are there any adult filmmakers here

I agree that there is a bias. Where that is fair or not again is open to debate. I will always fall into the 'no it's not' camp but I can undersatnd why it is frowned upon.

For my money anyone lucky enough to be working in this industry, being paid and getting there films out there... we'll they deserve respect whatever medium they choose to work in!

Phil Hobden
-- Modern Life? --
www.mod-life.com
 
Poke said:
But wouldn't you agree that most porn is made with the simple goal of showing the sex act and not for any artistic merit?
Click to expand...

Yes -- but emphasis on most.

Poke said:
I know that there are porn directors out there that try to infuse art into the work, but they are few and far between because these types of porn films usually do poor profits.

Poke
Click to expand...

But what about the reverse -- the art directors that infuse explicit sex into their work? I think that is what Phil was getting at above. He cites two examples, Brown Bunny and Intimacy, but there are plenty of other examples of this. In the Realm of the Senses, Pola X, Le Pornographe, just about anything from Catherine Breillat, Guardami ... to name but a few. What about the early work of John Waters? His films often included explicit acts, but he is considered and indie icon...not a pornographer. (Well...maybe he was at the time.)


Is most explicit content made simply for arousal? yes.
Can explicit content be successfully included in an artistic project? yes.
Will explicit scenes (regardless of artistic merit) be denounced by a percentage of the population? yes.
Will the same scenes be appreciated by another percentage of the population? yes.

It all comes down to a matter of taste and morals.
 
John,

You nailed it. Taste and morals. Two words that strike fear and concern into my heart.

But also perception... specifically that of the film maker.

Unless you are an established director, to include or work in porn you will be shunned and considered a dirty porn director.

But the reason someone like Walters and the like gets away with it is that they are considered by the masses to be art directors and that means that you can pretty much do anything you want.

it's a shame that society and the film making community like to put people in a box and not allow or respect them for their creativity.

In part Shakespear, was pornographic (in his prose at least) but he's not considered a prornographer.

Art = license to do what you will.

Phil Hobden
-- Modern Life? --
www.mod-life.com
 
The onlyu problem I have with what's being said here is in a matter of intent. The emphasis is on most, as in most pornographic videos or films are made with little to no artistic merit in mind. All the films that have been sited as containing explicit acts yet considered art, all originated as art pieces that had pornographic elemets added. Porn flicks start as porn that sometimes have art elements added.

Orgination of ideas is a big thing.

Poke
 
I'm gonna add what I've said on previous 'porn' threads....to paraphrase James Joyce...'ANYTHING which makes you want to POSSESS IT, is pornographic'.....therefore I propose, 'SUGAR IS THE NASTIEST PORN EVER, D*AMN REFINED DEVIL'. :yes: :weird: :lol:
 
LOL Bird! Right on.

My husband/writing partner/producer is considering working with an erotic film company. He is thinking of doing this because he bought some of their films at a festival and found they had the production value of amatuer home video. His wish is to elevate the level of production taking what are quality story lines (soft core) and making them marketable to a wider audience. At first, I admit, I felt it dubious at best. Now, however, I have come to like the idea of him doing something in the 'film biz' that I am not involved in.
 
mr-modern-life said:
In part Shakespear, was pornographic (in his prose at least) but he's not considered a prornographer.

Art = license to do what you will.
Click to expand...

How would you say Shakespeare would be considered pornographic?

Erotic, "dirty", lewd, sexually explicit, (in parts), etc... but pornographic?

"Romeo, Romeo, unleash thy manhood upon me..."
"I swear by my Maiden-taker, I will fill thy mouth with the finest gravy thou hast ever sampled..."
"Oh Romeo! How do you ever fit thy blade in yonder sheath?"
"S'wounds! It's retractable honey, now shut up and get ready for the money-shot"

I don't think so. :P

Otherwise there could be a whole new reason for all the blood on Lady Macbeth's hands...
 
Spatula said:
How would you say Shakespeare would be considered pornographic?
Ha. For it's time it probably was ....

My point was just high art vs commerical. Both can be violent, pornographic or morally dubious but one gets a higher standing and is considered more worthy because of it's standing as high art.

Phil Hobden
edit: Ad removed. Please stop advertising your film in every post.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The whole thing is- were those much-talked-about "Greek Orgies" of old classified as art?

I just don't feel pointing a camera at something classifies it as art. It's skill, yes, but art?

Then again, anything can be argued to be art, even this: djfbnsduiovb

But I don't think Shakespeare could be considered "porno". I'd imagine he was quite the controversial toad, but I'm sure the wild group orgies with midget overlords happened OFF-stage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top