here are sexual in nature, we WOULD NOT have gotten this information any other way. (The fun really begins when sex acts themselves tell a story of their own. Why does every couple have to do reverse-cowgirl? What if reverse-cowgirl were arbitrarily—but consistently—identified only with certain stereotypes? Then something that simple could tell us volumes about what’s going on, depending on the plot of the film.)

I could go on indefinitely, but I hope I’ve at least given an idea of the sort of thing I’m talking about. So just a few other thoughts.

It wouldn’t be possible for every feature porn director (porn directors, by the way, would do well to start off by hiring decent writers and paying them properly)—it wouldn’t be possible for them all to suddenly hop on board with this idea, let alone agree on consistent stereotypes. But if only a few would do it, and keep things simple at first, who knows? it might catch on.

Since the point about cost has been raised, I would also point out that this Stereotype approach wouldn’t necessarily cost much if anything more than vignette films. Filmmakers don’t have to try to recreate “Wall Street” or something; they can use the stereotypes to propel simple, easy-to-relate-to stories that don’t depend on lavish locations and such.

It’s also been mentioned that porn actors and actresses aren’t necessarily up to the task of putting in truly compelling performances. Well, it’s a whole lot easier to play a stereotype than some psychologically complex character.

And I think we’d all be amazed at the complexity that could be achieved with stereotypes if they were allowed to develop. And not only that, AS they develop, it becomes possible to play with them in interesting ways.

But again, this approach guarantees that each sex scene will be different. We couldn’t buy such a film and expect to get five facials, for example, or the same rote progression of positions in every scene. The sex would have to derive from the character types, which means that it would be different from one scene to the next (depending on the story, of course). But that doesn’t turn me off. Hell, I think the novelty alone would make for a refreshing change of pace.

[Link]

It great when an opera singer has some acting skills (like Placido Domingo) and when he is in a production with good co-stars, a decent conductor and great sets, everything comes together. But for most operas, you are going to be watching a 40 year old 180 lb woman playing a young milkmaid, or a 50 year old stocky man playing a Don Juan, and you the viewer/listener has to suspend your disbelief in order to enjoy their singing abilities and the wonderful music that the composer crafted.

I think porn can also require this sort of "suspension" in order to allow the viewer to enjoy the performance. Expecting mainstream-caliber acting and directing abilities in a porn film, can be a path to disappoinment.

[Link]

One of the most significant experienes I've had as a viewer was seeing a production of La Traviata at the Met in New York. Honestly I don't know if the singing was good or bad be afficiando standards, but it was plenty good enough for me. The production design (by Franco Zefereli) was unbelievable. The close of the 1st act was amazing, and when the curtain went up on the 2nd act there was a collective gasp from the audience in responce to the beauty of the set. Overall , it was amazing to see such a massive volume of artistry and high craft brought together without a single misstep. Everything seemed to be exactly where and what it needed to be.

T.C.

[Link]

Consider mainstream movies. How many of them have love scenes? A huge number. Now imagine all of those mainstream movies with each of their love scenes extended by, say, a couple of minutes, and making the love scenes completely explicit. Would that detract from the movie? Not in any way that I can see. (Although I'm sure it wouldn't be allowed in normal theatres, but that's beside the point here.) Pick any of your romantic comedies as being exactly the same as it was produced - but with explicit, pornographic sex taking place between the starcrossed lovers substituting for all of the love scenes that actually did occur in the mainstream version. Would it be considered a "porn" by the normal definition? Certainly not, because those love scenes are mostly few and far between the other elements in the movie. Would it be the kind of mainstream adult movie I keep arguing for? Without any question.

I say that somebody needs to start experimenting in that direction. Make a feature film - but make the love scenes slightly longer and completely explicit. As far as I know, this has never been done. Even some of those truly erotic scenes in mainstream that push the envelope don't come close to matching close-up, action oriented shots in pornography. No "mainstream based" movie has ever really gone out of its way to explore this kind of mixed genre.

(While the reverse is true of at least some classic adult films - but it's a trend that seems to have disappeared.)

Right now, we have mainstream films containing no explicit sex. We also have wall to wall sex movies containing almost no filmic elements. Surely this isn't the best we can do. Somebody needs to start breaking down the dichotomy and work towards a better integration between the two. I'm sure that each side could benefit from the other.

Look at the classic Taboo. That movie has really excellent character development and a plot all the way through that makes sense. You do care about what happens - in addition to watching some good sex. If all of the non-sex elements were removed it, as a movie, would completely fall apart. Even as purely masturbatory material, endless sex can get repetitive and boring - having some build up and tension, scenes that transition from non-sex to sex, only serve to increase the enjoyment of the scenes when they do happen.

I don't think you can have it both ways. Either it's all just about sex and getting yourself off as frequently as possible (in which case you don't care about even trying to incorporate mainstream elements - and it became more about quantity than quality) or you want to see sex be part of the movie, and bind it together, but not overwhelm it. (So that, not only can you get sexually aroused to some degree but also enjoy the movie on an intellectual level.) I argue for the latter, and I think that's what people who complain about a lack of acting, story, and so on also argue for - at least to one degree or another.

Edited by - Mythsong on 9/18/2003 11:29:27 PM

[Link]

2) Why would anyone with this level of cinematic expertise waste their talents on porn when they could get more respect and more money doing mainstream TV or movies?

-T.C.

[Link]

I reccommend Sex, Drugs, and Rock-n-Roll , and PAYBACK ...two very entertaining watches, through and through...not overladen with "feature", but way too developed to be considered commonplace porn. Anybody know who made those two titles? LOL....

TONY C. writes:
Why would anyone with this level of cinematic expertise waste their talents on porn when they could get more respect and more money doing mainstream TV or movies?

- 3 reasons:
1) Because the porn industry is poor man's film school. It's a training ground for visionary people who can't get a mainstream job while they hone their craft.
2) Because cracking into mainstream takes more money than cracking into porn.
3) Because they love porn more than they love Hollywood, and would rather contribute to an industry in dire need of visionary growth, than work for a major studio that just wants you to do what they say, in order to make themselves more money.

Does anybody know any dark haired, Mafia-types at Evolution Erotica, who may or may not fit the above description?

PS: Excellent comments by all...Please remember, as sales of some of the biggest pieces of shit on the porn marketplace continue, there is a niche for everything!! Don't cross your markets and think that either the raincoaters or the couples markets will destroy one another. We can all fit in on the market, but not soooooo many of us in each genre...This industry needs a good bloodletting...

Edited by - guy capo on 4/4/2004 3:51:34 AM

[Link]

-T.C.

[Link]

Sorry, I get a little carried away sometimes. I hear ya. Good luck, wiseguy.

[Link]

HAHAHAHAHAHA! No 'emoticon' can represent the truthfully sad humor in that statement, Tony. I'll take you up on that drink sometime.

And as for Cobalt, who is in charge of the draft and inscription into the revolution, I praise you for your enthusiasm and candor when addressing the argument that has plagued this business since circa 1982, when every jag-off with $500.00 bought a handycam and became a 'pornographer'. May the meek inheret the indusrty, and the heads of those who have let it become this way roll!!

[Link]

-T.C.

[Link]

Edited by - cobalt60 on 4/5/2004 4:17:22 PM

[Link]

Cobalt, are you listening? As the 5-Star General in charge of the revolution, you need to know this part of the plan. Tony C...don't you get discouraged on me now...We are brutally outnumbered as it is, and prosperity of great magnitude always befalls the ones willing to fight the long battle. But here's the scoop...

Perhaps it's time the producers went over the heads of the company owners and started their own relationships with the distributors? When was the last time a distributor was taken out to dinner by a Director? How many producers make the time to explain to distributors why the new breed of porn has more value and can warrant a higher yeild for everyone, if the market were cleaned out a bit? How many adult film artists even know their distributors, let alone have made it a point to influence their thinking? I too am guilty of such complacency, but this war plan is just coming to light for me very recently.

The company figureheads who deal one-on-one with distributors share a common goal with them...less money going in, more money coming out. Granted, there is consistent money to be made by addressing the lowest common denomenator...but the big bucks lie in creating a paradigm shift.

Quick story, if you don't think I know what the fuck I am talking about...
In 1978, a dog food salesman bought the growing pet food company he worked for. He immediately yanked his product off of grocery store shelves, limited it's access only through trained professionals like veteranarians and pet stores, and marked up the price to $40 bucks a bag, when the competition was still at about $15 a bag. Everybody went apeshit, and swore that he had sunk the company. What he did was create a value niche that nobody was addressing...a "premium nutrition" market, for those who cared more for their animals than the average dog owner, and were willing to pay more money for a bag of dogfood, mainly because the food was only sold in places where there was somebody educated in pet nutrition available to explain why this brand was worth more than the rest of the shit on the grocery store shelves. End result? 25 years later, that man sold the IAMS company to Proctor and Gamble for 6.5 BILLION dollars, making him one of the wealthiest and most revolutionary businessmen of this century.

How different is our marketplace? We have consumers who demand and expect more, but are forced to chose from shelves full of shit, when in fact, they will probably pay more to get more, especially if they are devout consumers. Furthermore, the distributors need a brand new education in the "porn value system", in order to change the calibre and condition of those very shelves that the consumers pick from.

But nobody can argue the integrity of your work better than yourself (as a producer), and we each need to contribute toward shifting the distributor's thinking, so that perhaps tyheir future orders have less "filler-fucking" and more "nookie-nutrition".

[Link]

In the mean time, I highly recommend the bock Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Markets and in Life.

-T.C.

[Link]

But creating that distribution system has taken a tremendous amount of patience, and no small measure of determination, and perhaps even a bit of risk. In my mind, one of the great paradoxes of the 'adult industry' is that it's terribly risk-averse.

Comstock Films:Real Life, Real People, Real Sex

[Link]

If, given industry economics and prevalent consumer buying habits, the likely rewards from critical success don't justify much risk, people aren't going to risk much.

By and large, porn functions as simple, mass entertainment -- just as, by and large, mainstream movies do. Sure, there are niche markets in both cases -- but catering to them profitably is a difficult task, as you well know. It isn't a strategy for getting rich quick, which is pretty much the ruling goal in our culture.

[Link]

Main Entry: par·a·dox
Pronunciation: 'per-&-"däks, 'pa-r&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin paradoxum, from Greek paradoxon, from neuter of paradoxos contrary to expectation, from para- + dokein to think, seem -- more at DECENT
1 : a tenet contrary to received opinion
2 a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true b : a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true c : an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises
3 : one (as a person, situation, or action) having seemingly contradictory qualities or phases

The other great paradox is that it's called the "adult industry"; or is that irony?

[Link]

I didn't ask, "What's a paradox?"; I asked, "What's the paradox?"

But let me ask it this way: Where's the paradox?

(And don't say, "They're at the hospital, silly!" )

[Link]

But I'm better now.

What's your excuse?

[Link]

I can't do it. I just can't. You hittin the sauce again? You're going to rot your liver, you know.

I love you, too, man. Just don't TELL anyone. I'm supposed to be 'hardcore'.

And I'm about to disappear for a while again. But I'll be back. Maybe even with something substantial to say. (No promises).

[Link]