Ms Naughty Porn for Women Blog

Archive for the ‘Filmmaking’ Category

I’m a few days late with this but really want to blog about it. Sam Benjamin, ex porn director and author of Confessions of an Ivy League Pornographer, has written an article for AlterNet entitled Why I Had To Stop Making Hardcore Porn. In it he describes how he spent 5 years making heterosexual gonzo porn for a living and how, eventually, he decided to stop because he found the whole experience too cruel.

I came to learn that within the context of the heterosexual L.A. industry, while my overt task at hand was to make sure that the girls got naked, my true responsibility as director was to make sure the girls got punished. Scenes that stuck out, and hence made more money, were those in which the female “targets” were verbally degraded and sometimes physically humiliated.

None of it was written in my contract, of course; it was more of a contextual thing. Like: Everyone’s doing it . . . thus, so shall we. My various superiors across the years saw the issue from a businessman’s perspective, reminding me quite openly of the need to keep up with our competition…

What surprised me most though, was the fact that I found within myself a happy willingness to be violent, a willingness to degrade. Though my bosses may have ordered me to organize and record the scenes of degradation, I followed their orders, and not without pleasure. Something cowardly within me, an internal space, suffused with a weak kind of anger, felt satisfied when I saw a woman “take her punishment.” I clung to the sense of temporary empowerment I found through the bullying. Lust-colored aggression and the satisfaction of making “good money” guided me through scene after scene.

Sam is talking about exactly the kind of porn I find offensive and have spoken out against regularly on this blog. I too have seen the slow creep towards “harder” porn online, “harder” meaning crueler and more degrading. I’ve long deplored the various “reality” sites that showed women laughed at and abused for having sex, sites that show women being slapped, made to vomit and cry during blowjobs, called whores and bitches and sluts… To me this type of porn has always been more about hate and revenge rather than actual sex and I despise it.

Sam then goes on to say that, after a break, he took up directing gay porn and found the attitude behind it to be far different:

Gay porn, in fact, was so goddamn simple that it approached a type of Zen beauty. I mean, this was guys taking on guys, in every shape and form imaginable, for the most part in good humor and absent-minded lust. They may have stuck to roles of “tops” and “bottoms,” but in the dressing room, we all seemed equals, on the same team.

Thankfully he uses the experience of gay porn to point out that not all pornography need be exploitative or cruel. He also mentions female-directed and alt porn as examples or more positive erotica. He then goes on to say:

At its worst, though, porn can represent with shocking clarity the inability of a modern society to empathize. We are living in an increasingly individualistic, over-privatized, fragmented society, and it’s not going to get any better any time soon. Perhaps the character of our generation will be judged in how we react to the images that run before us on our screens: do we wish for the objects of our desire to be punished, humiliated? Or treated with respect? The answer is in our collective consciousness. It is up to us.

While I think Sam’s juxtaposition of “us and them” is a bit too simplistic (exploitation happens in gay porn too), I’m glad he wrote the article. This is a conversation we really need to be having and questions need to be asked:

* Why have some genres of porn become so horrible?
* Who is driving it? The consumers or the producers?
* What is the motivation behind wanting to see/create this type of porn?
* What effect does it have on young men who may see porn as a type of sex education?
* How can we change things so that degrading gonzo porn is no longer so dominant?
* How do we make porn better?

In the fight against censorship I find myself standing up for all porn, even though I dislike so much of it. Unfortunately freedom of speech means I have to defend their position in order to maintain mine – even though what I do is so vastly different, ethically and philosophically. And yet defending freedom of speech doesn’t mean I can’t speak out and say there’s a problem here. Because there is and I’m glad someone like Sam Benjamin has acknowledged it. The trick now is to keep discussing this without the inevitable calls for it to be banned.

Once again, Annie Sprinkle’s quote applies: The solution to bad porn isn’t no porn, it’s better porn.

And that’s what I’ve been doing for ten years now. Carving out my own little dirty corner of the internet and creating a space for women that’s positive, respectful, intelligent and fun, one that embraces sexuality as an act of love and pleasure, not hatred. I want to make a difference to porn, to provide something that’s good and well made and beautiful. To depict sex as something worthy of honour and respect.

At this stage I’ll direct you to an excellent piece written by Charlie Glickman from Good Releasing called The Ethics Of Making Sex Positive Porn. It’s his response to Sam’s article and details his ideas about improving the porn landscape. It becomes a plug for Good Releasing but that’s OK because they’re a distribution and production company that IS trying to make a difference.

This is a short film shown before Yves Saint Laurent’s 2009 fall fashion show for men.

It consists of only a full-frame shot of Michael Pitt’s face as he listens to an unseen woman talk to him erotically about clothes. “I lift up the T-shirt that peeks out from the sleeves and see underneath, you’re stark naked,” she rasps in French. “You dream of me rubbing your feet… I raise the veil from your leather belt and discover where your firm, flat stomach begins. Trousers which, though baggy, fall perfectly straight.”

Is it sexy? Well he’s certainly good looking and it feels like Jennifer Lyon Bell’s film Headshot or a Beautiful Agony video. The French voiceover sounds great although it may be seen as pretentious. I’m not sure I can read that much eroticism into clothing, I must admit, but if you like fashion, it may be a winner.

Erotic film festival Cinekink New York is now into its seventh year and I’m very pleased to say that I have two films screening at the festival. That’s What I Like is showing at 11pm on Friday Feb 19th and my comedy short Paddling The Pink Canoe screens 1pm Saturday February 20th. It will be the US premiere of both films. TWIL will be screening with the premiere of Jennifer Lyon Bell’s new film Des Jours Plus Belles Que la Nuit.

The program includes a number of films I’d love to see just based on their titles. Whorrey Potter and the Sorcerer’s Balls, Great Humpkin, Flaming of the Shrew…

The other news is that For The Girls is a bronze sponsor of this year’s event. I’m pleased to get behind it and help get artistic and erotic films out to the public. Cinekink also did a cool thing by asking for sponsorship after the lineup of films had been announced. It meant that there was no conflict of interest involved which is why we’re not able to sponsor the Feminist Porn Awards this year.

Unfortunately I can’t make it to New York to be at the festival. I met festival co-ordinator Lisa Vandever in Berlin last year and she’s just fabulous. The cost of airfares combined with prior engagements mean I’m going to miss the fun. It’s really frustrating because I know it will be great.

So I can only suggest that my New York readers consider checking out the Cinekink site and going along to catch some great erotic movies.

Alison and the good people at Good For Her have sent out a press release concerning next year’s Feminist Porn Awards. They’re planning to create a jury of members of the public to help judge the films, which is an excellent initiative. You can find out how to become a jury member here.

They’ve also initiated a scholarship for new and upcoming feminist porn filmmakers (hmm… sounds familiar), the Emerging Filmmaker Award (EFA).

The EFA will honor emerging talent in the field of feminist porn production by offering monetary scholarship to an individual who is breaking boundaries, creating sexy feminist porn and who is committed to the representation of women and alternative sexualities in erotic media. Each year, Good For Her will strive to select new, up and coming talent with the hopes of creating more accessible opportunities for those whom are traditionally challeng ed by the process of securing finances for their creative projects.

The EFA is intended for the completion of a film project to be released for film screening and/or DVD distribution in 2010-2011. The EFA is intended for individuals working on their first erotic film project(s) only.

Full terms and conditions are on their site.

Despite all my best laid plans early in the year, I have nothing to submit for nomination. I could, however enter the EFA as I have plenty of exciting ideas in the pipeline.

It took five weeks but here, finally, is my little doco about the 2009 Berlin Porn Film Festival. It’s a little over 4 minutes and you’ll hear some great comments about feminist porn by some of the fab female directors I met including Shine Louise Houston, Anna Brownfield, Candida Royalle, Anna Span, Petra Joy, Jennifer Lyon Bell and Renee Pornero. Plus a quick cameo from Joe Gallant and footage from the Petra Joy Awards presentation.

A much longer version went live at For The Girls yesterday and I’ll also be uploading more footage there soon. Candida Royalle’s lecture about her films is particularly interesting – that’s waiting for a future update. I also wrote an expansive article about my experiences in Berlin for FTG.

The short blog version is that I had a ball, won an award, met lots of wonderful people and wished it could have gone for another 3 days. I didn’t get to enjoy nearly enough films because I was so busy with the Petra Joy Award but the ones I did see were amazing.

It was the people I met that really made it worthwhile. I interviewed Shine Louise Houston from the Crash Pad Series and was so impressed with her drive and knowledge. She’s a woman with a plan and she’s going to become even more of a force to be reckoned with in the future.

Well-known director Joe Gallant could well be the nicest man in the world. We talked the future of porn and hopefully we can work together at sometime next year. He said he thought I’d like Bong Water Butt Babes but I wasn’t so sure. He made me aware of how disconnected I am from the mainstream porn industry… something for which I’m kind of grateful.

Anna Brownfield is a card. We were so pleased to meet each other and had the comraderie of two Aussies lost in Europe, trying not to slip into slang when giving interviews. Her film The Band was such a standout and it shows you can easily marry explicit sex, comedy and great storytelling.

I also got to meet Lisa Vandever from Cinekink who is so much fun and easy to talk to, as is Vena Virago, a wild, pink haired artist who just happens to make porn for Vivid Alt. And I found myself getting stupidly protective towards the gorgeous Julie Simone, who is very quiet and shy, despite being a fearsome BDSM Mistress who can rock a rubber dress.

And then there’s Jennifer Lyon Bell of Blue Artichoke Films who I met last year. Jen is kind of like the social glue of the event, introducing people and arranging dinners and you couldn’t encounter a warmer, more positive person.

I even got to say hello to Candida Royalle, albeit briefly. Indeed, I cringe a little when I think about it. I was feeling a little starstruck and eagerly handed her my card which read Louise Lush. “That’s my new pretendy name,” I said.

Pretendy name??? Sheesh! I like to flatter myself that I have a decent vocabulary but do you think I could remember the word pseudonym for love or money at that moment? My husband has been teasing me about my pretendy name ever since.

OK, enough name dropping. Suffice to say I made lots of contacts and, as you see in the film, we all feel like we’ve found a family in Berlin.

I’ve since discovered quite a few of the short films on Youtube or other free sites around the web. I’m hoping to feature these on the blog in the future.

And as expensive as it is to travel all that way I think I’ll have to go back in 2010. The festival is too much fun and far too useful to miss out on.

Petra has uploaded these videos shot on the 24th October at the Joy Awards.

And here’s snippets from the winning films including mine:

Part of me is mortified at how I look on that video. There’s a reason I’ve been anonymous all these years and it’s not just privacy or safety. I’m also kicking myself because I had a fabulous necklace and earrings ready to wear on the night and forgot to put them on. I was so distracted by trying to strap on my mile-high lesbian wedding heels (and then I spent half the night trying not to fall off them). So I look kind of bare. At least the professional makeup job looked nice.

Anyway, I’m out of the porn closet now for better or worse.

I should say that the other winners I met on the night – Lindsay, Cora and Lola – were all lovely and very talented. We had a great time drinking champagne in the limo – even if we did get stuck in traffic and had to do a 16 point turn to make it back to the cinema in time.

I will say thank you again to Petra for organising the whole thing and also thank you to Pjur for putting up the prizemoney. It helped to pay for my trip to Berlin and accommodation which was great.

Well folks, this is my last proper blog post for about four weeks. I’m off on my big trip to the Berlin Porn Film Festival where my short film That’s What I Like is having its premiere on Sunday the 25th Oct at 8pm.

I’m very excited about attending the festival and meeting so many wonderful female porn directors. Candida Royalle, Petra Joy, Shine Louise Houston, Jennifer Lyon Bell, Maria Beatty, Anna Span, Emile Jouvet and many others will be attending. I’m taking my camera and hope to interview them all plus capture some of the fun and craziness that is part of the festival. I’ll post a short video when I get back but I’ll also be adding a longer, more comprehensive version to For The Girls.

In the meantime That’s What I Like and Paddling The Pink Canoe will also be showing at the Sexy International Film Festival in Melbourne. I had a clash of dates and chose the ridiculously expensive overseas trip. Ah well. I wish I could be there. If you’re down south I do recommend you attend as the festival looks fab.

For more on my films visit Indigo Lush.

So I probably won’t get a chance to get properly online and post anything until I come back. I’ve scheduled some simple dirty picture posts to appear in the meantime so the place doesn’t look too sad. I’m hoping to Twitter a bit so check the sidebar for any updates.

I’ve just received a PR email from British adult film director Anna Span. She’s won an important legal victory over the British Board of Film Classification (UK censors) over whether female ejaculation exists.

Her film Women Love Porn, which contains shorts from five separate female directors, has been held up for several years thanks to the original ruling of the BBFC with regards to the ejaculation scene. The censors maintained that female ejaculation is not possible and that the scene actually contained urination. They demanded that cuts be made to the film in order to pass.

Anna Span decided to fight the ruling. She presented the BBFC with substantial scientific evidence that female ejaculation is a natural and normal phenomenon, helped by expert Deborah Sundahl.

Anna says; “I am really proud to have changed this outdated ruling and to have made a difference to women who experience this in their own lives throughout the UK. It was never fair that the BBFC dismissed their amazing orgasms as urinary incontinence”

The BBFC is still being a stick in the mud, saying that their “position remains fundamentally unchanged for future releases” but it’s fairly certain that any future bans will be contested based on this precedent.

Interestingly, the BBFC is currently hamstrung thanks to the fact that Britain joined the European Union but they carry on regardless.

I’ll say it again: I’m OK with labelling videos (classifying – on a voluntary basis) so that adults can make informed choices but banning films is just draconian and stupid and it should never happen in a civilised society to values freedom of speech.

Check out Anna Span’s videos at Porn Movies For Women

Update 9th October
This story has now had some decent coverage in the media and large blogs.
Kristina Lloyd from Erotica Cover Watch has this opinion piece in the Guardian.
That article prompted this post at Jezebel.
Violet Blue’s latest column at SFGate is about the issue and she also wrote a blog post about it here.
Eye for Film featured this article on the issue.

I found my heart beating a little faster this week when the organisers of the Berlin Porn Film Festival sent me their catalogue for the upcoming festival. There it was, my film, scheduled to screen at 6pm on Sunday 25th October, 2009. How completely exciting!

I remember the first time I had anything published: it was an erotic story in Australian Women’s Forum in 1997. This film premiere is kind of the same thing. I’m going to be horribly nervous, worried about whether this movie is good enough, whether the audience likes it. I’ll be watching it, picking it apart, thinking of all the bits I’d like to change.

And yet I’ll be immensely thrilled and proud that I’ve made something that’s being screened at a film festival, in a real movie theatre.

The stupid thing is that That’s What I Like has been available on For The Girls for months now and I’m sure it has now been seen by thousands of our members. Haven’t had any complaints. Still, there’s that deep-seated idea that I haven’t really made it unless I a) get a book published or b) make a movie. This first screening is a big step towards the latter option.

In the last couple of days I’ve updated Indigo Lush, the official site of my film production company. If you want to see stills from the short film or learn more, go there.

In the last week or so I’ve been musing about the length of sex scenes in videos, specifically, what’s too short and what’s too long.

I was recently editing a non-exclusive male masturbation vid and, in a frenzy of cuts, got a painfully long 18 minute video down to under 5 minutes. In that space of time I captured the guy fondling himself through his pants, taking them off, becoming erect and then stroking himself to orgasm. I watched it with fresh eyes the next day and was very pleased with the result.

This got me thinking that I should go back and re-edit some of the other videos at For The Girls. A lot of them go for at least 10 minutes, some up to 20. When I originally edited them I often left scenes longer than I would like because I figured our members would prefer a nice big batch of ongoing sex with plenty of time for masturbation. That is, after all, the main point of a porn video, yes?

And I suspect this theory of “wank time” is a driving factor behind the length of most sex scenes in porn films. The actors go at it, the camera captures it and the editor gives everybody a whole lot of masturbatory room before anything new or different happens. Plenty of people watch porn with one hand on the remote (or >> button on Windows Media Player) so they can find the bits they want and fast forward what they don’t. Why deprive someone of the possibility of finding a bit they like?

Unfortunately there’s a major downside to the theory of “wank time”: far too many porn scenes are downright boring.

When you think about it, sex is a very repetitive business and there’s only so many ways you can do it. Slot A goes into Slot B, move back and forth, rinse, repeat (or something like that). So capturing every second of it is not necessarily going to reveal anything new or exciting. There might be 3 or 4 minutes of piston-like pumping in any given scene but you might only see one interesting facial expression or line of dialogue in that time. So why persist in giving viewers the whole thing?

Beyond “wank time”, scene length in mainstream porn films may be dictated by the desire to make feature-length DVDs. When you’ve got 90 minutes or more to fill, more footage is better than less, no matter what the quality. It could be argued that the increasing move to web-based product would change this idea but it continues apace. There’s a worry that giving people less product – even if it’s of better quality – isn’t good value for money.

Perhaps another reason for the under-editing is the idea that the footage is there so the director might as well use it. You’ve just spent a bunch of money hiring porn actors and crew to get the scene in the can so you may as well wring it for all it’s worth.

I know. That’s how I originally felt after directing my first erotic short film in February this year. I had a whole bunch of wonderful footage and it was really – I mean really – hard to pick out the bits that would best suit the film because I liked so much of it. And I’ve actually gone through a learning curve with the editing process on that film. My initial cut was nearly 20 minutes. There’s a long version of 15 minutes at For The Girls and the version showing in Berlin is 10 minutes. My R-rated version is 7 minutes. And then I re-cut it again to enter it in the Joy Awards and that version is under 5 minutes.

And having gone through that process, I think the shorter versions are better.

There is of course the balancing act that occurs between authentically capturing the moment and boring your audience. You do want to do your actors and their scene justice by documenting the essence of what went on but you have to also be a little bit ruthless on behalf of your viewers, whose time is precious.

So what’s wrong with editing things down to show four or five strokes (for example), cut to the interesting expression, cue another camera angle, back to the original camera angle… and then move on. Film school students will tell you that 3 seconds is ample time to give your audience an idea of what’s happening. Modern music videos often only give you half a second worth of shot. So why does porn persist in holding the audience captive for so long? Why must we see every different position for at least 3 or 4 minutes? Do people really masturbate along in time, like some kind of perverted Read-A-Long story?

My problem is, I’m not sure that my opinion is reliable on this topic. I’ve been working with porn for nearly ten years now. I’m afraid to say that I find a lot of porn dreadfully boring, perhaps because I’ve seen it all before. Maybe the opinion of a porn newbie or a seasoned fan will be very different.

And I’ve actually been given pause to wonder about scene length even further after watching Nica Noelle’s The Stepmother. The first scene in that film goes for 35 minutes and I think it went for too long. At the same time, I very happily watched it to the 15 minute mark without feeling bored because those first 15 minutes are very watchable indeed. That’s because the sex is so very real, intimate and passionate and I was enthralled to see something like that in a porn movie (still a rare thing!). There were very few edits on show; the footage seemed to flow in real time. Unfortunately, just when it felt like the sex should naturally come to a conclusion, the couple switched positions and kept at it. And at it. And at it. And so I got bored.

And in reality, I could have happily watched a few minutes less of each position, so long as my interest was maintained. As I said in my review: actually having sex for 35 minutes is fun. Watching it for that long, not so much.

That’s the big question: when do things get boring? And are the punters getting bored in the first place or are they just getting busy with their hands (or lovers)?

Meanwhile, Erika Lust has released a short film called Handcuffs that features lots of emotive, film noir build up but very little actual sex. Will it be good wank material? And should it be considered in that sense (because obviously Erika’s film offers more than your average gonzo scene designed purely to get you off)? For some, the erotic atmosphere and shock of the very brief hardcore scene will be enough to inspire fantasies and trigger orgasms. It may leave others cold. Certainly it’s a very left-fieldexample of how a sex scene can be cut together but I do think it shows that the “same ol’ same ol’” theory of porn editing is a bit tiresome.

I asked this question on Twitter a few days ago. I only got one personal reply. She said: “I tend to get what I need by the 15 minute mark.” Meanwhile filmmaker Tony Comstock said that “Boring your audience is a cardinal sin, regardless of subject matter.” And “surveillance camera footage is not a film.” Which is a good point.

But is there a consensus out there about the ideal length of a sex scene? Does it differ according to the type of “action” involved (e.g. can a hetero boy-girl scene go longer than a male masturbation one?) Does “wank time” matter? Let me know!

* Still above is from my film “That’s What I Like”

I hate being late to the party with these things but I’ve only just heard about the European Feminist Porn Award which is being held on Saturday 17th October in Berlin. Yes… I’m going to miss them, dammit, but despite my general divineness and best efforts at omnipresence I’ve discovered that I just can’t be everywhere at once.

So this is essentially a party and film night to honour the feminist pioneers of porn: Candida Royalle, Annie Sprinkle, Maria Beatty, Shine Louise Houston and Petra Joy. The lovely Jennifer Lyon Bell from Blue Artichoke Films will be there as well.

In October 2009 the first Feminist Porn Film Award will be presented in Berlin. The initiators set themselves off against sexist, mainstream pornography. “We want to revolutionize the erotic film market”, says Laura Meritt – sexpert with a doctorate in communication sciences. Awards will be given for high quality erotic movies “with a wide range of portraying female sexual lust and in which women play an important role as producers.”

The feminist film prize is initiated and organized by Sexclusivitaeten, the first women-oriented sex enterprise and sexual communication centre in Europe, together with the Freudenfluss network.

I have to say, I really like their criteria for feminist film. I think these are rules that all adult films should uphold!

• A sex-positive attitude, no de-humanising or misogynistic portrayals

• Roles in collusion with those involved / no crossing of personal borders

• Ethical work conditions / safe sex is encouraged

• Those involved will be shown in relation to one another – eye, skin, hand, and body contact, energy exchange.

• Emotions and declarations of love are encouraged, doable, and showable.

• Diverse camera settings, light and shadow games

• Variations of sexual practices in joyful transitions, not an achievement test, broadening of the stereotypically portrayed spectrum.

• A variety of body types, ages, genders, sexual orientations and ethnic backgrounds.

• Authentic sound recordings or music. No gender-stereotypical amplified dubbing of moaning.

• Portrayal of lust and pleasure, focus on female lust and its diversity.

• No schematic portrayals of the “sexual curve” – that is to say no straight zoom in on the male ejaculation, no emphasis of the male cum shot. Orgasms are not the only goal.

• Women are significantly involved in the production of the film as producers, directors, or camerawomen.

Almost 3 years ago I interviewed Anna Span and she mentioned that she was working on a porn film called “Women Love Porn” but it had been delayed. The British censorship body didn’t like a scene of female ejaculation because they don’t believe in it and ruled it to be pissing. (Yes, that’s right. They don’t believe in it. Sigh.)

In any case, this film has been hanging around in the wings for a long time. Now there’s a new line of films that carry the title.

The Women Love Porn Series was launched last month and it currently features 2 titles by different female directors. The first, Apocalypse Angels, is by Katie Coxxx, who won Anna’s competition for new filmmakers a while ago. The second is called Rock Hard.

Apocalypse Angels is titled as “Women Love Porn #2″ but I can’t find any mention of a number 1. This might be the legendary missing title, still hung up in beaurocracy while the prudes argue over whether women really can ejaculate.

Anna Span will be at the Venus expo in Berlin but I’m not sure if she’s going to the porn film festival afterwards. I’d like to meet her and find out just what has happened to the first film.

Meanwhile, I made a separate page at Porn Movies For Women for Women Love Porn.

My decision has been made. At the end of October I’m going to attend the 2009 Berlin Porn Film Festival and see the European premiere of my film. It’s a shame I’ll miss the Melbourne festival but in the end the Berlin fest is the one more suited to my own work.

My mind was made up when I saw that the BPFF will be focusing extensively on the work of women. Over half of the submitted films were created by female filmmakers, which is unprecedented, I suspect. Even mainstream film festivals might be pushing to equal those numbers.

Better yet, the list of attendees is stellar and includes Candida Royalle, Petra Joy, Shine Louise Houston, Maria Beatty, Emilie Jouvet, Anna Brownfield (the Australian who made “The Band”), Anna Peak and BDSM mistress Julie Simone. I can’t wait to meet these amazing women and discuss the growing genre of porn for women and female-gaze porn.

On top of that there is the presentation of the Joy Award, created by Petra Joy to encourage female perspectives in porn. I’m looking forward to seeing the other the submissions to this competition (because yes, I’m submitting my own movies to it). Petra is presenting a workshop on erotic filmmaking at the festival. I’ll be attending that as well as Wendy Delorme’s fisting workshop.

AND there’s also a brand new erotic fiction festival running in conjunction – Erophil. This will look at erotic literature through films, lectures and professional discussions, including a trade fair. Very cool.

The opening night film at Erophil is Pasolini’s Salo: 120 Nights Of Sodom, a film that has a long history of censorship here in Australia. It’s currently banned so I relish the opportunity to thumb my nose at the government and see it, thus destroying my morals and sense of good and evil, as it will supposedly do. To be honest I’ll probably find it very unappealing but I’ll go and see it out of a sense of rebellion more than anything.

So… it’s gonna be a big week at the end of October and I don’t have much time to organise the trip. But I’m very excited about it and will be taking my camera to document the whole thing.

Within 24 hours of one another I’ve received two emails saying my films have been accepted into two separate festivals: “That’s What I Like” will screen at the Berlin Porn Film Festival and also at the Sexy International Film Festival in Melbourne. The above short film “Paddling The Pink Canoe” has also been accepted at Melbourne.

The funny and frustrating thing is that both festivals are on at exactly the same time in October. While it would be easier and cheaper for me to go to the Australian one, I’d love to go to Berlin, especially because Petra Joy’s Joy Awards are also being announced and screened there.

In any case I’m thrilled to have been selected for these festivals and it makes me feel like a real filmmaker. It’s also great that there are these opportunities for positive adult and sex-oriented movies to be screened to festival audiences, showing that porn doesn’t have to be the same old cliched, offensive shit.

Meanwhile, I’m checking out airfares and weighing up my options.

The other day I visited one of the local video rental shops, a store I haven’t been to in a while. Imagine my surprise when I discovered Michael Winterbottom’s 9 Songs sitting unabashedly on the drama shelves. This is a small town, after all, and sexually explicit “art films” are a bit thin on the ground. I haven’t had a chance to see Shortbus, Destricted or any of those other “mainstream” explicit films due to this general scarcity so naturally I jumped at the chance to see 9 Songs.

The film happily bills itself as “the most explicit mainstream movie ever!” The plot, such as it is, focuses on a young couple in the flush of first lust and love. We see their relationship over the course of a year as they fuck frequently and go to concerts. That’s pretty much it – nothing else happens except concert footage and sex. Winterbottom apparently wanted the audience to “fill in the blanks” of the couple’s relationship, opting to show only snippets of conversation amid a lot of fucking, letting the viewers decide what kind of characters they have and what problems they my encounter.

It’s an interesting idea and I’ve yet to decide whether it’s clever or makes for a very boring movie. Certainly I wasn’t enthralled by it (and fast forwarded most of the songs). Of course, if this was a porn film (i.e. a film made explicitly to arouse) I’d think it was fab because it shows perspectives and characters often missing from the genre.

But this is NOT, Winterbottom insists, a porn movie. This is an art film, thank you very much. And thus that makes the explicit sex far different from all the explicit sex you see in a porn movie. This is a film with morals, people, and it’s made for a more discerning class of viewer than your average wanker who likes porn.

At least, that’s the spin on it.

I personally sat there watching it and couldn’t help but fume at the hypocrisy apparent in the Australian Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) Board’s decision to give it an R rating (after an initial X rating). And I wasn’t fuming because I thought it should have been lumped in with the porn films and effectively banned from cinemas. Nope. I was angry because this film’s R rating entrenches an arbitary line that says “this is an art film, it’s OK” and “this is a yucky porn film, ban it”.

I found myself reading the OFLC appeal decision on the film, which lists in extensive detail all of the sex acts in the film like some kind of really bad sex story:

At 47 minutes 58 seconds Lisa ties Matt to the bed, she slaps his face with her open hand and puts her stiletto heel into his chest and puts her weight on her foot. She then puts her booted foot onto Matt’s legs. She undresses. At 49 minutes 45 seconds Lisa asks Matt “do my nipples feel sore to you? They are.” At 50 minutes a two-minute scene of actual sex commences. Lisa kisses Matt’s penis and pulls at his testicles. She holds his penis in her mouth (actual sex), she manipulates his penis with her hand (actual sex), her hand is shown repeatedly manipulating Matt’s penis (actual sex).

The “interested parties” who made submissions regarding the film’s classification included TV critic Margaret Pomeranz and the conservative Christian lobby the Australian Family Association (and can I just say how much it pisses me off that the religious nutjobs have commandereed the word “family”?).

The paper discusses why the board decided to go against the “general rule” of “‘simulation, yes – the real thing, no.” I’ve added my own emphasis:

The Review Board in the majority found that there were special aspects of 9 Songs which differentiated it from other films which feature “the real thing” and have been Refused Classification by the Classification Review Board:

• 9 Songs is a film in which Matt and Lisa’s relationship is explored, from Matt’s perspective, through music and sexual activity. In this context, the scenes of actual sex are integral to the plot and theme of the movie.

• 9 Songs, made by the highly-regarded British director Michael Winterbottom, is a film of serious intent and considered by many to have artistic merit. The underlying themes of the movie, the honest, realistic and, at times, emotional and poignant depiction of the couple’s relationship, which were integrated with the scenes at rock concerts, were likely to resonate with a number of the film’s likely audience and had artistic value.

• The scenes of actual sex are not considered by the majority to be exploitative, immoral, indecent, demeaning, improper or gratuitous. In particular, regarding the scene in which Lisa slaps Matt and steps on him with a stiletto boot, the majority was of the view that the impact of this scene was mild and was not demeaning to Matt or Lisa.

• The tone of the scenes of actual sex, in terms of theme and style, were contextually relevant, filmed in a restrained manner and different from standard pornographic films that are routinely classified ‘X’.

The board also took into account “the persons or class of persons to or amongst whom it is published or is intended or likely to be published.”

So the decision to let 9 Songs be R rated was based on the idea that the film was artistic, serious, moral and not demeaning to the participants, as well as the fact that, being an “art film” it was designed for a higher class of people – you know, those smart trendy ones with university degrees who can obviously watch explicit sex without being corrupted or aroused – unlike all those scum who watch porn and for whom the X rating was created, to stop society from descending into a Mad-Max type scenario.

At least, I think that’s what the Classification system is supposed to do.

The OFLC document holds its moral head high in declaring the various teddibly important and artistic reasons why they made this exception to the rules. And yet to me it reveals that the Australian censorship emperors are clothing themselves in particularly airy garments.

I can name numerous adult films with explicit sex that are artistic, serious, moral and not degrading. Of particular note is, of course, the films of Tony Comstock which were banned from a film festival several years ago, but I could also talk about the explicit films of Petra Joy, Jennifer Lyon Bell, Shine Louise Houston or Tristan Taormino. Most of the movies I saw at last year’s Berlin Porn Film Festival could fit into that mould… but they would be illegal to screen here. I could easily argue that the new brand of porn seeks to explore relationships and sexuality in exactly the same way that Winterbottom has done with 9 Songs.

The only difference is that adult filmmakers acknowledge the arousal of their audience rather than placing themselves on an “art” pedestal, one that denies the fact that people WILL get turned on and masturbate if you show them sex.

And that’s what it really comes down to in the end. The OFLC can use all kinds of excuses about art and class and audience and intent but ultimately our laws are about the fear of people getting aroused and masturbating.

(It’s interesting to see the way film reviewers are so quick to say that 9 Songs isn’t really arousing… at least, for the right sort of person.)

If 9 Songs can explicitly show penetration, fellatio, cunnilingus and ejaculation and receive an R rating, why can’t others? I might think that 9 Songs is an art film but no doubt the Australian “Family” Association thought it was filth on the same level as your average gonzo. But if real sex gets the OK in some films and not others, what is the basis for distinction?

The OFLC document talks about the porn genre with disdain, indicating there are personal judgements of taste at work. I find a lot of porn to be distasteful as well (not to mention artless and downright stupid) but that should not be a defining factor in what adults can and cannot see in this country. I find the whole idea of Australian Idol and Transformers 2 to be fairly tasteless… so why are they on our TV and cinema screens?

Why are the personal tastes and “morals” of those who sit on the Classification Board considered to have more authority than mine? What special thing makes them able to sit and watch films that may corrupt the rest of us?

One of the things I find frustrating is that this nonsense is still on our lawbooks in 2009. 9 Songs was released in 2004 and the R decision prompted some debate… but nothing has changed. The legislation still talks about “the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults” but those in power won’t accept that standards have changed. The ready availability of porn on the internet means that people are a lot more comfortable with sexually explicit material now. What’s more, the fact that society hasn’t disintegrated as a result of this ready availability should be a strong indicator that all the moral panic surrounding sexually explicit material was wrong.

Until someone can show empirical proof that porn causes harm, there should not be laws restricting the consumption of it.

And if Australians can be grown up enough to rent 9 Songs from Video Ezy and not go mad, why not Xana and Dax, or Chemistry or, hell, even your average Buttman nonsense gonzo.

I’m looking on the bright side. 9 Songs has given me a happy hitlist of the top 10 important things I need to include in order to get an R rating for any explicit film I make:

1. Concert footage from whiny-yet-hip bands plus a brief snippet from a classical music concert
2. Footage of a couple eating breakfast and being playful together. It helps if the guy says “I love you” while wading in freezing water.
3. “Restrained” penetration, oral and cumshots. Whatever that means.
4. Arty lighting.
5. Wandering piano music during the sex scenes.
6. Comments about Antarctica and global warming.
7. A trailer that doesn’t show very much sex.
8. A marketing campaign that focuses on the right “class” of people.
9. A constant avowal to the press and critics that “it’s not porn, it’s art.”
10. A good relationship with Margaret Pomeranz.

I must admit, I’m not saying anything new with this post. If you want to read a more researched and academic critique of the whole “porn vs art” censorship issue, visit Tony Comstock’s The Intent To Arouse. For the Australian perspective I’d recommend my friend Helen Vnuk’s book Snatched: Sex and Censorship in Australia or read her excellent article on the whole topic here. Also another one here.

Here’s the trailer for 9 Songs. As you can see, it’s pretty light on for sex.