Translate

Saturday

Porn Rising

More and more filmmakers are putting pornography under the spotlight. Here is my article on the subject from The Scotsman.

Sex and pornography have been running themes at this year’s film festivals. Sundance and Berlin included biopics of Soho smut king/property tycoon Paul Raymond and Deep Throat star Linda Lovelace, plus Don Jon, a comedy about a porn addict’s search for love, and Interior. Leather Bar. James Franco’s and Travis Mathews’ re-imagining of sexually explicit footage cut from William Friedkin’s Cruising. 

All this has meant that talk between journalists and filmmakers has frequently turned to matters carnal. Suddenly a sex act that it would normally be unseemly and downright inappropriate to discuss with a rising Hollywood starlet like Amanda Seyfried – who is the main reason to watch Lovelace – was a legitimate part of the discourse.

Next week sees the release of Michael Winterbottom’s entertaining The Look of Love, starring Steve Coogan as Paul Raymond. Five years after the death of its subject, the film arrives amid growing concern about the mainstreaming of pornography – in which porn barons like Raymond, and filmmakers such as Deep Throat’s writer-director Gerard Damiano, played a significant part.

Whereas the 52-year-old Winterbottom says he grew up in the era of magazines such as Raymond’s Men Only and the “top shelf”, now any child capable of using a computer or smartphone better than their parents can access extreme hardcore material at the click of a few buttons.

Kids director Larry Clark told me seven years ago that he was shocked by the effects of pornification in America. While filming his contribution to the portmanteau art-porn project Destricted, Clark had interviewed young males who dreamed of copulating with a porn actress. When they disrobed for the camera, he discovered they’d all removed their body hair, just like porn stars.

“I had no idea that was going on,” he recalled. “When you’re a kid, pubic hair is the greatest thing in the world. You can’t wait to get it. And these very young kids were shaving it off. It’s like, what?” The way they had sex was equally surprising to him. “There’s no mystery. You f***, you pull out, and you come on the girl – that’s the way to have sex… If kids see that, they think that’s the way to do it.”

This point was disturbingly illustrated recently in the “On All Fours” episode of Lena Dunham’s groundbreaking TV show Girls, in which Hannah’s on-off lover, Adam, left a new partner feeling violated and degraded with moves that looked like they’d come straight out of the modern porn actor’s handbook. 

In Noah Baumbach’s wonderful new film Frances Ha, meanwhile, the eponymous New Yorker, played by co-writer Greta Gerwig (a friend of Dunham, incidentally), resignedly implies that porn now defines the way that many men her age want to have sex, with “facials” now part of what women are often expected to endure.

The role Raymond played in getting us here is not Winterbottom’s primary concern in The Look of Love. At first, the director says, it “felt like maybe it would be more the life and times of Paul Raymond, the ups and downs, the adventures, being more about the club, the magazines, the properties, but I think eventually we felt the story should be organised around his relationship to his wife, his relationship to [his lover] Fiona Richmond, and his relationship to his daughter [Debbie] … The cultural world became background, really, and the women became foreground.”

Not all the women, though. The models and dancers are wallpaper, for the most part. We learn nothing about their lives or how they feel about their work. The film doesn’t explicitly critique the way Raymond made his money, nor make any grand statements about the rights and wrongs of pornography. In a way, it doesn’t need to; the critique, or at least the basis for one, is inherent, to an extent, in the film’s vivid mis-en-scène.

When he opened the Raymond Revuebar in Soho, in 1958, Raymond offered private members a glittering contrast to the post-war gloom that coloured British life. “There was a dance show, choreography and costumes, and then people gradually took those costumes off,” says Winterbottom. “It was an evening where people would go out as couples. Film stars would arrive occasionally. So it was a glamorous kind of thing and it was the idea that he was importing sophisticated continental culture to London.” By the time the film ends in 1992, however, the club had become “just a seedy, tacky kind of place, with tourists going there”.

Despite Raymond’s contention that what he was offering in his shows and magazines wasn’t pornographic, Winterbottom has no doubt that over time that is precisely what they ended up being: “It became more explicit, more degrading, more depressing and less attractive. And we show that. So when he says, ‘Is it degrading to women? No,’ we then try to put in the most degrading things we could.” 

While Raymond was mainstreaming sex and porn in Britain, across the Atlantic hardcore pornography’s big breakthrough came in 1972 with the release of Deep Throat. Before it, filmed porn was most commonly consumed as short, often silent, stag films shot in 16mm. Deep Throat, on the other hand, used 35mm, it had a script, some artsy editing, and a lot of humour.

Harry Reems, who died last month, was cast in the role of a doctor who discovers that the reason Linda Lovelace (real name Linda Boreman), is having trouble climaxing is because her clitoris is, bizarrely, at the back of her throat. Reems told me that he often played doctors because, under American law, sexually explicit material was only permitted if it had socially redeeming value.

“So I would say, ‘If you’re having trouble with oral sex, here’s how you do it,’ and it would cut to a 30-minute oral sex scene. I was the socially redeeming value. Deep Throat then came along and became a complete spoof on those movies. It was the first film not to have the pretence of socially redeeming value. It went strictly for comedic entertainment and that’s why it became the icon that it’s become.”

There was another reason, of course: Linda Lovelace. She was young, fresh and seemingly insatiable. Deep Throat turned her into an international star. But as Howl directors Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman acknowledge in their biopic Lovelace, everything wasn’t as it seemed. At least not according to Linda, who in her 1980 autobiography Ordeal claimed that she had been forced into pornography by her manager-husband, Chuck Traynor. More a film about an abusive relationship than an exploration of the skin trade, Lovelace shows the two conflicting versions of her story, and thereby, the filmmakers believe, the contradictions of the sexual revolution.

“We were very interested in that historical moment where porn is just becoming mainstream, where sexual mores were really changing, and people are becoming more honest in the depictions of what was going on,” says Epstein. “And then there was also a dark side to that force – women who felt they weren’t fully in control of their own situation within that. So there was the dark and the light, and we tried to characterise that particular moment.”

Deep Throat was embraced by celebrities and the chattering classes. People who had never dreamed of going to see a blue film before turned up in their droves, making it a box office and cultural sensation. Writer and director Gerard Damiano foresaw a convergence of sexually explicit content and mainstream Hollywood, and for a brief moment it looked like it might happen. However, the political reaction against Deep Throat was so strong that pornographers eventually had to look for new ways to get around the obscenity laws.

Video proved to be the answer. But whereas Deep Throat had turned watching porn into a communal experience, it now became, according to one commentator, “the occasion for solitary masturbation”. Pornographers knew they had a huge and hungry audience waiting for new material, and video allowed them to get it out quickly and cheaply.

Now that we are in the age of digital, the internet is making porn more available than ever before. A popular and profitable kind is gonzo porn – short, amateur-looking clips filled with close-ups that have the effect of dehumanising men and women by reducing them to their body parts. The violence in Lovelace’s off-screen narrative has now made its way on-screen, arguably, and there are countless accounts from consumers, teachers and psychologists, about the impact that porn is having on the way young people relate to themselves and to each other sexually.

In his writing-directing debut, Don Jon, Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays a young man who cannot relate to women in the real world because of his obsession with internet porn. His character’s inability to find true satisfaction with a flesh and blood female, and admission that he can only lose himself online, are typical symptoms of porn addiction.

However, Gordon-Levitt recently dropped the word “addiction” from the film’s title (it was originally called “Don Jon’s Addiction”), saying that his real subject was the effects of living in a society saturated with media. A large chunk of the film’s budget came from using cleverly edited clips (meaning you see less than you think you do) from actual porn films as product placement. But, insists Levitt, the film is not about porn.

“If there is a message, it is about media and how media impacts our perspectives,” he said in Berlin. “But, in general, it’s also about things that have been true throughout humanity, whether two people can see eye to eye and connect and engage, or put each other in boxes and relate at a distance.”

The fear expressed by many is that the mainstreaming of porn – and its influence through music, advertising, and other forms of media – could well be making this more difficult.
This is not to say that explicit sex doesn’t have a place in cinema. After all, says Winterbottom, whose drama 9 Songs showed how unsimulated sex doesn’t have to be pornographic, like love it is an important part of a relationship.

“What is weird, in a way, is that cinema doesn’t deal with that very often. In fact very few films deal with at all. If you think about how important it is to everyone, the question is why aren’t there more films that deal with that?”

 http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/sex-and-cinema-new-films-explore-the-world-of-porn-1-2899028

 © Stephen Applebaum, 2013

Scary Movie 5: So unfunny, it's frightening

My one-star review of Scary Movie 5 from The National

Be afraid. Be very afraid. The Scary Movie franchise has risen from the grave after a seven-year interment and it is as mouldy, mindless and rank-smelling as a zombie. Those shuffling revenants want to eat your brains and so, too, it feels like, does Scary Movie 5. But only after inveigling some hard-earned cash from your pocket, of course.

Although it doesn’t depart very far from the formula established by its predecessors, some things have changed. Most notably, the series regular Anna Faris decided not to return this time, which could be one of the smartest career decisions she ever makes. In her place is the High School Musical alumna Ashley Tisdale, who gamely does what she can as a wife reluctantly saddled with three children, who are rescued from the wild after being kidnapped, and bedevilled by the ghost that haunts them, in a tedious, extended riff on the recent Jessica Chastain horror flick, Mama.

Sadly for Tisdale and fans of the franchise, Scary Movie 5 is a vivid illustration of the law of diminishing returns. The jokes are flat, the star cameos perfunctory and unimaginative and the plotting barely functional. Nods to Inception, Black Swan and Rise of the Planet of the Apes are behind the curve. On the other hand, a mildly amusing send-up of the gory excesses of the recent remake of The Evil Dead couldn’t be more current.

The film’s humour rarely rises above the juvenile. But it isn’t just the witlessness that makes Scary Movie 5 so hard to laugh along with, but the feeling that you, the audience, are being laughed at.

A pre-title sequence featuring Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan spoofing their tabloid images while they make a sex tape, could have had some comic mileage; but their speeded-up Benny Hill-style bedroom antics and self-skewering jokes about car crashes (appropriate in the context of this train-wreck of a movie), sobriety monitors and tracking ankle bracelets just come across as an ugly combination of silliness and smugness.

And it is all downhill from there. Or rather uphill – as in struggle – because even though it comes in under 90 minutes, the film is still a test of endurance.

Even so, don’t be surprised if this isn’t the last we have seen of the franchise. But you have been warned: Scary Movie 5 isn’t so much entertainment as a mugging. Avoid


Friday

Cate Shortland: Lore


Thursday

Brandon Cronenberg: Antiviral



Brandon Cronenberg finds horror in our obsession with celebrity in Antiviral
If Brandon Cronenberg looks a little shell-shocked when we convene for an interview at last May’s Cannes Film Festival, there is a good reason. It is not only his first feature, Antiviral, that has got the world’s media buzzing, but also his background.
Not just any tyro filmmaker, he is the son of legendary Jewish Canadian auteur David Cronenberg, who also just happened to be at the festival with his chilly adaptation of Don DeLillo’s novel Cosmopolis. Talk about pressure.
A few months later in London, the 32-year-old newcomer is more relaxed, but still trying to understand what happened.
“Cannes was insane,” he says, smiling wryly. “It was this weird little bubble of an experience that I can’t quite reconcile with the rest of my life. But it was interesting and fun. Being there with my family was, you know, cute,” he laughs, using an adjective that could never be applied either to his own blood-spattered film or any of his father’s edgy offerings, which include The Fly, the controversial sex-and-wrecks drama Crash, and violent London-set thriller Eastern Promises.
In truth, Cannes was the perfect launchpad for Antiviral: a provocative take on modern celebrity that chimed perfectly with film fans’ daily ritual of lining the resort’s main strip to rubberneck stars on the red carpet.
In the movie, infatuated fans buy injections of viruses such as herpes sourced from their idols, eat meat cloned from their bodies, and have celebrity skin grafts. A sick scenario perhaps — and Cronenberg says he was not in the best of health when the idea took root in 2004.
“I was having this delirious fever dream and obsessing over the fact that I had something in my body that had come from somebody else’s body, and how that was an intimate thing, if you look at it that way.”
At the time he was studying film at Ryerson University, in his home town of Toronto, and wanted to write a script. “So I was trying to think of a character who would see disease as something intimate, and I thought a celebrity-obsessed fan might reasonably want Angelina Jolie’s cold as a way of becoming physically connected to her.”
The film taps into a very modern kind of celebrity — first crystallised, Cronenberg believes, in Paris Hilton — where people are famous simply for being famous. If the filmmaker’s vision seems grotesque, it is because the whole phenomenon is grotesque, he says, and we have become inured to it. His response to this was to make Antiviral physically and intellectually unsettling.
Growing up and watching the way his father was portrayed in the media — as the “Baron of Blood” for example — Brandon came to see from an early age that a person’s media image often had little to do with the human behind it. Celebrity was an artificial construct. Or as someone says in the film, a “mass hallucination”. An atheist, his father would probably say the same thing about God, wouldn’t he?
“A lot of the time I think it’s through discomfort that you can say something,” he asserts. “We’ve actually become so comfortable with the grotesqueness of celebrity culture that we don’t feel gross about it anymore. So to push it to a place where it’s viscerally disgusting was part of the intent.”
“Yeah well, that’s my perspective too. I’m definitely an atheist,” he says. “I don’t think I was pushed towards atheism, but I wasn’t pushed towards religion either.”
Interestingly, his father’s Jewishness did not really become explicit on screen until he released At the Suicide of the Last Jew in the World at the Last Cinema in the World — a 2007 short film made as a personal response to a statement by Hizbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah calling for the murder of all Jews. Brandon understands his father’s compulsion to make the film.
“Judaism is funny because it’s the race and religious thing — you can identify as being racially Jewish and still be very upset by antisemitism, and be afraid of that current in society, and not at all believe in God.”
Brandon’s maternal grandfather was Orthodox and he says he has an affection for Jewish tradition. “I would go to Passover dinners and stuff like that. So I have that weird nostalgia for those things even though I never was religious.”
Brandon is clearly his father’s son and, inevitably, is having to try and carve out his own course while at the same time dealing with people scrutinising him and his work for similarities. At film school, he consciously tried not to concern himself with such things. “It’s not that I wasn’t affected by any of it in any way,” he admits.
“But I feel like it would have been paralysing, and also impossible to work from an honest place, if I was too worried about my father’s career and what people would think, and the significance of what I was doing.”
Choosing to make his debut with a horror film — territory associated with his father — seems like asking for trouble, though. But Brandon insists, that it is hard to avoid crossing paths with Cronenberg senior, because he has worked across so many different genres.
“But the truth is, the film represents my interests,” he says defiantly.
And what does Cronenberg senior think of Antiviral? “He likes it. I’m very close to my father and he likes my film and I like his film. It’s all very adorable and emotional.”
Of course, being the son of such a famous father meant that Brandon work was always going to get attention, which is what any new film-maker hopes for. However, there was never any guarantee that it would always be the right kind. A mixed blessing, then?
“It’s absolutely a double-edged sword,” he laughs. “But it was a sword that was waiting for me.”
First published in The Jewish Chronicle, 1/2/13
© Stephen Applebaum, 2013

Wednesday

Say Yes To No

Chile's Pablo Larrain takes down Pinochet in the Oscar-nominated drama, No 

"WITHOUT memory you are dead. You are plastic,” says the Chilean filmmaker Pablo Larrain. “If you don’t have memory on your side, you tend to make the same mistakes again and again. So it’s good to rethink a few things.”
Larrain has been doing this ever since his dark and troubling debut feature, Tony Manero, used a psychopathic John Travolta obsessive as a metaphor for the violence perpetrated by General Augusto Pinochet’s brutal military junta. He returned to the subject in his second film, Post-Mortem, set during the bloody coup that brought Pinochet to power in 1973. Some in Chile wondered why Larrain couldn’t let the past lie. “They said, ‘Why don’t you make a surfing film or whatever?’ But I wanted to do it because I still didn’t get it yet. I didn’t understand it.”
Born in 1976, Larrain was too young to experience the full horror first hand; however, it haunts his generation “like a big ghost”, he told me after the world premiere of Post-Mortem in 2010. “Pinochet died [in 2006] with $30 million and free. We still have 3000 people disappeared. We have nobody in jail. If somebody thinks it’s enough, I would say, ‘I don’t agree.’”
A third film, No, based on a play by Antonio Skarmeta, was already at the writing stage. “It’s going to be a trilogy and that’s it,” he laughed. “I swear I will go and do something else.”
No now arrives in the UK already having made history by becoming the first production from Chile to be nominated for a best foreign language film Oscar. Part of the reason, possibly, is that in dramatising the story of how a group of television advertising men helped to oust Pinochet in a 1988 plebiscite that was supposed to extend the dictator’s rule, Larrain has fashioned his most mainstream movie to date. Where Tony Manero and Post-Mortem were dark, twisted and oblique, with deranged, opaque protagonists, No is instantly accessible and relatively light in tone. The difference was intentional, he says.
“My previous films were made under my imagination; I created those situations in the real context of what happened in my country. This tells a real story about a real campaign with real people that did something that changed the history of my country. So we had to tell it in a proper way in order to deliver it to a wide audience. Not because we wanted to make it wider. We had to.”
The central irony of No is that Pinochet was defeated by Mad Men using advertising to sell the idea of l’alegria, or happiness, to the masses as an alternative to the dictator’s repressive rule, in the same way that they would sell fizzy pop, using humour, music, and joy.
“The advertising logic comes from capitalism,” says Larrain. “And that capitalism is a model that Pinochet imposed. So he created the tools that pulled him out. It’s like we say in Spanish: you create your own enemy.”
Not everyone believed that the “No” campaign would be successful. Pinochet controlled everything, including the media. The opposition’s TV broadcasts (the “Yes” and “No” campaigns were given 15 minutes airtime a day each for a month) would be censored, they thought; the vote would be rigged, the election a sham. After all, who’d ever heard of a dictator being voted off the stage democratically? They “usually die in power, fat, rich and shooting people”, says Larrain.
Chile hadn’t gone to the polls since the Socialist Salvador Allende was elected president in 1970, and people feared reprisals. To overcome this, the architects of the “No” campaign “created an environment where you could express yourself”, says Larrain.
“They let the people know that they can still think freely. They said, ‘Don’t be afraid. When you vote, vote for what you think is really better. Don’t let anybody tell you what to do.’ We’d had 15 years where freedom was a metaphor. That is why we show the vote in the film.”
The margin of victory was slim, but it was enough to rid Chile of Pinochet. The “No” campaign had done its work simply by promoting an abstract idea: happiness.
In the film, Mexican star Gael GarcĂ­a Bernal plays Rene Saavedra, an amalgam of several real people involved with the operation. Some people found the campaign trivial, Bernal says, while others thought it was “disrespectful to the pain that many people carried”. Moreover, in an echo of the Arab Spring, it never considered what would come next.
“Ultimately it was a partial win because the economic system, the privileges, stayed kind of the same,” claims Bernal. “Chile is a country that is doing well economically and yet all of Latin America has free education, except Chile. So there are contradictions that are still there and still hurtful.”
The film is rife with ambiguity and ambivalence, ending on a sobering note of reality rather than unalloyed optimism. Its very make up, too, is ambiguous, comprising new and old footage blended to perfection by shooting with actual U-matic cameras from the period.
Not many survive other than as museum or art pieces, but a global hunt turned up 20 which a company in Hollywood was able to cannibalise into four working units. “They were like people,” says Larrain. “They were all different and they would get tired. So we had to use one and then another day another one, because they wouldn’t be in good shape.” The results were so authentic, Larrain claims, that he couldn’t always distinguish between the archive footage and new material when they were assembling the edit. “When we had that confusion, I said, ‘We got it!’”
Whether he also gets the Oscar will be revealed on 24 February.
First published in The Scotsman, 4/2/13
© Stephen Applebaum, 2013