Explain this to me: Margo's character is shaped basically like a teenage boy, but this fellas um..."member" is rather large to say the least. So large it barely fits. If the guy has to be above average why the hell didn't they give us a more shapely woman?
shareYou call that, 'rather large'? I'd call it slightly over average to be frank.
It says: 'Virgil Brigman is back on the air.'
[deleted]
*The research has said the size of the average American man's penis is 5.5"*
It may have escaped your notice, JustAmessageBoardPoster2; but Kieran isn't an American. (If the accent hadn't given it away; the 'au naturel' penis might.)
I couldn't call this film pornography, since we barely see that much, there's very little in the way of close-ups, and if this were a US production he would have taken a back-door position at least once...
I wouldn't call Margo beautiful; cute, fairly attractive maybe; but not quite 'beautiful'. (No bad thing in my book.) And at least she's not artificially enhanced either...
It says: 'Virgil Brigman is back on the air.'
Just because real sex is on celluloid doesn't mean that art and pornography isn't mutually exclusive.
I personally didn't like this movie, butI am not one to not call it art.
I wasn't aware that the average man's penis was 5 inches.
keiran isn't a particularly average man. His penis looks about 7-9 inches at least although its difficult to tell.
@dobraye_utra:
"You call that, 'rather large'? I'd call it slightly over average to be frank."
You call nine inches "slightly over average"? You can see that it reaches well past his navel. Mine would have to be more than 9" to do that. As already mentioned, the average is 5 inches. This guy is nearly twice that.
Like it or not, it wouldn't work if he had an average dick. That's why there are no "average" porn stars. It just wouldn't photograph properly.
Anyhow, the sex isn't blatant enough to really be porno. Have a look at the fellatio scene in "Caligula" if you don't know what I mean. You can't get much more pornographic than that.
You are wrong. Statistics show that the average man is 6" whereas the actor in this film was 10". More than "slightly over"!!!
Blessed is he who has not seen and yet has faith.
i just saw the video the other day. It would have been pornographic had a more shapely woman been used for this film. Margo Stilley reminds me of Silvia Crystal in "Emmanuelle" back in the sixties btw.
For the record, 9 SONGS is a realistic love story of a man and a woman. A beautifully filmed documentary of two people who share passionate interest in the concert scenes.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
*beep*
Love all the men commenting on whether the size of a penis matters to a woman's enjoyment.
*beep* typical. Men totally inhabiting the space and hijacking female sexuality.
How about you ask I woman what they think?
Well, I don't care whether you ask - size is good. Length and girth. Don't even pretend it's one or the other. It makes you look like a pathetic virgin.
...Mine is 4 and I'd love to see my size represented in a movie without the small size being a joke.
But that is the point; someone with a 5" cock would not have taken the role. His pride wouldn't have let him.
share[deleted]
But that is the point; someone with a 5" cock would not have taken the role. His pride wouldn't have let him.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Yes, I agree. Clearly the producers of this movie succeeded in getting a sufficiently large actor to please female viewers, but they totally failed to provide the male audience with a sufficiently shapely actress!
Man, did you ever miss the point of the film.
guys actually prefer to watch a big dick than a small one in porn, not so much the women. no one finds males attractive in porn. anyway, it's definitely larger than average, as someone said it goes past his naval.
[deleted]
Big breasts have nothing to do with equating with pornography? Oh, but a huge penis does? There are a lot of porn actors who don't have >7" penis.
Pornography is pornography. Big breasts, small breasts, big penis, small penis. That doesn't have anything to do with the movie discussion.
Maybe we guys would feel a lot happier if the movie guy had a tiny penis, so we could all brag that ours is bigger and better! Who cares. The movie is about their relation, their way to express themselves sexually... not about how big the actor has it.
And oh dear, how does a conservative person like you - JustAMessageBoardPoster2 - gets to know famous pornstar actresses or their big fake breasts? Maybe you were just disapointed that you thought the movie was porn, and it eventually ended up being - as the above poster said - a 'realistic love story of a man and a woman'. Damn! Wrong shelf at the video store!
[deleted]
The girl is ugly, the guy is ugly... Simple.
shareI don't think they chose him for his "member" I think it's just a coincidence. Besides how many "average" guys are going to agree to full frontal nudity even if it means getting a free blowjob?
shareIt most certainly wasn't a coincidence. The part needed a guy with a big dick, so they found one. I wonder how they did the casting?
Maybe they chose a less voluptuous girl as a counterpoint, so it wouldn't seem so pornographic. It was a real accomplishment getting this one past the censors.
[deleted]
[deleted]
They should have gotten a guy with a five inch penis to perform the role. It is still wrong to show actors really having sex but at least then it would not have been so blatantly exploitative and pornographic. The fact of the casting choice belies any claim Winterass can make to this film not being pornographic.
Big breasts have nothing to do with equating to pornography.
[deleted]
I don't think breast size necessarily has anything to do with eroticism... Winterbottom got a guy with a larger than average size penis because he thinks it looks good on screen and is more erotic. That is exploitative and thus pornographic.
[deleted]
how about casting a bald guy. I have a great dick but I'm bald. You can't win. Everybody has some insecurity.Oh and some people have large torsos (me) and some people have small ones. All because someones dick reaches their belly button on them doesn't mean it would reach yours. (er, does that make sense?) It doesn't look like a 9 inch dick to me. More like around 7.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
maybe, just maybe the guy was chosen for reasons OTHER than the size of his dick!
Im really starting to wonder why you are so threatened by a guy with a slightly larger than average member. get over it and your pointless moralising.
[deleted]
thats fine, be suspicious until the cows come home if it makes you happy.
you can only speculate as you have no insight into the decision.
who's to say that of the hundereds of other competant male actors that would have been fine with the role, many of them also had larger than average apendages? some would probably have smaller ones too!
point is, some guys have big ones, most bigger than your 5'er, but there's no need to get all uppity and conspiracy theorist about it. the world doesnt revolve around you and what you think!
[deleted]
SO let's get this straight. 'Winterass' (clever) casts a guy with an arguably big dick. This proves he was just making pornography. BUT! He doesn't want people to think he made pornography so he cast a woman who is flat chested.
Add in assertions that there would have been simply LOADS of guys willing to play the role - not the case - and that the male lead was chosen solely for the size of his willy.
I personally think the movie IS porn, but artistically valid porn that (with a limited amount of success - I don't feel the need to argue a movie is a masterpiece in order to justify its existence) says something about relationships and male-female interactions. But I don't make the classification as porn based on frankly absurd and unprovable arguments about trivia, but on the nature of the film.
[deleted]
I doubt you'll see this - I'd forgotten about this thread for two months, but got bored tonight and went looking through my old posts. But anyway...
<Where does this come from? There are a lot of pornos with women with unenhanced or small breasts or even flat chested. There are a lot of beautiful flat chested women.>
My apologies, I made this bit unclear through carelessness. I was addressing the thread as a whole, not just your posts, and someone else (not you) had suggested that Winterbottom had cast a small-breasted woman so the film would seem less pornographic. That's what I was referring to in that sentence. I try not to personalise my posts on IMDB as it's counterproductive (though from my other posts that day, I must have been in a bad mood) so was addressing other's comments as well.
<What does "artistically valid porn" mean? >
You actually answer this yourself a paragraph later:
<Way back in ancient times in the 70s they used to make XXX pornos with a semblance of a real plot around the sex scenes and with longer spoken parts in non sexual situations.>
I'd rate porn films such as The Opening of Misty Beethoven, Blonde Ambition (NOT the Jessica Simpson one - although hardcore porn might have gotten more people in the door for that one...), The Devil in Miss Jones and (best of all) Cafe Flesh, as being films where the sex scenes aren't just 'the good bits' surrounded by filler, but films where both the sex and the story around it are interesting and present SOMETHING that is relatable to human experience.
It's easier to find examples outside America - In the Realm of the Senses, Romance (although it's bleak as hell and very alienating, so not a turn-on), and La Bete.
It also gets confusing when dealing with softcore porn - no penetration or erections or explicit sex, but definitely designed to arouse (mostly male) audiences. The existence of a 'line' gets incredibly murky. As I wrote in February, I do actually consider 9 Songs porn, but something like Intimacy, despite the real fellatio scene (which I did actually find a turn on), I do not.
Certainly an interesting question, one I dont have an answer for, but let me suggest this to fellow posters, lets take a look at not just 9 songs but some other films that have had posted similar concerns/criticisms/observations. (Keep in mind In the DVD version I have of 9 songs the director winterbottom basically admits that he was going to make a "porn" film when he was casting K. Obrien for the role.)
We must I assume have a clear definition of what pornography is, and a definition we can all be comfortable with before we debate the question . But lets look at other films as well when we debate the issue. What about Lie By Me, or Vince Gallow's Brown Bunny, or Shortbus, all of which appear to depict explicit sexual acts as a focal point of the respective films treatments.
Is there a range of pornography more definitive than simply soft or hard ( no pun intended)?
And finally, if we can actually extrapolate the the actual "sex scenes" themselves from the definition of Porn, then the question becomes what of the actual filming of a sexual act makes it porn or makes it art?
[deleted]
If I may complicate the issue again, is it JUST the filming of a sex act that makes it porn? As you hint at, there is such a thing as softcore porn e.g. Russ Meyer, or Radley Metzger. Lots of nudity, but only simulated sex; a plot, but the film is designed essentially to provoke arousal.
I think I'd come down on the side of 'is it absolutely essential to the core of the film's being?' for it to be porn, versus 'is it only a flavouring or necessary for a particular scene* rather than the whole film'. The former would include both those softcore ones I listed, plus works such as 9 Songs and Shortbus, where the sex is integral* to the work (in the sense of, take out the sex and there's no film left to speak of), and thus could be classified as porn**. The latter would include stuff like Lie with Me, Intimacy and The Brown Bunny, in which the realsex is one element that is necessary for whatever purpose or intent the director wants (I confess I have no idea what Intimacy is supposed to gain by showing Kerry Fox with the male lead's penis in her mouth), but which could be cut out and the film would still maintain most of its structural integrity (however compromised artistically it would be).
*Note that I am not suggesting anything about sex scenes being gratuitous (spell!) or not.
**And I'll add again that personally I don't think there's anything perjorative about the term 'porn' though I can understand why fans of a movie would resist that film being placed alongside 'Girls Gone Wild' and 'Anal Antics 13'.
So is it the content of the sexual act then that by your definition would characterize it as porn. For instance is just one or two scenes of explicit sex sufficient for it to be considered "art" as opposed to "porn" . I have the cut version of Intimacy in my collection and as you suggest, I wonder, what would be added by seeing the lead actress actually go down on Rylance or him to actually penetrate her. Having said that if in 9 songs the explicitness was taken out but for one or two scenes would your definition of that film then be changed to considere it a non porn art form? Similarily in Short bus if we had a rated cut version that simply deleted the "explicitness" of the acts , but for one or two scenes, would it be judged differently by your standards and taken out of the Porn definition?
share[deleted]
Just trying to wrap my head around a definition, so if there is no explicit sexual act depicted, it would not be pornographic by your standards. 9 songs would simply be just a bad movie. Lets push the envelope a little. If Kieren OBrien exposed his erect penis in scenes but never had any of the actual sex acts filmed, and rather just simulated the sex between himself and margo, would it still be considered pornographic?
share[deleted]
So you disagree with the previous response to my thread where that poster did not consider the film Intimacy in the pornographic realm despite the explicit fellatio and suggested explicit intercourse in the uncut version of that film.
share[deleted]
I don't know why, but whatever format I use for threads I can still never be certain who is being replied to. SO if this is off the mark and you weren't addressing me in one of your comments feel free to ignore.
I'm also not sure if you're replying to me because your post seems to miss a lot of my points. I don't oppose 'art' and 'porn'. A film can be both IMHO (but let's not get into a discussion as to what defines 'art' or we'll never leave here...). And it's not the content of the sexual act that characterises something as porn, but how the sexual act fits into the context of the rest of the film. Thus if you cut the actual penetration etc from 9 Songs or Shortbus they would still be porn... although I can't imagine a version of 9 Songs with the hardcore stuff missing (it's short enough anyway!), I can imagine a version of Shortbus that could play on SBS in Australia/HBO in the US/Channel 4 in UK. Cut out the cum shots, the erections (maybe by zooming in on parts of shots where you can't see them, or even pixelating) and you'd have something that's playable on cable...
Anyway, I like how this discussion is developing!
I see the sex in shortbus as more pivotal to that film than I do in 9 songs, why i feel that way i dont know, I think the impact of shortbus as a film would be significantly lessened if it was watered down, whereas in 9 songs the impact would be less intrusive in a censored version of that film.
I think alot of the discussion on this board tends to try and pigeon hole "porn" as simply a bad thing for moral reasons whereas some on here see it as a more legitimate art form be it good, like some of the treatments we have discussed or bad ( the standard hard core variety). In any event, thanks for your input
Art is extremely subjective. What one may accept as art another may reject. For me 9 Songs is more porn than art, although it has some artful elements at times.
Blessed is he who has not seen and yet has faith.
i thought the op ment why not have an average guy instead of a polar researcher damn
share"The nature of the film is crap. Way back in ancient times in the 70s they used to make XXX pornos with a semblance of a real plot around the sex scenes and with longer spoken parts in non sexual situations. There is a fine line. What is it? "
hey, thats a good point. The music. the gigs, are a just a weak plot mechanism to
force us into thinking it isn't porn, but only in the same way that '70's XXX films tried to present themselves as 'erotic art'. Actually the film was kinda dull because of the music and eventually I just thought " quite a nice, 'real' porno really' just a bit sick of badly recorded, badly filmed gigs featuring young bands I'm not interested in. (Mind you it did make that clear on the cover I suppose)
I can remeber the sex scenes, I can remember the great sex me and the GF had straight afterwards, but I can't remember anything about the music and really there isn't anything else to remember OR forget!
It looked rather average to me. Maybe her "smallness" made a difference
share