egafd.com

To add my tuppence worth, sure Felicity came across as naive, confused, etc. I suppose that is what the film maker intended. Unfortunately, I thought he managed to miss crucial events in the story, such as the actual point when she was persuaded to continue the scene with Max Hardcore.

I don't think that scene was a set up. That is pretty much how he behaves from what I have read about him. He surrounds himself with "yes" men and compliant girls and then he acts all outraged because one girl doesn't really fancy it. I can see why he was annoyed if he is wasting time and money, but he should have blamed the manipulative Mr Dick Nasty. He really misled Felicity, pressurised her and took advantage of her willingness to try and make some money - the whole point of her visit to LA. Clearly she didn't set her limits at a level she was genuinely confortable with. It was amazing how she stuck with "Richard" as he kept pushing her, giving her terrible advice, and taking her around all the worst gigs in town, really.

On the other hand, she really ought to have educated herself a little more about the people she may be asked to work with. Having said that, I am not going to hold it against her that she was "too old" or supposedly didn't have the looks to be a Vivid girl - it doesn't mean she should be coerced into doing stuff that is beyond her limits in order to make a buck. The whole issue is consent and I certainly think that her consent was pushed to the very limit - is consent given under coercion consent at all? As I said, crucially this part was not filmed by the director but merely related in a voice over. He certainly didn't maintain journalistic impartiality during the production. He got too close to the subject, but as has been suggested we have to wonder who was really being exploitative during this project.

It was a little surprising how she followed up the Max Hardcore shoot. If you didn't know, the next shoot she did was for the Rough Sex series, a line that was removed from the market due to the severity of the violent conduct depicted. Clearly she is either harder or more willing to abuse herself than was made out (and we are back to those "issues" with her family - and by the way it is very hard to ignore the fact that these are genuine motivating factors here, not amateur psychology. If you thought this movie was going to be "ooh, isn't porn great/nasty" then think again. No surprise that there were so many conflicting signals coming out there and that is what made it so interesting, if infuriating).

No one said Leeanne wasn't mixed up, but that is not a justification for taking advantage of her confusion. One of the rougher production companies she went to was quite specific in advance about what she would be asked to do, which is what Max (Hardcore) Steiner refused to be - and this seems to be usual for him (according to a feature in Ravers or somewhere, haven't got the mag to hand at the moment). Not that I understand what people see in their films - there's a review by Roger T. Pipe linked from the iafd entry for Rough Sex 2 in which he fails to see the attraction as well - but they were not trying to con the girls into going further than they originally wanted to. Much as I hate political correctness, it seems to me that 'No means no' applies in porn as much as in dating.

After all the 'shock-horror' advance publicity I didn't find the programme as bad as I expected. Some of the things the director mentioned in his press articles (Evening Standard and Independent) weren't there at all. From what we saw, even Max Hardcore didn't look as threatening and violent as the director claimed - I'm not talking about the sex scene itself, but the argument between Max and Felicity. According to the press articles, the director had taped Max making all kinds of threats - so why weren't they in the film??

Not that anyone came out of it well (apart from Layla!). 'Richard' was weak and greedy (not a good combination), while Felicity was a drama queen who changed her mind every five minutes. And the director/narrator was a pompous prat, who used the most blatant emotional manipulation - e.g. cutting from 'Richard' smugly smoking a cigar to 'Felicity' talking on the phone to her kid. The director might as well have hung a notice round Richard's head saying 'I'm a heartless bastard'.

As usual with this kind of expose, it left a lot of questions unanswered. Notably, did Felicity agree in advance to take part in the film, and was she paid for it?

I'm not saying shaming her father wasn't a genuine motivating factor. I'm just saying that the director wouldn't have ben profesionally qualified to analyse them - hence 'amateur psychology'. Plus in a film you never know what has been left out; so *any* conclusions we draw from it are suspect.

BTW you might know - where did the article on Max Hardcore I'm thinking of actually appear? It was quite recent.

Now whilst there was a lot of Freudian Psycho babble, and to be honest there was some self abuse by Felicity/Leanne, this shouldn't detract from the fact that Dick (perfect name for him)AKA Richard, was undoubtedly exploiting the girl. He came out as a complete sleaze ball, pushing her beyond what she was clearly happy to do, and obviously was trying to shag her a one point himself, this is clearly no person who can call himself a professional agent.

It is clear that if you treat people with respect, they will respect that attitude, i did not see much of that from the agents or Dick. Leanne quite clearly felt pressured, and was the wrong person to be there, no matter that she has done porn in the past. I believe the likes of Ben Dover do treat the actresses/actors with respect, and obviously ask if they mind anal etc... before the scenes. Max Hardcore is clearly a grade A wanker of the first order, abusive, but why Dick took her there in the first place, when she had stated her limits, beggars belief.

Sure the producers went for the more controversial angles, but anything that wasn't doesn't make good viewing, does it...

alec wrote:
>
> No one said Leeanne wasn't mixed up, but that is not a
> justification for taking advantage of her confusion. One of
> the rougher production companies she went to was quite
> specific in advance about what she would be asked to do,
> which is what Max (Hardcore) Steiner refused to be - and this
> seems to be usual for him (according to a feature in Ravers
> or somewhere, haven't got the mag to hand at the moment).

That's right, there have been a couple of features about Max in Galaxy mags recently (could even have been the same one reprinted).

The producer you refer to was Anabolic (or Diabolic, essentially the same) who did the Rough Sex series. They clearly told her what was involved in the movie (making it even more amazing that she did it, but that's another isssue).

This is what it is all about. You must have consent. As you say below, like it or not, NO must mean NO. I can't see the excitement in seeing girls forced into stuff they really don't want to do.

> Not that I understand what people see in their films - there's a
> review by Roger T. Pipe linked from the iafd entry for Rough
> Sex 2 in which he fails to see the attraction as well - but
> they were not trying to con the girls into going further than
> they originally wanted to. Much as I hate political
> correctness, it seems to me that 'No means no' applies in
> porn as much as in dating.

A lot of the anti-porn people I speak to cite the idea that producers always "con" the girls into going further than they want to as a prime reason to ban porn. So I really wish producers like Max would either be more professional or better still just stop making movies. Far from pushing the boundaries (which is perfectly possible with full consent), they are just playing into the hands of the anti brigade.

Was it just me, or did he seem like a robot, that he had all this spiel that he came out with like he was programmed? He seems like a very cold guy, I can't imagine that anyone would work for him (cast or crew) if he didn't pay well.

Pasta wrote:
> Unfortunately, I thought he managed to miss crucial
> events in the story, such as the actual point when she was
> persuaded to continue the scene with Max Hardcore.

Agreed!

>
> I don't think that scene was a set up.

Depends on your definition of "set up"! If knowing a British camera crew is there and filming and having a girl waiting for you naked when you arrive back at your house doesn't come into your definition of "set up" then fine. But if she really expected just to have a chat about possibly taking part, why was she naked?

> but
> he should have blamed the manipulative Mr Dick Nasty. He
> really misled Felicity, pressurised her and took advantage of
> her willingness to try and make some money - the whole point
> of her visit to LA. Clearly she didn't set her limits at a
> level she was genuinely confortable with.

Probably true, but she *could* have walked out at any stage if she'd wanted to (esp. given there was a UK camera crew there to protect her...). And as I said elsewhere she could have bitten Max while he was choking her...


> It was amazing how
> she stuck with "Richard" as he kept pushing her, giving her
> terrible advice, and taking her around all the worst gigs in
> town, really.

Agreed unless that was what she wanted

>
> On the other hand, she really ought to have educated herself
> a little more about the people she may be asked to work with.

Agreed - she could have got lots of advice from Ben, I'm sure.

> Having said that, I am not going to hold it against her that
> she was "too old" or supposedly didn't have the looks to be a
> Vivid girl - it doesn't mean she should be coerced into doing
> stuff that is beyond her limits in order to make a buck.

I'm not holding either of those things against her either - just pointing out that she wouldn't have been taken on by those companies.

>
> It was a little surprising how she followed up the Max
> Hardcore shoot. If you didn't know, the next shoot she did
> was for the Rough Sex series, a line that was removed from
> the market due to the severity of the violent conduct
> depicted. Clearly she is either harder or more willing to
> abuse herself than was made out

Incredible in fact! Either she was really happy with this type of work, or she was incredibly stupid! But as said elsewhere, at least Black was up front and she knew what would be involved (taking Mr Marcus anally for a girl who doesn't like anal...) unlike (apparently) with Max. But again, she must have seen some of Max's work before getting involved - she said she was scared of him before meeting him - so why do it???

Andrew

Andrew wrote:
[snip]
> > I don't think that scene was a set up.
>
> Depends on your definition of "set up"! If knowing a British
> camera crew is there and filming and having a girl waiting
> for you naked when you arrive back at your house doesn't come
> into your definition of "set up" then fine. But if she really
> expected just to have a chat about possibly taking part, why
> was she naked?
>

Well, actually more about your definition of "set up", seems to me that he just wandered on in there and did his usual thing. She had arrived at the house expecting to just chat but was persuaded into doing the scene somewhere in the time she was waiting there. Again, a failing of the film maker in missing the crucial point where this happened. We are supposed to just go along with the narration...so make your own mind up about what actually happened and what she really expected.

> > but
> > he should have blamed the manipulative Mr Dick Nasty. He
> > really misled Felicity, pressurised her and took advantage of
> > her willingness to try and make some money - the whole point
> > of her visit to LA. Clearly she didn't set her limits at a
> > level she was genuinely confortable with.
>
> Probably true, but she *could* have walked out at any stage
> if she'd wanted to (esp. given there was a UK camera crew
> there to protect her...). And as I said elsewhere she could
> have bitten Max while he was choking her...
>

Well, on the latter point, that would have been the entertaining thing to do (a la "Cross of Iron", seen that?) but hardly practica! But she could and should have walked on out of there, and gone home. But then she did want the money, and that is the problem, reconciling the work that you are prepared to do with the work that is available. >
> > It was amazing how
> > she stuck with "Richard" as he kept pushing her, giving her
> > terrible advice, and taking her around all the worst gigs in
> > town, really.
>
> Agreed unless that was what she wanted

I don't think so, but she really didn't know enough about the scene in LA to put herself in this rather vulnerable position.
But then she obviously put misplaced trust in Mr Nasty and he took full advantage.


[snip]> > It was a little surprising how she followed up the Max
> > Hardcore shoot. If you didn't know, the next shoot she did
> > was for the Rough Sex series, a line that was removed from
> > the market due to the severity of the violent conduct
> > depicted. Clearly she is either harder or more willing to
> > abuse herself than was made out
>
> Incredible in fact! Either she was really happy with this
> type of work, or she was incredibly stupid! But as said
> elsewhere, at least Black was up front and she knew what
> would be involved (taking Mr Marcus anally for a girl who
> doesn't like anal...) unlike (apparently) with Max. But
> again, she must have seen some of Max's work before getting
> involved - she said she was scared of him before meeting him
> - so why do it???
>

I don't know if she was happy, and I certainly don't think she was stupid. I think she possibly got to a point where she didn't care anymore, she just wanted to get paid and then go home.
BTW, the shoot with Mr Marcus was for Rough Sex, directed by the pseudonymous "Kahn Tusion" (haha) the guy who refused to allow them to film his face. Rough Sex was pulled from the shelves - but without having seen it, it is probably safe to say that Felicity still had a VERY hard time of it on that shoot too.

Rob Black, while honest, was the guy shooting the gang bang in the boxing ring. And still an asshole too!

As to why she did the scene with Max, I know what you are saying. I have never seen, nor wish to see, one of his movies but I have read and heard plenty about him. His reputation preceeds him (like a bad smell) and it is hard to imagine anyone with even a vague interest or involvment in porn doesn't know exactly what he is about.
However, it is obvious she was under some level of pressure from him and Dick (I read here that some of the footage has been edited from the final film and that she was under more coercion than was even shown - whether that is true or not is another matter entirely!), but you did see him berating her and I think that she was made to feel "obliged" to do it. But as we agree, she SHOULD have just left these assholes to it and gone home. Only Felicity can tell us the real answer.

And that illustrates why this was a failure as a documenatary - if we are still asking questions like this...
It left too much hanging in the air at the end, leaving too much for us to jump to our own conclusions about.
It didn't inform enough about the LA scene in general and a whole lot of other points that I could mention but we get the picture!

alec wrote:
>
> I'm not saying shaming her father wasn't a genuine motivating
> factor. I'm just saying that the director wouldn't have ben
> profesionally qualified to analyse them - hence 'amateur
> psychology'. Plus in a film you never know what has been left
> out; so *any* conclusions we draw from it are suspect.
>

Agreed, the film maker left out WAY too much for this too be considered a definitive statement.

> BTW you might know - where did the article on Max Hardcore
> I'm thinking of actually appear? It was quite recent.

Hold on a wee while Alec, and I shall have a rummage! Keep your eyes peeled. I think it was in one of the Two Blue Hardcore mags, or some such. I shall follow up later on!

Just a small point about whether she should have amputated his penis with her teeth - having had a couple of endoscopies in my time, I'm not sure it's possible to bite with any power when you have a large (?) cylindrical object pushing past your tonsils.