'The Porn Subject"='UK Extreme Porn' reasoning?..

[Dalila di Capri]

Hello Boys,

I have just risen from a well deserved late morning, having filmed 6 videos in two days with one of the finest actresses in our genre, the one and only Debbie D.

I plan to post photos from some of this material later today along with a very detailed account of how wonderful Debbie is to work with.

As for this interesting topic

I want to take this whole art vs porn argument to the ultimate test:

Frist of all Dennis and Peter you are going to like what I am about to say because it involves a self gutting.

I have recorded the finale of Madama Butterfly, her last aria before (in exact accordance with Puccini's stage demands) she guts herself in an act of defiance in order to restore her honor.

I intend to lip sync to my own voice, and gut myself in true hard core Dalila fashion.

I will be nude. Guts will come out. I will wallow in them, blood will gush out of my mouth.
Everything I am known for with be included in this film.

I will however play the scene straight:

Butterfly has been betrayed by her American husband, the sailor Pinkerton. He has returned with his American wife to take his half japanese child away from Butterfly, who had been under the impression that she was legally married to him. He lied to her.

She has been deeply dishonored.

She sings a tearful farewell to her child and says "When you are far across the sea please remember your mother who makes this sacrifice for you...go now... play... play..."

The camera will be on my face alone so no child will be used

The camera will pull back and I will do the seppuku as specified by Puccini.

I will market this film as a Dalila di Capri film, and I know my gutting fans will buy it.

The question that will remain is this:

IF I follow the composer's directions to the letter, I am the soprano singing the aria, and I am only doing what is demanded by the stage direction am I making porn or not?

How would the GB government justify banning that?

Now we all know that my fans will watch to see the gutting. Some will enjoy my singing, others perhaps not so much. Clealy many will get a sexual thrill from what I do, but opera fans would simply be seeing a very graphic and realistic version of Butterfly's death.

So, is it porn?

Does this mean that an actress who does erotic horror cannot also do straight theater, film opera whatever, because she will always be called a porn actress by the GB government?

I am not going to make that call.

I will let Dennis, Peter and others determine that.

But I do think that perhaps another question should be asked:

When is it no longer art?

Baci

[Peter]

When is it no longer art?

Anyone in this community would unhesitatingly call this upcoming production of yours, art. Most other artists and connoisseurs of art outside of our community, would likely as well call it art. Indeed, the prosecuting attorney in Britain may in fact admit that it is art. And none of that matters. The test is not whether or not it is art. The Psycho shower scene is held in the highest esteem as art. The naked lady being shot in the movie, Munich, is so heartbreaking to me that I cannot watch it (when she picks up her cat after being fatally shot...), and no one with a lick of sense is going to accuse Steven Spielberg of not making art. And yet our community adores those scenes not just for their art, but for their erotic appeal to us. And if you are caught in Britain with those two scenes and others like them, all 'extracted' from works of art, you will be arrested. Possessing the movies will not get you arrested but possessing the 'extracts' will get you arrested, because the extracts are proof of your intent, proof of your erotic attraction to the material, proof of your thoughts.

The law has been created not to filter out of society those works of 'art' that do not fit the law's definition of art. This law has been created to filter out those people who find that art to be erotic. Both the wording and the intent of the law as constructed, is not to define art or to render some art obscene. It is specifically designed to turn those of us who enjoy such art "for erotic reasons" into criminals. It is literally criminalizing our thought. The fact that we think thoughts of erotic pleasure when we watch these scenes is the crime, not the scenes themselves. It is simply assumed in the law that possession of such scenes (either extracted from their original works, or produced specifically for their eroticism) is proof of the person's thoughts, proof that they possess this material because it excites them.

It is finding this material to be sexually exciting that is illegal in Britain. It very much is, a thought crime, with heavy penalties.

[Dalila di Capri]

Peter writes:

[quote][It is finding this material to be sexually exciting that is illegal in Britain. It very much is, a thought crime, with heavy penalties./quote]

How disgusting and frightening.

Is this not the subject of the novel 1984?

So if I find the idea of grabbing a college coed, gutting her and watching her suffer sexually stimulating, but do no such thing, it is just a thought in my mind, I can be potentially arrested in GB or be at least required to register as a sex offender?

THAT....thought control.... THAT is what I find pornographic.

It all goes back to the disgusting thing that is politics.

And yet have no fear. I plan to shoot my Madama Butterfly scene sometime within the next few days.

And if you Peter find it sexually exciting as well as artistic and beautiful I will have done my job well, and be proud of my work.

I suppose I will always be a pornographer in England.

Baci

[Bluestone]

... and portrays any of the following:

I fear you are in error Bluestone. The wording does not state that it must include 'all' of the following, just anything in that list. The 'and' you refer to is only a rejoinder for point (d), and does not apply to points (a), (b) or (c). Therefor if 'any' of (a), (b) or (c) also apply, the work would fall under the purvey of this law.

Hi Peter,

Not to fear. I am not in error. You have simply misinterpreted what I was saying. Read the quote above. I said "any of the following" not "all of the following". Only one element from that list is required; however, not just you, but everyone else, seems to be missing the point that I specifically highlighted in red in my initial post. Accordingly, everyone is misinterpreting what this law means and how it can be enforced. No, a clip of the shower scene from "Psycho" will not in and of itself be in violation of the UK law and neither will the version of this scene that I filmed with Petra in September (Shameless plug). Why? Because there is an additional element to the offence. Not only does there have to be one of the listed items, but A REASONABLE PERSON MUST BELIEVE THAT THIS SCENE IS REAL!!!!! In other words, for the "Psycho" scene to be illegal in the UK, the person viewing it has to think that it is a real snuff film!!! No one on this board viewing that scene would ever think that it was real. With the out-takes that I always put at the end of my films, no one can ever think that Petra is really being snuffed in my videos. That is why the UK law is not enforceable against most of the producers here, not because their material may be considered violent porn. In my humble opinion, producers such as Paul should have a real concern, however, since Paul's work is so good that the uninitiated could very well think that his stuff is for real. So, it's realism or perceived realism that is the trigger for this legislation, not the definition of porn.

Barrister Blue

[Blizzard]

I am not sure if this is related but I have downloaded a lot of BDSM videos in the past and most end with the woman, post torture, talking to the camera and the interviewer asks if she enjoyed it and why she does it. The model always has a smile on her face and says she did it of her own accord. Do I presume they do this to make sure the law don't think it is real ? As it is seems to be at the end of all the bondage clips I have downloaded in the last year or so and it is always straight after filming (rather than the next day or before).

[Bluestone]

I would think that is the primary motivation. It is also nice to hear from the models and fans do love this type of material as well as out-takes. Actually, most of my actresses just love the out-takes at the end of my films, because it brings back the fun memories of the shoot. I encourage all producers to do this. It's as simple as one that I filmed with Charlene, "Treacherous Secretary". After all the body pans, she wanted to send a greeting to the fans. So, I let the camera continue to run, while she lay 'dead' and bloodied on the floor. Then, she sat up, as if nothing had happened, and said 'hello' to her fans and signed off.

Blue

[GraveDancer]

Bluestone, please read the sentence in red again. It doesn't say that a reasonable person has to think that the scene was real, only that it shows real persons (or animals).

For example, lay a store window mannequin on a bed, put some fake blood on her face and take a picture. That's fine, no reasonable person would think that it is a real person.

Do the same with Petra and you can go to jail for up to 3 years in the UK.

Psycho isn't Peter's example, it's an example given by the big-brother-fetishists who made the law. And its highly unlikely that they've misunderstood their own words.

But I can understand your misunderstanding - it is hard to swallow that a thought-crime law like this exists in a civilized country.

GraveDancer, quietly singing 'Die Gedanken sind frei...'

[Bluestone]

Hi GraveDancer,

Well, I'm certainly not saying that I'm an expert in UK law, and it sounds like you and Peter have studied this legislation and the discussions that took place when it was formulated, but I still cannot accept that since Petra, although only an actress in a video, is a real person, that I would face 3 years in jail if I filmed a death scene with her in Britain. Let's break the legislation down once more, and then I welcome more comments from others on their understanding of its effect on our industry, at least in the UK. I personally don't mind if no one agrees with me, since I am fully capable of getting things wrong... just ask my wife

Here goes:
1. Firstly there has to be an "extreme pornographic image”. This image, or series of images, have to be both pornographic and extreme.
2. The definition in the legislation of a "pornographic image” is one that is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal. (We're dead in the water here!)
3. The second necessary element, however, is that it is an "extreme image". It has to be both! Being pornographic alone is not enough.
4. The definition of an "extreme image" is actually threefold. Here are the three necessary elements in order to constitute an "extreme image":
(I) It must portray, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following (i.e. at least one of the following 4 situations):
(a) an act which threatens a person’s life;
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals;
(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse; or,
(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),
(II) In addition, a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real, and,
(III) The image must be grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

So, there is an argument that mannequins splashed with blood are okay as long as they aren't too realistic, but that as long as a real human is involved in an image, it is illegal. I just don't buy it. The legislation talks about portraying death scenes and the like in an explicit and realistic way. So, even if a real person was acting out the scene, if it wasn't explicit and realistic, one of the essential elements in the legislation hasn't been met. This reasonable person has to be perceiving more than just if the victim is a real actress or a cartoon. I submit that "real" refers to the person in the situation, i.e. does it look like a real person is getting killed, or does it look like an actress is playing a part and no one is really being harmed? Secondly, the third element requires that the image be "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character". I know that public standards differ over time, but how can a Petra video be declared "grossly offensive, disgusting and obscene" when CSI shows similar scenes on prime time TV all the time. Finally, many of the videos in our genre are not presented in a realistic fashion, just taking into account how long it takes someone like Dalila to die. I know she's a tough cookie, but she does survive much longer in her videos than a "real" person would be able to survive in a realistic death scene enactment.

So, I do stand by my position on this subject, notwithstanding the fine arguments presented in support of contrary viewpoints.

All of which is respectfully presented as my opinion only.

Blue

[Dalila di Capri]

I am deadly serious about my up coming palns for the Madama Butterfly finale.

If the UK bans an interpretation of an established operatic masterpiece just because the artist is also a well known erotic horror actress it could perhpas give some room for some crafty barrister to appeal the whole ridiculous law.

My "Dido" is already way too sexual for GB, but because it's Purcell, they wouldn't dare ban it.
He is their greatest English composer after all.

Nevertheless there is no denying that Puccini asked for the belly cutting version of the suppuku.

He got the story from an American Play producer named David Belasco and Belasco thought that both men and women in Japan did belly cutting suicide.

It is only recently that the sissies at the Met and ENO have been doing a wimpy throat slash version of Butterfly's Death in the name "accuracy".

Nonsense. It destroys the musical timing to not do the belly cutting.

And of course you know that I committed to artistic integrity

BTW: I have a question.

I remember reading somewhere that in Japan there is a belly cutting ritual that young maidens perform not on behalf of honor, but simply as a sexual sacrifice. They open themselves as the ultimate form of submission.

Is there someone who knows soemthign about that and what it is called. I know that it is not connected to Samauri tradition.

IF so I would love to offer this kind of film for my Japanese fans

(I have many, but I fear that Japanese is NOT one of the langauges I speak )

Baci

[GraveDancer]

Bluestone, I have the right to be completely wrong, too. And perhaps I am. I don't know. You make some fine arguments. Maybe the fact that there are good arguments for both sides shows one of the main problems of this law.

Anyway, if I was living in the UK, I would neither produce nor buy anything directly related to our fetish because I don't want to be at the mercy of a judge's opinion on what can be considered 'obscene'. That's the pitfall (at least as far as I can see it), your work falls under the law's definition of pornographic, but it clearly isn't offensive, let alone grossly offensive. But if a judge doesn't like your nose or is under pressure from a crazed up media, he can simply call it 'obscene', and you're in trouble.

Actually, as a producer, you don't even need a judge. All it takes is to get prosecuted which includes a confiscation of all your computers, DVDs and so on. You may win the lawsuit many months later, but your business will be gone.

[Bluestone]

Hi GraveDancer,

We completely agree on that point. Yes, if I was in the UK, I wouldn't want to be the test case! Coincidentally, Dr. Don was prosecuted in Canada under the regular obscenity laws without any specific legislation such as the UK legislation. If the cops and prosecutors want to get you, they can certainly make your life hell. Also, without the law in effect, The Daily Mail chased AF/AD out of the UK and harassed their models unmercilessly. So, yes, I don't want to appear to be soft pedaling the UK law. It is a horrible piece of thought crime legislation that doesn't bode well for the future of our industry. I just wanted to point out that there are possible defenses, depending on the type of material being produced. Usually, the police and prosecution choose an extreme case to be their test case... not a borderline case. I like to think that my material is borderline, and wouldn't be a cakewalk for them to get a conviction on. Maybe I'm deluded. I've been called worse

Blue