Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
#1
Old 02-18-2010, 05:38 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 10,528
What was so controversial about The Brown Bunny?

I've never seen the film but have seen it's title bounced around here often enough that I read through the wiki article on it.

Is the entire controversy the fact that they showed a real bj on film? That's it?
Have these people never seen porn before?
Or is there some taboo line drawn between porn and film? Porn: Yeah, whatever, people doin it, no big deal, it's been around for decades.
Film: OMG! You can't do that in a movie!

It said that it was shown at Cannes and people walked out on it or booed it and it immediately became the worst film ever made.
Because of a real bj? Seriously?

What am I missing here?
#2
Old 02-18-2010, 05:58 PM
Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,619
There were two versions. The first version was widely panned. It was recut, and this new version got much better reviews. Roger Ebert was one critic who wrote about how he hated it the first time and like it much more after the recut.
#3
Old 02-18-2010, 06:00 PM
The Turtle Moves!
Charter Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 48,453
It's a number of things. The bj certainly had something to do with it. This wasn't some anonymous porn starlet. It was Chloe Sevigny. And it wasn't faked at all. But it also wasn't a good movie. Indulgent crap is more like it.
#4
Old 02-18-2010, 06:06 PM
Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 5,059
It was probably booed because it was a bad movie.

And there is a line between porn and film. They are distributed very differently. Commercial films in theaters usually don't show explicit blow jobs.

I think Short Bus also has a non-stimulated blow job in it. But other than those two films I can't think of anything else.
#5
Old 02-18-2010, 06:12 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Like me it never sleeps.
Posts: 4,585
Bolding mine:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakai View Post
I think Short Bus also has a non-stimulated blow job in it.
Now that's a bad review!
#6
Old 02-18-2010, 06:23 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakai View Post
I think Short Bus also has a non-stimulated blow job in it. But other than those two films I can't think of anything else.
Short Bus also had quite a lot more than just a blowjob. There are some other films notable for featuring unsimulated sex between non-porn actors, like "Intimacy" & "9 Songs," but rarely is it ever with mainstream well-known actors.
#7
Old 02-18-2010, 07:04 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: I'm right behind you!
Posts: 7,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hampshire View Post
Because of a real bj? Seriously?

What am I missing here?
About 90-minutes of unbearable self-indulgence. And you can probably find the video of the infamous scene online. It's pretty needlessly degrading.

ETA And I say this a fan of Gallo's Buffalo 66, though even that dragged.

Last edited by Cat Fight; 02-18-2010 at 07:05 PM.
#8
Old 02-18-2010, 07:10 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,606
I didn't even make it to the blowjob scene. The first twenty minutes of the film (yes, TWENTY, or thereabouts) were just Vincent Gallo driving silently. Fuck that, I turned it off and never watched it again.
#9
Old 02-18-2010, 08:54 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 201
Well I can imagine the 10 minute scene of Chloe Sevigny blowing Vincent Gallo raised a few eyebrows. Pretty tame by the standards of porn, true, but these are supposed to be "legitimate" actors, which I guess makes it all the more shocking.
Also as someone mentioned above, Roger Ebert created a big stink about how much the original uncut version sucked (no pun intended). Vincent Gallo in turn said he put a curse on Ebert, sparking a war of words.
Personally I didn't think it was that bad, but yes it is very self-indulgent. It's really the type of movie you'd only want to see once.

Last edited by BKReporter; 02-18-2010 at 08:58 PM.
#10
Old 02-18-2010, 09:37 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 16,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneyfailure View Post
I didn't even make it to the blowjob scene. The first twenty minutes of the film (yes, TWENTY, or thereabouts) were just Vincent Gallo driving silently. Fuck that, I turned it off and never watched it again.
You'd think that directors would look at Manos: the Hands of Fate and then NOt repeat things there, but nooooooo...
#11
Old 02-18-2010, 10:32 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 17,475
Boca: The Mouth of Fate.

Last edited by John DiFool; 02-18-2010 at 10:33 PM.
#12
Old 02-18-2010, 10:48 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 2,446
Quote:
There were two versions. The first version was widely panned. It was recut, and this new version got much better reviews. Roger Ebert was one critic who wrote about how he hated it the first time and like it much more after the recut
Ebert's original review (in which he called it "the worst movie ever seen at Cannes"), a bizarre conversation with Gallo, and the revised review are in his book "Your Movie Sucks". Ebert said the problem he and other reviewers had with the movie was much more the endless scenes of driving than the infamous sex scene. The movie was so devoid of action that there were two different scenes of Gallo getting gasoline. Ebert pointed that his fellow critics were so bored that when the film showed Gallo getting out of the car to change his shirt, the audience broke into cheers.

Last edited by installLSC; 02-18-2010 at 10:49 PM. Reason: bad grammar
#13
Old 02-18-2010, 10:56 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 26,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakai View Post

I think Short Bus also has a non-stimulated blow job in it. But other than those two films I can't think of anything else.
Short Bus was full on hard core porn...with a plot, it was actually a good movie, I've been meaning to rent it again.
Brown Bunny was awful. If you take out the blow job scene, it's an hour and a half of him driving in a van. Really, that's all it was.
#14
Old 02-18-2010, 11:35 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,606
I don't really get what the hang-up was about the blowjob scene. Celebs can film private sex tapes that leak to the Internet and still have a successful career (Pamela Anderson, Paris Hilton, etc etc) afterwards, but showing the same thing during one of your films is verboten? I don't get it.
#15
Old 02-19-2010, 10:21 AM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 21,340
Chloe Sevigny still has a successful career.
#16
Old 02-19-2010, 10:48 AM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,251
I find it to be extremely creepy for the guy that decided that there be a real blow job in the movie also be the recipient.
#17
Old 02-19-2010, 11:26 AM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 26,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
I find it to be extremely creepy for the guy that decided that there be a real blow job in the movie also be the recipient.
And IIRC it was his IRL ex-girlfriend.
#18
Old 02-19-2010, 11:42 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneyfailure View Post
I don't really get what the hang-up was about the blowjob scene. Celebs can film private sex tapes that leak to the Internet and still have a successful career (Pamela Anderson, Paris Hilton, etc etc) afterwards, but showing the same thing during one of your films is verboten? I don't get it.
Well, I guess the difference is that the Pamela Anderson and Paris Hilton tapes were (ostensibly anyway) never meant for public consumption. The Brown Bunny was.
Also let's face it. Paris Hilton and Pamela Anderson, unlike Chloe Sevigny and Vincent Gallo, have always been better known for their (ahem) physical assets than for their acting abilities.

Last edited by BKReporter; 02-19-2010 at 11:43 AM.
#19
Old 02-19-2010, 04:11 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 10,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
Short Bus was full on hard core porn...with a plot, it was actually a good movie, I've been meaning to rent it again.
I disagree that it was porn. It was an attempt to make a movie about relationships and sex without leaving out the sex - without coy camera angles, flesh-colored pasties or body doubles. It was honest.

Personally, I don't get the distinction. If a scene in a movie shows two characters having sex, why is one "porn" if it shows that sex more clearly? Why is it "not-porn" if the female actor is shown only from the back of her head and the male actor has a sock over his penis? If that's the same, the "Hard R" versions of "couples friendly" porn films are also "not porn" - although in that case the male is not wearing a sock and actual sexual activity is happening during filming.

There was a wonderful line in one of my favorite films, "Topsy-Turvy": Unfortunately, your avocation as an actor compels you, on occasion, to endure the most ignominious indignities.

Did people assume that Chloe Sevigny had never given a blowjob before, and were honestly shocked? Or is this just faux shock? She is an actor, and as such, her body is her tool (I wish I were arguing this point with a better film.) She has had to kiss other actors, had other actors caress her body, and appear to have sex with other actors. She was just willing to go a single step further. *

Where is the distinction? For instance, the movie Body Heat was a very erotic film featuring Kathleen Turner at the peak of her beauty and featuring some pretty near-explicit scenes between her and William Hurt. What if the director had gone one step further and shown penetration? Would it suddenly have become "porn"? I'm not talking about some film like Body Heat, I'm asking how that exact film would be perceived if Lawrence Kasdan had included explicit sex?

A more recent example would be David Cronenberg's A History of Violence. There were two sex scenes in the film between Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello. One is loving and sweet, the other aggressive - arguably rape. If Cronenberg had gone one step further and shown Mortensen's penis entering Bello's body, would it have invalidated the rest of the movie?

It seems like this is the last frontier of prudery.

* That may also be a generational thing - the belief that oral sex no longer qualifies as "sex", instead it's seen as "fooling around".

Last edited by gaffa; 02-19-2010 at 04:12 PM. Reason: Clarified activity
#20
Old 02-19-2010, 05:26 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 26,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaffa View Post
I disagree that it was porn. It was an attempt to make a movie about relationships and sex without leaving out the sex - without coy camera angles, flesh-colored pasties or body doubles. It was honest.[/SIZE]
I could see it blurring the line between art and porn, but there was plenty of unsimulated sex in that movie that made no attempt to hide anything. No it wasn't Jenna Jameson/Peter North type porn, but it also wasn't the soft core stuff you find on Cinemax.
Either way it was a good movie and I need to remember to add it to my Netflix Queue again.
#21
Old 02-19-2010, 05:31 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New Orleans Proper
Posts: 940
How many takes do you think the director took for that scene?

"Blowjob scene, take 53! And ACTION!"
#22
Old 02-19-2010, 05:37 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaffa View Post

Where is the distinction? For instance, the movie Body Heat was a very erotic film featuring Kathleen Turner at the peak of her beauty and featuring some pretty near-explicit scenes between her and William Hurt. What if the director had gone one step further and shown penetration? Would it suddenly have become "porn"? I'm not talking about some film like Body Heat, I'm asking how that exact film would be perceived if Lawrence Kasdan had included explicit sex?
I think there is a very large difference between "near-explicit" scenes and actually showing hardcore penetration. One is acting, the other is (for lack of better words) real. I'm not saying it would then be "porn." Just that it would be a much different film than simply suggesting sex, and I think it's a bit disingenuous when people pretend that there's no real difference, as if sex is not wrapped up in all kinds of baggage (in addition to the possibility of disease, pregnancy, etc.)
#23
Old 02-19-2010, 05:50 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
I could see it blurring the line between art and porn, but there was plenty of unsimulated sex in that movie that made no attempt to hide anything. No it wasn't Jenna Jameson/Peter North type porn, but it also wasn't the soft core stuff you find on Cinemax.
Either way it was a good movie and I need to remember to add it to my Netflix Queue again.
It wasn't intended to arouse, and therefore wasn't porn,IMO. I actually bought that movie one day, when I was in a bad mood and figured that the most explicit non-porn movie ever made might be a nice pick me up.

I was not turned on. Half way through, I burst into tears, IIRC.

Last edited by Small Hen; 02-19-2010 at 05:50 PM.
#24
Old 02-19-2010, 06:09 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 10,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
I could see it blurring the line between art and porn, but there was plenty of unsimulated sex in that movie that made no attempt to hide anything. No it wasn't Jenna Jameson/Peter North type porn, but it also wasn't the soft core stuff you find on Cinemax.
My question is - why is there presumed to be a bright line, one one side "porn" and the other side "not porn"? Shortbus questioned the distinction. The soft core stuff on Cinemax is often shot at the same time as the hard core version. They will literally shoot a scene, then move the camera to a different position so the penetration is obscured and shoot the "soft version" that will show a lot less sexual activity than Shortbus.

The real distinction seems to be one is a good movie and the other crappy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawn1767 View Post
How many takes do you think the director took for that scene?

"Blowjob scene, take 53! And ACTION!"
You keed, but it really did need another take. There is a lens flare right in the middle of the scene.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebrows 0f Doom View Post
I think there is a very large difference between "near-explicit" scenes and actually showing hardcore penetration.
Which is?

Quote:
One is acting, the other is (for lack of better words) real.
Sorry, but this really doesn't make any sense. When two talented actors kiss, they can make us believe they love each other - even if you read in the tabloids that these two people loathe each other. But the kiss is, for lack of better words, real.

Quote:
I'm not saying it would then be "porn."
So you know it when you see it?
Quote:
Just that it would be a much different film than simply suggesting sex, and I think it's a bit disingenuous when people pretend that there's no real difference, as if sex is not wrapped up in all kinds of baggage (in addition to the possibility of disease, pregnancy, etc.)
I don't get the distinction.

Imagine two actors are in a sex scene in a mainstream Hollywood movie. The woman is on top of the man, both actors are, as far as the camera can tell, completely nude, and the woman is bouncing up and down on the man. If someone were to visit the set at that moment, they would think the pair were having sex.

If the male actor were wearing a flesh colored g-string and trying his damnedest to not get an erection - it would be "not porn"?

But if the female actor, who was in a relationship with the actor, committed fully to the scene and said "Hey, we're grown-ups here!", ditched the flesh colored g-string and took her partner inside herself - it would be "porn"?

The whole "disease, pregnancy, etc." thing is, at best, a red herring. I'm sure Hollywood has better health care than the Valley. There aren't health concerns with open mouth kissing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Small Hen
It wasn't intended to arouse, and therefore wasn't porn,IMO.
I disagree about Shortbus. I think John Cameron Mitchell wanted to make a film where you cared about the characters, where the sex meant something and that was arousing.

What about non-sexually explicit films that are intended to arouse? Have you seen the two examples I mentioned, Body Heat and A History of Violence? The sex scenes in those films were pretty definitely intended to arouse. And both did so more effectively (IMO) than a lot of porn out there.

Last edited by gaffa; 02-19-2010 at 06:14 PM. Reason: Corrected director's name and name of movie
#25
Old 02-19-2010, 06:44 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Chloe Sevigny still has a successful career.
Er, well, I guess what I meant was why does everyone go, "Oh, he's got a sex tape. Whatever" and dismiss it when one leaks, but everyone goes "OMG, she gave head in one of her movies!!!!" when they hear about Chloe Sevighny in this movie? I mean, would have been BETTER for her to just release a homemade blowjob tape instead of showing it in this movie?
#26
Old 02-19-2010, 06:48 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 26,536
I think everyone should try and catch the TV series called Indie Sex, it really goes in depth about all these issues, and it's quite a good 3 episode series. They run it on IFC a couple times a year.

Indie Sex: Censored
Indie Sex: Teens
Indie Sex: Extremes
#27
Old 02-19-2010, 11:32 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,759
I already said that I don't automatically consider every act of real sex onscreen as porn. I don't think "Intimacy" is a porn film, even though Mark Rylance gets a real blowjob on camera. I don't think "Short Bus" was a porn film, even though that had many scenes of real sex. But I don't know why showing actual sex would even be necessary for most films, unless like "Short Bus," that is the topic of the film. Have you seen "Anti-Christ" by Lars Von Trier? Near the beginning is a full screen close up of a penis entering a vagina (though I do believe they were stunt body parts, and not actually the main actors.) It added nothing to the film and seemed completely thrown in to be shocking.

If you want me to try and come up with what I would define as porn, I would say it's explicit real sex created for the sole purpose of having the viewer get off. I don't think a mere "arousing" scene from a regular film counts.

I'm sure you're going to now come back with a handful of titles that will try and show how wrong I am, but in general that is how I view the topic. If you want to put it in the broadest of terms then you can make it so that anything can be porn, or you can define it so nothing is porn.
#28
Old 02-20-2010, 03:14 AM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 10,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebrows 0f Doom View Post
I already said that I don't automatically consider every act of real sex onscreen as porn. I don't think "Intimacy" is a porn film, even though Mark Rylance gets a real blowjob on camera. I don't think "Short Bus" was a porn film, even though that had many scenes of real sex.
As far as I can tell, what you seem to be saying is "if I think the director is respected and serious, it's not porn".

Quote:
But I don't know why showing actual sex would even be necessary for most films, unless like "Short Bus," that is the topic of the film. Have you seen "Anti-Christ" by Lars Von Trier?
When I left Dogville, I decided I will never see another of that asshole's films.

Quote:
Near the beginning is a full screen close up of a penis entering a vagina (though I do believe they were stunt body parts, and not actually the main actors.) It added nothing to the film and seemed completely thrown in to be shocking.
Von Trier throwing in things to shock? I'm shocked.

Quote:
If you want me to try and come up with what I would define as porn, I would say it's explicit real sex created for the sole purpose of having the viewer get off. I don't think a mere "arousing" scene from a regular film counts.
The problem with your definition is that it requires the viewer to read the mind of the director. I'm fairly sure that John Cameron Mitchell intended at least some of the sex scenes in Shortbus to be arousing...and others to be comic, sad, etc.

Quote:
I'm sure you're going to now come back with a handful of titles that will try and show how wrong I am, but in general that is how I view the topic.
Sorry, but this still reads as "I know it when I see it".

Quote:
If you want to put it in the broadest of terms then you can make it so that anything can be porn, or you can define it so nothing is porn.
There are foot fetishists, for instance, who compile lists of straight Hollywood movies featuring scenes they find intensely erotic. But, as a non-fetishist, they are totally non-erotic to me. Are those scenes "porn" because a foot fetishist will use them to masturbate? What if the director is also a foot fetishist, as some people claim about Quentin Tarantino?
#29
Old 02-20-2010, 08:06 AM
Charter Member
Charter Member
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Irvine, California, USA
Posts: 14,822
Just curious, gaffa - in your opinion, is there such a thing as pornography? Are you trying to say that everything is pornography, or nothing is pornograpy?
#30
Old 02-20-2010, 10:47 AM
Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 18,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
I find it to be extremely creepy for the guy that decided that there be a real blow job in the movie also be the recipient.
I think that this is where the controversy was. A blowjob for art is one thing, but getting your BJ on camera, given by a (semi-)famous actress whose been mislead into thinking she's making something artsy and meaningful when really you just wanted to engineer getting a blowjob on camera as given by a famous actress is just slimy.

Let's also not forget that this is around the same time as he offered to sell his sperm for some thousands of dollars, but not if the recipient was black. I think he did one other sleezy/creepy thing at the same time but I've forgotten what it was. Admittedly, these were all probably in the name of "art", but apparently Gallo doesn't have the ability of Lady Gaga to do bonkers stuff in a fun and cheerful way that people appreciate as anything other than the parades of an egomaniac.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 02-20-2010 at 10:50 AM.
#31
Old 02-20-2010, 02:13 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaffa View Post
Sorry, but this still reads as "I know it when I see it".
So what? That's how most people would answer the question. I'm not going to play this game with you and go line by line through your post. If you're trying to provoke an argument, I'm done with this.
#32
Old 02-20-2010, 02:38 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 24,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
I think that this is where the controversy was. A blowjob for art is one thing, but getting your BJ on camera, given by a (semi-)famous actress whose been mislead into thinking she's making something artsy and meaningful when really you just wanted to engineer getting a blowjob on camera as given by a famous actress is just slimy.

Let's also not forget that this is around the same time as he offered to sell his sperm for some thousands of dollars, but not if the recipient was black. I think he did one other sleezy/creepy thing at the same time but I've forgotten what it was. Admittedly, these were all probably in the name of "art", but apparently Gallo doesn't have the ability of Lady Gaga to do bonkers stuff in a fun and cheerful way that people appreciate as anything other than the parades of an egomaniac.
Well, he put a cancer hex on Roger Ebert. There's that.

"I know it when I see it" is the definition of obscenity, legally.
#33
Old 02-20-2010, 04:21 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 10,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebrows 0f Doom View Post
So what? That's how most people would answer the question. I'm not going to play this game with you and go line by line through your post. If you're trying to provoke an argument, I'm done with this.
I thought you wanted to discuss this topic. Ah well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zsofia View Post
"I know it when I see it" is the definition of obscenity, legally.
Right, the "Miller test". The problem is that all three parts of this "test" are value judgments:
  • Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
  • Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2] specifically defined by applicable state law,
  • Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnold Winkelried View Post
Just curious, gaffa - in your opinion, is there such a thing as pornography? Are you trying to say that everything is pornography, or nothing is pornograpy?
I'm questioning the term "pornography".
  1. There are sexually explicit films that are poorly made in a day or two for less than $50,000 with performers with little to no acting talent.
  2. There are sexually explicit films that are professionally made with a full crew on a budget of more than a million dollars with highly talented performers.
The pejorative term "pornography" is applied to the first, but not the second. I think the term keeps all but the bravest (or most foolhardy) directors from exploring sexuality, worried that they are going to get tarred with the epithet. It keeps talented actors from the first from being able to move into the second.

Should this move to Great Debates?
#34
Old 02-20-2010, 05:14 PM
Charter Member
Charter Member
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Irvine, California, USA
Posts: 14,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaffa View Post
  1. There are sexually explicit films that are poorly made in a day or two for less than $50,000 with performers with little to no acting talent.
  2. There are sexually explicit films that are professionally made with a full crew on a budget of more than a million dollars with highly talented performers.
Can you give me, say, three titles of movies in the first category, and three titles of movies in the second category? It seems to me that the disctinction between a pornographic movie and a non-pornographic movie is obvious, but maybe you have examples to show otherwise.

Last edited by Arnold Winkelried; 02-20-2010 at 05:15 PM.
#35
Old 02-20-2010, 06:16 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 10,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnold Winkelried View Post
Can you give me, say, three titles of movies in the first category, and three titles of movies in the second category? It seems to me that the disctinction between a pornographic movie and a non-pornographic movie is obvious, but maybe you have examples to show otherwise.
My point is that the ghettoization of most sexually explicit films as "pornography" results in a self-fulfilling prophecy - the vast majority of sexually explicit films are terrible.

Back in the 1970s and early 1980s, before home video, some people making sexually explicit films were genuinely trying to make a good film. A decent example would be Chuck Vincent's Roommates. Coming from the other direction would be the previously mentioned Shortbus.

If the distinction is obvious why can't anyone come up with a definition that isn't "I know it when I see it"?
#36
Old 02-20-2010, 06:19 PM
Charter Member
Charter Member
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Irvine, California, USA
Posts: 14,822
OK, here is for me what is obviously a pornographic film. Includes one or more of the following:
1) advertised as showing lots of sex
2) the majority of the running time of the movie (let's say > 50%) shows people having sex
3) the movie has closeups of penises, vulvas, anuses, etc. (the more closeups, the more it is "hard" pornography as opposed to "soft-core" pornography)

P.S. I would still be interested if you could give me 3 examples in each of the 2 categories of movies you listed so that I can understand better how in your mind it is really hard to define pornography.

Last edited by Arnold Winkelried; 02-20-2010 at 06:22 PM.
#37
Old 02-20-2010, 06:29 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Here's one. Hardcore porn is anything that shows actual pentration or graphic, unsimulated sexual activities. If we define the word that way, then, by definition, anything that shows those things is porn.

I personally don't see why you have such a big problem with the word. What do you have against porn? If you don't think it's a meaningful word, then why does it bother you to hear it used?
#38
Old 02-20-2010, 06:38 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 19,886
Short Bus? A terrific movie that was also porn. They are not mutually exclusive.
#39
Old 02-20-2010, 07:06 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 10,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Here's one. Hardcore porn is anything that shows actual pentration or graphic, unsimulated sexual activities. If we define the word that way, then, by definition, anything that shows those things is porn.

I personally don't see why you have such a big problem with the word. What do you have against porn? If you don't think it's a meaningful word, then why does it bother you to hear it used?
Because, as I said, it's a pejorative. It tars people who have directed sexually explicit films, it tars people who have acted in sexually explicit films. Even if you go on to do award-winning work, if your "porn" past is discovered, all of the sudden you're a "former porn star". Even if a mainstream director wants to hire you for a film, the studio heads will refuse - even if the part is playing a "porn star"!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin View Post
Short Bus? A terrific movie that was also porn. They are not mutually exclusive.
Earlier in the thread, Shortbus was being held up as an example of a film featuring explicit sex that was, somehow, "not porn" - in spite of the fact that it fits Diogenes the Cynic's definition. Which sounds (to me at least) like snobbery.
#40
Old 02-20-2010, 08:21 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
I don't think of the word as a perjorative, and changing the word isn't going to change anbody's perception of watching somebody suck Vincent Gallo's cock for real in a movie. The act is what it is. People form opinions based on what the act is, not on how anyone wants to categorize it in terms of genere. You either suck Vincent Gallo's cock on film or you do not suck Vincent Gallo's cock on film. Saying it really isn't porn* isn't going to change how anybody responds, positively or negatively, to seeing an actress suck Vincent Gallo's cock on camera.

*Which I would still argue it is, by definition, even though I would also argue that it doesn't mean porn can't be artistic, or that one porn scene necessarily defines an entire film as porn, just like one kung fu scene doesn't have to define an entire movie as a kung fu movie.
#41
Old 02-20-2010, 09:03 PM
Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 5,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
I don't think of the word as a perjorative, and changing the word isn't going to change anbody's perception of watching somebody suck Vincent Gallo's cock for real in a movie.
Maybe not Gallo's cock, but it will change the perception of other sexually explicit movies if people don't call them porn. When someone calls a film pornography, the word is used as a pejorative.

I think that most studios use your definition of porn, which is based on how much penetration/nudity you show, and that's why we don't see many sexually explicit movies. The producers of the film are worried that if you show penetration, the film will be labeled as pornography and no one will take it seriously as a film.

Quote:
Saying it really isn't porn* isn't going to change how anybody responds, positively or negatively, to seeing an actress suck Vincent Gallo's cock on camera.
It won't change the response after the movie is made and people watch it, but the problem is with studios who green light the film. They actually do make decisions based on what is called porn and what isn't called porn.

Arnold Winkelried, the definition might be obvious to you, but I think gaffa's problem is that it isn't obvious to film producers.
#42
Old 02-20-2010, 09:26 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
I think producers understand the distinction just fine, but they're making business decisions, not artistic ones. From a purely business standpoint, explicit blowjobs can't play in multiplexes. It doesn't matter how the film is labled.
#43
Old 02-20-2010, 09:51 PM
Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 5,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
I think producers understand the distinction just fine, but they're making business decisions, not artistic ones. From a purely business standpoint, explicit blowjobs can't play in multiplexes. It doesn't matter how the film is labled.
Then why do you think explicit blowjobs can't play in multiplexes?

I think calling movies that have them "porn" has a lot to do with whether the public will decide to see them or not. When someone tells me I'm about to watch porn, I don't assume they mean "20 minutes of a guy driving and one explicit blow job."
#44
Old 02-20-2010, 11:55 PM
SDSAB
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 71,446
This is worth reading, especially Ebert's Churchillian zinger at Gallo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bro...on_and_reviews
#45
Old 02-21-2010, 05:33 AM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 19,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakai View Post
Then why do you think explicit blowjobs can't play in multiplexes?
Bums in seats. The more explicit the unsimulated sex in a film, the more some potential audience members are alienated and decide to see some other film than the one with the dangly bits. It comes down to "Will it play in Peoria?"

With more and more films being distributed directly via DVD/online without playing in theatres (other than film festivals), I expect we will start seeing more indie productions that have explicit unsimulated sex.

Last edited by Muffin; 02-21-2010 at 05:36 AM.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:30 AM.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: drano in toilet italian slang moolie lp speed suicide pistol oxygenated fluorocarbon chinese symbols war roy warshawsky silver drinking cups playing street craps twice brewed coffee oldest playmate bijou name sfgiants message board mars attacks flag stopping melatonin yard spikes happy farms brand rational behavior horrible birthday cards my goldfish died abe simpson quotes chinese gold chain alexandra sasha fuck unions insomnia message board 30 clicks drill magnet kmart ammunition chloe sevigny sucking deck boards menards dive platform heights amazon adt signs salt joke titrate definition how much propane does a pilot light use what did calypso say to barbosa how to grind cinnamon why were the presidents chosen for mount rushmore how far is los alamos from albuquerque can my husband pick up my prescription send letter without return address can jellyfish sting when they are dead last american virgin ending are pork rib bones safe for dogs crock pot warm setting temp jerry lewis says hey lady vodka in the freezer my neighbor is an asshole whales in lake superior two steering wheel car is the electric chair painful what does colitas mean in spanish alpha phi alpha ritual revealed one dark night in the middle of the day acronis true image calculating time remaining song age of aquarius christopher walken two mice how are rope bridges built car ac turns on and off morning star antique strand handscraped bamboo monistat for dogs ear infections restraining order against a minor what is in mercurochrome is ginger a stimulant