| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
damalc 
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
 Posted - 11/10/2006 : 20:15:48
|
porn or not?
another pretty limited release, 69 screens according to Yahoo!
lots of nudity and real sex.
i don't count it as pornography. the sex shown on screen isn't really presented in a way that's meant to stimulate. it's often funny, or awkward. and the people having sex look like real people, not porn stars (and believe me, i know that look). they're overweight, or too skinny or old, or just ... regular.
does sex on screen automatically = porn? |
|
|
Koli 
"Striving lackadaisically for perfection."
|
Posted - 12/29/2006 : 13:31:36
|
I haven't yet seen Shortbus, so I can't comment on the film. But I can comment on the general issue.
In order to decide whether a particular film is pornographic I think you need some sort of consensus on what pornography is. Nudity alone clearly isn't pornography, and nor is sexual activity necessarily. It's easy to debunk the notion that context is important, but equally it's hard to define pornography without considering the context of what appears on the screen. As censors have concluded, it's necessary to look behind the images to surmise what the film-maker's intention was. That's why British censors eventually relaxed their attitude to films such as Ai No Corrida (In the Realm of the Senses) and allowed films such as Baize Moi and 9 Songs, both of which depict real sex, for general distribution.
I have to conclude that the censors decided that the films in question had a serious intent and weren't made primarily to titillate. Certainly I'd say that Catherine Beillat's films, which have been known to feature a lot of nudity and real sex, aren't primarily intended to titillate. Breillat's Anatomy of Hell is graphic but I suspect few would describe it as erotic. I'm not sure the censors are right in every instance, but I think their approach generally is the right one: you have to look at the maker's intention.
Hence I don't think it'll be possible to decide whether Shortbus is pornographic by measuring the acres of flesh or the angle of the male characters' organs. |
 |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 12/29/2006 : 14:35:09
|
And let's not forget the similar debate that raged around Lenny Bruce. The prevailing definition at the time was something was pornographic if it appealed to the prurient interest. To which good ole' Len riposted: What exactly is wrong with appealing to the prurient interest?
There's always been a danger in trying to codify what is acceptable in a changing social context, whether in terms of sex or violence. The confusion always seems to arise between what effect an artistic creation [play, film, painting, etc] may have on children and extrapolating that to concluding it's a danger for adults.
What psychologists down the decades have always concluded is that it's so unlikely as to be negligeable that a person who is not already suffering from a mental illness will be turned into a raging sex maniac or a priori cause someone who would never normally commit violence to do so upon seeing a film, hearing song lyrics, or whatever.
Of course, if someone were being forced into a scene of sex and/or violence against their will, that's an entirely different - and much more important - matter. But it's not one which concerns a definition on which to base any censorship category.
|
|
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 12/29/2006 : 15:20:37
|
I definitely tend to be towards the prudish side in my personal viewing preferences. I don't care to impose my preferences on other people. I do find it sad that some folks who have more liberal tastes sometimes try to impose their standards on me.
Watching other people screw just isn't my idea of fun. I breed horses and have a practical attitude.
This discussion reminded me of Monster's Ball. My son and I watched that and we talked about whether the sex scene was necessary or not. My son pointed out that the film was an unflinching look into the private lives of the characters and that the scene was completely in context.
I found it embarassing, but my embarassment was the same kind that one might feel if mistakenly walking in on a couple that had expectations of privacy. I might have preferred that the film didn't have that scene, yet I can see how being coy and not showing it would have been too (aphasic about the word I want here). I still suspect that the scene was just an excuse to show the adorable Halle Berry nekkid. I'm not convinced she deserved an Oscar for it; I think she was awarded the Oscar simply because the role was a groundbreaker for Black women.
Altogether I don't care what consenting adults do (or watch) in private, but I do think they ought to leave children and animals the hell alone.
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Shortbus
