Destricted is a reflection on sex, sexuality and x-rated movies trough seven director's approaches and stories - Marina Abramović (Balkan Erotic Epic), Matthew Barney Hoist), Marco Brambilla (Sync), Larry Clark (Impaled), Gaspar Noé (We Fck Alone), Richard Prince (House Call), Sam Taylor-Wood (Death Valley).
The only film that really stood out was "Hoist", which is a very innovative idea, and very well filmed; however, the images of the crane/perforating machine and their real drivers with their faces pixeled rested credibility to the piece. I mean, those people don't add anything to the "story" and, therefore, their presence was unnecessary. If the director really wanted them, why not using actors with unpixeled faces?
I found very interesting "Balkan Erotic Epic", a mostly ethnographic piece, which tells the viewer about how sex is embedded in traditional oral culture in the Balkans. The film mixes surreal beautiful images with schematic animation and the director addressing the viewer with pieces of information. It felt like a pastiche, some of the art in there wasted.
"Impaled" departs from a good idea and exploration of the adult industry. The director put an add on a newspaper searching for candidates for an amateur sex movie. The guys are interviewed on camera and talk about sexuality and adult movies, and show their bodies and genitals to the camera. The director chooses a winner, who then has to interview different adult actresses, see their naked bodies, and choose his favourite for fulfilling his sexual fantasy, in this case having anal sex. The interviews were very interesting, and also listening to the actresses talking about what they do. The problem with the doc is that ends being gross and vulgar, filmed as cheaply as an amateur cheap adult film would be, but without the naturalism and feeling of real amateurs having sex in front of a camera.
Noe's "We fcuk alone" is a big disappointment. His overuse of strobist images is completely unnecessary, and ends being the whole point of the "story" not what happens in it. Without the strobist approach, the film might have been more confronting and interesting, especially if you have something to say about sex. The strobist images in a continuous way, during the whole piece, made me feel sick and, therefore, nothing of what was happening in the story was interesting. Fcking alone and hallucinogen unsettling images are put at the same level.
"House Call" is an adult sex movie, old style, but straight forward nevertheless. No artistry there, either.
"Death Valley" is just a dreadful piece with a guy massaging his willy in the great outdoors... Where is the artistry?
Finally, "Sync: is a very short pastiche of sex images, taken from x-rated films mixed with powerful music.
The movie, overall, has two main problems. The first, and the most important one, is the lack of artistry, despite what the authors and producers intended to. Secondly, the film mixes apples with bananas, so to speak, documentaries, with pieces of fiction, with straight x-movies. In other words, sex is the only common thing. But sex is a too-wide subject to make a movie about unless you set boundaries and decide which aspects or themes you want to explore. As a result, there is not harmony in the movie, as the different pieces are patch-worked and not jigsawed into something bigger. This would have not mattered had the pieces been filmed with artistry and talent, which is rarely seen. Perhaps, a series of short documentaries/films on specific concrete sexual themes would have been more effective.
The movie ends being a gross pastiche of vulgar images, with hardly artistic value and creative talent, which supposed to be the point of the same.
The only film that really stood out was "Hoist", which is a very innovative idea, and very well filmed; however, the images of the crane/perforating machine and their real drivers with their faces pixeled rested credibility to the piece. I mean, those people don't add anything to the "story" and, therefore, their presence was unnecessary. If the director really wanted them, why not using actors with unpixeled faces?
I found very interesting "Balkan Erotic Epic", a mostly ethnographic piece, which tells the viewer about how sex is embedded in traditional oral culture in the Balkans. The film mixes surreal beautiful images with schematic animation and the director addressing the viewer with pieces of information. It felt like a pastiche, some of the art in there wasted.
"Impaled" departs from a good idea and exploration of the adult industry. The director put an add on a newspaper searching for candidates for an amateur sex movie. The guys are interviewed on camera and talk about sexuality and adult movies, and show their bodies and genitals to the camera. The director chooses a winner, who then has to interview different adult actresses, see their naked bodies, and choose his favourite for fulfilling his sexual fantasy, in this case having anal sex. The interviews were very interesting, and also listening to the actresses talking about what they do. The problem with the doc is that ends being gross and vulgar, filmed as cheaply as an amateur cheap adult film would be, but without the naturalism and feeling of real amateurs having sex in front of a camera.
Noe's "We fcuk alone" is a big disappointment. His overuse of strobist images is completely unnecessary, and ends being the whole point of the "story" not what happens in it. Without the strobist approach, the film might have been more confronting and interesting, especially if you have something to say about sex. The strobist images in a continuous way, during the whole piece, made me feel sick and, therefore, nothing of what was happening in the story was interesting. Fcking alone and hallucinogen unsettling images are put at the same level.
"House Call" is an adult sex movie, old style, but straight forward nevertheless. No artistry there, either.
"Death Valley" is just a dreadful piece with a guy massaging his willy in the great outdoors... Where is the artistry?
Finally, "Sync: is a very short pastiche of sex images, taken from x-rated films mixed with powerful music.
The movie, overall, has two main problems. The first, and the most important one, is the lack of artistry, despite what the authors and producers intended to. Secondly, the film mixes apples with bananas, so to speak, documentaries, with pieces of fiction, with straight x-movies. In other words, sex is the only common thing. But sex is a too-wide subject to make a movie about unless you set boundaries and decide which aspects or themes you want to explore. As a result, there is not harmony in the movie, as the different pieces are patch-worked and not jigsawed into something bigger. This would have not mattered had the pieces been filmed with artistry and talent, which is rarely seen. Perhaps, a series of short documentaries/films on specific concrete sexual themes would have been more effective.
The movie ends being a gross pastiche of vulgar images, with hardly artistic value and creative talent, which supposed to be the point of the same.