it should't be my task to open up this topic, but since none of the german partecipants has done it yet, i decided to cast the first stone, hoping they will contribute massively.
One reason they might have not to open it, is that they're still wading into it, this book is so full of informations that, to a non-expert like me, it will take years to digest. The book is also a feast for the eye, replete as it is of pictures and reproductions from movie posters and video covers, that make you want to watch the movie they illustrate (alas, not always an easy task!). Whatever the faults one may find, one cannot but praise a work that shows at each page the care and passion which dictated the composition. This book is a must have, no question about it.
But I would like to point out to some minor and some relevant defects I detect in the work, hoping that who'll decide in the future to grapple again with the subject (I fear it won't be too many) may not repeat them.
First, the lesser ones. It is strange that a so well cared volume didn't find a typographical solution which enabled the reader to go through the accurate credits without effort, allowing him to spot at once the different categories as director, actors etc.
Then, it is also strange that the italian original titles that the author took care to find are almost invariably misspelled (should he need an aid for a reissue I'll give him for free). To an italian reader it is an annoying fact.
I also wondered where he took the informations dating for some of the movies and also why he didn't quote no written sources. Didn't he make use of any (expecially about his, in a unusually way accurate, credits)? I presume the german friends of the site will be able to shed some light on this.
Let's come now to the major issues. I am not an expert on erotic movies, and german ones at that, so I can't even say whether R. put them all in his book. But as far as porn goes, I can easily say he didn't. That is not a major problem, as no porn book can aspire (unless his author is an incompetent or an imbecile) to a full coverage of a national production, as a relevant part of it was produced and\or distributed underground. Further, much of it is lost or difficult to get at, as all the collectors in this site know. But of all these issues R. seems not to be aware, and his too short preface he states that he included in the book only the more relevant movies.
Now, I wonder how that could be: if you have never seen some movies, as R. probably hasn't, you can't decide which is more relevant. R. should have limited himself to say that he included only those movies he found (which are many). And I suspect that those he couldn't find are numerically more than those he could.
Further, R. book can't aspire to be a good starting point for a history of german porn, as it totally ignores the loop production which in germany was quite relevant, expecially starting in the late '60's until the early '80's. And I'm not talking about the 16mm productions in b&w which dates back at least at the '20's. this is a field where work hasn't even begun, if it ever will.
So, as far as porn is concerned, the book is full of many and accurate informations but, though it easily imposes itself from now on as the reference book on german erotic and porn movies, it leaves an enormous field still to go through for those who, in the future, will care to.
S. Rechmeier's Lexikon des deutschen Erotikfilms
-
mark shanon
- Posts: 685
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
-
beutelwolf
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: S. Rechmeier's Lexikon des deutschen Erotikfilms
We did mention his book in another thread, but no discussion has evolved from this.
Surely, Rechmeier used lots of sources, but not an awful lot of books, because there are not many. One obvious one is the book by Ronald Hahn, and this may also be the source for the misspelled Italian titles, because that book has quite a few inaccuracies of the kind. One of the major sources for credits, besides the films themselves, are the films' promotional material, i.e. movie programmes and so-called "Werberatschlaege" (promotional advice), which is promotional material distributed to theatre managers that they are meant to use to promote the film locally. At least, these were amongst my major sources, for my book - and Rechmeier took quite a bit of info from there, as I gave him a preliminary version of my work.
Hardcore pornography is not at the center of the book, and given the subject he is aiming at - rightly so; I have done the same. HC Porn was banned in Germany till 1975, and it took till the early 1980s for it to dominate the sex film genre. As a cultural phenomenon, the earlier sex films are a much more interesting subject, because for a few years they were actually dominating the German cinema. The reason porn loops are almost completely missing in the book (only one bondage loop is covered) is also the book's format: each film is given an A4 page [and a few get even two pages], and there is only so much you can write about a 20 minute porn loop whose actors/director you may not even know. Considering porn feature films [70+ minutes] there are not any major gaps I would know of, perhaps "Sock it to me, Baby" and "Club 66" and "Die amourosen Abenteuer des Mr O" would have deserved entries. But he also covers a few which I would not touch with a bargepole. I gave Mr O a miss too - I just do not know what to write about this film, because I don't know the director, don't know any of the actors (by name), don't know when it was made (precisely), etc.
Considering mistakes in the book, there a few wrongly identified actors - but then, this is almost impossible to get right, unless you confine yourself to the really well known ones, because you hardly ever get character credits in these films - and much of the time no credits at all.
Surely, Rechmeier used lots of sources, but not an awful lot of books, because there are not many. One obvious one is the book by Ronald Hahn, and this may also be the source for the misspelled Italian titles, because that book has quite a few inaccuracies of the kind. One of the major sources for credits, besides the films themselves, are the films' promotional material, i.e. movie programmes and so-called "Werberatschlaege" (promotional advice), which is promotional material distributed to theatre managers that they are meant to use to promote the film locally. At least, these were amongst my major sources, for my book - and Rechmeier took quite a bit of info from there, as I gave him a preliminary version of my work.
Hardcore pornography is not at the center of the book, and given the subject he is aiming at - rightly so; I have done the same. HC Porn was banned in Germany till 1975, and it took till the early 1980s for it to dominate the sex film genre. As a cultural phenomenon, the earlier sex films are a much more interesting subject, because for a few years they were actually dominating the German cinema. The reason porn loops are almost completely missing in the book (only one bondage loop is covered) is also the book's format: each film is given an A4 page [and a few get even two pages], and there is only so much you can write about a 20 minute porn loop whose actors/director you may not even know. Considering porn feature films [70+ minutes] there are not any major gaps I would know of, perhaps "Sock it to me, Baby" and "Club 66" and "Die amourosen Abenteuer des Mr O" would have deserved entries. But he also covers a few which I would not touch with a bargepole. I gave Mr O a miss too - I just do not know what to write about this film, because I don't know the director, don't know any of the actors (by name), don't know when it was made (precisely), etc.
Considering mistakes in the book, there a few wrongly identified actors - but then, this is almost impossible to get right, unless you confine yourself to the really well known ones, because you hardly ever get character credits in these films - and much of the time no credits at all.
-
mark shanon
- Posts: 685
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: S. Rechmeier's Lexikon des deutschen Erotikfil
You know that I have a great esteem of you as one of the great experts on the matter of german sex movies. But what you say is really amazing and I don?t even know where to start from to disagree with your views. Which, coming from an expert, which I?m not, could be more sound of what they look at first sight. So I will keep myself in a quite general area, hoping some other contributor will be able, in case, to support me about details.
Thanx for your delucidations on R.?s sources: but then, I wonder, why didn?t he make mention of them? And if they?re are few, that?s a reason more to do it. It would have taken only a half page.
You say that pornography is not at the center of the book. Granted. But then why include it at all?
You say that earlier sex movies ?as a cultural phaenomenon?are a much more interesting subject?. I disagree but that would be a reason more to leave them aside. And once you grapple with them, you must show a dominance of the matter which R.?s clearly has not. One of the major defects of the book is that sometimes you can?t even understand, reading the review, whether the film in question is a porn or not. As many ones before him who decided, for merely commercial reasons, to busy themselves with the matter, R. is clearly at unease with the subject (a look at his credits of french porn movies offers an unquestionable proof of it, and I?m not referring to his writing repeatedly, for example, ?Brigitte Lahai?). So he decides to pick-up the ones he liked. Now, you say that only the three movies you mention would have been worth a mention. Maybe so. But, if you ask me, for example, I could come up easily with other titles not included therein (for example, ?Liceali vogliose?, or ?Le bambole di carne? or ?Vogliosit? morbose?, about which last we have (or had?) almost the same problems we have with Mr. O.) to make room to ?Die Kamiliendame?, ?Die Geschichte der Piera?, ?Popcorn und Hinbeereis?. Granted, these last movies have full credits, full data and plots. But may you safely call them "sex movies"?
Shortly, R., having decided to include porns, shouldn?t have called his book a ?lexikon? but a ?catalogue?. I.e., a collection of the movies ?he? thinks are important for the history of german sex film. And that not much for the end result (which, I repeat, has his merits), but for the attitude: when you write a ?lexikon? you strive toward wholeness. Now, that in porn can be only a point of method, as completeness is unattainable: but he didn?t even try.
About the problem of loops, well, for one you can start cataloguing them. Who is it otherwise to do this? You say (or imply) that they are unimportant and not wort the effort. But then they were produced, exactly as gonzos, all-sex videos are today. You may be not interested in them; or you may deem them to be irritating to catalogue for their lack of data on performers, director and so on. But they were produced and consumed nonetheless and they are worth a peek, expecially if you are illuding yourself that the other, more ?regular? movies must be studied because of their ?cultural? meaning (to me they never had: I went to see the sex movies for sex. finis). Of course, it is easier to grapple with movies which have a plot, so (like R. almost invariably does) you don?t even have to dirty your hands describing the sex acts which, apparently, he would prefer very much to do without.
In conclusion, and a very sad one, it seems like we?re a long way from having somebody who?ll try to write a history of the german porn. Or, at least, to reconnoiter the field more in deep.
Thanx for your delucidations on R.?s sources: but then, I wonder, why didn?t he make mention of them? And if they?re are few, that?s a reason more to do it. It would have taken only a half page.
You say that pornography is not at the center of the book. Granted. But then why include it at all?
You say that earlier sex movies ?as a cultural phaenomenon?are a much more interesting subject?. I disagree but that would be a reason more to leave them aside. And once you grapple with them, you must show a dominance of the matter which R.?s clearly has not. One of the major defects of the book is that sometimes you can?t even understand, reading the review, whether the film in question is a porn or not. As many ones before him who decided, for merely commercial reasons, to busy themselves with the matter, R. is clearly at unease with the subject (a look at his credits of french porn movies offers an unquestionable proof of it, and I?m not referring to his writing repeatedly, for example, ?Brigitte Lahai?). So he decides to pick-up the ones he liked. Now, you say that only the three movies you mention would have been worth a mention. Maybe so. But, if you ask me, for example, I could come up easily with other titles not included therein (for example, ?Liceali vogliose?, or ?Le bambole di carne? or ?Vogliosit? morbose?, about which last we have (or had?) almost the same problems we have with Mr. O.) to make room to ?Die Kamiliendame?, ?Die Geschichte der Piera?, ?Popcorn und Hinbeereis?. Granted, these last movies have full credits, full data and plots. But may you safely call them "sex movies"?
Shortly, R., having decided to include porns, shouldn?t have called his book a ?lexikon? but a ?catalogue?. I.e., a collection of the movies ?he? thinks are important for the history of german sex film. And that not much for the end result (which, I repeat, has his merits), but for the attitude: when you write a ?lexikon? you strive toward wholeness. Now, that in porn can be only a point of method, as completeness is unattainable: but he didn?t even try.
About the problem of loops, well, for one you can start cataloguing them. Who is it otherwise to do this? You say (or imply) that they are unimportant and not wort the effort. But then they were produced, exactly as gonzos, all-sex videos are today. You may be not interested in them; or you may deem them to be irritating to catalogue for their lack of data on performers, director and so on. But they were produced and consumed nonetheless and they are worth a peek, expecially if you are illuding yourself that the other, more ?regular? movies must be studied because of their ?cultural? meaning (to me they never had: I went to see the sex movies for sex. finis). Of course, it is easier to grapple with movies which have a plot, so (like R. almost invariably does) you don?t even have to dirty your hands describing the sex acts which, apparently, he would prefer very much to do without.
In conclusion, and a very sad one, it seems like we?re a long way from having somebody who?ll try to write a history of the german porn. Or, at least, to reconnoiter the field more in deep.
Re: S. Rechmeier's Lexikon des deutschen Erotikfilms
I have read these very long texts.
It was very exhausting for me.
I think but I have understood the thing.
I don't know the book yet.
Questions: There is this book into German and English?
Is it sold also in German bookstores?
"lexicon ...".
A lexicon is an alphabetically sorted reference book.
The names and the facts must tune 100%.
But it is impossible to know all persons in the acting exactly.
Example: Was she Gina Wild yesterday, was she then Michaela Schaffrath, is she divorced now, what is her name today?
I think the title of the book leads astray.
The publishing house decided what is written in the book?
______
Herschi
It was very exhausting for me.
I think but I have understood the thing.
I don't know the book yet.
Questions: There is this book into German and English?
Is it sold also in German bookstores?
"lexicon ...".
A lexicon is an alphabetically sorted reference book.
The names and the facts must tune 100%.
But it is impossible to know all persons in the acting exactly.
Example: Was she Gina Wild yesterday, was she then Michaela Schaffrath, is she divorced now, what is her name today?
I think the title of the book leads astray.
The publishing house decided what is written in the book?
______
Herschi
-
beutelwolf
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: S. Rechmeier's Lexikon des deutschen Erotikfil
mark shanon wrote:
> You say that pornography is not at the center of the book.
> Granted. But then why include it at all?
Because porn was not completely separate back then. After legalisation of porn in 1975 there was a brief period in which porn flourished in sex cinemas, and there was a certain overlap in terms of personalities. What was separate were the porn loops as they were intended for distribution on 8mm.
> You say that earlier sex movies ?as a cultural phaenomenon?are
> a much more interesting subject?. I disagree but that would be
> a reason more to leave them aside.
The German sex films of that period reflected the way Germany as a whole had suddenly discovered sex as a subject of discourse. This was new and embarassing and exciting and weird and... Porn was part of that, but it was not at its centre.
> One of the major defects of the book is that
> sometimes you can?t even understand, reading the review,
> whether the film in question is a porn or not.
I can see that many readers would see this as a deficiency.
> So he
> decides to pick-up the ones he liked.
Yes, but not quite: the selection is by period mostly. There are not that many fully-fledged German porn movies of the 1970s, they were still few in number - unless you count the porn loops.
> But, if you ask me, for example, I could come up
> easily with other titles not included therein (for example,
> ?Liceali vogliose?,
Edited together from porn loops from Imperial Film.
I wouldn't cover that either, the original porn films from Imperial perhaps...
> or ?Le bambole di carne?
not sure which film that is...
> or ?Vogliosit?
> morbose?,
No, that is covered in the book - has its own page.
Rosemaries Schleckerland.
BTW one Italian film took the credits of Rosemaries Schleckerland and stuck them at the front of a completely different movie.
> about which last we have (or had?) almost the same
> problems we have with Mr. O.) to make room to ?Die
> Kamiliendame?, ?Die Geschichte der Piera?, ?Popcorn und
> Hinbeereis?.
I would agree that Stefan R. shouldn't have included "Die Kameliendame" and certainly not "Die Geschichte der Piera".
However, "Popcorn und Himbeereis" is an absolute MUST, it is the most important example of the subgenre.
> Granted, these last movies have full credits, full
> data and plots. But may you safely call them "sex movies"?
No, except for "Popcorn und Himbeereis".
I was surprised about many film choices that made it into the book.
I have included some non-sex-films as well, but mostly from the early days when the genre was still trying to find its place, so these helped to show where the genre was coming from.
> Shortly, R., having decided to include porns, shouldn?t have
> called his book a ?lexikon? but a ?catalogue?. I.e., a
> collection of the movies ?he? thinks are important for the
> history of german sex film.
Yes, except that he tried to be comprehensive in that respect, and there is a tradition in Germany for calling such books "Lexikon". I think, he originally planned the title "Sechs Schwedinnen koennen sich nicht irren" (Six Swedes cannot be wrong). Perhaps the publisher thought otherwise.
> About the problem of loops, well, for one you can start
> cataloguing them. Who is it otherwise to do this? You say (or
> imply) that they are unimportant and not wort the effort.
No, I would not go that far.
But they are of lesser importance, in the sense that they were not
culturally acknowledged by the society as a whole in the way
the sexfilms were, e.g. the stars of the sexfilm were celebrities,
the stars of the porn loops were only known to a small select group
of collectors of 8mm films. I mean: I was a teenager in the 1970s and I was well aware of German sexfilms, even though I was still too young to be let into a sex cinema; I cannot recall a single incident from the 1970s (or 1980s) in which porn loops came to my attention. I heard about them much much later.
And of course someone should start cataloguing them and write about
them. But any project has to have some limits to make it feasible and 700 pages is already quite a lot.
> (to me they
> never had: I went to see the sex movies for sex. finis).
True for many people and the reason why softporn is mostly dead
and replaced by hard porn. When I was talking about "culture" I was not talking about high culture (well-dressed bourgeois sipping a glass of wine and discussing the ballet production now running at their local opera house), more "cult" culture; the trashiness and weirdness of these films have attracted a certain following.
> In conclusion, and a very sad one, it seems like we?re a long
> way from having somebody who?ll try to write a history of the
> german porn. Or, at least, to reconnoiter the field more in
> deep.
History of German porn would be another project. Even more challenging.
> You say that pornography is not at the center of the book.
> Granted. But then why include it at all?
Because porn was not completely separate back then. After legalisation of porn in 1975 there was a brief period in which porn flourished in sex cinemas, and there was a certain overlap in terms of personalities. What was separate were the porn loops as they were intended for distribution on 8mm.
> You say that earlier sex movies ?as a cultural phaenomenon?are
> a much more interesting subject?. I disagree but that would be
> a reason more to leave them aside.
The German sex films of that period reflected the way Germany as a whole had suddenly discovered sex as a subject of discourse. This was new and embarassing and exciting and weird and... Porn was part of that, but it was not at its centre.
> One of the major defects of the book is that
> sometimes you can?t even understand, reading the review,
> whether the film in question is a porn or not.
I can see that many readers would see this as a deficiency.
> So he
> decides to pick-up the ones he liked.
Yes, but not quite: the selection is by period mostly. There are not that many fully-fledged German porn movies of the 1970s, they were still few in number - unless you count the porn loops.
> But, if you ask me, for example, I could come up
> easily with other titles not included therein (for example,
> ?Liceali vogliose?,
Edited together from porn loops from Imperial Film.
I wouldn't cover that either, the original porn films from Imperial perhaps...
> or ?Le bambole di carne?
not sure which film that is...
> or ?Vogliosit?
> morbose?,
No, that is covered in the book - has its own page.
Rosemaries Schleckerland.
BTW one Italian film took the credits of Rosemaries Schleckerland and stuck them at the front of a completely different movie.
> about which last we have (or had?) almost the same
> problems we have with Mr. O.) to make room to ?Die
> Kamiliendame?, ?Die Geschichte der Piera?, ?Popcorn und
> Hinbeereis?.
I would agree that Stefan R. shouldn't have included "Die Kameliendame" and certainly not "Die Geschichte der Piera".
However, "Popcorn und Himbeereis" is an absolute MUST, it is the most important example of the subgenre.
> Granted, these last movies have full credits, full
> data and plots. But may you safely call them "sex movies"?
No, except for "Popcorn und Himbeereis".
I was surprised about many film choices that made it into the book.
I have included some non-sex-films as well, but mostly from the early days when the genre was still trying to find its place, so these helped to show where the genre was coming from.
> Shortly, R., having decided to include porns, shouldn?t have
> called his book a ?lexikon? but a ?catalogue?. I.e., a
> collection of the movies ?he? thinks are important for the
> history of german sex film.
Yes, except that he tried to be comprehensive in that respect, and there is a tradition in Germany for calling such books "Lexikon". I think, he originally planned the title "Sechs Schwedinnen koennen sich nicht irren" (Six Swedes cannot be wrong). Perhaps the publisher thought otherwise.
> About the problem of loops, well, for one you can start
> cataloguing them. Who is it otherwise to do this? You say (or
> imply) that they are unimportant and not wort the effort.
No, I would not go that far.
But they are of lesser importance, in the sense that they were not
culturally acknowledged by the society as a whole in the way
the sexfilms were, e.g. the stars of the sexfilm were celebrities,
the stars of the porn loops were only known to a small select group
of collectors of 8mm films. I mean: I was a teenager in the 1970s and I was well aware of German sexfilms, even though I was still too young to be let into a sex cinema; I cannot recall a single incident from the 1970s (or 1980s) in which porn loops came to my attention. I heard about them much much later.
And of course someone should start cataloguing them and write about
them. But any project has to have some limits to make it feasible and 700 pages is already quite a lot.
> (to me they
> never had: I went to see the sex movies for sex. finis).
True for many people and the reason why softporn is mostly dead
and replaced by hard porn. When I was talking about "culture" I was not talking about high culture (well-dressed bourgeois sipping a glass of wine and discussing the ballet production now running at their local opera house), more "cult" culture; the trashiness and weirdness of these films have attracted a certain following.
> In conclusion, and a very sad one, it seems like we?re a long
> way from having somebody who?ll try to write a history of the
> german porn. Or, at least, to reconnoiter the field more in
> deep.
History of German porn would be another project. Even more challenging.
-
beutelwolf
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: S. Rechmeier's Lexikon des deutschen Erotikfilms
Herschi wrote:
> Questions: There is this book into German and English?
Rechmeier's book is in German. (Mine is in English)
> Is it sold also in German bookstores?
You can get it from amazon.de, just search for "Rechmeier".
> A lexicon is an alphabetically sorted reference book.
Well, that book is sorted by years, and alphabetically within those years, but it has an alphabetic register.
In essence, it is a reference book though.
> But it is impossible to know all persons in the acting exactly.
"All" is asking for a bit much.
> Example: Was she Gina Wild yesterday, was she then Michaela
> Schaffrath, is she divorced now, what is her name today?
Gina Wild's not in the book, wrong period. The book covers 1965-1985.
And generally, S.Rechmeier did have a go at identifying actors most of whom most people (even sex film collectors) would never have heard of.
> The publishing house decided what is written in the book?
No.
I think Rechmeier had originally a different publisher in mind (Terror-Verlag), but that did not work out.
I am pretty sure MPW took the book as it was.
> Questions: There is this book into German and English?
Rechmeier's book is in German. (Mine is in English)
> Is it sold also in German bookstores?
You can get it from amazon.de, just search for "Rechmeier".
> A lexicon is an alphabetically sorted reference book.
Well, that book is sorted by years, and alphabetically within those years, but it has an alphabetic register.
In essence, it is a reference book though.
> But it is impossible to know all persons in the acting exactly.
"All" is asking for a bit much.
> Example: Was she Gina Wild yesterday, was she then Michaela
> Schaffrath, is she divorced now, what is her name today?
Gina Wild's not in the book, wrong period. The book covers 1965-1985.
And generally, S.Rechmeier did have a go at identifying actors most of whom most people (even sex film collectors) would never have heard of.
> The publishing house decided what is written in the book?
No.
I think Rechmeier had originally a different publisher in mind (Terror-Verlag), but that did not work out.
I am pretty sure MPW took the book as it was.
Re: S. Rechmeier's Lexikon des deutschen Erotikfilms
The history is announced on the cover "Lexikon des deutschen Erotikfilms".
The story of 1965-1985 isn't announced here, however.
Every customer thinks it is the gesammte history to this day.
International customers will buy this one deceived over the internet!
The price EUR 39.95 (80 DM) is exaggerated.
This is a good day's wages in Germany!
______
Herschi
-
mark shanon
- Posts: 685
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: S. Rechmeier's Lexikon des deutschen Erotikfil
I think that the price is unimpeachable. many books are published which sell for half the price of this but whose content is nil. here you get infos and pics galore. it is not perfect (no book on this subject can be) but it one of the best of its kind. and, as far as german sex movies go, the best ever.
-
beutelwolf
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: S. Rechmeier's Lexikon des deutschen Erotikfilms
Herschi wrote:
> The price EUR 39.95 (80 DM) is exaggerated.
It's not cheap, but it's worth the money.
Recall that this is A4, 700+ pages and hardback.
Many people spend this sort of money on a couple of DVDs which they'll only watch once.
> The price EUR 39.95 (80 DM) is exaggerated.
It's not cheap, but it's worth the money.
Recall that this is A4, 700+ pages and hardback.
Many people spend this sort of money on a couple of DVDs which they'll only watch once.
-
mark shanon
- Posts: 685
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: S. Rechmeier's Lexikon des deutschen Erotikfil
> You say that pornography is not at the center of the book.
> Granted. But then why include it at all?
>Because porn was not completely separate back then.
when did it start to separate? I suspect it was well before 1986. so many later movies should not have made it in the book, if R.'s intention was to include only those with a larger audience and a certain "social" visibility. Am I wrong?
> One of the major defects of the book is that
> sometimes you can?t even understand, reading the review,
> whether the film in question is a porn or not.
>I can see that many readers would see this as a deficiency.
The "many readers" include all those who don't have the movies and can see by themselves. Which practically, alas, I'm afraid leaves only you and R.
> So he
> decides to pick-up the ones he liked.
>Yes, but not quite: the selection is by period mostly. There are not that >many fully-fledged German porn movies of the 1970s, they were still few in >number - unless you count the porn loops.
No, no, I think you're on a wrong track about this. I refuse to believe that german porn production could be limited to the few R. reviews. Indirect proof of that is that, assuming R. and you were right, then the german production would have been much inferior both to the french and the italian ones: which is improbable since Germany was the first of these nations to have already a well developed structure to produce porn when it was first legalized, as there was a well-developed loop production before legalization (and nowadays has the biggest release outside of the USA.)
> But, if you ask me, for example, I could come up
> easily with other titles not included therein (for example,
> ?Liceali vogliose?,
>Edited together from porn loops from Imperial Film.
>I wouldn't cover that either, the original porn films from Imperial perhaps...
I mean the Brinkmann movie with Alban Ceray: it has some flashbacks, maybe culled, as you say, from other german productions (can't be more definite about this, you know more about it than me) but to me it looks like it stands on its own legs.
> or ?Le bambole di carne?
>not sure which film that is...
A moli movie.
> or ?Vogliosit?
> morbose?,
>No, that is covered in the book - has its own page.
>Rosemaries Schleckerland.
>BTW one Italian film took the credits of Rosemaries Schleckerland and >stuck them at the front of a completely different movie.
It is to this last I was referring, not to the more famous one. yes, the titles were culled in italy from those of "Rosemarie" to distribute it without submitting it to the censure board, but the movie is german (it features gaelle pererra, here credited as "paiana perreira"). in france it went by the title "Le chateau de sept perversions" which maybe is a translation of the original.
>I would agree that Stefan R. shouldn't have included "Die Kameliendame" >and certainly not "Die Geschichte der Piera".
>However, "Popcorn und Himbeereis" is an absolute MUST, it is the most >important example of the subgenre.
It seems like i'll have to find me a copy of this movie.
> About the problem of loops, well, for one you can start
> cataloguing them. Who is it otherwise to do this? You say (or
> imply) that they are unimportant and not wort the effort.
>No, I would not go that far.
>But they are of lesser importance, in the sense that they were not
>culturally acknowledged by the society as a whole in the way
>the sexfilms were, e.g. the stars of the sexfilm were celebrities,
>the stars of the porn loops were only known to a small select group
>of collectors of 8mm films. I mean: I was a teenager in the 1970s and I >was well aware of German sexfilms, even though I was still too young to >be let into a sex cinema; I cannot recall a single incident from the 1970s >(or 1980s) in which porn loops came to my attention. I heard about them >much much later.
I was in Germany in 1976, made the reeperbahn and loops were projected in the bars over there. and they came to my attention. (well, actually i was looking for them). i presume they came to the attention of all the people who consume porn. only you hadn't the chance to talk about them, collect them, review them. the basic difference between then and now were the diffusion of videos and internet.
about the "cultural acknowledgment"of society, that means next to nil. it is true that porn has acquired visibility in the media, but it simply has never become a everiday subject for discussions (except, maybe, in USA when Deep Throat was released). and even in the media, they don't talk about facials, dp and so on but always in a vague and misleading way. People can talk about the last Brass or the last Hollywood shit featuring some sex. open porn discussion is still verboten.
>I went to see the sex movies for sex. finis.
>True for many people and the reason why softporn is mostly dead
>and replaced by hard porn.
I don't think so. For one, soft porn has made it in the "official" movie production; and, for two, many porns are still produced and distributed in double versions (just think of the output of italian directors like D'Salvo and Morelli). I think that, simply, production and distribution modes have changed. but soft porn is still alive and well. Actually, I think the production is bigger now than ever.
> When I was talking about "culture" I was not talking about high culture >(well-dressed bourgeois sipping a glass of wine and discussing the ballet >production now running at their local opera house), more "cult" culture; >the trashiness and weirdness of these films have attracted a certain >following.
This is my fault. It's only that simply can't put up with the indifferent way in which the word "culture" is (ab)used nowadays. if everything is "culture", then nothing is. But, of course, I got your meaning.
>History of German porn would be another project. Even more challenging.
Agreed.
> Granted. But then why include it at all?
>Because porn was not completely separate back then.
when did it start to separate? I suspect it was well before 1986. so many later movies should not have made it in the book, if R.'s intention was to include only those with a larger audience and a certain "social" visibility. Am I wrong?
> One of the major defects of the book is that
> sometimes you can?t even understand, reading the review,
> whether the film in question is a porn or not.
>I can see that many readers would see this as a deficiency.
The "many readers" include all those who don't have the movies and can see by themselves. Which practically, alas, I'm afraid leaves only you and R.
> So he
> decides to pick-up the ones he liked.
>Yes, but not quite: the selection is by period mostly. There are not that >many fully-fledged German porn movies of the 1970s, they were still few in >number - unless you count the porn loops.
No, no, I think you're on a wrong track about this. I refuse to believe that german porn production could be limited to the few R. reviews. Indirect proof of that is that, assuming R. and you were right, then the german production would have been much inferior both to the french and the italian ones: which is improbable since Germany was the first of these nations to have already a well developed structure to produce porn when it was first legalized, as there was a well-developed loop production before legalization (and nowadays has the biggest release outside of the USA.)
> But, if you ask me, for example, I could come up
> easily with other titles not included therein (for example,
> ?Liceali vogliose?,
>Edited together from porn loops from Imperial Film.
>I wouldn't cover that either, the original porn films from Imperial perhaps...
I mean the Brinkmann movie with Alban Ceray: it has some flashbacks, maybe culled, as you say, from other german productions (can't be more definite about this, you know more about it than me) but to me it looks like it stands on its own legs.
> or ?Le bambole di carne?
>not sure which film that is...
A moli movie.
> or ?Vogliosit?
> morbose?,
>No, that is covered in the book - has its own page.
>Rosemaries Schleckerland.
>BTW one Italian film took the credits of Rosemaries Schleckerland and >stuck them at the front of a completely different movie.
It is to this last I was referring, not to the more famous one. yes, the titles were culled in italy from those of "Rosemarie" to distribute it without submitting it to the censure board, but the movie is german (it features gaelle pererra, here credited as "paiana perreira"). in france it went by the title "Le chateau de sept perversions" which maybe is a translation of the original.
>I would agree that Stefan R. shouldn't have included "Die Kameliendame" >and certainly not "Die Geschichte der Piera".
>However, "Popcorn und Himbeereis" is an absolute MUST, it is the most >important example of the subgenre.
It seems like i'll have to find me a copy of this movie.
> About the problem of loops, well, for one you can start
> cataloguing them. Who is it otherwise to do this? You say (or
> imply) that they are unimportant and not wort the effort.
>No, I would not go that far.
>But they are of lesser importance, in the sense that they were not
>culturally acknowledged by the society as a whole in the way
>the sexfilms were, e.g. the stars of the sexfilm were celebrities,
>the stars of the porn loops were only known to a small select group
>of collectors of 8mm films. I mean: I was a teenager in the 1970s and I >was well aware of German sexfilms, even though I was still too young to >be let into a sex cinema; I cannot recall a single incident from the 1970s >(or 1980s) in which porn loops came to my attention. I heard about them >much much later.
I was in Germany in 1976, made the reeperbahn and loops were projected in the bars over there. and they came to my attention. (well, actually i was looking for them). i presume they came to the attention of all the people who consume porn. only you hadn't the chance to talk about them, collect them, review them. the basic difference between then and now were the diffusion of videos and internet.
about the "cultural acknowledgment"of society, that means next to nil. it is true that porn has acquired visibility in the media, but it simply has never become a everiday subject for discussions (except, maybe, in USA when Deep Throat was released). and even in the media, they don't talk about facials, dp and so on but always in a vague and misleading way. People can talk about the last Brass or the last Hollywood shit featuring some sex. open porn discussion is still verboten.
>I went to see the sex movies for sex. finis.
>True for many people and the reason why softporn is mostly dead
>and replaced by hard porn.
I don't think so. For one, soft porn has made it in the "official" movie production; and, for two, many porns are still produced and distributed in double versions (just think of the output of italian directors like D'Salvo and Morelli). I think that, simply, production and distribution modes have changed. but soft porn is still alive and well. Actually, I think the production is bigger now than ever.
> When I was talking about "culture" I was not talking about high culture >(well-dressed bourgeois sipping a glass of wine and discussing the ballet >production now running at their local opera house), more "cult" culture; >the trashiness and weirdness of these films have attracted a certain >following.
This is my fault. It's only that simply can't put up with the indifferent way in which the word "culture" is (ab)used nowadays. if everything is "culture", then nothing is. But, of course, I got your meaning.
>History of German porn would be another project. Even more challenging.
Agreed.