“I don’t care what you say about me, as long as you say something about me, and as long as you spell my name right.”

– George M. Cohan

Some of you may remember my post from last month where I excitedly announced I had been contacted by an Esquire fact checker to make sure they had my name and title correct, thus seeming to confirm that Comstock Films would be mentioned in an upcoming issue of the magazine. And in fact, Comstock Films is mentioned (and I am quoted) in Stacey Grenrock Wood’s Sex column in the July 2005 edition in which a reader asks her:

“My girlfriend wants to start watching porn together, but only of the “for women, by women” variety. Can you give me some suggestions for both titles and directors?”

After mentioning the usual suspects (plus some unusual suspects provided to her researcher by yours truly) for “porn by women, for women”, Ms. Woods goes on to say:

“If this all seems too flashy for you, you may want to try a title from Comstock Films, a company that specializes in films of real couples having real sex, documentary style. Founder and director Tony Comstock offers an alternative for those people who find themselves turned off by the established porn aesthetic: “The average person is like, ‘Well, wait a minute. This doesn’t even look as good as a Sunday-morning fishing show. I mean, I like fishing a lot, but I like sex more. How come they can’t make a sex film that is as good as a bass-fishing show?’ ” Of course, we’ve all asked ourselves that a million times, but the real-life approach has drawbacks as well. The chance of Chinese-character tattoos and yellowed futons increases by about 70 percent with this kind of thing. Basically, it all comes down to this: There’s porn, and then there are movies Diane Keaton would like. The choice is yours.”

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m excited that we’re mentioned in a publication with a circulation of 700,000+. And I’m absolutely and unequivocally proud that we make films that men and women can enjoy watching together. I even understand that Ms. Wood’s snarky tone is a part of her schtick (she used to write for the Daily Show). But as pleased as I am at getting a little mainstream ink, her write-up is a reminder that the mainstream is still a ways away from giving any serious consideration to the idea of watching (or making) films about sex.

In Richard Corliss’s article Porn Again (in which yours truly was quoted twice) Corliss managed to disavow any interest in actually seeing a film of people have sex no less than three times, and frankly I don’t blame him. Corliss (to some degree) lives in the public eye, and a desire to see graphic depictions of sex is still regarded as a slightly humiliating; one step above wiping one’s ass in terms embarrassment, one step below in terms of necessity. (I’m also frustrated that my Comstock joke has once again flown under the radar of a presumably educated and well-read person!)

Time will tell if I am, in fact, a “maverick”, or just another pornographer with a slight twist on an old idea. In the meantime, I’m going call a colleague who probably has Diane Keaton’s home address in his rolodex. Maybe we can find out if she likes our films. I’m also going to keep George’s words close to my heart!

-T.C.

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 9th, 2005 at 2:53 pm and is filed under Esquire Magazine, Press & Publicity, Real Couples, Real Sex, Stacy Grenrock Woods. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.