9 Songs - Art or Porn?

[Mordib]

there is a difference between 9 songs and porn .. really! even the worst porn is more watchable than 9 songs for a start

reaally, they should have just cut the explicit sex and given it an 18, doesnt add to the story any

[bradavon]

Why Mordib? It got an 18 rating with the sex and it would have without it (probably 15 I'm guessing).

as i said in the 1st place, posh people can watch more than us normal people arragant toffs.

How so? They have access to the same DVDs we do?

It's just as we suspected. Hypocrisy revisited.

How can you say that when you've not seen the film?

[bradavon]

Mordib is this statement true? As you're the only here who's seen the film no one else is in a position to accurately comment -

The VAC, however, declared that "we do understand the Board's logic" in claiming that Winterbottom's film is "wholly different" from its porn tape counterparts on the grounds of "context" and "story"

I get the feeling the story is so bad in 9 Songs it's actually on par with most Porn storylines?

WTF? -

and which - according to Geoffrey Robertson QC - could even have helped provide a cure for cancer!

IMO he has a point here -

"Equally entertaining was Robertson's argument that restricting porn to sex shops breached Articles 8 and 14 of the Human Rights Act by effectively forcing consumers "to make a public and degrading entrance to a sex shop in order to obtain lawful material necessary for their private life.""

It sounds like the BBFC is relaxing it's rules, maybe (first 12A . . .). I wonder if the mentioned titles would now get released 18 uncut? -

In the past, they have been careful to maintain a clear distinction between the 18 and R-18 categories in the area of video classification - as demonstrated by the one-second cut made to Catherine Breillat's Romance on tape and DVD. In the case of the French film The Pornographer, the BBFC's insistence that a nine second ejaculation shot pushed the film into the realms of hardcore led to two distinct versions of the movie being released; an 18 rated version, without the offending shot; and an intact R-18 version.

-

As for Ben Dover, presumably he's out there right now, shooting snowbound landscapes and grainy concert footage to splice into Cumming Of Age Volume Three in the hope that someone can be bamboozled into thinking it's art.

[Mordib]

the sex isnt the point of 9 songs. sex is the point of porn. the fact that many pornos have better plot lines is besides the point, their plots are still there solely to facilitate sex where as 9 songs plot line, what little of it there is, is not about the sex at all (or anything much for that matter).

ben dover will always approach it as, i wanna makea sex movie but i want to create hype by creating plot (ben dover actually doesnt do plot , it was a bad example person ) , the dude that did 9 songs will have approached it as i wanna do this plot and hype it up by having the most explicit sex scene ever seen outside of porn. one is using sex as a gimmick, the other is using plot as a gimick... theres a difference though ive given up arguing that the couple of minutes of actual explicitness in the film are not porn, i dont think they are but its all down to personal definition.

[Markgway]

How so? They have access to the same DVDs we do?

Because "Arthouse" films like '9 Songs' are generally watched by, as Romero would term them, "Toffs". Had the EXACT same film starred Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie there wouldn't be a hope in hell of it being passed anything like uncut. The BBFC would have made an example of it. It's a well known fact that the BBFC favour "Arthouse" cinema and look down upon working class viewers. I'm surprised you're surprised.

How can you say that when you've not seen the film?

Didn't you read those Mark Kermode articles??? Or did you just miss the point?

[Markgway]

the sex isnt the point of 9 songs.

It's not??? I'm sure you'd love to explain to us all exactly what the point is? Pretty please with sugar on top.

sex is the point of porn. the fact that many pornos have better plot lines is besides the point, their plots are still there solely to facilitate sex where as 9 songs plot line, what little of it there is, is not about the sex at all (or anything much for that matter).

Ha-Ha! Brilliant. Are you Michael Winterbottom's lawyer? Because that's a hilariously inept defence. 35 mins of HARDCORE bonking intercut with concert footage? That's like the XXX version of Beavis and Butthead! Is that ART?? You gotta love pretentious people.....

the dude that did 9 songs will have approached it as i wanna do this plot and hype it up by having the most explicit sex scene ever seen outside of porn.

WHAT plot??? You implied it yourself: there isn't one!! It's sex and music. That's not a plot. It's porn. Why the pretence? I'm really baffled. Still, it's good to know that if I'm ever hard-up (no pun intended) for cash I can shoot a bunch of porn, intercut scenic landscapes and music videos and, hey presto, I've a BAFTA winner!! Fuck plot. Just fuck, right?? 8)

[bradavon]

Because "Arthouse" films like '9 Songs' are generally watched by, as Romero would term them, "Toffs". Had the EXACT same film starred Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie there wouldn't be a hope in hell of it being passed anything like uncut. The BBFC would have made an example of it. It's a well known fact that the BBFC favour "Arthouse" cinema and look down upon working class viewers. I'm surprised you're surprised.

I completely agree with you BUT Romero said:

"posh people can watch more than us normal people"

Which is simply not true. Toffs as you put it or the average Joe has as much access to 9 Songs and/Porn as each other do.

Didn't you read those Mark Kermode articles??? Or did you just miss the point?

Nope but considering you've not seen 9 Songs you have no idea how good or bad the plot is. It's certainly possible you will see 9 Songs and think it has a decent plot with a decent storyline.

Hence how can you say it's hypcrosiy when you've not even seen the film.

[Mordib]

its not just sex and music. the amount of hardcore sex doesnt even hit double figures in minutes. theres a good deal more music than sex, and a good deal more of people sitting or standing around doing nothing interesting than anything else. the 'plot' is simply "here are these people look how boring they are. listen to this music instead. "

really i have no clue what the plot was supposed to be, all I can say with confidence is the hardcore sex was a very small part of the film. sex in general filling slightly more air time but still added absolutely nothing to the film hence irrelevant to whatever the plot was meant to be

[Markgway]

I completely agree with you BUT Romero said: "posh people can watch more than us normal people"

Right, I see. Sorry, I misunderstood. Happens a lot...
I don't know what Romero means in that case....

Nope but considering you've not seen 9 Songs you have no idea how good or bad the plot is. It's certainly possible you will see 9 Songs and think it has a decent plot with a decent storyline.

True. I haven't seen the film. But you don't always need to see something to know "what it's all about". It seems from everything I've read - Kermode included - that there is no plot to speak of. How can it be decent if it doesn't exist? It's sex and music cut together. That's it. I'm not saying you shouldn't like '9 Songs' for what it is... just don't pretend it's something that it's not. It's porn. Accept it. If the filmmakers don't want to be associated with porn then they should've made something else - or reduced the hardcore. It's hypocrisy plain and simple. It's wanting to shock people with porn without actually being called porn. And the amazing thing is: they've gotten away with it! Bravo to Winterbottom!!

[Markgway]

its not just sex and music. the amount of hardcore sex doesnt even hit double figures in minutes.

But the scenes as a whole last upto 35 mins from what I've read. That's still sex, just not hardcore.

theres a good deal more music than sex, and a good deal more of people sitting or standing around doing nothing interesting than anything else. the 'plot' is simply "here are these people look how boring they are. listen to this music instead. really i have no clue what the plot was supposed to be, all I can say with confidence is the hardcore sex was a very small part of the film. sex in general filling slightly more air time but still added absolutely nothing to the film hence irrelevant to whatever the plot was meant to be "

Ha-Ha! That's not a plot. That's a student project!! You'll have to do better, Mordib. Face it: THERE'S NO PLOT. Why are you struggling to come up with one? It's like me saying I watch WWF wrestling - but it's OK there's a plot. It's not just sweaty guys grappling. It MEANS something. I'm not going to criticize you for going to see a porno, but be honest about what it is you saw. There is no major difference between 9 SONGS and DEBBIE DOES DALLAS or DEEP THROAT - except the latter two are R18s and, apparently, DO HAVE A PLOT!! Hypocrisy? Absofuckinglutely!!

[Mordib]

lol, dude i'm sorry but ive seen a lot of porn in my time and 9 songs doesnt even come close to the tamest. i refuse to classify something in which the sex is so irrelevant as porn though i do accept that there are a few minutes of hardcore sex within the film which if the film centred upon it and extended it would put it up for nomination as porn. but im not going to nominate it as porn just because it is severely lacking a plot and happens to have sex in it, thats like watching space oddyssey and claiming it is about monkeys just because there was a lack of sane plot and there were monkeys in it

Have you seen Betty Blue? Its quite famous for its sex (albeit no hardcore), especially the uncut version that starts with a very long and very realistic looking shag. Its best known for its sex, just like 9 songs is, yet also just like 9 songs if you actually watch it you will realise its not about the sex. the only differentce between the two films is that betty blue does have a plot and its quite good


Mark, I have a feeling we could debate this all day, i will leave my stance at it wasnt made to be porn, noone who actually watches porn would consider it to be porn having watched it and yes, it basically has no plot, it really is nothing more than a crappy student project that happened to get some funding behind it. if explicit sex should get a different rating then so be it, but porn is an artform and 9 songs does not qualify


oh and if you think 9 songs is bad you should check out 'the brown bunny', makes 9 songs look like a great arthouse cinema film

[grim_tales]

I thought DDD was edited by the BBFC for hardcore?? There was a version available on DVD with a normal 18 rating, no?

[romerojpg]

I meant If its a classy Artistic artsy fartsy film you can get away with PORN!
If its the latest Blockbuster in cinemas you cannot.
Total double standards.

like Porno mags and Arts books ones fine, ones not to certain parts of society.

Hence Posh toffs get away with more.


All I know is it wrong to have this in real films, you want to see someone getting raped in a film? well We do and its nasty, now imagine that for fucking real, doesnt bear thinking about, but films will try thats for sure with these new saddo rules.

[bradavon]

I'm not going to criticize you for going to see a porno, but be honest about what it is you saw. There is no major difference between 9 SONGS and DEBBIE DOES DALLAS or DEEP THROAT - except the latter two are R18s and, apparently, DO HAVE A PLOT!! Hypocrisy? Absofuckinglutely!!

How about you comment when you've actually seen the film! Of course you need to see said film before you can draw a proper conclusion on it.

I meant If its a classy Artistic artsy fartsy film you can get away with PORN!
If its the latest Blockbuster in cinemas you cannot.
Total double standards.

You're probably right but I don't know of a blockbuster that has actually shown real sex to prove or disprove this argument. Have you?

like Porno mags and Arts books ones fine, ones not to certain parts of society.

You're seriously not saying great painters who for centuries have been admired are basically porn artists?

Both are fine to me but I thought your original argument was one wasn't (porn) and the other was (art as in not real)?

All I know is it wrong to have this in real films, you want to see someone getting raped in a film? well We do and its nasty, now imagine that for fucking real, doesnt bear thinking about, but films will try thats for sure with these new saddo rules.

Interesting point. How is it really any different to see real sex and a fake rape scene?

Many rape scenes are extremely graphic and realistic but I know of many people from these boards and many other who wet their pants to get their hands on a copy of Irreversible. I sure as hell don't want to see rape real or not!

At the end of the day I'm all for films such as 9 Songs getting released (as long as they don't break the law) because they push the boundaries. Which can only be a good thing in my book.

[grim_tales]

I think it was Romero who made that last comment, it doesnt sound like Mark

[Markgway]

lol, dude i'm sorry but ive seen a lot of porn in my time and 9 songs doesnt even come close to the tamest. i refuse to classify something in which the sex is so irrelevant as porn though i do accept that there are a few minutes of hardcore sex within the film which if the film centred upon it and extended it would put it up for nomination as porn. but im not going to nominate it as porn just because it is severely lacking a plot and happens to have sex in it, thats like watching space oddyssey and claiming it is about monkeys just because there was a lack of sane plot and there were monkeys in it

Dude, I'm sorry, but it's still porn. It maybe BORING porn? It maybe BAD porn? It may not have MUCH porn. It maybe porn with MUSIC? But said film is still whichever way you cut it pornographic. You could argue that '9 Songs' doesn't fall into the conventional understanding of what is porn? That I accept. '9 Songs' is a rareity in that it's mainstream-ish and unlike most porn pretends it's not. We usually expect this sort of pretention from the French. So I can see how confusion may arise. But any work which contains footage that falls at any point within the current definition of hardcore sex must be classed as pornographic. That doesn't make it bad. I'm sure some of these French porn films are decent and DO HAVE a plot worth writing about. Doesn't change the fact that they're porn. '9 Songs' has MORE sex than most of the French equivilents from what I can gather AND doesn't have the so-called saving grace of a plot, which makes its defence even weaker and more baffeling to me. Can a film not be art AND porn at the same time? Isn't it hypocrisy to disassociate onself from porn but use its characteristics to sell one's own film? It was posted earlier what the dictionary defenition of porn was. I countered these claims to the point where even Bradavon relented. Read my post again and then HONESTLY tell me that '9 Songs doesn't fit into my argument. If you can we'll agree to disagree....

Have you seen Betty Blue? Its quite famous for its sex (albeit no hardcore), especially the uncut version that starts with a very long and very realistic looking shag. Its best known for its sex, just like 9 songs is, yet also just like 9 songs if you actually watch it you will realise its not about the sex. the only differentce between the two films is that betty blue does have a plot and its quite good

No hardcore = no porn. Simple rule. I only recall seeing the beginning on TV when I was in my teens. I haven't seen the whole film so I cannot comment on any potential comparison with '9 Songs'. But as Betty Blue is not porn, I really don't see the point of any comparison, even if I had seen it. One is real sex, pornography; the other is purely acting in a work of fiction. Not fair to drag Betty Blue into this debate really.

Mark, I have a feeling we could debate this all day

YES!!!

ibut porn is an artform and 9 songs does not qualify

Ouch!

oh and if you think 9 songs is bad you should check out 'the brown bunny', makes 9 songs look like a great arthouse cinema film

I'll pass thanks. Porn with Vincent Gallo is surely unendurable? 8)

[Markgway]

I thought DDD was edited by the BBFC for hardcore?? There was a version available on DVD with a normal 18 rating, no?

I just checked the BBFC and the UNCUT R18 version of Debbie Does Dallas is about 11.5 mins longer than the 18 rated censored equivilent.

I guess we can assume that the uncut print contains that amount of excised hardcore material?

But as I said... one rule for Debbie (the whore?) and another for Margo (the actress???)

[Markgway]

How about you comment when you've actually seen the film!

I have no intentions of watching it. Maybe if it's on Channel Four in a couple of years and I'm really bored. But I don't like porn or boring films. Since '9 Songs' is both it has only cursory curiousity value for me.

Of course you need to see said film before you can draw a proper conclusion on it.

Only in some regards. Like, I can't say it's a bad film, because you need to see it to make that kind of judgement. But to accertain if said film is pornographic doesn't require ME to watch it. As long as I know the facts that's enough. Whether or not something is porn isn't subjective really. It either has hardcore or it doesn't.

I don't know of a blockbuster that has actually shown real sex to prove or disprove this argument.

No, because it's too risky financially. Middle America wouldn't accept it. And Britain doesn't produce blockbusters anyway except James Bond. Ooh, I say 007 is attempting re-entry!

You're seriously not saying great painters who for centuries have been admired are basically porn artists?

I admit I'm no expert on the artworld, but I'm not aware of any pornographic Van Gogh's out there...

All I know is it wrong to have this in real films, you want to see someone getting raped in a film? well We do and its nasty, now imagine that for fucking real, doesnt bear thinking about, but films will try thats for sure with these new saddo rules.

Hey, I didn't write this!!!

At the end of the day I'm all for films such as 9 Songs getting released (as long as they don't break the law) because they push the boundaries. Which can only be a good thing in my book.

Out of interest is there any legal boundary that shouldn't be broken on film? What about a film that graphically portrays paedophilia, but technically stays within the law by using editing, body doubles etc? It only LOOKS as though children are being abused.

[grim_tales]

11.5 mins longer? Ouch. Like the uncut (BBFC wise) NK2 is 11m longer then?

Interesting the US doesnt have this problem (the uncut R1 of DDD can surely be sold in normal stores, just Unrated.. I think?)

Is Emmanuelle basically porn then?

What about all the rennaisence (and later) paintings with nude girls/women like Renoirs' "Torse de femme du soleil" (Women's Torso In Sunlight) - I think thats the title!

What you said about paedophilia has been done hasn't it? The 1997 remake of Lolita dealt with that (in a way) - Dominique Swain was only 14 (or 15?) when the film was shot, for the nudity the filmmakers switched to a 19 year old body double.

[Markgway]

11.5 mins longer? Ouch. Like the uncut (BBFC wise) NK2 is 11m longer then?

Yeah, except cut for different reasons. There's no hardcore in Raped By An Angel.

Interesting the US doesnt have this problem (the uncut R1 of DDD can surely be sold in normal stores, just Unrated.. I think?)

Probably not Blockbuster... but places like Tower and HMV I would imagine so.

Is Emmanuelle basically porn then?

No idea. I got bored after two mins and switched channel.
YOU TELL ME is it hardcore??

What about all the rennaisence (and later) paintings with nude girls/women like Renoirs' "Torse de femme du soleil" (Women's Torso In Sunlight) - I think thats the title!

Nudity doesn't equal porn.

What you said about paedophilia has been done hasn't it? The 1997 remake of Lolita dealt with that (in a way) - Dominique Swain was only 14 (or 15?) when the film was shot, for the nudity the filmmakers switched to a 19 year old body double.

Good point. That was controversial. I believe they made the character older than in the book though to smooth things over. The BBFC however did object to deleted scenes which showed nudity which hints at the decision they would make had they been included in the film.

[grim_tales]

Perhaps RBAA was cut for rape and sexual violence? That was why Emmanuelle was cut also - not for hardcore.
Wasn't some of Traci Lords (sp?) early stuff illegal in the US (maybe even UK)?

I know nudity doesnt equal porn. I was referring to Romero there, who seemed to be comparing the great painters with porn artists

Back to Lolita - they also compromised on that a bit in 1961 as well - Lolita's "age" in the film is increased so Sue Lyon is playing a 15 year old not the 12 year old of the novel - and the most erotic scene apparently has James Mason painting Lolita's toenails.

[bradavon]

No hardcore = no porn. Simple rule.

Not so Playboy and even Page 3 is porn.

I think it was Romero who made that last comment, it doesnt sound like Mark

He didn't my bad a case of the copy and paste.

Out of interest is there any legal boundary that shouldn't be broken on film? What about a film that graphically portrays paedophilia, but technically stays within the law by using editing, body doubles etc? It only LOOKS as though children are being abused.

Like I said it needs to stay in the law. Real paedophilia is illegal and I'm sure we can all agree it should stay that way.

Fake paedophilia has already been committed to film so what's your point? Yes it should be allowed in the context of story or plot BUT certainly shouldn't be allowed in the context of a porn film.

Interesting the US doesnt have this problem (the uncut R1 of DDD can surely be sold in normal stores, just Unrated.. I think?)

They certainly do. The distributors just get around it by releasing the film unrated. Which to me is utter madness.

Parents have no idea (based on certificate) what's on a film as it doesn't even have a rating and as the MPAA allow unrated films to be released it makes a whole mockery of their entire system. Just look at the NC-17 rating (the MPAA's actual rating for such material) it's financial suicide and therefore virtually never gets used.

What about all the rennaisence (and later) paintings with nude girls/women like Renoirs' "Torse de femme du soleil" (Women's Torso In Sunlight) - I think thats the title!

Exactly presumably because the person in the painting was really naked at the time it's therefore porn and disgusting.

Nudity doesn't equal porn.

Actually it does. I'm not sure you actually know the meaning of the word porn (or Romero for that matter). The fact someone is nude or not is to to some extent irrelevant.

It's the intend behind it. Hence why topless women on the beach aren't performing pornography but Playboy or Page 3 are.

Wasn't some of Traci Lords (sp?) early stuff illegal in the US (maybe even UK)?

I believe so but at the same time porn in general was illegal in the US. Things are very different (on some levels) now a days.

and the most erotic scene apparently has James Mason painting Lolita's toenails.

A good point. I've not seen the film but I can easily believe this.

Nudity doesn't immediately equal porn or anything like it. For example:

Do you remember all that hoo har over Halle Berry being topless in Swordfish. When I saw the film at the cinema I failed to see what all the fuss was about. The scene is shot in such an unerotic fashion her lying on the deckchair with her breasts out is mostly boring.

The later scene when Hugh Jackman confronts Halle Berry and she's wearing skimpy underwear she looks far more erotic and isn't actually showing anymore than a woman in a bikini.

[romerojpg]

I am talking about ART books that are PORN!
books of so called photo books that turn peoples stomaches, I saw loads at college and some were as hard as any UK mag can get away with ever! and they featured everything that even was not legal in say a top shelf magazine! that includes penatration! the only reason they get away with it is becuase its too upper class to be classed as porno.

You cannot show a man fisting another man or himself! in a UK porno mag, but these art books you can! hows that for you.

Look about and you will find loads, even amazon.co.uk features loads! it is Porno for non masses and normal people will never see them ever, just posh toffs they are ussually classy puics apprently classed as art, only a total wanker would take them as atr! they are 100% porno.

I foujnd a few in seconds on amazon! thats without looking hard.
Books like

Shaven Beauty Mystery
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASI ... 81-0142064

Shaven Angels 2
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASI ... 81-0142064

sad Art Books Porno for posh people!

[Markgway]

Perhaps RBAA was cut for rape and sexual violence?

Yes. The title tells you all you need to know why the BBFC hated it.

That was why Emmanuelle was cut also - not for hardcore.

I think you're right. It was rape that was the problem.

Wasn't some of Traci Lords (sp?) early stuff illegal in the US (maybe even UK)?

Yes, because she was underage. Only one of her videos was shot when she was '18' and that's the only possible legal release in the US or UK. I don't know the title so I can't check the BBFC to see if it's ever been passed. She made millions out of "being exploited". How ironic?

Back to Lolita - they also compromised on that a bit in 1961 as well - Lolita's "age" in the film is increased so Sue Lyon is playing a 15 year old not the 12 year old of the novel - and the most erotic scene apparently has James Mason painting Lolita's toenails.

Well, hardly surprising in 1962. Even now it's a controversial and highly emotive subject. I think in the end it comes down to the filmmakers' motives. If it's exploitative then people will be upset. If there's a genuine interest in examining the subject intelligently then most viewers will understand (even if they don't want to watch). I hear that Kevin Bacon is superb in The Woodsman. I want to see his performance, but I know the film, however noble, will be bloody tough and depressing to sit thru.

[Markgway]

Not so Playboy and even Page 3 is porn.

Hardly. I mean you could call Playboy SOFTcore because you sometimes see between the pubes. And, of course, when I use the term "porn" I'm talking about Hardcore. As for Page 3, that's just glamour nudity. You see worse on beaches. I wouldn't call it "porn".

Like I said it needs to stay in the law. Real paedophilia is illegal and I'm sure we can all agree it should stay that way. Fake paedophilia has already been committed to film so what's your point? Yes it should be allowed in the context of story or plot BUT certainly shouldn't be allowed in the context of a porn film.

Yeah, I agree. I was just wondering if there was a line you would draw in the sand BEFORE the law comes into play? You've answered my question.... The BBFC cut dialogue from pornos that make ANY reference to underage sex or the implication of it. So I think that fits in line with your stance (and mine).

Parents have no idea (based on certificate) what's on a film as it doesn't even have a rating and as the MPAA allow unrated films to be released it makes a whole mockery of their entire system. Just look at the NC-17 rating (the MPAA's actual rating for such material) it's financial suicide and therefore virtually never gets used.

The American ratings system is a pointless joke.

Actually it does. I'm not sure you actually know the meaning of the word porn (or Romero for that matter). The fact someone is nude or not is to to some extent irrelevant.

Nudity DOES NOT equal porn, Brad. Please provide me with a definition which says otherwise. So you would say a Nudist Promo Tape is porn?? Lawn tennis in the buff is porn??

It's the intend behind it. Hence why topless women on the beach aren't performing pornography but Playboy or Page 3 are.

None of the above are pornographic. Jeez, you're worse than Romero. Ha-Ha! Cover up those sluts!!

I believe so but at the same time porn in general was illegal in the US.

When??? Porn was illegal in the UK. In the US it's been allowed in cinemas since the early 70's.

Nudity doesn't immediately equal porn or anything like it.

That's what I said earlier... why did you argue?

Do you remember all that hoo har over Halle Berry being topless in Swordfish. When I saw the film at the cinema I failed to see what all the fuss was about. The scene is shot in such an unerotic fashion her lying on the deckchair with her breasts out is mostly boring.

That's not porn regardless of whether you found it sexy. There's nothing explicit in breasts alone.

The later scene when Hugh Jackman confronts Halle Berry and she's wearing skimpy underwear she looks far more erotic and isn't actually showing anymore than a woman in a bikini.

I think we're getting away from the point... but having not seen the film I'll take your word for it.