egafd.com

'I was told that if you show certain things in film, if you show certain images, it?s automatically pornography. I said wait a minute what are you talking about?, and they said if you show certain things, like ejaculation, it?s automatically pornography and I told them ? no it?s not, if it?s a part of life, if it?s in the context of the story, if it?s not gratuitous, and if it?s really well done then it?s not pornography, and I?ll prove it to you. That was one more thing I wanted to prove, just one more challenge, and this film ? and you?ve seen the film ? is not pornography. It?s part of the story, it fits in, it seems right'

So, to sum up - pornography has:
no story
is not part of life
is gratuitous
not well done
doesn't seem right

'is not pornographic because it is not there to create arousal'

Some people might be aroused but it wasn't designed to arouse. Anyway Larry didn't talk about arousal.

If I have a film about a character who goes into a porno theatre and show the porn is that 'gratuitous'?
If a character feels hot and they take off their clothes, is that 'gratuitous'?
Say 2 characters have deep sexual feelings for each other. They make deep penetrating lust together. Is that 'gratuitous' - was it necessary to show the penis entering the vagina or that ejaculation?
Is it necessary to show the last brain cell being blasted out by that shot gun a t close range by the antihero villan?

I think Larry is trying to argue that
no story
is not part of life
is gratuitous
not well done
doesn't seem right

adds up to 'pornography'.

Let's think of a film that has a story. 'Devil Inside Miss Jones'.
About the 'story' - a quote from one reviewer (Flash)

' The story line is very well done with an in depth story that is important to follow to get the most enjoyment out of the film. This is one of the most dark and gritty adult films that I have ever seen. From the graphic suicide at the beginning of the film to the dark and sinister ending that must be seen to be believed, The Devil and Miss Jones never pretends to be a lighthearted happy adult film. This film also contains the best ending I think I have ever seen for an adult film'

Does it fail on 'not part of life' ? What does that mean? DIMJ is more of a catholic fantasy. If it is fantasy then it is not part of life - or is it?
Is it not well done? Is the acting atrocious, is the lighting bad, is the editing and sound below par?Maybe there was too much wrist slashing, too much time with the Devil and Miss jones.

Is it gratuitous? from Flash again...
' The sex in this film is very well done and it isn't just thrown in arbitrarily, it fits the story'

Does it seem right? I Don't know.
So, it seems to have failed on 4 of the 5 'tests' of 'pornography' that Larry posited.
So, is 'The Devil In Miss Jones' - 'pornography'?

Larry doesn't consider 'designed to arouse'.

I get aroused if the wind changes direction is that porn? And what about a naked mankin in a shop window, they arouse me aswell. Is that porn?

So if your walking past John Lewis, whilst they are window dressing, you get a stiffie eh Marino............excellent!

I have seen some videos from this Ken Park film and it is true that some of the scenes are just total porn, blow jobs, fanny fingering etc, it certainly aint art anyway or educational, it is beyond me how they can show this stuff in a mainstream film.