sex, lies, and videotapes

I don't get the post title?!? SEX, LIES, AND VIDEOTAPES? I haven't seen, though I know it's a classic. Somebody enlighten me as to the connection with Angels, please.

and who's that Friday?

Your post opens up quite a range of ideas that I feel are worthy of exploration. I am afraid however that the thread will spin out.

In comparing/contrasting the two films you have already done much for the understanding of each. Hopefully the many side matters that they touch on don't interfere too much with that.

For starters I would like to look at a comparison of Graham and François. Their motivations seem to be different. On the one hand, François is using film as a means to explore a realm which he feels (as a male) is outside of the range of his normal experience (female ecstasy). In another sense, in addition, he wants to go where no one has gone before. He wants to capture on film the not-before captured. He wants to discover something. He wants to film something. The two are not unrelated. But these are two different things. What is this thing he wants to film. The movie suggests that it is his conviction that by pushing the thresholds of the permissible, in what amounts to laboratory conditions, a state or condition of ecstasy can be achieved by the participants (subjects). He wants to render the non-clinical in a clinical manner. He wants to place his eye, and the eye of his camera between the viewed and the viewer in such a way that the effect is unilateral. The results spin completely out of control and reveal a direct link from the subjects back to the experimenter, who wanted nothing more than to be a simple observer. He is the only character in the entire film who thinks that this is possible. On the other hand, Graham had discovered in his earlier life that he was incapable of restraining himself. He says that what he felt always came to physical expression. From this we conclude that he had become violent in an earlier relationship. This proved to be so traumatic for him that whenever there was the prospect of causing harm he became incapable of expressing himself. He went more or less dead and so, sexually, he became impotent. He would conduct his interviews in order to capture the aroused life of his subjects, so that later, when they were out of harms way, with his imagination he could stage a sexual encounter "with another".

What is common to each film, is that in every case the females find that when the male is determinedly "non-responsive", they become aroused. Furthermore, they are all aware that this is the case and even state it. The character of the arousal and the results in the two films differ. In SL&V, the two women are more or less transformed for the better. In EA, the range is more complex, from a hopelessness that spins into suicide, to abject rejection (his wife), even to demonic possession. The cathartic effect of the experiences in the case of Graham move in the direction of health. We are left wondering in the case of François just exactly what he learned, and who he subsequently became.

That being said, I am starting to wonder about whether (conscious or no) a question is put before us about the woman's sexuality in relation to its capacity to arouse a man.

In SL&V, Cynthia finds a qualitative difference in the nature of her arousal between encounters with Graham and John, not based on who she is, but based on how the men respond to her seduction. Ann finds the seductive aspect of her sister repulsive but discovers a hidden capacity for arousal with the man her sister can't seduce.

In EA , in (again) more complex and diverse ways, the different women attribute the course of their futures to the fact that François failed to respond to them when they responded to him. Almost as if to say, "You brought me to this zone, and left me on my own. We all agreed that this is what was supposed to happen, but you should know that you can't do that with impunity." Is there such a thing as unconditional sex? Guilt, responsibility, consenting adults - can we just shift blame by an agreement or are we duty bound by consent, regardless of "prenuptial" agreements?

I am just now getting into this film and will undoubtedly change my views as time goes on, but this is a start.

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