I jerked off to this, the brown bunny and lie to me. I'm sorry, but i can't take these films seriously. But i did jerk off to it. Sex is Sex. who here have jerked off to simulated sex... i have.. people will always jack off to something SENSUAL "artsy" or not. I also jerked off to "Black meat on man street 2" some great scenes in that movie.
shareI haven't, but I can understand if you did (in the privacy of your own home, of course). The film is quite erotic. Doesn't mean you can't simultaneously take it seriously.
A lot of people have trouble reconciling sexuality with anything mental. The brain, as the cliche goes, is your most powerful sexual organ.
As I've said in other threads, this film is art AND pornography. It's far from the first to fall into both categories, and it'll be far from the last. The trouble is with people who think pornography is a dirty word because 99% of pornography is crap. I hate most porn, but I simultaneously understand that it doesn't have to be as bad as it is.
[deleted]
What? You really think that the act of sex is more erotically and pleasingly rendered through amateurishly shot and acted porn than 9 Songs? Well, each to their own, and at least you're only stating your opinion.
I would suggest that the reason (some) people look away when seeing others having sex would relate more to social mores than anything inherently wrong with the viewing of sex. If your conclusion were true (that people instinctively dislike watching people have sex), then the porn industry would not exist.
Oh, and art does not have to be beautiful. It can be ugly, disturbing, challenging or (dare I say it) pornographic. You have a very limited definition of 'art'.
[deleted]
I said that porn "can" create a pleasing presentation of real sex. And compared to 9 Songs, which IS amateurishly shot and acted, most porn would trump it. And the reason that porn can do this is because the people involved are professionals; it is what they do. They can make the act of sex something visually pleasing to watch. The reason it is pleasing to watch is because it works off fantasy. But then there are all types of fantasy, isn't there. And I'm sure that there are those out there who would get aroused by a jug-eared troll, who happens to have a big dick, humping some horse-toothed, flat chested, bean pole.
You're confusing bad acting with naturalistic (or even non) acting, and likewise amateurish camera-work with expert use of hand-held. You can say what you like about Winterbottom's directorial oeuvre, but there's no doubting his credentials when it comes to cinematography. See Genova for his most recent use of stunning cinematography.
9 Songs' greatest strength, in my opinion, is its lack of 'fantasy' elements. It is way more realistic than porn, yes, right down to the realistic appearance of the actors. Give me a 'jug-eared troll' and a 'horse-toothed, flat-chested beanpole' over a gay porn moonlighter and surgically enhanced bimbo any day, thanks.
You actually think I was being serious? My point is that sex in the real world is, by and large, not a pleasing act to watch. When people have sex, 99.9% of the time they are not performing for a camera. They are simply trying to please their partner or themselves. Most people don't watch people having sex in the real world, so their mental image of it, whether it's others or themselves, is one of fantasy.
I'm not sure if that's necessarily true or not, but let's run with it. If our conception of sex is fantastical, based on our experiences only involving participation and not a distanced gaze, isn't it great that a film like this subverts that fantastical misunderstanding? I mean, where else are we going to see such a natural representation of sex? Certainly not in pornographic film, that's for sure.
Oh, it does. You simply have a limited definition of beauty. "Ugly" is the antithesis of beauty. Therefore, if something is ugly, it can't be art. 9 Songs is ugly. Art does not strive to be ugly. Art can take an ugly subject and create a beautiful expression. In The Realm Of The Senses does that. 9 Songs takes the sex act, which CAN be presented beautifully, and presents it in an ugly way. That's why 9 Songs is "anti-art". The best I can get about what 9 Songs was trying to express is that they were trying to say that people have sex all the time and this is what it looks like. How is that art?
Your logical steps are faulty, because 'art' and 'beauty' are not at all synonymous. Would you say Goya's 'Saturn Devouring his Child' is beautiful? No, it's ugly, horrible, disturbing, and among the greatest works of art ever produced. Art CAN be beautiful, but it certainly doesn't have to be. And if you want to extend the generally understood definition of beauty to incorporate ugly or disturbing things, then you defeat your own point.
Having said that, your view of 9 Songs being 'ugly' is quite subjective. I found the honest, frank and intimate portrayal of sex quite beautiful. Others may have found it extremely erotic, others may have found it uncomfortable, and you and others found it ugly. None of those reactions make the film less a work of art.
The film depicts sex in the context of a relationship; the physical element, so to speak. It depicts something that many of us, as you mention above, would never have seen before. Whether it has a cohesive narrative is up for conjecture; whether it is a satisfying film, also. Nevertheless, it is definitely a work of art in my books, because it has something to say, something to show, and does it more or less successfully - and, in my subjective opinion, it is an excellent work.
[deleted]
I am? Deluding yourself wont help. And if you are going to categorize the acting in 9 Songs as non acting, you're strengthening my contention that it is anti-art.
BTW I haven't said anything about his "oeuvre". I couldn't care less about it.
Many great films have used non-actors, improvisational acting techniques, or both. The reference to Winterbottom's oeuvre was in response to your assertion that 9 Songs was the work of an amateurish film-maker. His work both before and after this makes a mockery of your point.
No, it's not "great". It's BS. Fantasizing is part of human wiring. We fantasize because we have an imagination. We can't help fantasizing, especially when it comes to sex. I think it was established that men think of sex every five minutes or so. Men are constantly fantasizing about sex. If jug-ears was remembering the sex, he wouldn't remember it the way Winterbottom displayed it. He couldn't, unless he had taped it. Even if he did, it wouldn't be immune to his fantasies. If we are to accept that these are jug-ears' memories, they should have been augmented in some way, not presented in a minimalistic, voyeuristic way. Yet more evidence of pretense.
What you're talking about (whether you know it or not) is actually one of my key interests - the relationship between personal film-making and use of subjective camera. Yes, perhaps the third-person perspective does lend an air of inauthenticity to the protagonist's flashbacks, but if so, then we must sadly condemn almost every film ever made with the same stroke.
There's room for fantasy, or surrealism, if you like, in cinema, and there's also room for realism. 9 Songs, in my opinion, is one of the more impressive films of the last decade to deal with the latter concern. It is quite ground-breaking in its depiction of sex, and considering that you seem to agree with my distancing of it from 'standard' hard-core porn, you would at least have to agree with that particular assertion. And who could deny that sex is an important subject? How often are we supposed to think about it again?
Yes they are. Art does not strive to be ugly. And "art' is the whole of the artists expression, not a single brush stroke or chisel mark, or even the image on the canvas. "Saturn Devouring his Child", as a piece of art, is beautiful. The interpretation makes an ugly act such as devouring your child a visually beautiful thing. The painting is shocking, but by no means ugly. Once you have interpreted Goya's painting and appreciated the expertise, and you still think it is ugly, you "misunderstand" art. There is no profound expression or expertise in 9 Songs. It's just a camera turned on and pointed at a couple of dingbats doing drugs, going to concerts and having ugly, passionless sex. Throw in some crappy antarctic footage and that's supposed to be art? PRETENSE!
The terms 'beautiful' and 'ugly' are very subjective. In this case, we are talking about a painting that we both admire, gave us a similar reaction, and that (it seems) we hold in a similar esteem. Yet, I say it's ugly and you say it's beautiful. I would wager that says far more about our individual definitions of the words than our appreciation of the painting in question.
But even that is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion, because I happened to find 9 Songs beautiful, because I find sex beautiful, and I thought the depiction of sex in the film managed to create a sense of intimacy and realism that few pornographic films or simulated sex scenes have even come near. That is a major achievement on its own - and, although much as you might not have cared much for the music, I enjoyed the sense of repetition and rhythm it created. Atom Egoyan's Calendar is another film that does this well (in that case, the switching between the Armenian scenes shot on video and the Canadian scenes shot on 35MM). The Antarctic scenes were a little redundant, but they do create a striking (if superficial) contrast to the claustrophobia of the rest of the film.
Whatever the case, I actually strongly dispute that 9 Songs is an ugly film at all, under either of our definitions of the word.
And your reaction doesn't make it art either.
Exactly. Our specific, subjective reactions are irrelevant to its status.
It depicts sex from the point of view of a peeping Tom; and a slack-jawed one at that.
Just because you believe a movie has "something to say" and "something to show" doesn't make it art. If that were the case, I could film myself crapping on a shingle and it could be art as long as somebody claims it "speaks" to them.
And aren't all films depicted from the point of view of a peeping tom? Yes, we as the audience are voyeurs. This is always the case.
So, how do we define art? Were the experimental films of Andy Warhol in the 60s art? Does art have to have a point? Is a painting of a valley and a stream art, or is it only art if it has a higher meaning? I'm not asking these as rhetorical questions, because I'm not sure. Perhaps a lot of us have personal definitions of what 'art' is, and all I know is that 9 Songs fits comfortably within my own.
[deleted]
You all got trolled... hard.
+1 internets, Saline.
Do you while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers? Where did I contend that a film can't be great if it uses "non-actors, improvisational acting techniques, or both"? And where did I assert that Winterbottom's oeuvre is that of an amateurish filmmaker? IMO, 9 Songs is amateurishly shot and acted. It looks like the work of an amateur.
I disagree - I think the cinematography is excellent, and clearly the work of someone who's good at what he does. And, considering that we have already established that 9 Songs is NOT the work of an amateur, that lends weight to my perspective. It is, however, if you like, amateurishly acted, and I suspect that was exactly how Winterbottom intended it. 9 Songs certainly doesn't suffer for it - as I've mentioned previously, this is a film which I would cite as a good example of non-professional or inexperienced actors being used to enhance a film's sense of authenticity.
"We" don't have to condemn anything. I can, if I so choose.
Now if 9 Songs were an attempt at subjective camera, I would probably think otherwise. Even the third-person perspective could have been construed as subjective camera, but it wasn't. It's simply a camera turned on. Pun intended!
What you're asking is for Winterbottom to go where very few directors have gone before. I would have doubly admired him for doing so, but he loses no respect in my book for maintaining cinematic conventions in that regard, just as Bergman, Tarkovsky or Rivette retain my respect while doing the same.
Did I ever say there isn't room?
Impressive, eh? If you find turning on a camera, holding it and pointing it at two people having sex impressive, all you need to do is find one of the thousands of amateur voyeur porn sites out there. They do the exact same thing.
If you can't tell the difference between this and 'the thousands of amateur voyeur porn sites out there', then you're either blatantly ignorant or just being pig-headed for the sake of it. We've already acknowledged that there are significant differences between this film and conventional pornography. But the quote above makes me suspect that you are being provocative just for the sake of it.
You saying Goya's painting is ugly says a lot about your understanding of art.
See above. Aren't you repeating yourself? I have already answered this. The key here is our respective definitions of 'beautiful' and 'ugly'. I just watched a documentary on Munch's work. I wouldn't call his paintings 'beautiful'. I would call them brilliant, melancholy, the work of a great artist, and yes, ugly. There is no beauty in The Shriek, not in the way I would use the word. But I understand why you would and that doesn't phase me one bit. We simply have different definitions of that word. It has nothing to do with our respective understanding or appreciation of the work.
What you believe 9 Songs created is achieved on a daily basis at amateur voyeur porn sites.
And that's right, sex is an intimate act. That's what makes it beautiful. Not the depiction or display of it. When you display two people really having sex (and the only way to assure that is to show penetration), you destroy intimacy. You destroy the beauty. No beauty, no art. Simulated acts, if done right, can come close to recreating that intimate beauty, but not the display of real sex. This is so because the true beauty of sex is NOT penetration. People who want to see penetration just want to get turned on and stroke one out.
The beauty of sex is every single aspect of it. You wouldn't admit it, but your rejection of the depiction of penetration as being part of that beauty is simply a relic of puritan ideals. You're essentially saying that we should turn the lights out, or have sex with our eyes closed - because god forbid that we see, amongst all the embracing and skin, a penis entering a vagina! Do you realise how ridiculous your argument sounds? And if you believe, like me, that typical pornography removes that sense of intimacy, maybe you can start to understand why I like this film so much - it makes a serious attempt (however successful you believe it was) to restore that sense of intimacy to the depiction of sex. Your last sentence also suggests an extremely conflicted view of sex - you see the penetration as purely 'sexual', in some sense of the word, and the rest of sexual intercourse as having some kind of divergent 'beautiful' aspect. You're drawing a line that doesn't exist.
Peepers peep in on real people doing real things. It's kind of illegal.
Yes, it can be said that we the audience are voyeurs when we watch a movie, but I wouldn't classify us as peeping toms. But 9 Songs certainly makes you feel like one, because all it is is a camera turned on and pointed at two people having sex.
Peeping Toms, voyeurs, it's all the same thing. Read up on a bit of feminist theory re 'the male gaze', for example. What you're saying is that 9 Songs made you feel uncomfortable for watching. Is that a good or bad thing? You could write an essay based on that question alone.
Yes, go on thinking 9 Songs is art and that Saturn Devouring his Child is ugly. Give me your mailing address and I'll send you my film of me crapping on a shingle. I'll make sure to throw in a few shots of a snow covered, Arctic outhouse. I don't know what the outhouse would represent, but I'm sure someone out there could interpret it in a way that would be meaningful to them, and thus make my film ART!
So what is art, then, anyway? I don't think I have seen one definition offered in this entire discussion... except for your assertion beauty = art, which is not only dubious as a conclusion in its own right, but relies on a subjective term that we've already established can mean different things to different people. If you really want to make a case that art is what is beautiful, I would like you to explain how a man eating a child could possibly be beautiful. And if a talented artist such as Goya could make such a horrible thing beautiful, then maybe he could make 'crapping on a shingle' beautiful, too.
(BTW, stop trying to force contrasts that aren't there. If we can even attempt to compare artworks across mediums, I would agree in a flash that Goya's painting is a superior artwork to Winterbottom's film. But I suspect you're being deliberately mischievous in any case).
[deleted]
There is little to no attempt at good cinematography in this movie, and certainly nothing that would indicate anyone other than an amateur at the helm.
It doesn't need to be established that "9 Songs is NOT the work of an amateur" because I never said that it was. That's just your straw man.
Or maybe Winterbottom made the movie seem amateurish because the characters are emotional amateurs? OR MAYBE IT'S JUST CRAP WORK?
Define 'good'. I thought it was good. You didn't. Winterbottom's status as a director simply lends more credence to my perspective, that's why I continue to reference it - Michael Winterbottom excels at his craft, so it is far less likely that the cinematography is 'just crap' and far more likely that it turned out exactly how he intended. It's not that hard to get your head around.
So what? Winterbottom could have easily made this a work of subjective camera. He could have easily made the viewer think they were seeing things through the male lead's eyes. He could have taken the opportunity to comment on how our recollections can be warped by external stimuli, internal stimuli (the drugs) or insecurities. He did nothing like that. He just turned a camera on and showed two passionless people doing drugs, going to concerts and having real sex. All this movie is is - "This is what some people do. Wanna watch?".
He could have, but he didn't. Just like Tarkovsky could have shot The Mirror from the perspective of the protagonist, or Lynch could have done the same with Eraserhead. Why weren't they filmed subjectively? Why wasn't Citizen Kane filmed subjectively? Do you get what I'm saying? I'm a huge advocate of the use of subjective camera, but if I were to condemn every movie that didn't use it when it could, I'd have to toss almost every film made in the last 114 years out the window.
And I've acknowledged that there are differences between this movie and conventional porn, yes, but those differences make conventional porn better than this movie.
I SAID that the "true" beauty of sex is the intimacy. Do you know what intimacy means? Do you have a clue? Depictions of sex are an invasion of intimacy. Showing penetration is the ultimate invasion of sexual intimacy. When you show penetration, you destroy intimacy. All aspects of sex are beautiful through intimacy, even penetration. When you destroy the intimacy, you destroy the beauty. At least conventional porn attempts to create an aesthetically pleasing presentation of real sex. And as I said before, that is achieved through fantasy. Even simulated sex in mainstream film is done in the fantastical or somewhat fantastical. This is done because they know that real life sex is not a pleasing thing to watch, that is unless you are part of the perverted minority that does find it pleasing, or should I say, "arousing". Now if you believe that the depictions of sex in 9 Songs are aesthetically pleasing or even beautiful, you are warped.
What is so significant about the act of penetration? How does the depiction of that act destroy the intimacy?
In that block quoted above, you have summarised my admiration for this film more succinctly than I could if I tried. 9 Songs subverts that fantasised, glamourised depiction of sex found in porn and Hollywood movies. Yes! Exactly! This is exactly what I am talking about. It strives to create a more realistic, more intimate depiction of sex. And, because 9 Songs is a work of art, not just a work of pornography, whether that depiction is aesthetically pleasing or not becomes increasingly irrelevant.
I appreciate the fact that you consider someone like me a pervert, and in the minority - it means that I appreciate the beauty of sex for what it is, even when depicted from a distance, whereas you find the visual of it ugly, displeasing; you would far prefer a stylised, more insincere depiction. Am I, then, the pervert? Perhaps so, and eternally grateful for it.
There is a clear difference between calling someone who is watching a movie a voyeur; a movie that was intended to be watched, that was made to be watched and can be called an invitation to voyeurism, and someone spying in on intimate things people do. I would not call moviegoers peeping toms. It's a stretch to call them voyeurs after you consider its definition.
If the essential act of movie-going is voyeuristic, as I believe and you have acknowledged is at least a possibility, then a film that takes that voyeurism to the nth degree is only 'bad' if you consider the act of movie-going itself to be an essentially 'bad' thing in of itself.
I never said that beauty = art. I said that art strives to be beautiful. If the artist fails to express it or if one fails to see it, art is not there. I see no beauty in 9 Songs, therefore I see no art. I don't see where Winterbottom strove to be beautiful. Again, no art. If you see beauty, I role my eyes and laugh at the notion. As I said already, I'm sure someone could find crap on a shingle beautiful. I guess that means it's art.
Well, you did, actually, but I'm not going to be petty about this. And your definition of art is nevertheless faulty - if 'one' failing to see the beauty of an artwork renders it 'not art', then there is no art, because there is no universal definition of beauty. Someone, somewhere, will find an artwork not beautiful. So what do we look for, some kind of consensus? I don't know. I suspect the problem lies in your definition. I would argue that art's definition lies in its intentions, combined with the artist's success in achieving those intentions. I believe Winterbottom's intentions were artistic, and I believe he more or less succeeded in creating it. So, opinions of a film's beauty aside, I think Winterbottom's film certainly qualifies as a work of art.
Interesting tangent: is there such a thing as 'bad art'? Can there be a poorly constructed work of art? I would say yes, definitely, so perhaps the question should not be 'is 9 Songs a work of art?', but instead, 'Given that 9 Songs is a work of art, what are its merits or flaws?'. I think that would lead to far more relevant discussion.
[deleted]
You're perspective is just a cop out. The only way you seem to be able to qualify this film as having good cinematography is by pointing to Winterbottom's status and oeuvre. That, and also creating straw man arguments. Now, if you want to state that Winterbottom had artistic intent with this film, show me where he has explained the effect he was trying to achieve. If the effect he was trying to achieve matches what I saw, I'll agree that there was at least an attempt at cinematography. I'll never agree that it's good.
As I wrote previously, I thought the handheld camera was used to portray a greater sense of intimacy, i.e. the opposite to the fixed camera often used by Haneke. I think it was the right choice, and was done very well. Compare the way Winterbottom shot the sex scenes with, say, a mainstream porno - you don't get the predictable camera shifts, the leering at genitals, etc. I actually thought there were moments when the camera-work alone achieved moments of great beauty - but we're clearly not seeing eye-to-eye on this one.
Do you have absolutely no respect for the intimacy of sex? Is sex between two people no more significant than eating a pop tart, for you?
I have stated that I believe the true beauty of sex to be the intimacy. Penetration/copulation is the ultimate act of sex and therefore the ultimate intimacy. If this movie is about showing two people having sex, then that is how intimacy must be approached. But that can't be done, because we know there are other people in the room (director, cameraman etc), plus the fact that the movie was made to be watched. It becomes about that. Therefore it can't be viewed as the intimacy between two people, which is what sex between two people is. That intimacy is destroyed. We can only define intimacy as it would relate to people watching two people having sex. I see no beauty in that. Therefore all that is left is aesthetics. And as I've said, the depictions are not aesthetically pleasing. An attempt at good cinematography might have helped that.
I think a film can depict something intimate, even if that intimacy is artificial. I find it strange that you found the sex in the film alienating, whereas I felt a real sense of being there, being an observer of this realistic intimacy between two people. I think if the actors are good enough and the director knows what he's doing, he can create intimacy from a non-intimate (or in this case, with the director and cameraman, relatively less intimate) situation, and I think Winterbottom did that with this film.
You're operating under the false assumption that any one person's opinion can be considered law here. I am speaking for myself. I don't speak for you. You see art, I do not. You see beauty, I do not. My opinion does not render 9 Songs "not art". It can't. Thank God it can't. It only renders it "not art" for me.
I hope you don't start saying I need to insert IMOs and "I think"s or "I believe"s into everything I write. That would really be disappointing.
Fair call.
[deleted]
But that doesn't make it good cinematography. Good cinematography is when the result achieves the effect the film maker was aiming for.
I guess if you're trying to define intimacy as the intimacy that can be achieved by watching two people really having sex, I would think a stationary camera would give a far better sense of intimacy in that regard. A hand held camera is just that; "hand held". That means the viewer has a greater sense of someone else being in the room, whereas a stationary camera would lessen that sense. A sex scene shot from only one position and stationary would be better. A stationary camera that was set far back would be even better.
Winterbottom chose to be just as intrusive as porn, just not as crude, so I disagree with your assertion that the effect was a greater sense of intimacy. I don't think he was all that concerned with intimacy where the sex was concerned.
Stationary camera? No way! If anything, that would lead to a far colder representation. The sex scenes in Chereau's Intimacy (a similarly explicit film from a few years previously) are shot from more of a removed, stationary perspective, and not coincidentally, that is a far more depressing, emotionally distant film (although no worse for it). It wouldn't have necessarily made 9 Songs a worse film, but it definitely would have been a different result if he had chose to shot it in that manner.
On Winterbottom's intentions, it's difficult for me to argue this point because I have nothing more to go on other than his brief interviews on the DVD combined with the final outcome of the film, but it seems to have been what we was attempting to portray. I suppose it's up to the discretion of the viewer to judge how successful that was.
Sure it can, when actors are acting and the camera is used to create that particular sense. What we're talking about here is two people REALLY having sex. It's not artificial. It's not acting. It's real. You're mixing illusion with reality. Acting is illusion. Acting is artificial. You can't artificially recreate the intimacy of two people having sex if you film two people really having sex. The best you can do is make it an intimate session of watching two people really having sex. I guess it was an intimate session for Winterbottom, his cameraman and whoever else. And I guess it would be intimate for whoever is watching the film, depending on how many people are watching along. I doubt it was intimate for the two leads. Was Winterbottom able to create a sense of intimacy elsewhere in the movie? Sure. When the actors were acting.
I disagree on the acting point - surely it is possible to act during sex, e.g. roleplay, so why not in a film? As I might have written in another thread (they all blur together after a while), Kieran O'Brien wasn't playing Kieran O'Brien having sex with Margo Stilley, he was playing 'Matt' having sex with his girlfriend, 'Lisa'. They had to create a sense of affection and desire that, we can only presume, didn't exist in real life. I wager that's still acting.
As I might have also written in another thread, actors often use their own past experiences to achieve realistic emotions in films - crying, for example. If the actor is really crying in order to portray the genuine tears of a character, have they stopped acting? I think that's an interesting comparison.
As for whether the sex was intimately portrayed, it was the realism that I thought really achieved that. 'Fake' porn sex seems less intimate, more staged, and I think that's linked to the artificial conditions. 9 Songs was also filmed under artificial conditions, but I believe there was a far stronger attempt in this film to at least recreate some form of reality.
[deleted]
your entire post is ridiculous and ignorant but i just want to comment on the part where you say humans "look away instinctively", i bet if a small child saw a sex scene he would not look away and iam not trying ot be perverted but if you say instinctively its that the action would occur without having to think about it, humans have learned to see sex as somethign discrete, its socially constructed idea, but animals mate in public and dont hide because its not an instinct to be ashamed of, its society and religion that has made it so, so think before you state your own opinions as facts
*It is our choices that show who we truly are, far more than our abilities*- Albus Dumbledore (RIP)
[deleted]
Very well said, Davidgoesboating!
shareThis film is art? How you figure? Winterbottom got you brainwashed good that's why its called acting. Its just made to look real its not supposed to be real the fact that this *beep* is being labeled as and artist for making this mess is and insult. There should still be that line between porn and legit cinema
There is no greatness where there is not simplicity, goodness and truth. (Leo Tolstoy)
Black meat on man street 2. Great actors dealing with some major themes... Cinematic gold!
share[deleted]
Yup. *beep* scene, blow job scene. Excellent whacking material. Need to see Lie to me (Brandon Routh movie right?). Unless you mean Lie with Me? Saw that, the chicks hot. Ken Park is a good one too and more "edgy" (pornish). Shortbus was just not good. Not brown bunnie, knowing it was a dildo before hand made it not a big deal.
shareShortbus may not be good, er, 'whacking material', but I dare you to find a more enlightened, joyful representation of sex in the history of cinema. As a film, it sometimes felt a little mediocre, but its portrayal of sex and sexuality were probably decades ahead of its time.
sharei meant as a movie as well. The stories were so-so, the directing was fair. It's representation of sex...i dunno in some ways i agree with your opinion, it wasn't used as a prop or gimmic like a lot of these types of movies do.
shareI agree, Shortbus is a great movie, and decades ahead of its time.
Your points above are good ones as well. That "Saline" (or whatever his(?) nick) happened to be not into the 9 Songs actress's looks and wants every movie about sex to be a "classic" porn movie, thus he tries to come with some complex reasoning for his quite simple state of mind.
[deleted]
I think there's something sad about the deterioration of western civilization as evidenced by the need for people today to have their whacking material be as explicit as "9 songs" or "brown bunny". Grandpa used to get down to business watching Samantha on "Bewitched" or Mary Tyler Moore on the "Dick Van Dyke (now there's a porn star name for you!) Show." And Grandpa's Grandpa did just fine with a corset ad from a Sears catalog. George Carlin used to have a routine where he decried today's youth for not being able to entertain themselves in the back yard with nothing but a stick. This is all part of the same problem -- lack of imagination, lack of elan vital, for lack of a better tem.
share[deleted]
The problem with your assertion is that I very much doubt that anyone uses '9 Songs' or 'The Brown Bunny' as 'whacking material'. If anything, I would imagine that most people nowadays get off to far more explicit and tasteless material on the internet, and you may be surprised to learn that there was porn in our grandparents' day as well. I have a DVD at home of vintage porn from the '20s [I'm such a degenerate, I know], so, I think your assertions about Grandpa and Grandpa's Grandpa may be a little misguided. Having said that, your overall point about society losing its imagination rings true, I'm just not sure that '9 Songs' has much if anything to do with that.
shareI think you're just trying to hard to be noticed. A girl fingering herself or rubbing one out, makes sense. But a guy to this, BS.
shareI never found this movie to be very erotic or tittilating.
I find porn to be tittilating, because it is a show for the viewer. The sex in this movie was very real and didn't excite me as it obviously did you.
[deleted]
to Vomitcrommy-something from a coupla pages back = Funniest thing I've read all day. Genuine LOL
share