Page 2 of 6

Re: 9 Songs

Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:53 am
by Deuce Bigolo
No because simply put people go to see a film for the story and not the penetrative sex(perverts in raincaots excepted)

cheers
B....OZ

Re: 9 Songs

Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 9:16 am
by Heathray
Arthouse film is fine if you enjoy convoluted plots and overracting.

The issue here is simple. Call a film Anal Buttfuck Orgy and it gets R18. Call it a non sexual title and it gets 18. Censorship is complete bollox in the UK.
How does someone who sees 9 Songs say they are not going because there is some serious humping in the film?? A film about fucking is a film about fucking, whether or not is produced by Sony or Relish.

Re: 9 Songs

Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 9:56 am
by joe king
bollocks


Re: 9 Songs

Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 10:31 am
by Deuce Bigolo
I found this comment interesting oh an the interview was worth a read

There's an interesting interview with the actress here:




Personally, I see nothing morally wrong with consenting adults choosing to make a movie like this. What does irk me is the way the people involved delude themselves with the spurious notion that there is a fine line between pornography and art and that they are coming down on the art side of it. Therefore they believe they are somehow exempt from association with porn and the negative opinions that may bring. They think they are artists rather than pornographers, actors and actresses rather than whores.

There is no such line. The two things are not mutually exclusive and what they are producing is both pornography and art. Rather poor quality pornography and art, I might add.

Margo Stilley, wake up my dear. Your main career may be acting, but when in exchange for a pay packet you took an unfamiliar man's cock in your pussy and mouth you were not acting, You were prostituting yourself. That was your choice and I won't knock you for it, but at least face the reality of what you did.

cheers
B....OZ

Re: 9 Songs

Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:31 pm
by malcom
agreed

Re: 9 Songs

Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 8:10 pm
by Harry Hardon
Porn films are driven by sex with non-sex links whilst "9 Songs" is driven by a story which involves sex as part of it's plot.

99% of UK porn films barely have a plot and when they do, it's so daft such as "I've met a stranger on the street - she'll shag me for ?xxx" when everyone know she's a model.

Porn films include cliches such as :-

- Go on, stick it up my ass
- Harder - spank me
- I'm a dirty slut, I deserve it
- Spit on Me
- and 101 other cliches.

Also, compare the amount of time the sex takes place. Porn films are from the first frames whilst "9 Songs" isn't.

It really saddens me that that some people on here industry can't see the difference between what Winterbottom is trying to do and what a porn film is.

And when was the last time a porn film looked at the emotions?

Say bollocks or bull if you like but I can see the difference between the two and understand the BBFC's decision very easily.

Harry


Re: 9 Songs

Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 8:50 pm
by sandie
i really should see this film just cos it sounds slutty.

anyway i think MTV will be the first to break!

look at pop videos. soft porn!

anyway how many soft porn shoots have i been on where we DID it. i bet in the big easy they did it too!!!!!!
if i was ellen whatshername i would have. i bet she got payed enought to aswell!


Re: celebflix(o/t)

Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 10:04 pm
by chubbs
alright, i'm sold, naked pass it is then... btw, in the ad, who is the 'guess who this is?' lass