Porn For Women
There is a paradox: on one hand, describing your work as “porn for women” seems like it’s about the best way to get mainstream ink (especially if you are a woman); on the other hand, calling what you do “porn for women” is also about the best way to force your work into an even greater isolation within the ghetto that is the porn world.I already have misgivings about the word “porn”, and I have resisted describing my admittedly sentimental work as “porn for women” – prefering “porn for people” or “films for people who like sex.” (Can you tell I have issues?) But something I wrote in my recent e-mail exchange with Dr. Chyng Sun makes me think it may be time to reexamine my resistance to the “porn for women” label, at least the “for women” part. What I wrote to Dr. Sun was this:“Whenever I make a film (whether sexually explicit or otherwise) I try to keep in mind the idea of a skeptical but open minded audience. Preaching to the converted does not interest me, nor does shouting at the opposition. It does nothing but enflame antagonisms, and worse, it’s boring – a dull and unchallenging way to work that produces strident and predictable films.”When I’m working on a sexually explicit film (or porn film, if you like) I very much have women on my mind; smart, sassy, and sexual women like my friends Ms. Ell or Violet Blue, or my own wife, or any of the hundreds of women I’ve met who love sex, and do try to enjoy what little porn has to offer them, but can’t help but be turned off by porn’s nearly constant assult on their intelligence, carnality, and humanity.It really doesn’t matter whether these women are gay or straight, attached or available. These are the sort of women that I’m attracted to, these are the sorts of women I fantasize about, this is the sort of woman I married. And I like the idea that I might be able to make this sort of woman’s panties a little damp, make her pink bits a little tingly, and make her think something like, “That Tony Comstock is a subtle and sexy fellow.” Yes, I like the idea of that quite a bit!
February 10th, 2005 at 6:52 am
“Hmmm, that Tony Comstock is a subtle and sexy fellow.”
When I invite a filmmaker and his work into my bedroom it’s nice to know that he’s given some thought to the kind of response he may wish to elicit from his audience and that he recognises that his audience may include women. I appreciate that. So do my pink bits.
As far as what you call the work — this seems like one of those complicated creative challenges you’ve brought upon yourself in creating a new genre or style of sexually explicit film. I don’t know what the answer is.
Whatever you say it is, I get the feeling people will compare or reference your work with what they know porn to be and ask how does it fit within the pre existing genres or categories (based on content,intended audience and style) until they get used to the idea of the new or they’re able to explain how it differs. That’s likely to get easier as the Comstock Collection and reputation grows. Who knows? It may require a little audience education too.
As far as I can tell, being very different from the great mass of porn offerings is a good thing and a definite selling point.
Cheers,
Ell
February 10th, 2005 at 10:15 am
“this seems like one of those complicated creative challenges you’ve brought upon yourself in creating a new genre or style of sexually explicit film.”
Blaming the victim, are we? Of all people, I’d have thougth you’d know better, Ell!
-T.C.
February 10th, 2005 at 10:26 pm
You’ll get no sympathy from me TC (well maybe a little empathy), if you want to do the maverick thing — you’ve made your bed — now get the lovers onto it and film them.
The pink bits and I await the result.
Cheers,
Ell
February 11th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
One other thing, Ell. It’s not just that I recognize that my audience “includes women” (a species of which you are a most fine example); it’s that I delight in the fact that my audience includes women, especially if those women are getting turned on. All the fun of being a cad, with none of the risk!