Is there porn in this movie?

Anything dealing with the portrayal of sex on screen immediately raises an almost unanswerable question concerning its justification. The subject when portrayed has a pitch that defiles. In exposing yourself to the material, you are under its spell (so to speak) and the problem of value vs. risk becomes a personal one that must ultimately be answered by the viewer. From my vantage point I found it at first to be rather bold. You see things there which simply do not find there way into films that have any other purpose than the expressed intention of arousing the viewer for their enjoyment of the arousal itself. Anything else that comes along with it, such as some kind of message is virtually collateral damage. But in this film it is not the case. After viewing the film the second time and more or less recovering form the unprecedented display, (not that sex is shocking, but finding it here, in the way it is done was most unusual, to say the least), I came to regard it in a more clinical way. I set my self the question: If the explicit display was not for the purpose of arousal why is it there? The answer I came up with is found in the specifically sensual character of the attraction between the two lovers. They hardly talk. In the first scene in the hotel room they do not kiss or embrace. The first contact is oral-genital. After completing they separate without words. She dresses and leaves after expressing her intention to return. As the interaction between them takes on further intricacies with blindfolding, and a third person voyeur, we do not get any impression that their relationship is anything by physical. Finally she repeats "I love you" three times, presumably during orgasm, and when finished says that "I never flicked like that before. Do with me what you will". I was left with the impression, that this woman, perhaps due to years of deprivation, has become so liberated by this new tension of her "forbidden" encounter with this "lover" that she is taken over by obsession. On the following day – this is only 48 hours after this renewed and unexpected rendezvous with this lover from out of town. She walks out of her old life, not even knowing if she has a new life. The way I understand all this, is that it is a portrayal of a woman who goes mad, more or less, based on pure sexual liberation, without an ounce of love involved. The passion is pure animal, and only bodily. The graphic character is in this sense quite justified to illustrate the contrast of her otherwise balanced life. We see scenes where she expresses concern that her daughter has befriended another girl whose mother allows her to stay out "that late" etc, and then on the other hand she is swept into a froth of pure desire where there is no evidence that she has any regard for her partner beyond what he does for her sexually. Mid-way they do have a conversation where it is revealed that she wasn't even aware of his marital status or if he had children. Further evidence that they have not talked about who or what they are, where they have been, what they have done. He was able to track her down by tricking her daughter via telephone to reveal where she worked. This is no coincidence. These two people know nothing about each other, nor, for the time being, seem to have any real interest in finding out too much more.

The question that remains then is not whether or not the graphic sexuality justified, because it is a very clear part of the dramatic picture that is being portrayed, but does the message (which is what?) warrant delving into the subject matter in this way.

What can we learn from such a film? I have my ideas about it, but I would like to hear what others have to say about the proceeding before I comment.

As far as the other two dramas go, there interconnectedness is purely circumstantial and in no way (that I can see) add to or subtract from each other.

(PRN) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-bFpYQzXE