Bullets 'n' Babes

I guess we agree to disagree I cannot be arsed to keep this up, it was good while it lasted

its a pointless debate and in the end Porn will never be in a mainstream film ever, so pointless discussing it as the crap arty films will always get away with things others get wrong for.


and you should download some of 9 Songs scenes to see how far they went, its far from normal film footage it IS Porn and croassed the line of normal filmmaking and the stars who did it had real sex and in the end thats the difference. :mrgreen:


hey and at least we didnt start calling each other names and banning people over debates like this, very few forums would let us lot say anything like we have on here, I get threatened to be banned for saying shit, or menitoning sex on other forums.

So Mark would the PPV porn channels be classified as 18 then? As I've wondered if they show R18 material and I suspected they didn't.

I even e-mailed the creators of Television X and got a stiff reply saying I should speak to the licensing authorities. Which is odd you'd think they'd give me a direct honest answer. I guess not.

18 rated porn is really pointless. I see a place for Playboy/Page 3 style porn but if you're going to go hardcore it may as well be all the way and show erections (still banned? ) and penetration.

romerojpg wrote:I guess we agree to disagree I cannot be arsed to keep this up, it was good while it lasted

Me to. It was interesting though. I had no idea your views on this were so strong.

romerojpg wrote:hey and at least we didnt start calling each other names and banning people over debates like this, very few forums would let us lot say anything like we have on here, I get threatened to be banned for saying shit, or menitoning sex on other forums.

I hate the hypocrisy of censorship.

You cut 5 seconds out of a film and we're allowed to discuss it but discussing sex or violence is banned. You're right from most forums. As long as it's in the context of a debate I see it can only be a good thing. It's nice the mods/webmaster on Bullets are laid back enough to allow this.

bradavon wrote:So Mark would the PPV porn channels be classified as 18 then?

By and large, yes. They don't officially get classified, but about 95% of material is stuff that would be passed as '18' for DVD. I believe that there sometimes is glimpses of harder action - spread legs, brief bits of sexual detail - that might get cut, by nothing you would call "hardcore" like penetration or ejaculation. In other words you can't show on the Fantasy Channel much of the stuff that's in 9 Songs. But they COULD show 9 Songs. See what I'm saying? It's ridiculous hypocracy.

As I've wondered if they show R18 material and I suspected they didn't.

Right. The strongest material is cut.

I even e-mailed the creators of Television X and got a stiff reply saying I should speak to the licensing authorities. Which is odd you'd think they'd give me a direct honest answer. I guess not.

They obviously don't want to tell the truth. The new Ofcom code is bad news for them.

18 rated porn is really pointless. I see a place for Playboy/Page 3 style porn but if you're going to go hardcore it may as well be all the way and show erections (still banned? ) and penetration.

Agreed. Porn is porn. Hardcore is hardcore. There's no in-between. Soft "hardcore" is a pointless exercise in most viewers' eyes, but it's all that is allowed. Playboy is different like you say. That's harmless nudity and eroticism. Nothing that shouldn't be suitable for teenagers. It's worth bearing in mind that a lot of R18 material is still cut by the BBFC. Some of it for legal reasons (fisting, water sports); some because it's imitible (Asyphixiation); some because it may trigger abuse or even rape (hitting, slapping, spitting, bondage). So whilst I would say 9 Songs isn't on the extreme end of things, to my mind it is still pronography. And like Romero said I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Markgway wrote:But they COULD show 9 Songs. See what I'm saying? It's ridiculous hypocracy.

Yes as that contains ejaculation.

Thanks for that an interesting read. I wonder how you know so much sometimes?

p.s - If I ever watch 9 Songs I'll report back whether I was wrong on it being porn. I can't see myself buying it:

1. As a film it looks rubbish.
2. As porn if that's what it is it's expensive and also probably rubbish.

bradavon wrote:If I ever watch 9 Songs I'll report back whether I was wrong on it being porn. I can't see myself buying it: 1. As a film it looks rubbish. 2. As porn if that's what it is it's expensive and also probably rubbish.

Yeah, not something I'll be buying. You could rent it I suppose? I might watch it if it arrives on TV out of curiousity. I'm more than happy to wait.

I'd probably check it out if it was on TV too. Not that I'd buy the DVD or anything

The footage is available on the net and its hideous to watch in front of your eyes! The star from BBC 1 childrens TV Gruey doing Porno my childhood memories are shattered as he came all over the place!

Here's an article from the always readable Mark Kermode that may be of interest...

http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/fe ... &id=148092

Nice one Mark. Mark Kermode is the man. He always says it exactly how it is which is great. There is no snobbery from Kermode!

I listen to him on Radio 5 Live every week (via podcasting as I'm to busy to watch it live). I "was" about to go to bed too 8)

That was one fascinating read cheers Mark. When was it written? I can't see any date on the article.

I saw scrap R-18 but you knew I was going to say that . There is no way they're going to allow R-18 material an 18 rating, can you imagine Woolworths stocking hardcore porn? No way.

They should especially when (AFAIK) no violent film ever gets it, right Mark?

romerojpg wrote:The footage is available on the net and its hideous to watch in front of your eyes!

Any links? I wasn't all that interested but if Romero says it's hideous I have to see it

Seriously I'm intrigued to see what all the fuss is about.

I must confess I have now seen this film in its entirety. I'll get onto the porn debate bit in a moment but first I just thought id comment on the film itself with the art house label it gives itself. It is a very dull film. it consists entirely of three elements, live music performances, sex and mundane dialogue... in that order. A lot of so called art house films go for the idea of taking totally ordinary people and giving us a segment of their lives, the premise being that real life can often be more interesting than the made up stuff. in this case unfortunately it is not. I can only assume the makers know it too, as the constant cut offs to the live music don't have enough purpose on their own.

as for the sex, it is graphic, it is hardcore (very small bits of it, a couple of minutes at most). its also about as stimulating as my gran. it could easily be cut and not lower the quality of the film, it would merely remove the one draw the film really has to the inquisative crowd. Should it be classed as porn? I still don't think so, porn is created to arouse and provide titilation, this does neither. To give it an R18 rating would be to give it credit it didnt deserve, perhaps instead simply a warning on the cover 'WARNING - not in any way erotic'....

Thanks Mark for the article. Interesting stuff. The main question is indeed "Why can Winterbottom show this stuff, but Ben Dover can't?" Double standards methinks.
I havent seen 9 Songs BTW but may check it out.

Mordib wrote:Should it be classed as porn? I still don't think so, porn is created to arouse and provide titilation, this does neither. To give it an R18 rating would be to give it credit it didnt deserve, perhaps instead simply a warning on the cover 'WARNING - not in any way erotic'....

Exactly. It also proves my point that Romero should actually see the film first before passing judgement (as I should).

I heard it was unerotic so saw little point seeing it, considering that was it's only draw in the first place.

"Why can Winterbottom show this stuff, but Ben Dover can't?"

Because of snobbery being able to get away calling this arthouse (expectable) and Ben Dover being called porn (not expectable).

Whatever 9 Songs is (porn or not) it should be classified the same as porn. That being 18!

I guess it depends on your definition of porn. Romero's definition of porn is any real sex caught on film, Ben dovers definition of porn is 10 inches of man filling every imaginaeable orafice of various women until the tape runs out. My definition of porn is footage of sex that is stimulating to at least a reasonable amount of people in a sexual way and is put on film for that very purpose. The people who give out the ratings... they dont seem particularly sure what they consider porn, as this case has proven well.

Brad do you mean "acceptable"?

bradavon wrote: Mark Kermode is the man. He always says it exactly how it is which is great. There is no snobbery from Kermode!

That's why I like reading him. He's different from most critics. Has a regular column on the Film Four website. Updated every 2-3 weeks.

When was it written? I can't see any date on the article.

It's the latest article, and was just put up this week.

can you imagine Woolworths stocking hardcore porn?

Just think of the special offers!! Buy Cathy the Cocksucker II and get a free dirty mac!! Kermode has a point: how can you say no to other purveyors of straight porn now that a president has been set? The BBFC shot themselves in the foot, but will no doubt backtrack and make excuses. The only way forward is to allow R18 titles to be sold in regular stores, but with appropriate titles and packaging. I think that would be more acceptable than just allowing them as '18's. A lot of people will complain if they watch an '18' and find that kind of footage.

Any links? I wasn't all that interested but if Romero says it's hideous I have to see it

I saw brief clips when I was researching this thread first time round. Standard porn stuff. Like you'd see in an R18, but with more natural lighting! 8) Can't say where I found it though. Try searching Google.

Mordib wrote:I guess it depends on your definition of porn. Romero's definition of porn is any real sex caught on film, Ben dovers definition of porn is 10 inches of man filling every imaginaeable orafice of various women until the tape runs out. My definition of porn is footage of sex that is stimulating to at least a reasonable amount of people in a sexual way and is put on film for that very purpose. The people who give out the ratings... they dont seem particularly sure what they consider porn, as this case has proven well.

I think it has to be that ANY REAL HARDCORE is considered as porn, otherwise it's truly subjective. Where do you draw the line. Spread legs? Touching the outside of a vagina? The inside? Penis penetration? It only makes sense that all material should be subject to the same application of what porn is? If you factor in context and intent you're getting into sticky territory (excuse the pun...)

Still Porn in my eyes
and have you seen how well its selling and renting loooosers buying it for the Porno elemnt only I see, thats just soo sad its a joke!
at least buy some real Porno. Its probibly made loads on dvd already! but not because its a film, or a good film, its becuase they have blatantly advertised it as Porno! everywhere!

Its easy to fine the footage, come on you could get the whole film in a few hours.

Markgway wrote:That's why I like reading him. He's different from most critics. Has a regular column on the Film Four website. Updated every 2-3 weeks.

Check out his Radio 5 weekly film review segment. It's even better when you get to hear him. If you can't catch it download the weekly update MP3:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/entertain ... mode.shtml

grim_tales wrote:Brad do you mean "acceptable"?

No (Okay yes ).

Mordib wrote:My definition of porn is footage of sex that is stimulating to at least a reasonable amount of people in a sexual way and is put on film for that very purpose.

There can only be one true definition of porn, the dictionary's definition. Which just so happens to be the same as yours (and mine) definition of porn:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pornography

People who's definitions differ don't know the true meaning of the word and/or have decided to twist it's meaning to suit their own beliefs and opinions. Which is fine as long as they don't elude themselves into thinking they're right.

My boss's (who happens to be female) definition of porn is a topless woman, as simple as that (I presume any context) and because I disagree with her I'm somehow dirty.

Markgway wrote:The only way forward is to allow R18 titles to be sold in regular stores, but with appropriate titles and packaging.

That's the next best thing but that will never happen either.

Markgway wrote:I think it has to be that ANY REAL HARDCORE is considered as porn, otherwise it's truly subjective.

The dictionary says:

"# Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
# The presentation or production of this material.
# Lurid or sensational material: “Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the... pornography of the era” (Morris Dickstein)."

Which is where I believe Mordib (who AFAIK is actually the only person here to have seen 9 Songs) is saying that it's not remotely arousing so therefore is not porn.

By Romero's thinking anybody having sex are committing a pornographic act. Let's not also forget the fact pornography is very much legal.

bradavon wrote:The dictionary says:

"# Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
# The presentation or production of this material.
# Lurid or sensational material: “Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the... pornography of the era” (Morris Dickstein)."

Which is where I believe Mordib (who AFAIK is actually the only person here to have seen 9 Songs) is saying that it's not remotely arousing so therefore is not porn.

But in order to accept that you would have to argue that:
A. The primary purpose is not to cause sexual arousal.
B. The material is unsensationalised.
C. The material does not cause sexual arousal.

In response:
A. If the purpose is not to cause sexual arousla... what is the purpose? What does the film say with hardcore imagery that could not be said without it? You don't need to see penetration and ejaculation to get across a message of love, sex or coupling now do you?

B. The whole point of using hardcore is to draw attention to the work. To be sensationalist in itself as a work of alleged controversy.

C. Now I don't about you, but if I see a woman sticking her finger in her holiest of hollies that gives me a stiffy... unless she's an old hag, and from what I've seen Margo Stilley ain't that.

bradavon wrote:
By Romero's thinking anybody having sex are committing a pornographic act. Let's not also forget the fact pornography is very much legal.

No its not, it has to be given a UK rating and barley none are given a rating at all, one in a million is released in UK and most are cut to hell.

Porn can be as legal as people want, doesnt mean anyone wants to see it in real films, unless they are porno seekers and loosers who watch films like 9 Songs and expect a film, as noone who went to see this film or rented it expected a film! they saw it because of the contrivery about the fact its got loosers shagging, no other reason ever! if it was simulated non Porno, the film wouldnt have even been made.

Okay Mark you've got me there

romerojpg wrote:No its not, it has to be given a UK rating and barley none are given a rating at all, one in a million is released in UK and most are cut to hell.

I'd look it up Romero pornography is legal. Sky has 10 or so channels dedicated to just that.

Besides I think you'll find the porn industry is thriving.

Yes Porn is in the UK, but most is not legal and never will be in the UK and others that are here arecut to hell, so no its not exactly legal in most ways, we get watered down stuff compared to pretty much everywhere in the world.

romerojpg wrote:Yes Porn is in the UK

Make your mind up. I said it was legal, you said "No its not" and now you're agreeing with me?!?

I never stipulated what type of porn I just said porn.

romerojpg wrote:but most is not legal and never will be in the UK and others that are here arecut to hell, so no its not exactly legal in most ways, we get watered down stuff compared to pretty much everywhere in the world.

By my understanding of the content of 9 Songs we're not talking about the more harder porn which may not get classified though.

Follow-up article from Mark Kermode:

http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/fe ... &id=148233

The VRA verdict?

It's just as we suspected. Hypocrisy revisited.

as i said in the 1st place, posh people can watch more than us normal people arragant toffs.