Change Your Image
sarabay1978
Reviews
Sex in the Comics (1972)
An outstanding concept which is just too long...
When most people think of "porn," they don't get images of semi-surreal drawn sets, people with weird looking face makeup and face puddy on attempting to portray comic book characters, or montages of WWI and WWII stock footage. Most people wouldn't think of Sex In The Comics when they think of porn. However, this bizarre little 70s oddity which is now all but lost was billed as porn, sold as porn, and viewed as porn. A shame, for if its makers had promoted the film correctly, it could have been a cult hit.
The premise is simple: a woman goes to interview a famous cartoonist about his work, but instead he gives her a history lesson on Tijuana Bibles (satirical dirty comic books). We then see around 20 of these comics acted out.
Although the premise might make this film sound like ordinary 70s sleaze (and I'll make no assertion that this film's storyline is super creative), the execution is like nothing I've ever seen before. For one, the entire film takes in a whole slew or (purposefully) tacky drawn sets, which are intended to mimic the frequently primitive artwork of the comics they are based off of. Furthermore, the entire cast (well, only the males) wear strange looking face masks throughout the film, again so that they more resemble the comic characters they're based off of. Again, this might not sound all that odd for anyone whose seen the work of "Rinse Dream" but still, the ambiance of the scenes truly do give the film a very unique feel.
The dialog is also written to mimic the style of writing which the original comics used, and as a result, the very dated humor frequently falls flat. Additionally, the film almost feels like it was designed for 5 year olds based on the caliber of the humor.
What kills the film is how repetitive it gets, as all of the mini vignettes are the same (with a few rather clever exceptions) and, like the comics they're based on, once you've seen one you've seen them all. Certain elements work quite well, in particular the narrative segments in which the "famous comic artists" gives factually accurate sounding lectures about the effects American politics and culture had on the creation of the comics. However, when all is said and done, the film runs around 15 minutes too long. A 70 minute running time, instead of 86, would have served this film much better and kept it far more entertaining.
That said, Sex In The Comics is anything but run of the mill porn, in fact I'd be hard pressed to say I'd even qualify this film as even remotely erotic for turning the audience on seems to be the furthest thing from the minds of the filmmakers. However, to much time is spent making essentially the same vignette over and over again, by the time the 60 minute mark hits, you might just want to shoot yourself.
Cruisin' 57 (1975)
Sentimentality and forgotten lust...
Back when underground films truly were underground, Toby Ross was at the forefront of crafting impassioned and deeply personal tales of youth. Like his contemporaries, Arthur Bressan Jr. and J. Brian, Ross truly was doing something revolutionary in his art.
Cruisin' 57 is one of his lesser seen films but it perfectly captures the essence and innocence that existed in the 1970s, a time before AIDS, terrorism, and "gentrification" destroyed the United States and transposes these feelings to the late 1950s where the film's story takes place.
The period decoration, although minimal, embodies so much 1950s iconography that even when a 1970s car or sign manages to make its way into the frame, it doesn't detract from the magically innocent ambiance of the film.
The storyline is simple. It's about a young man trying to find someone to love and love him but looking in all the wrong places. The acting is spot on and the costuming is properly period. Ross makes ample and wonderful use of natural lighting which give certain scenes a more dreamy and fantasy look while giving others the proper shadows and depth necessary to be affective.
Clocking in at a brisk 69 minutes, Cruisin' 57 is the type of film which manages to not only embody the spirit of the time in which it takes place but also the time at which it was shot.
A rare treat for those who happen upon it.
Shortbus (2006)
Nothing original here...
SHORTBUS IS A genuinely smutty pornographic amalgamation of tedious sex scenes, stereotypical characters, and mediocre at best narrative filled with some of the tritest and boring "profound" dialogue present in a film since the ridiculous "Funny Ha Ha".
Shortbus is a one trick pony at the most base level. Centered on the premises of a gay couple who, despite their stereotypically perfect relationship, decide to help their sex therapist (!) achieve orgasm (!!), something she has apparently never experienced (!!!). From the start one seems to wonder what on earth the producers of this film were thinking when the allowed it to be made. To add insult to injury, the happy homos decide to take their therapist to an "underground" sex club where the sinful goings on all has some kind of deeply symbolic and hidden social commentary. Of course, just as was the case in the early days of explicit sex on screen, the "redeeming social value" on display here is nothing more than a way for the intellectual watching this film to explain the wet spot in their crotch as being sweat expelled from a gland which occurred in the process of their deep analysis of the complex meaning of deep anal thrusts and auto-fellatio.
To say that Shortbus is a bad film technically would be a lie for I must admit that despite my not finding any memorable images throughout my viewing of the film, I felt that the cinematography was acceptable and the acting, although certainly not award worthy, was fine. In fact, with the exception of the graphic sex, Shortbus is a rather average "American Indy" film. But therein lays the problem: why does this film's running time need to consist of so much sex? Considering the (lack of) narrative, I suppose it does make for good time waster footage, but still, why make the sex as graphic as it is? I don't have a direct answer to this question although I can certainly theorize. I think that director John Cameron Mitchell believes explicit sex will increase his audience, thus increasing box-office revenue, and result in more opportunities for him to direct other projects. This is perfectly fine from a marketing point of view for in performing such a publicity stunt, he is certainly getting the exposure he desires; but isn't this an awfully cheap and inartistic way for him to go around developing a reputation as a director? What's more is that I will go out on a limb and say that after this film, the odds of Mitchell producing another picture with explicit sex are almost none. So then this film is nothing more than a publicity stunt designed to aid his career and get his name in the papers as a "daring and revolutionary director;" BULL! Filmmakers in the 1970s were at the forefront of creating realistic, intelligent, well made films featuring hardcore sex scenes. Directors such as Armand Weston, Gary Graver, Radley Metzger, Anthony Spinelli, Shaun Costello, Chuck Vincent, Cecil Howard, Gerard Damiano, and many, many more made films which featured both explicit sex scenes and compelling drama which complimented each other beautifully. However, due to obscenity rulings and a general public fear to declare these films as artistic, both films and filmmakers alike were cast aside as pornographers, never receiving the recognition they deserved. However today, the climate has changed in such a way that although explicit sex in films is not deemed universally acceptable, censors and prudes have become comfortable enough with the idea that a film can still play general theatres despite its explicit content that many visionary filmmakers have taken bold steps to include hardcore sex in some of their more recent pictures.
I think that taking any more time explaining the ridiculousness of heaping praise on a cinematic item which, in all honesty, has nothing more going for it than a near constant stream of boring sex acts, I shall instead make a suggestion to every person (critics and audience members alike) who took this film as a revolutionary piece of cinema to be encouraged to watch at least a few of the following sexually explicit titles (listed in no real order):
Bacchanale (John & Lem Amero, 1970) Ken Park (Larry Clark, 2002) Through The Looking Glass (Jonas Middleton, 1975) Cruising (William Friedkin, 1980) The Image (Radley Metzger, 1975) Do Me Evil (Toby Ross, 1975) Both Ways (Jerry Douglas, 1975) Sometimes Sweet Susan (Fred Donaldson, 1974) Skin Flicks (Gerard Damiano, 1978) The Opening Of Misty Beethoven (Radley Metzger, 1975) Cafe Flesh (Stephen Sayadian, 1982) Defiance Of Good (Armand Weston, 1974) Midnight Desires (Shaun Costello, 1975) (Anna) Obsessed (1977) Score (Radley Metzger, 1972) Roommates (Chuck Vincent, 1981) Corruption (Roger Watkins, 1983) Thundercrack! (Curt McDowell, 1975) Irreversible (Gasper Noe, 2002) The Wayward Cloud
These are just a few of many great films produced in the last 36 years which have included (purpose-full) sex scenes as well as gripping story lines and great direction ,yet NONE of these films (with the possible exception of Irreversible) have received the critical praise of Shortbus. Why? Because these films refuse to conform to the superficial, lackadaisical, everything will be alright in the end world that Mitchell has created in his film. The films listed above refused to conform to the sanitized way in which society views sex. Not only that, they used sexuality as metaphors, symbols, and effects of certain aspects of either the narrative or of the overall purpose of the film. Shortbus does not. In Shortbus, sex is sex, present simply for visual pleasure. As an individual who has seen countless films, both sexually explicit and not, it simply saddens me that a films which plays nothing other than a cheap trick on its audience is garnishing so much attention, but what worries me more than anything else is how many people are falling for it.
Skin-Flicks (1978)
Interesting and heartfelt.
Gerard Damiano is most famous for his films Deep Throat and The Devil in Miss Jones, but he also produced no less than 10 additional, and very original, hardcore efforts. Skin Flicks is amongst the rarest and best of Damiano's directorial efforts. The film concerns a young enterprising filmmaker trying to produce a hardcore feature. We are given insight into the making of his film, as well as a very, seemingly personal look at New York's mafia controlled hardcore film industry in the late 70s.
Damiano paints a devastating portrait of what it was like to produce a GOOD hardcore film, or more precisely, trying to be a good filmmaker in an industry whose main concern is sex.
Tony Hudson gives an excellent performance as the struggling director, and Beth Anna, although given only a very small role as an actress involved in the industry, displays true acting ability. Her main scene might be one of the most memorable in this entire film as she, quite realistically, portrays how one would suppose an actress in the industry would conduct herself. She also delivers the films most memorable line (one which must have undoubtedly sent the films producers into a frenzy) "some men like it when I shaved my p---y, it makes 'em think they're f-----g a little girl!"
Hudson's character almost resembles Damiano himself (who, by the way plays a mobster) in that he, like Damiano, is a real filmmaker having to put up with the constraints of the industry and the mob.
Damiano's character though is certainly one of the oddest characters ever to grace the set of a hardcore film: he plays a mafia man, concerned only with profit, never art, strange considering that this film was in fact mafia financed. The pictures and technical aspects are just as good as any Hollywood production, and the main fault is the all-too-frequent sex scenes which disrupt the narrative flow of the story, which is well written and developed.
Another wonderful aspect of this film is the wonderful musical score which fills every scene. Probably composed by Damiano regular Alden Shuman, it is filled with cool jazz themes, 70s exploitation tunes, and great disco numbers, and most certainly warrants its very own vinyl release.
Historians note: The poster for Shaun Costello's Waterpower can be spotted on the wall of Savage's office.