Just finished watching Gregg Helvey’s 2006 USC student documentary, ‘Overexposed’, about the arguably corrosive effect pornography has on men’s sexuality and it got me to thinking: what responsibility do we image makers have when it comes to portraying the erotic in our mediums?
In this Pinewood Dialogues interview Werner Herzog says something to the effect that “unless you know the heart’s of men you have no right to make a film” – is the same true for erotica?
When I was eleven or twelve I spent a lot of time on my own in the TV capital of Holland: Hilversum, (never mind why I was there – the fact was I was alone and spent much time living in an artist’s studio). Being at that age I was sexually curious and my only pictorial companion in those matters was a book on ‘Renaissance Masters Drawings of the Female Nude’. This of course was very exciting and perhaps explains my fascination, extending into my teen years, with very curvy women. I felt at the time that the images in this book had immense power over me, (as mentioned in ‘Overexposed’ men’s response to sexual imagery includes ‘drive’, something apparently not found in most women). As an adult now planning to have children I can’t help but be concerned by the infinite amount of pornographic content available on the web for free.
So I ask: how is pornography affecting both men and women’s sexuality in the ‘post rise of the internet’ generation? And what responsibilities do the makers of erotic images have?
Overexposed touches on these matters only slightly, but it is a short film, and a student one to boot, so it can be forgiven for not giving a deep analysis.
It does offer one way forward though for film makers: at the end of the doc we have a non-sexual scene of intimacy between a couple – will this type of thing – intimacy presented in a postive, and glamorous way, be a possible way forward away from the current crass, limiting and destructive portrayal of sex in our society?
- – -
posted in forum Miscellaneous by zad1138
posted in forum Miscellaneous by seanpdudley
posted in forum General Movie Stuff by seanpdudley
posted in forum General Movie Stuff by Jett Loe
posted in forum General Movie Stuff by prawnman
At the risk of exposing myself (so to speak) as a “crass, limiting, and destructive” sort of guy, could you specify some of the ways in which pornography is something to worry about? I'd like to watch the film you've mentioned here, but it's not exactly in wide release. I don't even see it on Netflix, and I had allowed myself to believe that Netflix carries EVERYTHING worth seeing. (Except porn.)
I'm familiar with many of the claims made against pornography; I find most of them unpersuasive at best. I am trying to understand whether this film says anything new in this connection, and if so, what it says.
A few …
- Porn can raise unrealistic expectations — people in the real world don't look or act like that.
- Porn can trivialize sex, I suppose, but I'm not sure that sex couldn't use a little extra trivialization. It sits on a pretty high pedestal in the USA — we can't seem to deal with it maturely, so it tends to be concealed from sight or, well, overexposed. And suffice to say it's on a pretty high pedestal in the more literalist-leaning parts of the Muslim world; the result is that some states will actually put people to death over what they do sex-wise. I don't think the high pedestal is working for our species.
- Porn exists on the shadowy border between the licit and illicit, so there is lattitude to coerce people — nearly always women — into involving themselves in it. I think this argues for normalizing it in the way that re-legalizing liquor after prohibition markedly reduced the mafia's role in the alcohol trade.
I'm just certain that my post has achieved 100% agreement with everyone who chances to read it, because if the recorded history of human beings teaches us anything, it's that people just can't be bothered to pause and form an opinion when matters of sex arise.
pornagraphy and the object
As a female, it so reassuring to see men voluntarily dealing with these issues. Pornography is such a thorny issue and so often women are made to feel as though we should just indulge a guy's harmless habits. I don't think it is harmless. The objectification feeds the tendency to separate sex from relationships in the most specious way. So, thanks for raising the issue for discussion. Here's hoping others follow.
BTW – have you seen Helvey's newest short, KAVI – beautiful stuff.
Taking it a step further – what do you guys feel about nudity in general in main stream films. Is it necessary?
I'm no prude, and it sounds hypocritical of someone who generally has no problem with violence in today's films, but I've often wondered if it really matters if someone is nude in a movie or not (other than to sell tickets to teenagers).
I would like to see this film and see if it answers that last question and would love to see it dealt with in film and on stage. Also, I'm interested in your answer to Phill's question. As an (albeit not working actress) , my husband and I recently had had a discussion about whether I felt there were justifiable situations in which I would be nude/partially nude on stage (or film) or would I as a director require the same of another actress. Oddly, after knowing me for more than twenty years and having had this conversation before, he was shocked to hear I do feel I could depending on the circumstances. I brought up scenes such as the gas chambers in Schindler's List and an idea I had for a short film addressing the revulsion people feel toward nursing mothers after overhearing a conversation someone was having about not being able to “just whip one out” in public, but knowing myself she had a thing for flashing truckers. He said, with men, it always objective – sexy(good) or not sexy(bad)
Jett, I appreciate your reply (I changed my screen name back to what I thought it already was, so Dale=danceswithanxiety …. techno glitch. Grr.).
As you say, there's a lot of ground to cover in this area, and my comment was an invitation to “reinvent the wheel” of a very longstanding and substantial debate, or rather, set of debates. The comments section of a blog probably isn't the time or place for that.
I would very much like to see this film so I hope it makes its way online. This is an important set of issues, and based on your post, it sounds as though this film has something important to say about it.
Thanks.
The effect of Pornagraphy
Before we even address pornography specifically, we could talk forever about the effect of what we could call “the Hollywood image of love” as something that is horribly damaging. Immediately I can think of two ways this plays out:
1) Our expectations of love and intimacy become simplified and stultified into cliches and unrealistic roles.
2) Our actual experience of the other in the moment (which may actually be possible of revealing THE OTHER in the moment) is seen through a lens – no pun intended – of mediated imagery that robs us all of the nuance of the real.
In one way I think porn may actually have more integrity than the regular Rated R flick in what is -at least – an graphically real depiction of the act itself.
My two cents…
You're right, of course. There is very little nudity in today's main stream cinema, with the exception of certain comedies that are attempting to regain that old '80's “hard R” rating – again, simply to sell tickets to teenagers – but you addressed my question which is more geared to dramatic, or “serious” films. And I think the reason is primarily because leading women simply refuse to do them – it's negotiated in their contracts – and I believe more women who are getting started are refusing for fear of developing a reputation (perhaps?). Otherwise, I believe producers would put in all the nudity they can — Meg Ryan comes to mind…I cannot tell you the film for the life of me, except that a few years ago she had a lot of nude scenes and that's all people talked about.
Otherwise, you had “the Reader” (Kate Winslett has since said she will no longer do nude scenes) – though I can understand the nudity in that film due to the subject matter of the story – and as K-Ann pointed out in Schindler's List.
Otherwise, I feel generally speaking that other movies that inserted nudity as a way to “titillate” or to be romantic is not really necessary if it has no bearing on the story (we know you're going to make love — do we have to see it? — “The Watchmen”?). Again, not trying to sound prudish, but it has no point in a non-pornographic film in my mind.
I get what you mean about the fetishizing of parts of the female body – that was what what I sot of meant to address in the film I was thinking of – men and women seem to only see the value of parts of there body – or whole body – as a sexual object. And if that is the case, than anything sort of intimate interaction – such as nursing a child, can't be separated from sexuality in many minds.
I agree with what you say about pornography, Jett, and I think you answered my question about nudity in mainstream films – I was really wondering if you felt context had an effect on perception and, therefore, reaction. I think you were saying that yes it does ,depending on what the intent was(?) Or, was was your statement about men being able to be portrayed nude but not as sexual objects and women aren't what you you really meant to say – that it simply isn't possible? Because, my thinking in saying I would consider the nudity has everything to do with the context.
And Phill, I think you're right, producers would put all the nudity possible because of the basic titillation factor and I can't think of many sex scenes that have been necessary at all. Though, the way it was handled in Rob Roy comes to mind.
I get what you mean about the fetishizing of parts of the female body – that was what what I sot of meant to address in the film I was thinking of – men and women seem to only see the value of parts of there body – or whole body – as a sexual object. And if that is the case, than anything sort of intimate interaction – such as nursing a child, can't be separated from sexuality in many minds.
I agree with what you say about pornography, Jett, and I think you answered my question about nudity in mainstream films – I was really wondering if you felt context had an effect on perception and, therefore, reaction. I think you were saying that yes it does ,depending on what the intent was(?) Or, was was your statement about men being able to be portrayed nude but not as sexual objects and women aren't what you you really meant to say – that it simply isn't possible? Because, my thinking in saying I would consider the nudity has everything to do with the context.
And Phill, I think you're right, producers would put all the nudity possible because of the basic titillation factor and I can't think of many sex scenes that have been necessary at all. Though, the way it was handled in Rob Roy comes to mind.
The problem with pornography it because a drug. The chemicals released after orgasm are similar to cocaine, and overuse of pornography can lead people to become literally addicted (or at least have compulsive behaviors if you want to be technical) that have physical withdrawl symptoms. Now like with alcoholics, as many people can drink without being an alcoholic, and others classify themselves as functioning alcoholics so can many people watch porn without becoming a true addict. Then you see the people who are watching porn for 6 hours a day, have it cost them their marriage, and they still cannot stop.
Unfortunately, because so many people don’t talk about this it is being kept in America’s closet, and no research is being done so you can’t even find the statistics yet.
I’m not someone out screaming “down with the porn inudstry,” but I do believe that more awareness needs to happen, because it has the potential to be abused and ruin relationships, marriages, and lives if not watched carefully.