egafd.com

I have a seen a grand total of ONE mainstream film where the sex scenes were totally intergrated into the plot, where they were not just there for titillation but were genuine CHARACTER scenes.

And that was 'Basic Instinct'. Not the greatest film ever, in fact quite unpleasant in places, but it was about how these people related to each other sexually.

And as far as I know, they didn't need any real fucking?

There was REAL pussy shot from Sharon Stone, and it was also a character moment BUT, d'you know what, it was totally bloody distracting!

The problem with real sex in mainstream movies is the same as putting tits in mainstream movies; it distracts the audience. Instead of thinking about the story and the characters they're thinking about the tits, or the pussy or the blow job!

That's what you WANT in a porno, but in a mainstream movie it's a problem.

The same thing happens with REAL news footage in movies, or real anything in fact. Watching Forest Gump shake hands with the real JFK is distracting in a way that it wouldn't be if they'd hired an actor to play Kennedy. Movies are not real, they're fake.

You confuse the two and your audience gets confused up too.

Just curious as to whether anyone's yet seen the film ?

Michael Winterbottom, doesn't need any help with his critically acclaimed and long established career - take a look at the Internet Movie Database.

To me, "9 Songs" is not a porn film as it doesn't sexually arouse the audience. It's not a film you'll be able to watch and wank off to.

Frankly I don't have the time to discuss this basic point time & again, and think it's best people reflect upon this movie once they've actually seen it.

Harry

I haven't seen it yet

http://www.celebritymoviearchive.com/tour/name.php/2331
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411705/
http://www.nohiddenfaces.com/c112/

A fuller appraisal should be forthcoming - 38% already 5hrs 33mins 20s left

Background research is in progress ...

No idea but then I'd need a magnifying glass to be sure of anything of that quality & size

cheers
B....OZ

Strikes me that the hardcore sex scenes in this movie will be gratuitous -- do they lend anything to the movie that simulated ones wouldn't? Seems like it's just being controversial for constroversy's sake.

Porn and Art are often inextricably linked. Although normally the two are separated by the intention of the film maker and naturally fall into one camp or the other, arty porn exists and there really is no clear boundary. Arguing if a film is art or porn is a bit like arguing if a painting is yellow or red.

To make matters even more difficult the exact distinction is highly dependant on both personal view point and context. If a very short clip of 9 songs was shown could any one definitively say it was art? We might as well argue if a particular actress should be described as ?tall? or not.

Is the film likely to actualy appear in cinemas? Or is this just a DVD/video event with perhaps one London cimema putting it on for a week?

sorry to say but i saw a dodgy copy at a mates gaff one night. frankly if you see this hoping its gonna be a bluey, you're going to be sorely disappointed. the gulf between porn and 'art' is monumental. think back to the first time you saw the pammy/tommy lee tape hoping it would be filth and it turned out to be something of a teenageers-in-love movie with a bit of adult entertainment added. nine songs has sufficient story to carry the movie so you have to wonder why they bothered putting the sex scenes in at all.purely titilation imho. its just a love story based around a few gigs and, incidentally, it does have the best soundtrack i've heard in years. err... enjoy!?! btw, i don't do capitals or paragraphs....

i havent the time to read through all of the posts but can i just point out to people of a similar age to me (im 29 so 25-32 i guess) that the lead in the film (kieran o'brien) was bbc tv's "grewy" back in the late 80s/early 90s . i never expected to see him getting his knob polished all those years ago lol
... sorry genuine pmsl here

Although the debate may rage over is it art or porn, its a bit like arguing if a film is a western or a murder mystery. What should realy be at issue is will it harm children?

Obviously children arn't supposed to see it, but as harm to children is always presented as the reason for censorship it should surely be the deciding factor. The point is simply this would a 12 year old be able to tell the difference between 9 songs and a porn movie? If the answer is no or not realy then as far as harm to children is concerned there is no difference and it is hog wash to ban the porn to protect the children whilst allowing films like 9 songs because its art.

Harm to children!!! What is this mysterious harm that would come to children should they happen across H/C. Would it cause them to copycat??? Maybe. But kids experiment with sex anyway once those hormones have kicked in. Would it frighten them causing a nervous breakdown and a stay in a mental hospital wearing a straight jacked while sleeping in a padded cell. Well if that be the case then the kids of Spain where H/C has been shown free to air must be in a right mental and immoral state…..

Harm to children is the age old excuse created and continued by regulators in order to impose censorship on adults which also makes it easier for religious nutters to have their irrational way and control over the public. H/C in the eyes of regulators has nothing but nothing to do with harm to children. Control is a regulators aim and the children “Harm” argument is how they can win and will probably continue to win.
Mission statements from regulators like “evidence based” “Impact assessments” are all a load of bullshit none of which they will practice if it suits them not to…..

Many many years ago I walked my dog in the local park and saw a couple on the grass bonking away (Not naked I may add). Along cam a couple of young girls around the age of 12. They settled themselves down on the grass to watch and shout at the couple “we know what your doing”. “We know what your doing”. As kids do. Yes they watched sex. Were they harmed. What do you think!!!!!

Sorry but the harm to children concept is just a a load of bullshit that censorship style regulators love to keep on the boil. Then they can eventually assess matters in their favour and continue the imposition of censorship……