Cal444
Somewhere

[Link]

My personal wish is to actually have a chick that knows HOW to play to the camera. You are right that sometimes it is very boring when the director tells the girl to look up, like she is punching a timeclock or something..

What I can't figure out, is why there are hardly ANY girls that can get into the excitment and look right at that camera and show some real emotion! Monique is a girl who comes the closest, but she doesn't really play with it. She shows real emotion, but not in a playful way.

I'd like to see a girl who could talk to the camera and show off like that. What do you all think?

[Link]

Cal talking to the camera if that's her choice is good. I'm talking about where I can clearly see the girl is being directed and it's totally un-natural and awkward.

There is a place for that kind of movie, like in POV movies where the camera is the viewer's POV and he can imagine he is the man getting his dick sucked.
I don't think there are any good jackoff encouragement movies being made - where the girl is talking right to the guy watching the movie really personally. It takes a girl who has it in her to do that and actually enjoys dirty talking. Maybe in these virtual reality type DVDs they do this - i don't watch all that much porn and with the thousands of movies around maybe i'm just unaware.

[Link]

Guess that's what seperates the run of the mill from the greats.

Cal444
Somewhere wishing for the greats

[Link]

If stop letting the girls look in the camera then their well be a empty feel in porn. :(

Me

[Link]

That maybe why i haven't purchase any movies from this studio.

Me

[Link]

I do think that it works sometimes, but it takes a special kind of charisma, or someone who really knows how to play to the camera. My main objection is that it is overused, and I get the feeling that they are just acting instead of being into what and who they're doing.

[Link]

Most people think Stagliano invented gonzo in his early Buttman classics, but this is only partly true. The self-referential camera has been around forever in porn. From stags in the 1920's to loops in the 1970's, girls have always addressed the camera in various ways. They did so in some all-sex and vignette features as well. Modern gonzo goes father than this, however. It not only drops the "fourth-wall" at certain moments, it actually allows the cameraman to actively interact with the performers, to direct, comment, and identify focus within the scene as he or she shoots the action. And this idea mainly derives from the amateur craze of the late 1980's. Here we saw Joe Pimp from the block shooting his girlfriend Jenny (before she turned "pro" and became Jenny Sue in that bad porno western) in their hot tub with the neighbors. Joe filmed it all (barely) while jabbering behind the camera, telling Jenny whose cock to suck and asking her how she liked this and that. What was interesting about one or two of these terrible videos (and still is, since truly "amateur" stuff is making a comeback on the internet, if you can separate it from all the con-artists trying to sell you agency girls as "amateur" porn) was that, despite their horrible ineptitude as pornography, the parties involved were more likely to engage each other, the sex, and the camera in a more novel, authentic way. A few of them probably were doing it because they wanted to be there, fucking with their real-life partner for the camera. The idea of "rupture" didn't apply here, because the whole event was a "rupture" where the performers had no access to or knowledge of the usual discursive screens that govern pornographic performance. This is as close to the ideal of gonzo that Mutt describes as anyone is ever likely to get.

So what happened next was the pros came in and bought out the franchise, inventing "pro-am" in the process, which meant keeping the amateur format of the walking, talking, self-referential cameraman, while adding the polish, conventions, and talent pool of commercial pornography. Ed Powers was one of the first to do it, essentially inventing the girl on the couch routine. Early gonzo masters like Rodney Moore and Max cut their teeth shooting and selling this sort of porn to pro-am producers like Zane and LBO. Well, this seemed like the best of both worlds, except that it often lacked the most important ingredient that characterized the ideal of early amateur gonzo: amidst all the average looking people, dark fuzzy video images, and clumsy and poorly shot sex action, there was a believable and unpredictably original sexual encounter taking place.

In pro gonzo, we are left with Walter's "rupture" theory, those moments where, intentionally or unintentionally, things get out of hand and the conventions that govern hardcore production and performance break down into something else, something a little more personal and unscripted (which is funny when you think the whole thing is supposed to be unscripted to begin with). The best gonzo directors, and I will use Rocco as an example here, understand intuitively most of these issues. Rocco understands--I think--that the idea of "reality" in gonzo is just another conceit, and only uses it when it suits him (as in this year's Live at Prague ). At other times, the camera becomes invisible, and the action proceeds without reference to it at all. As a performer, he has always tried to rattle the expectations of his on-screen partners, pushing them into territory the girls would not usually go. He disrupts the usual continuity of standard sex scenes, often brilliantly so. He tries to avoid the routine moment, or that thing which is too obviously a intrusion into the unexpected flow of the sex action (like making performers adopt phony poses during the action, or address the camera in a silly self-concious way, as Mutt describes seeing). He knows that unscripted sex still needs to be scripted, so often very specific sexual games and relationships are established at the outset, giving the performers something to focus on. He improvises and encourages that moment which is unexpected. And most of all, he tries to tear down the very safe construction of self that many girls who work in the industry develop for these "reality" gonzo porns. Stop being a slick and uncommitted pro, and become that amateur housewife for me, he seems to demand of his co-stars. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. But it is a little more faithful to the spirit of gonzo; the issue is never how many dicks you can put in her ass, but how much of herself she will reveal in the process, on purpose or by accident. And I might add, without cumming in her eyes, choking her half to death, or beating the shit out of her (not the sort of real life reactions I would find very erotic, although if you follow the logic, you can see why this sort of stuff might go on).

Oh yes. I am not minimizing Stagliano's impact on gonzo; but I find his work much more complex and individual than the usual form of the genre. If you want to see the model for the average gonzo video, as applied to the commercial industry, Anabolic's Nasty Nymphos is it. Ten years on, people are still making gonzo's that look just like it (well, they look a lot better, but otherwise, it's the same in every way).

PS: Walter, I hope I have not used your notion of "rupture" in a completely different way than you have intended. Perhaps someday you and I can collaborate on a pseudo intellectual claptrap critical theory tome on porno. We'll give it a ridiculous sounding erudite title--and like most works of critical theory on any subject (and perhaps like my post here) everyone will acknowledge it, but no one will read it.

[Link]

But, of course, it isn't effortless, because having watched DVD's from other gonzo director's, it is all too easy for the 'artificiality' to creep in, whether deliberate or not. I also find actors/directors telling the actress to "look at the camera" pretty silly, because often times it kills the heat of the moment . But if some porn fans want to delude themselves into thinking that the porn actress is up there on the screen, performing just for them and them alone , well, so be it.

Lazerus, I also have watched some BTS footage, and have been surprised occasionally how different the personalities of the actresses can be when they are just being themselves, and not playing to the camera, or 'acting' like a porn actress is supposed to act . At times, I like their real personalities a lot better than the ones they displayed during the sex scenes.

Back to Rocco, I think also that he is quite the master at getting more out of the actresses than they may have wanted to show originally, because he tries to get at their true selves, as he figures out what a particular woman will and won't do on camera. I recently watched a scene, in which a young girl initially did not want to even French kiss him, but after one hour on a film shoot, she volunteered to try anal sex with him. How does he do it? At any rate, it is amazing to watch, and the guy sure fascinates me to no end.

[Link]

You know what I'm always trippin on? Is how the girls are trying to hide their true personality. It's like hello, you are already having sex in front of the camera..... Acting like you aren't enjoying it or pretending to be all professional about it isn't going to make you seem any more dignified. Think about it, the people who don't approve of porn are not going to approve regardless. So if you're worrying about those people you're wasting your time being uptight for no reason. I just don't get the "thinking" (or maybe I should use the word mentality) of girls like this. It totally pisses me off because it's like - what a waste! If you like sex, and you're going to do porn - enjoy it! Don't do a big put on like you aren't enjoying it thinking that is going to make any kind of difference one way or the other. I could go on and on about this..........

I have noticed a few girls of the new generation are starting to break free from this. Among them are Nautica Binx and Katana. Monique was always halfway there - and I say HALFway because as intense as she was, it was more effort than it was personality. She would put a lot of effort into her "work", but you'd only see very brief flashes of her personality coming through.

If I was a director, I'd have bonuses as part of the payments to the actresses. If they didn't come with it (personality wise), I wouldn't give them the bonus.

I have a LOT of ideas actually, if anybody has an opportunity for an aspiring director - let me know!

[Link]

Cal444
Somewhere

[Link]

1) It seems to me that you have used the notion of 'rupture' in a very similar way as I do. I have two more or less unresolved and related questions/issues about the concept, which needs some further analysis. Maybe you can think about them as well:
a) what is the relationship with authenticity (not so much 'reality', which is a problematic concept in itself)?
b) can 'rupture' be constructed on purpose (the fact that some directors are more successful at capturing moments of 'rupture' then others, seems to suggest so), and if so how?

2) I don't like the description "critical theory" for what I (we?) am (are) doing. I don't like the sound of both "critical" and "theory": too normative and interpretative for my tastes. I am afraid I am very anal about this. I like the term "middle level research/analysis" much more, where specialized textual and historical analysis go hand in hand to describe and (at least attempt) to explain concrete phenomena.
The first thing that needs to be done though, is to do some decent historical research. I have a sneaky suspicion that we are taking too many guesses a lot of the time. I like to work with data (I almost said 'facts', but of course, they are problematic as well), dammit.




skronker said:
"Just my style. (Then again, what isn't?)"

[Link]

I have also seen a few of his rough sex scenes, and yes he is different in them, but it also is apparent that he casts these films with more experienced actresses who can handle the rough stuff better (and it's not easy to handle, I acknowledge that).

Operator, if you see an actress 'acting' like she doesn't enjoy being in a scene, I doubt very much it is because she really is enjoying it, but doesn't want people to know . I would bet, 9 times out of 10, she's not enjoying it because she is in some kind of discomfort, or is uncomfortable with what she is being asked to do, or there is a mis-match between her and the male actor(s) and/or the director, or she is one of those actresses who simply doesn't show much enthusiasm on film.

Offering actresses bonuses for showing their true personalities would mean a director would have to then accept those personalities for what they are, without trying to pretty them up for the viewer. And, it would mean that the director would have to show some of his real self, if he wants more truth to a scene, because you can't have one half of the equation being herself, while the other half is displaying his 'porn persona.'

Lazerus, I have a question, are you a film historian, by chance? You are one erudite poster.

P.S. Rene is the way my name is spelled for a man; Renee is used for a woman, which is good, because I'm female.

[Link]

Secondly, I tried to point out that this "documentary" approach to gonzo was adapted primarily from amateur porn in the late 1980's, where the idea of real people having real sex (if only because they had no other way to go about it) at least had some currency as truth. When the pros took over the format, they bastardized this crucial element by substituting their polished conventions and performers for the clumsy authenticity of the middle-aged amateur couple. Of course, they knew they were selling something different: the fantasy of authenticity as opposed to the real thing. But they really had no right to this genre, because the conventions they used often clashed with the concept they were trying to put over.

Enter John Stagliano. The Adventures of Buttman uses the self-referential camera within the action, like amateur and pro-am gonzo, but JS used it in a different way. Aware that this sort of approach was just another performance conceit, he created a FICTIONAL context for it, and created a fictional character (Buttman, who should not be confused with JS himself) to become the central, camera-wielding figure in this narrative. Rather than delude the audience with notions of truth and authenticity (the sort of stuff that Ed Powers, in his Bus Stop Tales was pushing at about the same time), he produced a more traditional pornographic fantasyworld, while avoiding most of the contradictions and murky signifying problems that other emerging gonzo directors were either grappling with or just glossing over. And Buttman and his usual sidekick, Dario (Rocco) are pretty fantastical characters really, aren't they?

So we have really been given two competing forms of gonzo: the first, what I call "girl on a couch reality porn," where what is "real" in the sex, scene, and performers is actually just a fictional construction most of the time; and fantasy gonzo, where the self-referential camera is used to create, or heighten, some very particular fantastic character, place, or situation (what I like to call "sexual utopias"). Within these two general groupings are all kinds of variation and emphasis, and I will leave it to each viewer to apply this thesis to any particular gonzo director or series to test both the thesis and the work. I see lots of empirical problems with it as a model already, but I think it holds enough water to be useful.

As far as the relation to authenticity is concerned, Walter (and I used the word above already), well, I think this is thorny terrain; as it would be with any art or entertainment form that works from a presumption of mimesis. In general, the traditional pornographer could probably care less about authenticity, since it is not his subject--as long as the viewer sees genital friction, the rest can be completely phony. Evidence of explicit sex is the only form of authenticity the general public desires. In gonzo, it is a bit different. Authenticity becomes part of the conceit, doesn't it? It is the promise and supposition of authenticity that becomes the fantasy of the gonzo scene. Real authenticity would only take place in a film bent specifically on documenting real subjects in their natural conditions going through their natural sequence of sexual play. This is, I think, what Tony C. is striving for at Comstock Films (and I will leave it to him to comment to this point). But this also raises questions for me, because I find authenticity and pornography to be very uneasy bedfellows--one gets in the way of enjoying the other all too often.

There are all sorts of exceptions, though, and this is where the idea of "rupture" takes over, where the fallacy of authenticity gives way unexpectedly to its reality. Consider Tracie Kelly in Virgin Surgeon , for example. She in many ways approximates that amateur porn performer, who has no way to be other than herself. Her replies to the questions of Marc Davis were wonderfully candid, often despite herself. "My mom dropped me at the shoot. I lied to her about it. I only had sex a year or two ago, didn't much like it, and I really don't know what I'm doing at all. I am not looking at your crotch, just admiring your pants." And so on. You could see her thinking about fibbing once or twice, and then just blurting out the truth. Poor Marc (oh yes, and I feel so sorry for him!) finally had to take his cock out himself. I wonder what she will be like in six months if she stays in the business . . .

Oh, and I must say a few things about Rocco. I didn't mean to single him out as THE gonzo director who has all the answers; there are others who also do very well. I think he was very influenced by Stagliano, and moved by John's free form approach to shooting sex. What is significant about Stagliano, apart from all the usual discussion of him in relation to gonzo, is his very particular approach to hardcore scenes. Sex scenes have a narrative structure, just as stories do; most of us know what the standard "script" for a hardcore scene looks like (tease, fondling, oral, vaginal, maybe anal, cumshot). In fact, in out private lives, sex can often have a scripted feel as well (and can get rather tiresome if we don't change it). Stagliano deviated from these norms more, both within the action and in the usual camera shots; he changed the time sequence of sex scenes; he approached tease footage, the placement of sex within story narrative, and editing very creatively. And he seemed to encourage sexual improvisation. Rocco thrived in this format, and you can see him transferring a lot of these same concepts to his own films. One problem with discussing Rocco as a director, however, is that he has had unlimited access to the best male sex performer in history--himself--to star in most of his scenes. It's a bit like calling Phil Jackson the best NBA coach of all time; not so hard really when you always have the two best players in the league on your teams.

I think Renee is completely right when she points out that Rocco operates outside of the usual conventions in his relations with his co-stars. He certainly seems to strive for that intentional "rupture" that we have been discussing. It seems that by removing the usual "script" from the performers, they then have no choice but to improvise, and that improvisation often becomes self-revealing. As for how he gets them to go the extra mile sexually, who can say? Perhaps his own consuming energy, commitment, focus, and honesty during the sex action inspires or excites them to go further. Perhaps he charms or cons them. Perhaps he gives them two vodkas and an extra few hundred. Perhaps it is like the porno fantasy, whereby he waves his oversized, super-hard phallus in their face and they are helpless to resist.

PS: No, Renee, I am not a film historian. I have too much junk in my head as it is, without making space for that. But thank you for the kind comments.

PPS: Oh my, these posts are out of hand. I promise never to write a short novel like this again. And I agree with you about data, Walter. I am operating without specific verification here, based on my considerable historical knowledge of hardcore porn. To go further, I would need to re-examine specific films in detail. My conclusions would certainly be altered, although to what extent, I can't say. Think of this overview as a rough working model where I could begin a concrete analysis. But those verbose posts!! (I also think the terminology needs a little refining, but that's another issue)

[Link]

Why do some directors feel they must have the performers change positions every 5 seconds or so (missionary to cowgirl, then reverse cowgirl, then A2M, then cut to different camera angle, etc). Just when the action is getting hot, it seems like it's time for a mandatory switch to a new angle or position. There's more emphasis on going through tons of different positions rather than letting the camera film some hot action in one position that lasts longer than 10 seconds at a time.

The Anal Trainer DVDs and C. Clark's Beautiful Girls/Euro Hardball are some of the decent series where you don't see all of this position changing every 5 seconds.

p.b.

[Link]

I can speculate on how Rocco is able to get novice actresses to go further than they wanted to originally, at least in part. It is mainly his charm - that is, the way he speaks to them, especially his tone of voice, either low or almost a whisper, and the way he looks emphatically into their eyes, when he first approaches them in a room, and also during the actual sex scenes. I've noticed that he rarely uses bad language, and even if he does, it's in a teasing way, not meant to demean or embarrass the actresses. {Of course, there is some coarser language in his rougher sex films, but that is another ball of wax}.

I met a man once who had this kind of charm, and it was most effective, although this guy was not a porn star. He was an electrical engineer, but he could charm just about any woman he came across, including a young 23-year old who lived in the apartment below him ( me ). This man also had what Rocco has, this intuitive feeling of what will be needed to accomplish the goal at hand, namely getting a woman to do something sexually that she might be reluctant to do. Interestingly, this engineer used a lot of the Rocco methodology, though I don't believe he learned any of this in engineering school.

[Link]

I hear you now, about it not being all on the girl. I HAVE seen those numerous vids where it seemed more about a group of guys who were putting a scene together just to have sex, rather than for the purpose of making money off of a good video. As a matter of fact, I perceive this quite a lot. Many many times it seems as the focus is more on men who just want to get off, rather than producing a hot scene. I often imagine a group of guys who are friends, and using the set and video project as just a ploy to get sex for themselves.

Now I'm speaking from a viewer's point of view, so excuse any ignorance on my part.

At any rate, I bet as a director that I could set up a lot more heat in 90% of the scenes that I see. Not just as a director, but as a camerman and producer as well.

Someone mentioned the switching of positions being annoying, and that is yet another example. First off, I never see the best positions being employed. Then the camera angles are terrible. On top of that, there is only one camera being used so half the action or more is missed from the best angle.

I could go on and on, but I don't want to complain too much...

[Link]

I actually remember reading your (very erotic) story about the guy who lived upstairs. I suppose it is the highest compliment to the "authenticity" of Rocco's on-screen persona that you can find a direct semblance between him and a man who seduced (if that's the right word) you in your own life. Think about it; when do we find anything in porn where we could say, "oh sure, I would have fallen for that," or "this could easily happen to me on my way home from work tomorrow." Not too often, I would think.

Of course, you may also just have an "authentic" schoolgirl crush on the Italian Stallion . . ..

[Link]

In Rocco's work, you see his face a lot, and him use a gazillion positions (and moving remarkably smoothly from one to another), because I gather, that is what he likes to do. In this case, I think it is good that the director/actor is not paying much attention to what fans want. Add on top of this, Gabriel Zero's using mainly long and medium shots, rather than close-ups, and a viewer gets to see a lot more of what is happening during a scene.

One more thing about Gabriel, he has the ability to make himself (or, at least his camera) invisible. I feel when I'm watching the results of his work, that I was in that room, invisible to the actors/actresses, and was walking around, just looking at whatever was most interesting at the time, staying focused on that one thing for as long as was needed. As smooth as Rocco is at changing sex positions, Gabriel is equally smooth at changing the focal point of his camera; it's not for nothing that these two are cousins, in my estimation.

There is something I want to remark on, about the 'reality' in gonzo films sometimes showing up on mainstream ones. In Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket , R. Lee Erney played the Marine drill instructor, and put in a hell of a performance. BUT, in real life, he was a Marine D.I. during the Vietnam war, and he and Kubrick co-wrote the boot camp scenes together. So, how much was 'acting' and how much was the real Erney, one could ask? He went as far as to use the same mistreatment of recruits, foul language and dirty marching songs as in his days at Parris Island. In a way, he did a "Rocco", portraying on film much of his true self, and giving a hard-hitting performance that no one can easily ignore, no matter how uninterested one might be in the military.

This post has gone on long enough, but with Lazerus' musings driving my thoughts, I can't help myself.

[Link]

I think striking on the word "authenticity" very much rings true, rather than "reality" or "realistic", as I've been trying to think of a word myself that best captures the notion I am seeking in porn.

Of course, the reality is that Rocco is making porn movies, like anyone else. He and Gabriel do work together in a naturalistic way, perhaps, but sometimes the extra footage will spoil the illusion, and you can hear Gabriel saying "look at the camera" - these instructions do happen, but are usually discreetly dubbed over by moans and groans.

The behind the scenes can reveal the girls are putting on a "game face" for the camera - I am often frustrated by Julie Silver, for example, who does all the extreme stuff, and only showed the kind of enjoyment that I really want to see in a tiny moment from between takes, where the camera catches her partner fucking her, she's clearly coming, Manuel asks her what's up and she, red faced, says "Nothing!" I was tearing my hair out - I want her to let go like that in the scene!

I also fear that when talking about such matters, the home viewer is only clutching at a few straws of evidence about what goes on.

[Link]

Yes, as Renee has said, some people have more interest, or presence, than others. One of the amusing problems with gonzo is the idea that all porno girls are interesting, sexually and otherwise, and therefore worthy of the magnifying lens of this "reality porn." In fact, how interesting can most 18 year-old girls from suburbia be, at least when their ass isn't up in the air?

[Link]

It's just that too much porn doesn't even give you the chance. Often, it revels in its lack of authenticity - example, I hear that Multiple POV 2 has the delighful V. Vouyer throwing bills at the girls to get them to perform.

So yes, it is a double edged sword, and I do feel that a lot of what we might wish to base our perceptions of authenticity on are just inauthentic as the most blatantly phony, but they convince us otherwise. For example, the girls in Rocco's Initiations may not be experienced performers as such, but neither are they as naive as Intitiations may make out. They have often been in other movies, often they've done castings for Pierre Woodman, but Rocco's skill in this is in creating the situation in which you readily believe that his charisma and expertise is such that he's going to show them something new, take them to another place.

[Link]

The few times I've felt that the "magic" was going out of an otherwise hot Rocco scene is when another male actor, usually Teo, walks on, and Rocco and he start talking in Italian, or Hungarian. It sounds like they're gabbing about the latest sports scores, or where they're going out to dinner that night. Sometimes this happens while - how shall I put it - Rocco is 'bodily engaged' with a young lady.

One little moment of authenticity I like is in the last scene in Rocco Invades Poland ; I can't believe that it was scripted. Rocco is analing a blonde called Beata, while the quiet redhead Elizabeth looks up at him from close by. He says to Elizabeth, "Don't look at me like that, you'll make me come. You make me come. You make me..." 3 seconds later, he hops off of Beata, because he was going to come too soon (Gabriel is chuckling softly behind the camera.)

After Rocco regains his 'composure', he is back with Beata, but Elizabeth is now sitting on the floor, still gazing at him. Rocco says something in Italian about her occhi , her eyes (My Italian is improving since I developed this Rocco habit ). At any rate, I live for scenes like this.

[Link]