This is where the "illusion" of porn gets problematic for me - it's mostly just not that convincing, it's too half baked with no attention to the details that build the illusion to a point where I can believe what is going on or it's completely exaggerated, then it falls into pantomime which I don't find so sexy.
Lindi - the dogs! Won't somebody think of the dogs!
Were the frame (either physical or metaphysical,) of any movie expanded by 10%, all manner of things would become appearent that would be disruptive to the cinematic illusion. To my mind, the most common failing in porn is that the frame is too loose.
That too. Good point. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've seen a boom mic or electrical cords or a light stand or extra personnel or the boundary of a set or...
Some movies are better than others at creating and maintaining the illusion.
They are products, unless you actually happen to personally know them in a different context. The same goes for Hollywood actors, directors, novelists, recording artists, comic book artists, etc. The unfortunate part is this widespread delusion on the part of consumers that the relationship between the audience and entertainers is something more than a transaction.
Naughty Office 102 - review by Captain Jack
Posted - Aug 27 2006 : 12:52PM