There’s another review for Xana and Dax up on AdultDVDTalk.com, another five stars, this time from Loraine, who some of you may know from her blog or from the Smart Girls Porn Club. Says Loraine:

“I just saw a love story. One with all the makings of a fine, sweet tale — you know how it goes — the handsome young man who spies the pretty woman at a party and smiles, but doesn’t think he stands a chance with her. The pretty woman who swoons a little when she sees him walk by, the friend who acts as the conduit for secret messages about the woman’s desire to know him and kiss him…want to know how it turns out?“Well, so did I — desperately.

(You can read the rest of Loraine’s review here.)

It’s interesting to note that Astroknight and Loraine have very different perspectives on sexually explicit films. Astro is a dedicated, long-time viewer of hardcore material, with over 1600 reviews to his credit. Loraine is a relative newcomer, on a self-described (and largely failed) quest to find “watchable porn”. Astro loves porn, Loraine is largely disappointed by it. Some (not me, of course) might even point out that Astro is a man and Loriane is a woman. But despite this “vast gulf” that separates them, Astro and Loraine agree that Xana and Dax: When Opposites Attract is something to be excited about, something that turns them on, something makes them happy.

If I seem to bristle at the label “porn for women” it’s because that seems to imply that in making a film that someone like Loraine can enjoy, you can’t make a film that someone like Astro can enjoy too. I don’t think this so. Men and women enjoy sex. Men and women enjoy watching movies. And if you make a good movie about sex, men and women will enjoy that too!

-T.C.

I am pleased to report that Xana and Dax: When Opposites Attract has been accepted for inclusion in the Library of The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction.

-T.C.

XonAir.com is a big internet retailer, one of the biggest in fact. They deal with thousands of titles, so they were not one of the place we concentrated our earliest marketing efforts.(We were afraid we’d get lost in the shuffle.) But once we had a little momentum with Marie and Jack: A Hardcore Love Story we made an approach and they gave us a healthy first order (and have gone on to become a steady customer). Now for the surprising part: Not a week after recieving Marie and Jack they wrote us a note asking how soon Xana and Dax would be ready. They wanted it on their Web site as soon as possible.

Well when someone is that interested in a title that’s not even finished, you sort of feel torn been getting something out the door as quick as you can, and taking the time to make sure you give them something you’re proud of. In the end, pride won out and we made them wait, about 8 months to be exact, and by the time Xana and Dax was finally something we were ready to put out in the world, XonAir.com had almost forgotten about the film. Almost, but not quite.

This week I gave them a call, reminded them of their early interest in Xana and Dax and let them know that it was ready to go. “Yes, please send us a box!” and Xana and Dax: When Opposites Attract is already up on their site.

It’s also a good lesson. When you’re a tiny little company, doing something that no one else is doing, it’s easy to get discouraged. You hear “No, not what we’re looking for, not what we can sell” a lot. But if you stick with it, maintain your standards, and don’t give up, eventually even the big boys will begin to take notice!

-T.C.

Blowfish was the first US company to take a chance on Marie and Jack. Back when other companys were saying “it’s too short,” or “it’s too talky,” Blowfish said, “Wow, we’ve never seen anything like this, we like this, we want to sell this!” So it give me special pleasure that they are also the first retailer to get Xana and Dax: When Opposites Attract up on their site. Says Blowfish:

Xana is a buxom blonde who knows just what she wants; Dax is dark, slender, and young and eager. They make one of the most visually pleasing couples we’ve seen in porn in a long time, and they are hot, hot, hot together. This is what “real couples” sex video should be like: a fun interview, and really good romping. Not a trace of “porn movie” surrounds this: you’re watching two really good-looing people in their bedroom. Great production quality rounds out a wonderful release.

Highly recommend, two fins up!

We couldn’t be happier!

-T.C.

Well about all I can think to say is hoo ray!

One of AdultDVDTalk’s most prolific reviewer, Astroknight (with over 1600 reviews to his credit) just put up a review for Xana and Dax: When Opposites Attract and it’s very positive – five stars positive to be exact! From the conclusion of his review:

Xana and Dax: When Opposites Attract is another fantastic release from Tony Comstock. The sex has the great feeling of chemistry that makes so many amateur movies so enjoyable, but Tony takes things one step further by making sure you know the people before they ever have sex. He also helps things out by capturing it with an artistic eye and editing it together extremely well. Xana and Dax’s sex comes across as a thing of beauty and love, and is captured so well that I almost felt like a voyeur watching them. With Xana and Dax: When Opposites Attract Tony Comstock has put out a second movie that’s worth buying even if you have to live on Raimen noodles and Kool-Aid for a week.

You can read of the rest of Astroknight’s very kind review here.

Thank you Astro!

-T.C.

When I first concieved of doing sex films that were so deeply rooted in the joy and pleasure of real sex between real-life lovers, more than anything else I wanted to create something that would be fun for lovers to watch together, something that would make the viewers feel good about the people they were watching, feel good about themselves, and feel good about the person they were with. I wanted the audience’s dicks to get hard and their pussies to get wet. I wanted these films to a be hot and wholesome celebration of vital goodness of sex.

The first wave of Xana and Dax DVDs went out last week, and now the first wave of customer responses in coming back in. By permission of the sender:

My young man and I were welcomed home after a weekend visiting friends with X&D in our mailbox–after sleeping on a rather public fold-out couch for 3 nights, we happily “reunited” to the lovely sites of Xana’s voluptous booty and Dax’s perfect member. Hurrah! So sweet, so sexy, just so very nicely done.

Oh, and the previews look great too!

The writer didn’t go into detail about what went on during her “renuion” with her young man, but I think we all get the general idea. I really couldn’t ask for a better “review” than that!

-T.C.

Xana and Dax: When Opposites Attract ships today. At this very moment, as a matter of fact. Some of you should have it by the weekend.

Enjoy!

-T.C.

Woah. A lot of (maybe too much) ranting on here about porn philosophy and film theory. How about some ranting about something measurable and quantifiable. How about a little on why todays porn looks the way it looks?

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING FOCAL PLANE

Even 70mm film, used in Hollywood epics (the cinematic standard is 35mm) is a pretty small negative compared to what is used to produce a lot of the high-end imagery we see. Despite claims to the contary, 4″x5″ film is still the industry standard for most commercial photography. 120/220 twenty is used where speed of loading is important, but even there the RZ and GX680 are more popular that Hassleblad because (in a rectangular crop) the negative is nearly twice the size. When you see the same subject shot with both 35mm and 4″x5″ there’s just no comparing the sharpness and and detail of the smaller negative to the larger negative. In other words, in photography, size matters.

To create the “illusion of sharpness and detail” in the cinematic image, one of the easiest tricks is to show some difference between what’s in focus and what’s out of focus. What’s in focus (the subject) will look sharp and detailed by comparison to what’s out of focus (the background). (There are other reasons to employ this technique, and it’s common in still photography as well.)

If you look at modern porn, especially modern video porn, you seldom see this pleasing contrast of focus between figure and field. As porn (both moving and still) has become more and more dependent on consumer gear, it has in turn become more and more dependent on gear with small focal planes. Focal planes on cameras like the Sony VX1000 and it’s decendent are about 1/3″ inch measure diagonally. “Palmcorders” have even smaller chips, a tiny as 1/5″ diagonally. Compare that to the 1/2″ or more commonly 2/3 inch on broadcast video equipment, or the approximate 1″ diagonal measurement of non-anamorphic 35mm wide screen. That means that when you see smut shot on a Sony PDX-10, the total area of the film plane is less than a tenth the area of a broadcast video camera, and about 4% the size of the cameras that are used to shoot your favorite T.V. shows or movies. As I said before, in photography, size matters.

This focal plane size difference is part of why movie, TV shows, classic 70s porn and and even early shot-on-pro-gear video porn has a look to it that can’t be replicated by today’s consumer gear. Sure, the CCDs in today’s consumer cameras outperform yesterday’s professional chips in, but the chip size and lenses on these consumer cameras severely restricts the kinds of images that can be made. Because of the immutable physics of optics, particularly the relationship of angle of view, focal plane size and depth of field, this effect difficult, sometimes impossible to achieve shallow depth of field with small focal plane consumer video cameras.

The distinctive look of small focal plane photography has uttlerly changed the face of porn. I suppose whether or or not you like that change is largely a matter of personal taste. I don’t. Resolution issues aside, deep focus shows all the clutter in the background. When pornographers are savvy enough to attend to this, they clear out everything, so the sets in “high-end” porn always has a stark, sterile look. You’ll never see the pleasingly art-directed cluttered background of a “real movie” because all that clutter (that helps create a sense of place and mood) looks terrible when it’s just as in focus as everthing else. (For the same reason that large diamonds cost much more than small diamonds, there will never be large CCDs (these perform the same function as film in a film camera) in consumer gear, nor will consumer gear have higher quality lenses.)

And with out the soft/sharp relationship, everything looks soft, which further compounds the fact that images from this kind of gear are soft. The lenses aren’t very good, the lens flaws are spread over a proportionately larger part of the focal plane, and the tiny CCD’s gather up the image aren’t all that good. The final image has soft, plasticy sameness to it. This is a big part of what makes porn look different from everything else. It’s part of what makes people say “ewww, that’s porn.”

That’s not to say that high-end consumer gear (sometimes called “prosumer”) has no place in making pretty pictures. Both Marie and Jack: A Hardcore Love Story and Xana and Dax: When Opposites Attract were shot on the Sony DSR PD100A, a camera with a very small chip. But we had to work hard to compensate for the limitations of the gear. These days we’re using a combination of video (for the interviews, where we have absolute control over every aspect of the light) and film (for the lovemaking, which is a little more “catch it as you can.”)

Using film for the “catch it as you can” part runs contrary to a lot of conventional wisdom about where to use film and where to use video. Our reason are both technical and aestetic. More on that in another instalment.

-T.C.

My edit machine is grinding out an MPEG2 encode. If I were smarter (and a little richer) I suppose I’d have a machine dedicated to rendering and encoding. Still, there’s something to be said to having pauses built into your work flow. Life is not supposed to run at maximum efficiency.

While the MPEG stream cooks, I’d like to give you a little more from Mr. Corliss and Mr. Spencer. From the conclusion of their respective columns:

Time’s Richard Corliss
Whatever Happened to Movie Sex?

“It’s terrific that a part-time moviemaker [Nichols] has directed so many films that cogently exploring the language of sex. But it does suggest that the rest of Hollywood isn’t really trying. Seeing “Closer,” teetering from empathy to exasperation with each of its characters as one would with a real lover, a moviegoer has to wonder: Why can’t there be a dozen, a hundred films like this? Where’s the good and bad sex in movies? Why can’t directors locate where we live, how we love and lie to each other, and get closer to it?”

AVN’s Colt Spencer
Porn-Again Fundamentalism: Is Adult Entertainment Dying a Slow Death?

“It sure would be something if someone were to make an adult film today that carried the same potential for the cultural shift in ideology that Deep Throat inspired - something to really stir the pot and get people talking again. I say screw the House of Justice and the government; now is exactly the time to be making waves - when we have the most opportunity to be heard. (And remember that old adage, folks: controversy sells!) If it was done once before, it can certainly be done again. Of course, it would take something extremely original, innovative, and incendiary to ignite that kind of flame in the social consciousness again, but just think about what might happen if it did.”

Both men are pining for the same era – the early Seventies – a time when it seemed as though sex might suddenly open up as legitimate area for filmmakers to explore. Of course it didn’t. Instead of great films about sex, we got herpes, HIV, the VCR, Ed Meese, and the camcorder; and sex on film took a hard left, right into a wall. But along with all this, it is our own discomfort with what sex actually looks like; with admiting, even to ourselves, that we actually like to look.

Says Corliss, “…the camera crept in for a microscopic, medicinal close-up; and I would sit there impatiently, my eyes fixed on the red EXIT sign, wondering atavistically if the ladies would please remove their clothes.”

Says Nichols, “I think sex in a movie is boring… Sex is very powerful as part of a fantasy… But to stare directly at it is to be wasting most of what’s available in drama and in film”

The VCR and HIV played a part, but ultimately it was shame, it was fear of what others would think if we admitted we wanted to see between her legs that drove depictions of explicit sexuality off the palette of images serious filmmakers are permitted to work with. Nichols might be willing to fight for his right to show us Ann-Margret’s tits*, but only a fool bent on career suicide (or a pornographer) would fight for the right to show us her pussy. No, if you want to make a grown up film with grown up money about grown up sex, you have to shoot it from the waist up.

I’ll agree with Nichols – so far, sex in movies is boring. I don’t watch porn. It’s not because I’m a prude (clearly), it’s because it’s boring. Uncrafted? Sure. Crass? You bet. But mostly I don’t watch because it’s just plain boring. And it’s not just porn sex that’s boring. Every year or so an European art-house picture drifts across my radar, offering the promise of cunts and cocks in a real movie. But inevitably these are films about loneliness and desperation and the havoc that sex visits on people’s lives. This is not where I live, how I love, or what I want to get close to. But mostly, it’s boring. But when Nichols goes on to say “But to stare directly at it is to be wasting most of what’s available in drama and in film”, I’ve got to stand up and say “No! No! No!”

Nichol’s comment has an Icarus-like undertone that speaks volumes to what’s wrong with our public attitudes about seeing the actual mechanics of sex. If you ask the Moral Majority et. al, the very sight of a cock going into a pussy will flood your brain with erototoxins, causing permanent damage; and if you’re Nichols, the mechanics aren’t dangerous, they’re merely banal, unworthy of serious cinematic exploration and celebration.

I don’t think the mechanics are dangerous, and I don’t think they’re banal either. I like looking down when I’m having sex – I always have. I love the way my erect cock looks, I have never been anything less than thrilled by a glimpse of my wife’s pussy, and I am always captivated by the sight of me going into her. I think making love is beautiful and I think its details are beautiful too.

And I don’t think I’m alone. For whatever gets said publicly (be it self-serving hysteria or studied indifference) I think all across the world men are admiring how their wives look, legs spread in welcoming anticipation. I think all around the world women are watching their husbands stroke themselves to readiness and thinking “I never get tired of watching his cock get hard.” I think all around the world, even as their flesh melts and becomes one, lovers are making a little extra space between their bodies so they can “look down”.

Seeing sex is not dangerous; there’s no such thing as “erototoxin”; it’s safe to make love with the lights on. But neither is it banal; staring directly at it is only as wasteful as staring long and lovingly at a kiss, or a flower, or a baby. If that makes me sound like an apologist for my films, so be it. This is where I live, this is how I love, this is what I want to be close to.

-T.C.

*Having come to New York well after the demise of the revival house (another casualty of the VCR), I only know about Ann-Margret’s tits and the other delights to be found in the very gritty and very adult films of the early seventies (like Carnel Knowlegde, Sunday Bloody Sunday, Klute, etc) because my of uncle’s vast laser disc collection and his determination to see that I receive a proper cinematic education. He doesn’t like porn either. I don’t know how he feels about “looking down”.

Time’s Richard Corliss
Whatever Happened to Movie Sex?
“Contrast today with the early ’70s, when movies like “Straw Dogs,” “The Devils,” “Last Tango in Paris” and Nichols’ own “Carnal Knowledge” promised a future of truly adult depictions of sex. At the same time, the first wave of porno chic lured the curious to the burgeoning genre of hardcore. It seemed as if these two types of films might meet — that cinema might learn to depict the ordinary, universal and melodramatic collision of two bodies, two souls, in bed.”

AVN’s Colt Spencer
Porn-Again Fundamentaliasm: Is Adult Entertainment Dying a Slow Death?
[In a theater watching Inside Deep Throat]Yet, for all my nostalgic pride, I couldn’t help feeling a bit sad as well, because, as my beloved grandma might say, “They just don’t make ‘em like they used to.” I’m not trying to bite the hand that feeds me, mind you, but it must be said that - for every one above-average entry in the adult canon that treats its audience with some modicum of respect, there are at least 10 or more sub-par clunkers that treat us like we are intellectually barren zombies drooling over the television screen with one hand down our pants and the other on the fast-forward button. And personally, both me and my dick are getting a little sick of being patronized.

Mr. Corliss and Mr. Spencer couldn’t come from more different professional persectives on the subject of sex in the cinema, yet here they are, sounding remarkably alike, and remarkably like yours truly. Are Mr. Corliss and Mr. Spencer just grumpy old men? Am I just grumpy and old before my time?

-T.C.