9 Songs - Art or Porn?

[Markgway]

As you all are no doubt aware Michael Winterarse's controversial 9 Songs contains hardcore sex footage shot with the film's lead actors. But are they actors or prostitutes?

The definition of prostitution?

According to the American Heritage Dictionary: "The act or practice of engaging in sex acts for hire."

Isn't that what these "actors" are doing? Isn't the director in fact a pimp?

Discuss... 8)

[bradavon]

I'll answer your questions first:

1. Actors
2. The act or practice of engaging in sex acts for hire.
3. No
4. No

Okay let me clarify there is a world of difference between acting for realism and having hired sex. For a start there is a context to the sex in 9 Songs it's not just bonking without feelings for the sake of bonking without feelings. The sex is part of the story which also adds another level.

Of course that doesn't mean 9 Songs is any good. So I'd say 9 Songs is art but could be crap art.

As for Hardcore pornography compared with prostitution? I'm really not sure. There is a purpose ot pornography which isn't present in prostitution but whether this means shit I don't know.

[romerojpg]

Yes it is PORN they did it for cash and that a bunch of slags selling there bodies for films and its bloody god damn sad anyway, loosers will want to see the film because of the sex alone go out and get real porno saddos

The footage of them shagging is very, very sad and they look like a pair of total tossers trying to get media attention as the films a load of wank (litterally) if this is the state of British films, kill all Britsh actors right now as I do not want to see this sort of crap on my screen unless I am watching real Porno, not art pretending to be Porno with a message.

[bradavon]

Have you seen it?

[romerojpg]

Nope just enuff to see what shit this country is peddling off as a film.

Thing is I dont need to see the whole film, when you whip out a erect dick and wank it off for the camera then spunk up all over! thats not a film, its PORN.

I for one never want to see such shit in a proper film ever, and never will as its just sad, if people started shagging for real in your favorate films would you take it?
I am sure as hell I wouldnt, it spoils films.
I have a few films from the 70's and 80's where they added in real porno footage to spice up the films, it fucking ruins them as then it crosses the line and becomes dirty filth and PORN.

There is a short list of artsy films which have did this Porno thing, and they will never be watched by me as its just really sad that the films need to add porn to get people to watch them, do you want to see Tom Cruise whip out his knob and wank at the camera? sure as fuck I never want to, thats why the dirty little wankers in these films are nobodys and never will be anybodys ever again.

Thing is its all double standards anyway, they ONLY lets artsy films get away with it and will not let say a Hollywood blockbuster ever do it, as they know no normal fucker will ever want to watch them.

[bradavon]

Thing is I dont need to see the whole film, when you whip out a erect dick and wank it off for the camera then spunk up all over! thats not a film, its PORN.

I suggest you look up the dictionary definition of PORN as you're so wrong. I know what the dictionary definition says about PORN and this film doesn't fit!

Nope just enuff to see what shit this country is peddling off as a film.

I knew you hadn't.

To use your words how can you bloody comment about a film you've not seen? You've used the very same argument against people in the past. What are you basing your opinion on? The Media? Reviews? (which I didn't think you read). If you've not seen how on earth do you know the footage is sad or they're slags? At least be consistent!

This isn't supposed to be porn or even erotic so of course it's going to be crap in the sense you mean it. It passed uncut as 18 because it isn't erotic. If it was meant to be porn we'd know about it by now.

Yes it maybe pornographic and they maybe prostituting themselves but neither make it porn! Just because we see unsimulated sex it doesn't immediately mean it's porn.

I for one never want to see such shit in a proper film ever, and never will as its just sad, if people started shagging for real in your favorate films would you take it?

It would make the sex scenes much more realistic so know if in context and not over the top (which is the point to a degree of 9 Songs I believe) I wouldn't mind.

Sex isn't anything to be ashamed of and constantly showing simulated sex scenes is sad really. So to make a blank statement that adding sex immediately makes a film bad is wrong IMO. Man I hate conservatism.

thats why the dirty little wankers in these films are nobodys and never will be anybodys ever again.

Michael Winterbottom happens to be a critically acclaimed director and I believe the Margo Stilley is set to star in more upcoming flicks.

Thing is its all double standards anyway, they ONLY lets artsy films get away with it and will not let say a Hollywood blockbuster ever do it, as they know no normal fucker will ever want to watch them.

What a load of bollocks.

Would the BBFC pass it in Hollywood films? Of course. It depends if it's erotic. Hollywood shires away from real sex as -

A: It's not a money maker
B: America and therefore Hollywood is a very conservative country on the whole. It would cause outrage.

[romerojpg]

BOLLOCKS its sex, its Erotic by nature! if you had seen the stuff you would see that.

and I said I had seen enuff of the film all the scenes I needed to, and your definaly in the minority of you think seeing people have real sex in a film is wanted at all I know that for a fact, I felt sick watching some films I was enjoying turn into Porno.

and the BBFC would never pass stuff like this for Holywood films they have stated many times they would never! so read up on it, the head of the place said so many times as posh people seeing it as art are far supiror to us apparently.

[Markgway]

Okay let me clarify there is a world of difference between acting for realism and having hired sex. For a start there is a context to the sex in 9 Songs it's not just bonking without feelings for the sake of bonking without feelings. The sex is part of the story which also adds another level.

I honestly don't see the difference, except for some reason "prostitution" is illegal. You can pay to film people having sex, but not pay to have sex without filming it. Madness really.

So I'd say 9 Songs is art but could be crap art.

But art can also double as prostitution can't it? Any creative work has the right to be dubbed art even hardcore pornography in the usual sense.

As for Hardcore pornography compared with prostitution? I'm really not sure. There is a purpose ot pornography which isn't present in prostitution but whether this means shit I don't know.

The purpose is the same in both. For the participants to get off. The difference with porn is that it has the added element of voyeurism so that the viewer can also get off. It's in the same realm.

[romerojpg]

So what next for these so called Well Respected Directors then, Double Anal Gangbangs with Cum Guzzling finales? centered around a few concerts to make it a film as people will Get Off on anything if people fuck, thats a fact, even Rape!

the thing is NOONE NORMAL WANTS THIS SHIT IN FILMS! EVER!

Could you sit in a cinema with that on the screen? with other people around you? I am sure I couldnt and never will ever.

Films and PORN are very far apart, let tham stay that way forever.

[Markgway]

I suggest you look up the dictionary definition of PORN as you're so wrong. I know what the dictionary definition says about PORN and this film doesn't fit!

According to American Heritage: "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal."

So in order that 9 Songs not be classified as porn you would have to believe the filmmakers' assertion that their primary intent was not to create sexual arousal. I don't believe it personally.

To use your words how can you bloody comment about a film you've not seen? You've used the very same argument against people in the past. What are you basing your opinion on? The Media? Reviews? (which I didn't think you read). If you've not seen how on earth do you know the footage is sad or they're slags? At least be consistent!

To be fair to Romero, you don't necessarily need to have seen the film in its entirity to form an opinion, as long as you've got enough knowledge to come to some sort of conclusion. I've read many reports and know pretty much what the film entails and therefore believe that my conclusions are valid.

It passed uncut as 18 because it isn't erotic. If it was meant to be porn we'd know about it by now.

You could argue that anything more than a fleeting glimpse is designed to be erotic otherwise why include it? Isn't the point of showing real sex to show its eroticism? I can't think of any other justifiable reason. According to the director it's meant to demonstrate the state and nature of their relationship. However, if you can get all that from watching two "actors" fuck then you're a better man than I?

It would make the sex scenes much more realistic so know if in context and not over the top (which is the point to a degree of 9 Songs I believe) I wouldn't mind.

I wouldn't want to see this crossing over of porn and mainstream filmmaking become a regular occurance. Have to say I'm agreeing with Romero here. If I want to jerk off I don't need a story or context to do it. I need a pair of tits and five mins (maybe more?)

Sex isn't anything to be ashamed of

Who said it was? Doesn't mean I wanna watch other people doing it.

and constantly showing simulated sex scenes is sad really. So to make a blank statement that adding sex immediately makes a film bad is wrong IMO. Man I hate conservatism.

Ha-Ha! Typical Liberal response. Anyone who doesn't want us all walking around in public with hard ons is a fuddy duddy facist. Have you ever seen a good film with hardcore in it? Exactly.

Michael Winterbottom happens to be a critically acclaimed director

By whom? Has anyone seen anything he's done?

and I believe the Margo Stilley is set to star in more upcoming flicks.

Yes, she's shooting 'Pink Pussy 4: Spread Lips' as I write.

What a load of bollocks.

Romero's right. No way would Hollywood ever get away with what a no budget British indie can. How is that bollocks?

[romerojpg]

The director of this masterbatepiece, was pretty pissed off in all the press stuff I read it was just funny in the end as he was such a fool about it and how exactly did he expect people to react to his filth? he got the exact response he was after and he knew it and for that reason the film at least got loads of press.

The man who brought us The Nice film The Claim and some great episodes of Cracker now makes Porn and he knows he messed up badly and everyone involved looks a right pratt now and this film may well be the end of the UK BBFC and there patetic rating system as if they let this crap thru as an 18 its a joke I await the christmas day screening on BBC1 at 9 oclock.


and really I am commenting on films Like this in general, I dont need to see them, sex in a film is mainly my point, not any film in particular, its just these arty films always get the media attention for the wrong reasons, not becasue they are stunning films, but becasue someone whips out a dick. Vincent Gallos stand in is famous now for whipping his out.

[Mordib]

the difference is the primary purpose of porn is sex, plot being a distance second if it exists at all, whereas films like this one may have hardcore sex in it but its in the context of a plot. it may be the shittest plot ever for all i know, i havent seen the film but the difference is there.

the prostitution issue is more complicated, i totally agree that it is bizarre that paying for sex is illegal but paying people to have sex in a film is not. I myself have never paid for sex but the concept sdoesnt disgust me, simply i like all the added stuff in a real relationship as much as the sex, one without the other just wouldnt do it for me.

in terms of acotrs or prostitutes, both career paths can technically ivolve the talents of the other career, the difference is the primary function of the career.

[romerojpg]

The thing with that is most respected Porn directors now make films, with some sex in them so thats changed a lot now in the Porno industry as the slappers act! or try to, then get nasty.

[bradavon]

the difference is the primary purpose of porn is sex, plot being a distance second if it exists at all, whereas films like this one may have hardcore sex in it but its in the context of a plot. it may be the shittest plot ever for all i know, i havent seen the film but the difference is there.

Exactly my point!

the thing is NOONE NORMAL WANTS THIS SHIT IN FILMS! EVER!

Now you're generalising and missing the point. It's not just about fucking there is a context to the fucking. Actually we both should watch it before saying any more.

Could you sit in a cinema with that on the screen? with other people around you? I am sure I couldnt and never will ever.

Of course. I'm clearly not as squeamish about sex as you are. Clearly many others did as it had a cinema audience.

I watched Y Tu Mama Tambien in the cinema and while it is no where near as graphic it is much more graphic than most Hollywood films. With male nudity but I suppose I'm a pervert for watching it?

Films and PORN are very far apart, let tham stay that way forever.

True but this isn't porn.

You could argue that anything more than a fleeting glimpse is designed to be erotic otherwise why include it? Isn't the point of showing real sex to show its eroticism? I can't think of any other justifiable reason.

The BBFC deemed it unerotic which is why they passed it uncut. I'm sure the director intended it to be erotic!

So in order that 9 Songs not be classified as porn you would have to believe the filmmakers' assertion that their primary intent was not to create sexual arousal. I don't believe it personally.

Yes

Romero's right. No way would Hollywood ever get away with what a no budget British indie can. How is that bollocks?

You're agreeing with Romero that will be a first

The reason Hollywood wouldn't get away with are mentioned in my reasons above.

I personally think it's a good sign. It shows Britain is gradually moving away from the conservative dark ages. I doubt this even got an 18 in France (for example).

Who said it was? Doesn't mean I wanna watch other people doing it.

I believe Romero is by keep referring to sex as filth.

may well be the end of the UK BBFC and there
patetic rating system as if they let this crap thru as an 18 its a joke I await the christmas day screening on BBC1 at 9 oclock.

You jest but I can see C4 (who have some balls) doing this.

What other rating would you give it? I guess you'd want it banned. Which brings us back to the censorship argument.

its just these arty films always get the media attention for the wrong reasons, not becasue they are stunning films, but becasue someone whips out a dick.

I agree with you on this point.

[bradavon]

To widen the conversation off this film for a minute. Let's say 9 Songs is definitely porn.

Why that in itself makes it fifth and disgusting? Is porn disgusting? (which would therefore include Page 3 and all most of those girlie pics on your computer Romero ).

I happen to think not BUT there is a worrying side to hardcore porn such as Gonzo porn. Hardcore porn in itself or softcore of course I have no issue with and have even watched it from time to time. But then again I don't think prostitution should be illegal!

[Markgway]

The BBFC deemed it unerotic which is why they passed it uncut. I'm sure the director intended it to be erotic!

All sex barring rape and some sick shit is erotic in the positive sense to an extent. Otherwise why do it? Why watch it? I'm sure any bloke watching the woman in the film masturbating (which she does) will get a stiffy. If he doesn't then he's either a Eunuch, a member of the BBFC, or Brad. The reason the BBFC passed the film uncut was that they were scared not to. Like Brad said earlier, Winterbum is an acclaimed director. Could they BBFC risk the media backlash for cutting his work? If the exact same film (and I mean EXACT) had been directed by Ron Jeremy it would have been cut. No question in my mind. The BBFC feared a Liberal response for cutting "art". The not-erotic excuse was just that: an excuse.

The reason Hollywood wouldn't get away with are mentioned in my reasons above.

The BBFC would be terrified if some Hollywood film actually did this. Imagine them having to pass a mainstream blockbuster with hardcore? If 9 Songs has pushed the boundries, a Hollywood imitation would break it clear in two. Would the liberal elite defend a Brian DePalma film with hardcore? I doubt it somehow. But mention the word art and it pricks their conscience.

I personally think it's a good sign. It shows Britain is gradually moving away from the conservative dark ages. I doubt this even got an 18 in France (for example).

The French are unlike any other country though. Betty Blue (with plenty softcore shagging) was a "U". You know it's actually not the rating I have the problem with. An '18' is an '18' to me and the need for an R-18 is disappearing by the day. It's the mind-boggling hypocracy behind it all.

I believe Romero is by keep referring to sex as filth.

I don't agree sex is filth obviously. But I still don't want to see it in movies. It's unnecessary and distracting.

You jest but I can see C4 (who have some balls) doing this.

FilmFour will try it first. Then if that goes well, they may try to get it on Ch4. The new Ofcom rules technically allow this, though when those rules, which prohibit the screening on any channel of R18 material, were created I doubt they had 9 Songs in mind.

What other rating would you give it? I guess you'd want it banned. Which brings us back to the censorship argument.

"18" uncut. Just as it was given.

[romerojpg]

I think if you let this full on sex crap get into mainstream films its the end as we know it.
You said you dont like simulated sex, but I would rather watch that then this anytime, I just guess you have never seen a film like 9 Songs before I have many of them and the sex ALWAYS ruined the film in question

I recently saw a really great film called They Call Her One Eye, I loved the film and it was stylish and very well made with some incredable moments, but then they started inserting people having sex, it was far from erotic thats for sure it was horrendous! as bad as 9 Songs is!
the footage pulls you out of the film and makes it nasty and dirty! I cannot give it to anyone I know to watch as that footage is enuff to stop anyone normal watching it as 1 in a thousand will like porno crap inserted into a film.

Films are exactly that, films, adding real sex for me it becomes Porno no way round it is IS porn if they really did that shit!

What next if you dont like non real sex in films, what about the fake fights, the fake rapes, the fake deaths, why not make all that REAL as well! because people do not want to see it at all thats why.
You see fake violence in films all the time, do you want to see people really fighting and beating the crap out of each other as then it would be real, and I wouldnt want to then watch it as I have seen stuff like that and it made me want to throw up and any normal person would feel the same.

What about Kiddie rape and sick shit like that, they could do that for real then in some countruies! or imply it thats for sure in other places, its a slippery slope and it needs to stop and we dont need to see Porn in films, unless you buy a Porno.

Films with such footage should never be given an 18! they should be give what they deserve a R 18 which means normal people dont have to see it by accident as its only for sale in dodgy sex places, as it should be.

and as I said I don not need to see a full film to asses the state, if it has people shagging its not a normal film. I have seen all the foogae from the film and its appauling they are letting this into the UK as an 18, or in any state! it needs to be treated like Porn as it is there to satisfy erotically, thats the point of sex! always will be.

Channel 4 may well show it, as they are dumb potatoe heads for even thinking about it! like any UK channel should be named for showing these films.

Most the people who went to see this in the UK were the dirty mack brigade I know this and so will most others as thats the way life is, you can say I have no evidence for it, but hey when people saw the contriversy they instantly showed up to see people fucking for real! if it has simulated sex, then the film wouldnt have even got off the ground like 99% of Brish shit.

[Mordib]

i will watch it so i can make a judgement on it. Romero, sex in films ruins the film is a very personal view. Theres nothing wrong with it as a view, each to there own and all that but i hope you realise you are in a serious minority on this one. there may be many poeple who would agree sex doesnt add anything to a movie, but ruin it? not that many share that opinion.

lets not forget most people like having sex. very few people like have kiddie sex or raping people or commiting violence against others (although i do sometimes wonder about that last one and the occupants of birmingham...)

[romerojpg]

Sex in films is OK I never mind that.

Real Sex isnt and I am 100% certain most normal people do not want to see that thats why Porn is not openly available and talked about in public, its a dirty thing most people dont even admit to owning! never mind sitting in a cinema watching.

[bradavon]

Are you saying sex in general is dirty?

Because I fail to see the huge difference between having sex and having sex while being film?

Please explain.

What about Kiddie rape and sick shit like that, they could do that for real then in some countruies! or imply it thats for sure in other places, its a slippery slope and it needs to stop and we dont need to see Porn in films, unless you buy a Porno.

Bloody hell you're comparing porn by consensual adults to rape? WTF???

The two are completely different. Would I be against implied rape in films? Probably not but that doesn't mean I want to see it nor do I think to show it is sick. As long as it has some context around it.

I agree people do get off on some sick material (i.e - when a women throws up she has had a cock rammed down her throat so much, that's sick and is available to buy) but that doesn't mean it should be banned. I'm surprised it's legal though (it is in America anyway). So let me get this straight only material you agree to should be released? Everything else should be banned. Hmmm.

Didn't you buy Irréversible? Like many others on this forum and other DVD forums. I never felt the need to see multiple rape scenes but many clearly did.

thats why Porn is not openly available and talked about in public, its a dirty thing most people dont even admit to owning! never mind sitting in a cinema watching.

It's not openingly available as most people in the UK think it's disgusting not because it's not enjoyed.

Millions of people enjoy porn each year. Porn makes far more business in America than Hollywood ever does! True most people wouldn't admit to watching porn but that's just because most people are told it's disgusting so are ashamed of it. I'm not ashamed of saying I like watching porn and would admit to anyone who asked me.

If anyone (man or women but especially man) says they don't enjoy porn at all. They're a liar IMO.

I freely told my Mum and boss (who is also female) I'd been to the red light district in Bangkok and Amsterdam. I actually just walked through both for the experience but my boss was to bigoted, ignorant and conservative to ask anymore. I don't care if people know, like I said it's natural.

Just in case you thought otherwise Y Tu Mama Tambien isn't porn, very much has a story and has also some erotic scenes but the sex isn't real.

if it has people shagging its not a normal film.

Going on from this the one thing I really don't understand is sex that most of the adult population does is thought of as disgusting but extreme violence is either enjoyable or thought of as cool?

Take Sin City I hear the extreme violence is a lot of fun.

How is watching violence such as this which if real would be illegal is acceptable but sex that like I said a great many people do is not?

Another example Halle Berry got her tits out in Swordfish. I couldn't believe all the controversy and tabloid talk it got. The scene was completely devoid of eroticism. I thought oh wow a pair of breasts, nothing more than you'd see on the beach.

The scene later on when Hugh Jackman walks in on her and Halle is just wearing her underwear is far more erotic.

p.s - I'm going to do my best to not look at this thread anymore so I don't have to read any more of your drivel, conservatism, closed mindedness Romero . We'll have to agree to disagree.

[romerojpg]

Going on from this the one thing I really don't understand is sex that most of the adult population does is thought of as disgusting but extreme violence is either enjoyable or thought of as cool?

Take Sin City I hear the extreme violence is a lot of fun.

How is watching violence such as this which if real would be illegal is acceptable but sex that like I said a great many people do is not? .

as I said violence in films is NOT REAL!!!!!!!!!

The Porno in these films IS!
massive difference and stupid to even say that, as I already went into that above! if it was REAL vioelnce it would be fucking sick!

and stuff it anyway your so open minded you must walk down the street with your knob out in the wind, normal people do not want to see PORN in mainstream films and everything you have said doesnt help the case for in any way.

and 9 Songs has a record for Walk outs early screening had up to 60% walk outs and you say normal people would want to see it, dont think so the same goes for most of these films with Real porn in them the walk out ratio is massive compared to normal films, look at Brown Bunny for instecnce pretty much everyone walked out of that film and good they did too! people did not go into watch Porn palmed off as a film.

In the end this bullshit if for controversy only and it works every time

Didn't you buy Irréversible? Like many others on this forum and other DVD forums. I never felt the need to see multiple rape scenes but many clearly did.

Iits not Real! your totally missing my whole point about Real Porn in films.

Just in case you thought otherwise Y Tu Mama Tambien isn't porn, very much has a story and has also some erotic scenes but the sex isn't real.

Exactly its NOT real, so why even mention it, its not real in hundreds of normal films that the whole point of a thread like this.

[bradavon]

I forgot to ask earlier what "exactly" is so filthy about porn? I've asked this before and usually just get:

A. It's wrong
B. It's Disgusting

Those aren't justified reasons. I'm interested.

and stuff it anyway your so open minded you must walk down the street with your knob out in the wind

If nothing else you do make me laugh

Its not Real! your totally missing my whole point about Real Porn in films.

I did sorry. I've got it now.

I fail to see how it makes a huge difference if the sex is real. We as viewers are supposed to believe all sex in films is real. Maybe it's just me.

p.s - I still say (based on what I've know of the film) 9 Songs doesn't contain porn

[Markgway]

I agree people do get off on some sick material (i.e - when a women throws up she has had a cock rammed down her throat so much, that's sick and is available to buy) but that doesn't mean it should be banned. I'm surprised it's legal though (it is in America anyway).

Deep throating is frequently cut from UK porn releases. If a woman is seen to be choking then the BBFC require cuts on the grounds of it being dangerous and imitable. Also if it looks as though unacceptable force is being used (even if consensual, as appearences are what count) then cuts are made. Like if a man was pulling a woman's hair back whilst standing over her and forcing his penis down her throat. If she's in control of the action that makes all the difference.

[bradavon]

Interesting cheers. I saw it on a US documentary. It wasn't pretty.

Who oversees TV channels? I know it's not the BBFC.

[Markgway]

Who oversees TV channels? I know it's not the BBFC.

Ofcom. It used to be the ITC formerly the IBA. Ofcom have just published new guidelines to come into effect in July I think. Among the new guidelines is one prohibiting any R18 material to be shown on ANY UK TV channel including encrypted and PPV services. HOWEVER, there's a slight loophole, and that is that ANY film can be shown if passed by the BBFC at '18' or less. Of course "9 Songs" has just been passed uncut with an '18'. So by rights Channel 4 should be allowed to show it intact without problem. But we all know that hypocracy can come into play so I think FilmFour will test the murky waters first.