I tend to agree with that statement. The notion that these films have to be expensive or complicated, is something I find generally ludicrous. Complicated stories leads to 18 hours work days. 18 hour work days will most certainly lead to uninspired or totally detached sex, plus a very bored or pissed crew. Seems pretty simple to me, but unfortunately most want to make it harder than it should be.
Sydnee Steele, Savanna Samson or None. 275 Posts 12/05
Posted - Feb 8 2007 : 8:27AM
Let me commend Bob for an excellent and thought provoking original post and I’m glad that this thread appears to be back on track. That said let me briefly make the case for features porn.
All porn constructs dreamworlds that must provide a meaningful and pleasurable experience for the viewer. In other words porn is pleasurable because it is meaningful. Features porn, no matter how mediocre adds extra layers and textures of meanings and makes the experience more pleasurable.
The features that tend to work best for me are made in the spirit of kitsch and by film makers who understand the limitations of the medium. One example would be Jessica Drake’s recent portrayal of a bounty hunter who subdues a vicious guard dog with a burrito. Another example from a few years back is Julia Ann’s portrayal of the Greek Goddess Hera, as if she were channeling a 1940’s movie star. These were fun bits of acting that gave some depth to the characters on the screen and set a mood and context for the sex show which makes for a richer and yes, sexier dreamworld.
I, for one, totally despise gonzo films. I ONLY watch feature films. To me, i'm just not interested in watch people being paid to have sex. I want to see situations that lead to sex, preferably with a nice plot.
My past is a foreign country. Most things are different there, including word usage. 503 Posts 12/06
Posted - Feb 19 2007 : 9:24PM
I feel the same way. But (ah... the big but) I think it's true what sdc said in an earlier post "... the difficulty in making a convincing adult feature if sex is not the primary concern of the plot."
Dealing with difficulty requires talent (writer, director, actors) and that requires money.
I know very little about the cost structure of porno films. What I have read indicates that sales volume is low and production costs are high. Then there is the lack of acting talent.
Without a profit, the film will not be produced.
Fortunately, when the cost structure was different (in the 80s) some good features were produced. Granted most of the story lines were about sex, which avoided the difficult.
Maybe producers should consider doing 'remakes.'
For me, I use the 'Classic' category on the advanced search engine quite a bit.
There are still good features coming out, check out directors like Nic Andrews, Eli Cross, John Stagliano, James Avalon, Jonathan Morgan and Joone. They have all put out some great feature films in the last few years. I've also heard great things about the features Stormy is putting out.
Although sex can be visually arousing (understatement!) and even gripping sometimes, it's not cinematic. Filmed sex tends not to move most plots along or shed much light on most aspects of character. But there's more: The "story of sex", what's basic to it in terms of its fundamental place in our psyches, is essentially interior -- feelings, thoughts, sensations. Dialog and voice-overs don't capture it. The rule of all good movies is "show don't tell". If you can't "show" what's really important, you have a failed movie. -------------------- Edited by - bob on 6/13/2008 2:30:34 PM
One of the bigger problems is the length of time it takes to tell the story (& a good feature needs a well developed story of decent length). With mainstream films the sex can easily & quickly be implied with very little effort & little involvement towards the general plot (pants thrown from offscreen over the back of a chair in the bedroom, slow pan to the fireplace, fade to black, brightly lit (morning) shot of a rumpled head of hair on the pillow while the other person crashes around in the kitchen). With porn however sex needs to first be worked into the plot in a believable manner & then shown in its entirety. However doing that adds +/- 10min per scene or at least an hour to the movie (& few people are going to buy a porn movie without quite a few sex scenes in it). To do it right, a mainstream film takes about 1.5 hours to tell a good story. Using that as the base amount of time needed for the story, add 1-1.5 hours worth of sex scenes & you're looking at a movie close to three hours long. Unfortunately I don't have a viable solution to offer. Too few sex scenes & you've lost the average porn viewer/buyer (those that are willing to buy a feature film in the first place). Too many & you've either diluted the story too much or you've got a movie that is just way too long to sit through all at once. RT
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jun 14 2008 : 6:07AM
Bob, Linda Williams in her academic book on 70s porn features 'Hardcore' compares the successful features of that time to the musicals of Hollywood's classic era. In a nutshell: the sex/song sequence can explore or explain character points, thematic or plot points or resolve or express conflict. Edited by - BlackSix on 6/14/2008 6:07:45 AM
I think there are many features out there which integrate the sex into the film as a whole so as to create a complete, coherent movie. Of course, there are a great many bad ones as well which create tediously long sex scenes which have no real place within the film. There is really no reason for a sex scene to last more than 5 minutes (3 minutes is closer to an ideal) because scenes longer than that, unless they are intercut with narrative sequences, tend to ruin the flow of a hardcore feature. Unfortunately, most makers of "features" treat the fact that they are supposed to be making an X Rated MOVIE, not an all sex film, without much concern for developing anything beyond the most shoestring narrative. In the late 70s and early 80s, the average 85-90 minute feature would contain roughly 50 minutes of narrative and 35 minutes of sex, plus or minus 5 on either end. This allowed there to be a well developed short-feature narrative in most of these films, padded to full feature running time by sexual content. Today the average "feature" runs around 105 minutes and contains roughly 35 minutes of narrative and over an hour of sex, again plus or minus 5 minutes on either end. This has drastically decreased the amount of time the film has to try and develop a sensible, complete narrative and, due to the now average 10 minute length on feature sex scenes, when the sex does come around, it tends to take you out of the film. A few filmmakers such as Paul Thomas still tend to include roughly 50 minutes of narrative in their films (Thomas has actually included close to 75 minutes of narrative in a few of his movies) but even in his films, the sex scenes tend to drag on for far too long and take away from the general mis-en-scene of the film. One of Thomas' better films, Fade to Black has roughly 55 minutes of narrative, which is perfectly fine and develops the story well, but it is counterbalanced by close to 65 minutes of sex. The result is that when a sex scene happens the viewer is forcibly taken out of the film and then when the scene is over is thrust back in, usually a bit amiss as to what last went on before the carnality began. My resulting question is that considering threads like this and the seemingly obvious interest in a return to X rated movies which feel more like movies, why aren't studios delivering? Are they afraid that if sex scenes were shortened by 3 to 5 minutes and scripts were lengthened by 15 to 20 pages that there were be a backlash against feature films? Or, as many have also said, is there simply not the talent out there any more to successfully pull off the making of a real movie with hardcore sex?
I probably disagree with much of what you wrote here. Either that, or I was watching much different films from the 70's and 80's then you were. Most films that I can remember from those periods were loaded with sex scenes. I can recall many, if not most, having 10 sex scenes or more. Sure the sex scenes were a lot shorter due to the shorter running times, but they were hardly sex-lite from what I remember generally seeing. A great person once said "that performers aren't actors" and it's something I generally agree with. Watching unskilled performers try to recite pages upon pages, or an hour of dialog can get pretty painful to watch. It's not to say that a adult feature can't have a great story or great acting, but they generally don't IMO. They can't really compete with mainstream and I've been thought they should have quit trying. I don't think it's takes a lot of time to tell a good or even great story, well at least not a porno-based one. I don't agree that most sex scenes should last no longer than 5 minutes either. I don't believe they have to last forever to be effective either though. Editing has always been one of feature films biggest weaknesses IMO. Sex films have always ultimately been about sex. Far as I can tell, the main reason so many seem to hate feature films is because they think the sex in them generally stink.
I just watched a classic feature from the '70s called The Seduction of Lyn Carter starring a cast of 5, a wiener dog, and alongside a few bland locations one exotic location. (the beach) I am having a hard time believing that porn-feature producers are so unable (financial or otherwise) at coming up with films that integrate sex/story. Instead of hiring so many performers, hire one of the multitude of screen writer-types out there in California and get yourself a sexually themed story written for a small a cast with a few locations. If there's a will there's a way---T0M
Sure, a movie like Sex World has 12 or so sex scenes but they each run 2-3 minutes tops (sometimes even shorter). Most classics have 5 or 6 scenes. You can check titles on IAFD for scene breakdowns. You'll rarely see 10 or more.I agree with you for the most part. The majority of people who acted in X rated movies then as well as now are not good actors. That's why when you watch well plotted XXX films from the late 70s/early 80s you'll end up seeing the same 10 or so people in each one. That's because they were good ACTORS and directors who knew they were working from quality scripts would hire them for their ACTING ability. Today, acting ability is so low on the list of important qualities for someone who works in porn, yes, finding an even moderately talented actor is quite hard to do. That said, as Blacksix mentioned, there are still very talented actors working in modern X rated films.I agree that if you're making a gonzo type movie where story doesn't matter that the sex scenes can go on for ages. But, if you're trying to make a serious narrative X rated film, interrupting the flow of the narrative for an overly long sex scene which adds nothing to the story or characters will do nothing but hurt the film.
An interesting thread with much to digest from several posters, some with which I agree, especially those who see "beyond the sex" in an adult film. I have "never" been able to understand or appreciate what I call sexual "overkill,"-- the very ESSENSE of every gonzo film ever produced. To me, the really entertaining adult film MUST stimulate both ends of the male anatomy--the penis and the brain. That is why I try to avoid the "mindless" sexual gluttony of gonzo like a buzzing mosquito on a hot summer night. Feature plot/driven themes, featuring strong character portrayals delivering emotion filled stressful dialogue, BELONG in what I call the "steam stream," just as much as in "main-stream" Hollywood productions. Thus, I continue to bow and doff my cap to those adult film directors, especially from Wicked, Adam & Eve and Private, who recognize the NEED for such films in the adult genre, and despite operating on budgets which would make a Stephen Spielberg, etc,. CRINGE in horror, continually strive to make "porn-PLUS," for we feature film addicts. Also, integrating really HOT sex scenes into adult feature films without disrupting the "flow" of the plot, requires a true GIFT and one which very few of today's porn directors seem able to accomplish, or for that matter, even bother to attempt. The result, of course, is a disjointed hodge-podge of dialogue scenes, which too often leave viewers scratching their heads in bewilderment. The reason for this, imho, occurs after the sex scene, when the director immediately yells "cut" and the performers take a break to grab a smoke, talk on the cell phone, or "whatever" until the next stage set. What I have NEVER understood, is WHY most directors of adult films, don't take the approach to "tie together" the sex and plot of a feature film with sexy dialogue scenarios IMMEDIATELY after the explicit sex is filmed??? For example, I have NEVER known a female smoker who did not reach for and light up a cigarette after fucking, and here should be a GREAT opportunity for ANY adult film director to continue the plot of the presentation with appropriate dialogue. Yet, despite having seen many hundreds of adult films, I can remember only ONE--Wicked Picture's "Turning Point,"directed by Jonathan Morgan-- that untilized this perfectly natural method of integrating plot and sex together--not to mention, offering a special sexual "kick" for we MILLIONS of men infected with the smoking fetish. So, in conclusion, there are many ways for plot and sex to be "in balance" so to speak, BUT its only the imaginative genius of VERY FEW adult film directors today who seem able to pull it off, imho, not to mention the unique temperament of working successfully with so many volatile, yet fragile, performers and even, stage hands.
In fact, given the above parameters and with "shoe string" budgets in most cases, to me, adult FEATURE film directors from the "Valley" have a much more difficult task than their huge-budgeted counterparts on the "other"side of the mountains. As for the typical gonzo directed production, yell "action," film several women, loudly proclaiming their belief in Monotheism while being penetrated in multiple orifices, and your work is done!!!
"Don't let your lava love turn to stone." 489 Posts 5/06
Posted - Aug 3 2008 : 10:24AM
I keep coming back to the mainstream Spanish film Sex and Lucia more than to any adult feature Ive ever seen. Even though its not nearly as explicit as your average adult feature, the level of eroticism, acting and cinematography make it far more satisfying (any WAY hotter) to me. Edited by - lilacwine on 8/3/2008 10:29:49 AM
I see your point but there are only so many permutations of the old unfaithful husband/wife or frigidity or swinging stories or hooker dramas that allow for lots of sex. Besides, those stories are so boring and overdone anyway. If a director is making a movie whose story isn't basically about sex, there is no need to follow the stupid breakdown of 5 minutes of plot then a sex scene. The key word in X rated feature is FEATURE. It's a movie above all else and in that respect, there's no reason that it needs to have a certain number or frequency of sex scenes or that they need go on for ever. A good feature won't inject a sex scene whenever possible but will present one only when it's important to plot/character development. To go on a related tangent, I was reading a review of David Stanley's Highway the other day and the reviewer criticized the film for "fucking [being] used to further the plot, rather than the other way around. That''s almost a sin in porn and it left me a bit cold." I just don't understand this kind of attitude. If you want to watch a feature, that's what you are looking for! A feature film with hardcore sex, as opposed to a sex movie with talking.
Damn, I'm late again. Lol! I may have to backtrack some. While I do think "sex" within the plot is generally better, I don't believe it's necessarily essential for a good feature film. If the story is compelling enough or the actors compelling enough, I'll still watch. Truthfully, they're are plenty of actors I can routinely watch without ff. Jessica Drake immediately being one I can think of. There is a general conclusion ng many that most feature directors simply hate shooting hardcore sex scenes. Not saying I think it's true, because I don't, but many do. So some simply avoid feature films thinking and knowing the sex within them is generally gonna suck or be very vanilla. To me, that was never how feature films were supposed to be. All porno films are essentally about sex or sexuality IMO. In that sense, I see no real difference among genres, except for the method to show it or somehow create it. And is 10 minutes of tease really that much different then 10 minutes of dialog? Well I suppose most would say "yes", but again I see no real difference other than I'm being stimulated more slowly or somewhat different. Sorry, in the end, it's all about sex to me. If is wasn't, Denzel Washington & Meryl Streep would be doing porn films.
Don't know if I'd say that most feature directors, either in the 70s or today, hate shooting sex but rather I think a lot of them feel pressured into shooting either a) a lot of sex for a film when not much is required, or b) shooting the sex in a way they don't want to. A lot of [the better] directors whose work I've seen will shoot sex in such a way that it does not conform to "porn standards" such as how the girls look and act during sex, avoiding an abundance of close-ups, fake moaning, not using music during the scene, etc. They instead shoot sex, dare I say, realistically and more cinematicly by using wide shots, music, and well paced editing. They also shoot sex scenes to fit their context (i.e. if two people are fighting and end up having sex, it will be aggressive and hateful, not just porny).In a way, yes. If a movie is "porn," that's certainly true. But I would again argue that many directors of features strive for their films to be more than just "porn."YES YES YES! while both can technically develop character and advance the plot (maybe), very few "tease" scenes actually attempt to do that whereas it's a lot easier with silly things like dialogue.
Shooting a good sex scene is different than shooting a plotted scene. Maybe the problem is that some of the feature directors are good at the plotted direction but have problems with the sex direction.
Forbidden Love (Love Her Films) - review by Captain Jack
Posted - Feb 7 2007 : 5:55PM
