egafd.com

[snip]> 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 agreed with a lot of what you said in other posts.

As to the point above, it seemed like she agreed to do it on the hop, so to speak, as they met up at the airport is was mentioned she agreed to shoot the documentary for three days as a trial. Then later she agreed to keep them around, almost as "security".

Maybe Two Blue Hardcore 1/3 then as it's not in 1/4 as I have that to hand. It's Marc Medoff feature is on American porn films with a plot - couldn't be a greater contrast. BTW, if you haven't got this one its photosets haven't improved - it does have a b/g set with Tia though.

OK, I have found the mags, there are a few recent ones, as follows:

Two Blue Hardcore Vol 1 No 3 (Marc Medoff at Max's mansion) Random Quote: "She is one cheap fuckhole, with very possibly the lowest moral values of any whore I have ever worked with."
This article goes on at length about the typical stuff Max does in quite serious depth, also his vile attitude.

Two Blue Extreme Vol 1 No 1 (A very similar Marc Medoff article, at Max's Mansion)
Random Quote: "I don't even know this bitch's name, but watch this!"
(Max basically starts fucking a girl who is in his pool with no introduction or whatever - sound familiar).
This article spends less time on the gory details and is relatively milder in tone.

Teazer Just 18 Shavers Special No.4 (Marc Medoff accompanies Max & co on a trip to Mexico)
Another feature that clearly highlights Max's abusive attitude as he shoots various scenes including "throat fucking", gagging, speculums, double anal etc.

In short, anyone reading even one of these three articles would be left in no doubt as to where Max Steiner (his real name) is coming from.


BTW Alec, thanks for the pointer on T.B. HC 1/4, I don't think I have bought it and will probably avoid further issues.

alec wrote:
>
> 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.

That's a good point Alec. I had one of those done one time and I was too busy vomiting to think about anything else! But that's enough thinking about that.

> Well, actually more about your definition of "set up",

OK, that should have read '...one's definition of "set up"...'

> seems
> to me that he just wandered on in there and did his usual
> thing.

May well be true, but is *was* set up in that there was a camera crew there and she was waiting naked. OK so that may be the usual way that Max meets his new prospects, but it is certainly set up. She knew full well that something like that could/would happen if she was waiting naked!

> 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.

Absolutely - that was the setting up I refer to.

> > 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!

Perfectly practical I should have thought!!! As pointed out by someone else, probably difficult to bite hard enough to do any severe damage, but certainly hard enough to hurt - equally she could have grabbed his balls and.... well I think any man can imagine what she could do.

> 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. >

Agreed - so clearly the limits she set herself initially were not her real limits and she probably got more money from Ch4 for doing a good story....

> > > 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.

Which again suggests she was incredibly naive/stupid. She had worked in the UK with Ben. If she really didn't know about the LA scene she could easily have found out before she went there!

> I think she possibly got to a point where she
> didn't care anymore, she just wanted to get paid and then go
> home.

Maybe true, but she could have just come home without being paid or found another contact to act as her agent.

> 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.

Sorry about confusion there. My Ch4 reception is absolutely apalling and it was difficult to see who was who!

> But
> as we agree, she SHOULD have just left these assholes to it
> and gone home. Only Felicity can tell us the real answer.

Definitely!

>
> 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.

...me particularly since my reception isn't good enough to have read any of the captions at the end!

> 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!

Definitely agreed - and Layla's posting certainly confirms the scene really isn't like that for most people!

Andrew

Hooray Andrew! We agree in the end! Isn't debate fantastic?

Interesting discussion.

On a technical point Pasta wrote:

>In short, anyone reading even one of these three articles would >be left in no doubt as to where Max Steiner (his real name) is >coming from.

I believe Max Steiner is also a pseudonym. His real name is Paul something IIRC (possibly Paul Little). This has been mentioned in r.a.m.e on several occasions.

I've also seen the Paul Little name used in rame over the years. If I recall correctly he also directed some early Private Video's, maybe around the same time as Steve Perry.

OK... I wasnt going to get involed and say it,... but yes... his real name is "Paul Little"
Lay xxx

In one of the Private Video Magazines he interviews some of the stars, including Hannah Turlington.