When I was coming down the home stretch on ASHLEY AND KISHA it suddenly occurred to me that maybe we weren’t all that well positioned to reach the film’s natural audience. I was lucky to be able to call on my friends Shine Louise Houston and Jessica Holter and say, “Halp! I’m a straight white dude. How do I introduce this film to lesbians, especially women of color, without coming off like a jerk? And never mind the jerk part, where do I even start looking?”

I thought that experience left me well prepared for releasing BILL AND DESIREE, but in fact, the process of finding the film’s  natural audience has been much more difficult that with ASHLEY AND KISHA. 

The difficulty that we’ve had in finding communities devoted to older adult sexuality is echoed over on SexGenderBody.com in Arvan’s post Who am I, if I’m not me anymore?

I tried many more search terms, with largely the same result: a lot more research papers, books and committees, but not many bloggers or social sites to speak up and speak out.  So, maybe today’s seniors are on the other side of the digital divide.  Maybe they would be glad to speak up, but nobody younger than them want to hear about aging or dying.

That’s why I’m so glad we found our way to Joan Price, a writer and advocate for sex, health and fitness, and author of Better Than I Ever Expected: Straight Talk About Sex After Sixty. We sent her a copy of BILL AND DESIREE, and here’s what Joan had to say about the film on her blog:

Bill and Desiree: Love is Timeless is a remarkably tender and realistic erotic documentary about senior sex from Comstock Films. Bill and Desiree are in love, and as erotic as their lovemaking are the heart-to-heart gazes they give each other, the intertwined fingers, the way Bill’s hand lightly grazes Desiree’s breast as they talk to the camera, the gentle corrections they make to each other’s stories.

She looks in her 50s, he in his 60s, and their love is fresh and tender after 3-1/2 years together. They are buoyantly, joyously, agelessly sexual together, laughing as they make love, reveling in their connection. Much of the documentary is interview — we hear how they met, where they first made love, why they love each other, and how important sex is to both of them. The commentary is interspersed with flashes of their sexual activity.

Then, done talking, they make love… for a long time. The lovemaking is clearly genuine, no “money shots” for the camera or fake screams or bouncing boobs. Instead, we see Bill give Desiree several orgasms with fingers, mouth, and toys before getting to the main course. Although we see every body part close up, we tend to focus on the love and joy in their faces (or at least I did) more than their delightfully frisky genitals.

I liked how unlike traditional porn this film is. This is an aging couple — sexy, playful, and in love. They have body hair. They use lubricant. They make eye contact. He is dashing with his salt-and-pepper hair and fit body, and the softness of his caresses matters much more than the age spots on his hands. (She looks great, too, but I confess I spent most of my time watching him.)

Of course I’m thrilled with Joan’s reaction, but I’m also a little wistful. I know how much time and effort it took for us to find Joan, Peggy and I have a more than 25 years of internet experience between the two of us, and even so we only came to Joan’s site through word of mouth. Arvan is no internet neophyte either, and he is similarly stymied. How many other people are out there, looking, but not finding there way to Joan, or us? How many of the know that Goggle demands longer search strings to return sites like Comstock Films? How many of them even know they can change their search settings on Google? How many of them get intimidated by pop-up warnings about “offensive content” that Google pops up on blogs that deal with sexuality? And how do we overcome these and other obstacles to reach people who might really enjoy seeing our film?

Which reminds me, we sent a copy of BILL AND DESIREE to a film reviewer at AARP. I’m past due on sending him a follow up note!

MA State Rep, Kathi-Anne Reinstein

From Marty Klein’s blog Sexual Intelligence:

Massachusetts state representative Kathi-Anne Reinstein has introduced a bill making it a crime for anyone over 60 to pose nude or sexually for a film or photo. The person taking the photo—whether a lover, artist, or commercial porn maker—would also face jail time.

Adding insult to injury, the proposal amends a bill designed to punish those who make child pornography. It treats fully functional adults who happen to be over 60 the same as children under 18; it explicitly takes away their right to consent to be photographed in a lascivious way.

From the legal blog The Legal Satyricon:

Massachusetts State Rep, Kathi-Anne Reinstein (D) is targeting adult entertainment involving models over the age of 60 as well as private sexual communications between the elderly (if you can call 60 “elderly” anymore) and private sexual communications among the disabled. See State Puts Porn Pervs in Sights, Boston Herald. The measure misses the mark and as it is an affront to the dignity of the elderly and the disabled alike with a heaping helping of unconstitutionality to round out the bad legislation buffet.

And from the proposed legislation itself:

Whoever, either with knowledge that a person is a child under eighteen years of age, an elder or a person with a disability, or while in possession of such facts that he should have reason to know that such person is a child under eighteen years of age, an elder or a person with a disability and with lascivious intent, hires, coerces, solicits or entices, employs, procures, uses, causes, encourages, or knowingly permits such child, elder or person with a disability to pose or be exhibited in a state of nudity, for the purpose of representation or reproduction in any visual material, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of not less than ten nor more than twenty years, or by a fine of not less than ten thousand nor more than fifty thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

I don’t have words to describe how I feel reading this. I can tell you this.

On Tuesday I called Representative Reinstein’s office, twice. On my first call I was told that Ms. Reinstein was in a caucus, but that if I left my name and number she would call me back. I told the woman on the phone with me that I was uncomfortable leaving my name and number because her boss’s proposal criminalized my work and I was not comfortable identifying myself. I asked when I could call back and speak to Ms. Reinstein. The woman on the phone told me to call back in an hour.

An hour later I called back. Again I was told that Ms. Reinstein was unavailable. I asked if I could make an appointment for a time when I could call Ms. Reinstein to express my concerns about her legislation vis-a-vis my work and was told it was her office’s policy not to return calls if a person did not leave their number. I responded (somewhat fatuously) that the policy was unnecessary because it’s impossible to return a phone call if you do no have the person’s phone number. 

I went on to explain that I understood that as a practical matter, Ms. Reinstein had to prioritize what issues she spent time on and whom she spoke with, and that I understood that I was making it difficult by asking for special consideration, but that my circumstance was somewhat unusual, having actually produced a film featuring a 65 year old man in a sexually explicit situation; and that I hoped Ms. Reinstein could find some time in her schedule when I could call her to express my concerns.

At that point I was transfered to her Chief of Staff, to whom I restated my circumstances.

“Are you calling from New York?” Of course they had caller ID. She was going to try and play this off on the constituent angle, which is what I had been trying to avoid by not leaving my number.

“I am calling from a cell phone that has a New York exchange. I am very concerned about this legislation and how it might impact my work.”

“If you are not a resident of our district, we won’t discuss this with you.”

“I fear this legislation will have an impact beyond Ms. Reinstein’s district, and beyond the state of Massachusetts, and I think it would be helpful for Ms. Reinstein to hear my point of view.” 

 At this point Ms. Reinstein’s Chief of Staff said something that indicated that the discussion was over, and that I would not now, nor ever be speaking with her boss.

“That’s an interesting way to address my concerns.”

And then she said it again, and then she hung up the phone.

Calling Ms. Reinstein’s office made me nervous. Contemplating publishing  this post makes me nervous. There’s a voice in my head saying “Why draw attention to yourself. You can do more for yourself and your beliefs by keeping your head down and making more films. The best response to Ms. Reinstein’s legislation is to make another joyful, artful, consensual film featuring adults she would presume to protect. Maybe it’s time to make a sweet, sentimental and sexy film about a pair of wheelchair bound lovers in different states who use the internet  as a way to enjoy each other’s sexual company.”

And then I hear Desiree’s voice. If I don’t call Ms. Reinstein’s office, then who will? If I don’t write and publish a blog post explaining that it scares me when I read things like Ms. Reinstein’s proposed legislation and makes me think it might be better to find another line of work, who will?

Another wonderful review of BILL AND DESIREE: LOVE IS TIMELESS, this time from Sabrina of SabrinaInStockings.com. As with the last review I posted, I don’t have much to say, except that I’m thrilled that this film touches people the way it does!

I wasn’t sure what to expect from this DVD to be honest. It was my first time watching a Comstock Films erotic documentary, and while I have a great appreciation for the art of expressing subtlety and intimacy in erotic video I wasn’t sure that I was the right person to review a portrait of real sex and intimacy between an older couple.

Score one for discovering latent preconceptions and score two for blowing them out of the water.

It was the humor that drew me in, the humor and their personalities. (I laughed out loud at Bill’s retelling of his admiration for Desiree’s “perfect” pussy. And then, having seen it, had to agree.) They’re a naturally funny and charming couple - I found myself thinking how fun it would be to have them over for dinner, drinks and poker. Or go hiking. Bill and Desiree are very enthusiastic people - about their community, about nature, about art, about sexual exploration and about each other. It’s infectious and utterly endearing.

You can tell they’re in love. It’s the way she watches him when he talks, not the camera… the way he touches her shoulder casually, like she’s a part of him. There’s a sweet touch of worship in the way he speaks of her - and she radiates it back joyously. They had been dating only three weeks when strangers were asking them how long they’d been married.

At this point in the interview Bill pulled out his book - as in, one he’d written - and uttered a phrase I’d never heard in an erotic movie before: “This is actually a place where I’d like to read a poem.”

And it was a sexy poem.

The Comstocks’ filmmaking style never gets in the way of Bill and Desiree’s love story. The arousal builds slowly; cuts of love scenes are woven throughout the interview. This approach works well for relationship-oriented erotica; we get to know Bill and Desiree before we see them make love. We get to witness and understand their attraction to each other and we get to develop chemistry with them as well. A friend once told me the great weakness of erotic movies was that we’re never given the chance to find the stars sexy. We have time to see their bodies, but not to develop an attraction to their quirks and personality. Tony and Peggy Comstock give us that chance.

Comstock Films’ catchphrase is “real sex,” and this film shows the realities of sex in a relationship. Desiree and Bill talk about accepting that sometimes orgasms just aren’t going to happen but enjoying the sex anyway; they emphasise that “peak experiences are just that” but that even “boring” sleepy sex is worthwhile. It’s about sharing pleasure, staying connected.

And then it’s the quiet of the camera and their kissing, laughing and undressing… hands and smiles and the camera just glancing over their bodies, like a lover does, rendering faces and sensual movement just as visually important as genitals. The Comstocks know when to focus on Desiree’s face, on the energy of her pleasure, then back to Bill’s hand inside her natural pussy. Their sex flows back and forth, exchanges of pleasure, peaks and valleys… it’s not at all about a pop shot, it’s very unscripted. Their lovemaking flows naturally from their creative, exploratory sexual energy.

Bill going down on her dildo was a very cool scene: unexpected and sweetly kinky. It brought back happy memories of my own.

In “Bill and Desiree: Love is Timeless” the Comstocks have successfully created three things: an erotic film, a relationship documentary and an explicit love story. It’s difficult to master even one. This is not a forgettable explicit movie to be deleted after viewing. You will be aroused. You will also be affected. The words and the images of Bill and Desiree’s love scene will stay with you. You’ll watch it again, and be moved again by that same playful passion…

This is what real sex looks like. Hands clenching, faces scrunched up, unexpected orgasms… tangled up in clothes and in laughing, playful sexual energy. We’re so afraid of sex fading away when we take off our band t-shirts and put on the real world. If this tender sexual exploration is what we’re all dreading then frankly I can’t wait.

My glib but true answer for why I make films is that there are things I want to express about sexuality, intimacy and cinematic eroticism that I cannot express with words. 

After reading Domina Doll’s review of BILL AND DESIREE: LOVE IS TIMELESS words fail me again, except to say thank you for taking a chance on this film, and for seeing it with the kindest of eyes.

I didn’t know quite what to expect when I received “Bill and Desiree: Love is Timeless” by Comstock Films for review.  Would I enjoy watching “older lovers” in their “later years” making love on film?  Well, within the first few minutes my doubts were eased as I watched Bill passionately recount how he and Desiree first met and how he was “blown away” by her “beautiful genitals” in the pre-sex interview.  I was immediately drawn into the film through Bill’s joyful candor and enthusiasm, who is like a school-boy enamored by new love.  I thought: “This is not going to be your typical film.”  And, it definitely isn’t.  Bill and Desiree have much to share with the viewer through their celebration of sex, love and desire, with a few erotic revelations thrown in that might surprise you as well.

Bill and Desiree are an attractive 50-something couple who are recreational naturists and happened to meet at a “clothing optional” event.  Bill is charming, endearing and gregarious; a bohemian poet who is thrilled to be in the prime of his life.  Desiree is exquisite (Bill refers to her as a “Goddess”) with a lovely glowing face, expressive eyes and an animated smile.  You can immediately tell that they are each other’s “soul mates” as they reminisce about their “delirious” love making on their first real date in Sam Taylor Park under the Redwoods where they are stumbled upon by a spotted-owl researcher.

During the interview, they talk about the importance of human touch and how they stay connected through what Desiree calls “a daily nourishment”.  Bill also discusses how mainstream pornography and sexual “how-to” advice can be damaging as it sets unrealistic goals to perform and try to achieve magic every time.  “Peak experiences are just that,” says Bill, “Not every experience is Mount Everest”.  What I learned through watching Bill and Desiree is how accommodating and self-less they give themselves to each other, not always interested in orgasm for themselves, but delighted to give each other pleasure and enjoy what they receive with so much gratitude.  This is the way relationships should be and I have to thank Bill and Desiree for sharing their respect, love and passion with the world, for it is so inspiring and wonderful to see.

Another aspect of their relationship is that they approach their lovemaking as an adventure, constantly trying new things.  Bill laughs as he tells the viewer about Desiree making love to him with her strap-on, then later in the film gives her dildo a blow-job as they giggle blissfully.  They use a lot of variation during their lovemaking scene, switching sexual techniques and types of foreplay with penetration and back again.  This takes the pressure off Bill to constantly perform as their desire gains momentum through sensual valleys and rapturous peaks, building until their ultimate climax.

Everything they do, they do with exhilaration and wild abandon.  They explore their sexual love like children who are delighted and amazed by everything they see and touch.  I had a perma-smile welded on my face as I watched them make love with such tenderness: their smiles, laughter and joy radiating out of the screen to affect me as well.  It was so powerful and beautifully poignant to watch their sweet ecstatic moans and tearful orgasms as they convulsed with ecstasy.

This film could not have been made by anyone else.  Tony Comstock’s camera-style invites you in-close and intimate-focusing on the joy on their faces, the tenderness with which they hold each other’s hands, the gaze in their eyes as they immerse themselves in their shared moment of bliss.  Comstock uses what I call a “haptic” style of cinematography, in that the lighting is soft and muted with a somewhat diffused quality and close-up sensuality that evokes the sense of touch.  Unlike mainstream porn that is glaring, stark and in your face, Comstock’s films seductively roam the bodies of their participants like a lover’s touch, moving in and out of focus, in a way that highlights the physical beauty between two lovers and celebrates sexual intimacy as an art form in itself.  In this way, Bill and Desiree become more than just the components of their sexual moving parts, as their emotional, spiritual and amorous bond transcends the screen.

“Bill and Desiree: Love Is Timeless” is a magnificent film: a sexual tapestry of touch, unconditional love, and vivacious desire.  This film should be a part of the curriculum in Sex-Ed classes and is a must-see for all couples regardless of age.  It will inspire couples how to stay passionate, vibrant and innovative in their approach to love and sex, no matter at what stage they may find themselves on their journey through life.

For those of you who’ve come back hoping for the answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything, aka Part 3 of How Film Festivals and Distribution Deals Kill Independent Film, I got an amazing, almost providencial inquiry from an Slovenian feminist/alternative/LGBT film festival that more or less proves everything you’re going to read in Part 3 as absolutely and unfailingly true and the key to your happiness and success as an independent filmmaker.

But that’s not what I’m writing about today. Today is a regurgitation of Blowfish’s very very nice promotional write up of BILL AND DESIREE: LOVE IS TIMELESS.

I did the same thing almost three years ago for their write-up of DAMON AND HUNTER in a post entitled “Blowfish Gets It.” Of course one of the things I meant by that is that Blowfish gets what I was trying to do in DAMON AND HUNTER. But I also meant that Blowfish gets what I’m trying to do with these film. But even more than that I meant that Blowfish gets this whole selling sexuality thing. Blowfish was the first place I ever bought lube and a silicone dildo (c. 1997); and Blowfish was the first US retailer to buy our first film (MARIE AND JACK in the Spring of 2003).

Six years and five films later, and after some BIG changes in the sexuality retailing landscape, Blowfish still gets it. Blowfish still has their eyes on the prize. I couldn’t be happier with what they have to say about BILL AND DESIREE. From their weekly newsletter (which you should subscribe to!)

What’s on TV?

The essence of Tony Comstock’s films is quite simple: these are documentaries about people in love, making love. Bill and Desiree: Love is Timeless differs from other installments in the series in that it features an older couple (who happen to be recreational naturists). Bill is a fairly distinguished-looking guy with a white beard and white hair, while Desiree is a lovely woman who’s remained beautiful into middle age.

The discussion about the way they met (at a clothing-optional event) is sweet and weird and funny, as when Bill says, “I was just blown away by her genitals . . .. They were the most beautiful things I’d ever seen . . .. I actually went home and wrote to friends about them.” I guess when you see each other naked straightaway it removes certain obstacles to connection . . . They met again at a hot springs resort and spent a night together, and proceeded to hike around Northern California and make love outside. (Occasionally stumbled over by spotted owl researchers and the like.) They have some adorable bicker-banter too, with her correcting details in his stories — and, clearly, they’re very comfortable with each other, and very much in love. They definitely have a California bohemian post-Hippie sort of vibe — he even reads a poem he wrote about her (at the moment you can even buy his poetry collection at Amazon.com).

And they’re not totally vanilla, either — they tell a story about her fucking him with a strap-on, him giving her fake cock a blowjob, etc. As usual in these films, the first half is a conversation, the recounting of a love story from two separate but overlapping points of view, and the second half is fucking. The sex is hot — they’re experienced, they laugh a lot, and they’re clearly very much in love. (And, indeed, she wears a purple Feeldoe dildo, which he sucks, making it one of the kinkier films I’ve seen in this series.) Like other Comstock films, this is a sweet, sexy, intimate glimpse into real-life lovemaking.

Hard to think of a way to preface this, except to say “Wow! Thanks!”

From Wired Weird, a Top 100 Amazon reviewer:

According to Tony Comstock (the director), “At the time of production he was about 65 and she was just turned or about to turn 50.” Love, even sex, even really good sex, isn’t just for the twenty-somethings. This handsome couple proves that in their joyous lovemaking.

Comstock has developed a winning format. Like his other films, the first half presents the couple talking to an unseen, unheard interviewer. They talk about meeting, then meeting again, then how their relationship blossomed (or exploded) into being. Quick cuts during the interview show moments from their bedroom scene, then return to the couple talking. Throughout that interview, the radiant smiles on their faces suggest the heat of new love - but they had already been together for years when that was taken.

The second half of each Comstock film follows the two through their intimacy, from undressing (and her getting knotted up in her T-shirt), through their play and peak, to a limp, loving cuddle afterward. Even with their lines, spots, and other marks of age, they make a handsome, even beautiful and graceful pair. And a happy pair - they laugh and giggle throughout, unable (and unwilling) to keep that huge happiness bottled up.

Lots of us knew it already, but the message needs to be heard more: There is life, and love, and some howling good sex after 40, and 50, and 60, … Bill and Desiree make that statement beautifully.

From Gary J. Meyer:

In Love Is Timeless, Bill and Desiree blow away all preconceptions about what a sex video looks like, combining laughter, love poetry, and lube in a celebration of — make sure you’re sitting down for this — vanilla, middle-aged, long-term partner sex. Playful, joyous, generous, these two attractive, articulate lovers reclaim physical intimacy from tedious porn stereotypes. And make it okay to have a tummy!

The format of this 56-minute video is simple and elegant: the first half mostly interview with tantalizing glimpses of the love-making to come and the second half sex that’s magical and sweet and silly all at the same time. Desiree and Bill demonstrate that sex needn’t be goal-oriented and orgasm-fixated. It can have multiple uses and outcomes, from sharing rapport to spiritual redemption. It’s a process, not a payoff.

Desiree sums it up: “If some people aren’t willing to be seen, how do we learn? How do we get comfortable with who we are as sexual creatures?” The lessons here are powerful and vital in favor of a sex positive, pleasure positive world view. Love Is Timeless deserves the widest possible promotion. Spread the word!

From Richard Pasco:

Bill and Desiree are to be commended for an excellent video.

I bought my lover and myself a copy of “Love is Timeless” for Christmas. We watched it together and were delighted. Their sharing of their love was a wonderful inspiration to us.

We share and applaud Bill’s and Desiree’s belief that lovemaking is to be celebrated and shared, not hidden away. In a society where any such sharing is condemned as “porn” it’s hard to be clear about purpose, but indeed they were: Their video joyfully celebrates their sacred union and is a polar opposite of movies in which actors “perform” for pay and entertainment purposes. What a wonderful intimate sharing!

I don’t remember the dates, but my memory has it that I attended one or move of the workshops where their love began. It’s been a joy to be a part of their lives, even if in a small peripheral way. A year ago, I first read poetry from Bill’s book “May Touch Redeem Us” with my lover, who especially appreciated Bill’s “live” reading to Desiree on the video.

When I first learned that Desiree was a grandmother I asked “How come grandmothers weren’t so sexy when I was a kid?” Desiree’s grace and charm forever changed the way I thought about mature women.

We are joyful at Bill’s and Desiree’s intention to replace ignorance and fear with awareness and love. We were grateful to be included in their lives in this way, and eager to practice what they had so lovingly demonstrated.

And from long time friend of our efforts, Ellinoz:

It might be about my own age or a higher than usual level of real life empathy with the film’s subjects but I felt a strong connection to Tony Comstock’s sixth film in his Real Sex, Real Life, Real People erotic documentary series - Bill and Desiree: Love Is Timeless.

And connection, rather than age is what Bill and Desiree is about. Age isn’t how they define themselves. “Lovers” is how they define themselves - they are givers and receivers of pleasure, lovers with a deep connection. Other than a quip at the beginning about an indistinct memory or interpretation of a memory which in my experience happens with lovers of any vintage, there’s little talk of age. There’s a good deal of very charming talk about love and pleasure and connection and the whole film has a wonderful romantic comedy feel about it.

Bill and Desiree have a gorgeous calm and wise presence on camera. Viewers will empathise when they talk of the warmth and security of being loved by someone who truly knows you, being seen and heard and loved, when Desiree comments to Bill “You know me” we understand that she means deeply - “You know me.” - it’s a powerful moment. When she says, “I’ve never been loved like this, or felt this kind of love before,” I felt myself nodding in knowing agreement.

Comstock’s camera work capturing pleasure on the faces of Bill and Desiree is some of the best I think he’s done, here he has perfected his documentary technique - gently taking us to where we can read Desiree’s delight at Bill’s caresses, anticipating Bill’s responses and skilfully catching loving looks between them, - they appear radiant, often lost in each other and in the moment. It’s quite something to bear witness to - it’s joyous and moving and very erotic.

At a personal level it’s a hopeful or hope filled movie - as my sweetheart and I approach middle years I guess I’m relieved and excited that love and sex can flourish no matter what age. I’ve known that in my heart, but as we rarely if ever get to actually see what real sex and real love looks like between people of any age, Bill and Desiree serve as proof for me - beautiful, life affirming, sexy proof.

Of course I’d like this to continue! Nothing but five stars forever. But it won’t. For some people our films are “meh” and every now and then someone will really get upset by one of our films.

(I had one fellow call me on the phone and demand a refund for “Xana and Dax”. When I told him I was very dissappointed that he did not enjoy our film, but that there is no way a filmmaker can run a business if people get to decide whether or not they pay after they see a film, and pointed out that you don’t go up to the box office and demand a refund after you see a movie, he got even more upset and threatened to call his credit card company! He really didn’t like Xana and Dax!)

But that’s the way it is when you take your ideas and put them out for public consumption. If enough people say “Yes! This! More!” you count yourself lucky, and do your best to let the rest roll off your back!

And Peggy and I really are lucky. Of course it’s upsetting when someone hates what you do, but that’s the rare case. Overwhelmingly we get wonderful feedback on our films, and that support is what has given us the emotional and financial strength to tackle (for lack of a better word) “less obvious” subject matter. Our friend above aside, lots of people said lots of really wonderful things about “Xana and Dax”; and lots of people bought the DVD. That support gave us the chance to make films like “Ashley and Kisha” and “Bill and Desiree”; to follow my instincts as an artist, and make the films that I wanted to make.

Speaking of support, reviews like the above really do help our bottom line. Good reviews boost our Amazon sales (and poor reviews certainly don’t help.) If you’ve watched and enjoyed any of our films, please consider taking a moment to go over to Amazon and write a review for us. A couple of minutes time on your part will make it that much easier for me and Peggy to concentrate on making films. Just follow the link provided below!

Comstock Films Erotic Documentaries on Amazon.com

It’s a big weekend for us over in Amsterdam at Jennifer Lyon Bell’s “Rated-X: Amsterdam Alternative Erotic Film Festival”. Over the next couple of days we’ll have three films screening: Matt and Khym: Better than Ever; Bill and Desiree: Love is Timeless; and Damon and Hunter: Doing it Together.

In the last decade, film festivals have sprung up like mushrooms all around the globe, devoted to every genre imaginable. Yet erotic film festivals remain a rarity, with only three or four world wide, most of which do not make it into their third season, mostly for the simple reason that after the first or second year, there simply aren’t enough serious erotic films for a festival director to put together much of a program.

Every couple of years we’re “treated” to the arthouse film directors’ vision of sexuality: bleak, alienating, and joyless; and of course the world is awash in transactionalized, dehumanized pornography. But the dearth of films that depict the normal everyday experience of sex begs the question - why is sex depicted the way it’s depicted in movies? Where’s the joy? Where’s the humanity? Where’s the pleasure?

It’s not a new question.  Film critics, anti-pornography crusaders from the left and from the right, and even filmmakers themselves have all taken their turns trying to answer this simple yet vexing conundrum: If sex is (mostly) so good, why are films about sex (mostly) so bad?

I think these explanations miss the mark because they focus too much on human intentions, and not enough on the legal and economic climate in which movies are made. Even the smallest film is a vast economic undertaking when compared to painting or writing; and you can’t simply make the film you want to make.

To be viable as a creative artist, you have to be viable as a commercial entity. However noble (or ignoble) a filmmaker’s intentions, simply wanting to make a film is not enough. Equipment must be rented, cast and crew must be paid, the lab bill comes due. 

In looking at the legal and economic climate in which erotic movies are made, the  tireless efforts of our namesake Anthony Comstock still cast a long shadow over our culture, and more than 80 years later, Justice August Hand’s unfortunate choice of word about the “intent to arouse” are still being mouthed as if they are an original thought,

But today, I thought it would be worth taking another look at this post from August 7, 2007 about the transition from the Hayes Code to the MPAA’s modern four-tiered rating system. It’s a story about economics, demographics, the sexual revolution, good intentions, bad intentions, and (by my reckoning at least) a pretty good explination why, if you want to drinking and dancing with your wife, there are plenty of perfectly respectable “adults only” joints, but “adults only” in movies means something entirely different.

 How “X-rated” Came to Mean “Porn” and the Death of Movie Making for Grown-ups

The poster for LAST TANGO IN PARIS, including X-rating symbol
(click to enlarge)

Fad23 is absolutely right. The X-rating was a part of the MPAA four-tier system first introduced in 1968.

But unlike G, PG, and R, X was not a trademarked MPAA property. The X rating was conceived of by the MPAA as a rating meaning ‘not suitable for children’ that could be and was self-applied by producers who did not feel their film needed and/or warranted a less restrictive rating.

But there have always been films deemed “not suitable for children,” and long before X or NC-17 there was an “adults only” classification, given to films like DUAL IN THE SUN, BABY DOLL, SUDDENLY LAST SUMMER, TO EACH HIS OWN and others that, by the standards of the day, were deemed to be inappropriate for children.

But in the 1950’s “foreign films”, made outside the (self imposed) Hayes Code that governed Hollywood production, began to make their way into the US. These films frequently addressed issues of sexuality in a manner that was far more frank than the coded subtexualized language required to address adult themes within the strictures of the code.

Poster for THE LOVERS, the film at the center of Jacobellis v. Ohio.

The 1950s also saw the breakup of the studio system, particularly the vertical integration of production, distribution and exhibition, which considerably loosened control on what theaters could and would screen, and by the 1960s cultural mores had shifted to the point that the old production code was becoming increasingly irrelevant. In response code was revised in 1966, and in 1968 the production code was abandoned in favor G,PG, R and X system (originally G, M, R, X.)

But it’s important to remember that from the start, the X-rating was always intended as a rating that could be self-applied by producers, and unlike G, PG, and R, the MPAA maintained no control over the X rating as a trademarked property. It’s also important to remember that when the system was introduce “X” had no special stigma, any more than the previous rating of Adults Only rating give to DUEL IN THE SUN, et al.

Around the same time, there were court decisions established the legality of both producing films depicting actual sex acts and showing them in theaters. This new legal climate gave rise to the open production and theatrical screening of films featuring depictions of actual sex acts. Because X, which meant “adults only” was a self-applied rating, producers of these films were free to give their films an X-rating with or without the MPAAs approval.

At first this was done to give these sexually explicit films an air of legitimacy, but with no control over who could or could not use the X-rating it quickly became associated with very low-budget products concerned with little more than creating a vehicle for the presentation of explicit sex. It was at during this time that films like MIDNIGHT COWBOY, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, and others moved to have their ratings changed from X to R. Sometimes this was done by petitioning the MPAA to re-evaluate the rating, sometimes by simply editing out the “offending material”.

The stigma of the X-rating was further deepened when some producers began using XXX an gimmick to communicate that their films were especially raw or filled with sex, as opposed to merely X-rated, which could and did refer to films (such as MIDNIGHT COWBOY or A CLOCKWORK ORANGE,) that were unsuitable for children, but contained little, if any, explicit sex or nudity.

42nd Street, circa 1975 (click to enlarge)

This was also a time when many urban areas were in decline, and many theaters were turning to sexually explicit movies to draw audiences to theaters that would otherwise have been empty (think Times Square in the 70s.) In response, theater landlords began to write “no x-rated films” into their leases. Also theater chains enforced “no X” policies on their fanchiseese, and many newspapers had “no X” advertising policies.

Now remember, R means a film may be suitable for suitable for children when accompanied by an adult; X meant a film is not suitable for children at all. The concept of an “adults only film”, a concept that had existed from the beginning of commercial cinema, suddenly collapsed. It became impossible to advertise or exhibit a film that that was not suitable for children. For a film to be able to advertise in most newspapers, or play in most theaters, it had to have an R-rating, and that meant the omission of any element–sex, violence, language, drug use–that was not suitable viewing for children.

This collapse was not some grand conspiracy on the part of the MPAA to put an end to films for grown-ups. It was the result of the collision of changes to the MPAA ratings system, court decisions that allowed the production and public exhibition of films featuring depictions of actual sex acts, demographic and social changes that altered theater going habits, and the odd quirk that the MPAA had allowed their X-rating to be “public property”.

As a result, the X-rating was more or less abandoned by all parties. Hollywood producers weren’t going to invest millions of dollars in a film that couldn’t be advertised or screened in legitimate venues, and restricted their “adult” efforts to R-rated films. And producers of sexually explicit film and videos preferred to label their product as XXX, rather than the seemingly milder X. According to their own website, no films were rated X by the MPAA during the entire decade of the 1980s, (and virtually none in the 1970s.)

What that means is that for 20 years, all films produced by the Hollywood establishment that were produced within the confines of what could conceivably be shown to children. Moviemaking for grown-ups died.

Poster for HENRY AND JUNE, 1990, NC-17

In 1990 the MPAA attempted to reestablish a “legitimate” adults-only movie-making space with introduction of the NC-17 rating. Not wanting to repeat their mistake with the X-rating, the NC-17 is a trademarked property that can only be used if you submit your film and advertising to the MPAA process. But it was too little too late.

Not understanding the history of the X rating, and convinced that the MPAA was simply trying to put a new name on porn, most exhibition and advertising venues simply re-wrote their rules to prohibit the exhibition and advertising of NC-17 films. To this day some of America’s largest theater chains will not exhibit NC-17 movies, and many of America’s largest media outlets will not accept adverting for NC-17 movies. A few NC-17 art-house films were made, mostly in the nineties, and in 1995 MGM/UA gambled (and lost) on the NC-17 rating with the laughably bad big budget feature SHOWGIRLS. But in this decade (2000s), only a small handful of films have been rated NC-17, (including our own MARIE AND JACK: A HARDCORE LOVE STORY.)

Now lest I be seen as an apologist for the MPAA, I think they were slow to understand what was happening to the X-rating, slow to take action, (nearly 20 years!) and when they did finally introduce the NC-17 rating, they did “drop the ball”. More over, as far as I can tell, they’ve done precious little since then to correct their mistake.

These days there’s very little movie-making that is truly for grown-ups. Even “serious films” that have no interest in attracting a teen audience have to be made “suitable for children” to avoid the dreaded NC-17, so even “realistic adult dramas” have an odd lack of candor in the way that sex is depicted visually.

The situations are adult, the language may be frank, but the sex and nudity is strangely demure. Sex is always under the covers, or with the lights low, or the camera-angles are cheated just enough to the left or the right to preserve the all important R-rating.

As a result we have a cinematic landscape where every other aspect of the human experience is rendered in vivid detail (with often a special fetishization of violence,) but the simple truth of what people look like naked, or what people look like when they give themselves over to sexual desire remains largely unexplored by filmmakers, and remains largely unseen by audiences.

Production still from MARIE AND JACK: A HARDCORE LOVE STORY, 2002, NC-17

Reactions are coming in for our new film BILL AND DESIREE: LOVE IS TIMELESS, and I couldn’t be happier. BILL AND DESIREE is the sixth of our erotic documentaries, and from the beginning I’ve hoped that these films would be understood as something more than an erotic morsel. I’ve hoped that between the love and the loving, these films communicate something about how deeply essential and about deeply consequential sex is.

Maybe that’s asking too much from such small, simple movies. But reading how people are reacting to BILL AND DESIREE, I can’t help but feel hopeful!

AAG, still healing from a painful divorce, was especially touched by Bill’s love poem:

Near the end of the interview, Bill opened a book of poems he wrote for Desiree.  Oh no, I thought.  I cannot bear this.  Sentimentalism of any sort horrifies me.  But then Bill began to read:

A Small Poem about Tenderness

Tonight I would be the provider of solace, the caregiver,
in the face of all that had afflicted you this day.

But when you took me fully in your mouth, small,
yielding, your encompassing warmth and sweetness

without urgency or agenda, every door opened,
every hurt and hesitation was healed. I gave myself

up to you, and you gave me myself, whole and at peace.
Would you like to be inside? you asked, looking up

from your giving. And in a moment you were above me,
radiant, wordless, emptied of urgency and injury,

and this thoughtless joy rose in my bones, this joy
conceived in love, refracted in your eyes, easy as breath.

Each day, each enfolding night may we come to each other
healed, jubilant and patient, each day of all the days

we may be graced with. May no hurt ever be stronger
than the simplest act of love. May touch redeem us.

I watched with tears on my cheeks.  This is what I was missing.  This was why the divorce had to happen.  The children don’t understand now — and oh God I hope they never understand — but I know.

From Ell at Wilful Damage, a sense of seeing her own love affair with her husband of 20 years reflected in the film:

Bill and Desiree have a gorgeous calm and wise presence on camera. Viewers will empathise when they talk of the warmth and security of being loved by someone who truly knows you, being seen and heard and loved, when Desiree comments to Bill “You know me” we understand that she means deeply – “You know me.” - it’s a powerful moment. When she says, “I’ve never been loved like this, or felt this kind of love before,” I felt myself nodding in knowing agreement…

It’s a hopeful or hope filled movie – as my sweetheart and I approach middle years I guess I’m relieved and excited that love and sex can flourish no matter what age. I’ve known that in my heart, but as we rarely if ever get to actually see what real sex and real love looks like between people of any age, Bill and Desiree serves as proof for me – beautiful, life affirming, sexy proof.

From Ms.Naughty, reassurance for me why making these films matters:

In the epilogue to the sex scene, Bill and Desiree say they decided to do the film because so few people get a chance to see real intimacy. “If some people aren’t willing to be seen,” says Desiree, “how do we learn? How do we get comfortable with who we are as sexual beings?” 

Bill and Desiree: Love is Timeless is worth seeing because it’s a perfect portrayal of real sex. It’s the kind of sex I recognise, that I have and that I know other people have. The techniques may be different perhaps, but it has the same vibe, the same hotness and fun and love. The fact that this kind of movie is so rare makes it all the more valuable.

And if getting older means having sex like that, well, bring it on.

Despite living in what at times seems like a sex-saturated culture, there is still a strong undercurrent that tells us that prioritizing sex is silly and selfish. Yes, there is sex all around us, but mostly it is presented as some sort of baroque pantomime or garish burlesque. Sex is trivialized, infantilized, and mocked. As a filmmaker I feel this current pushing against me, and sometimes it feels as if it will pull me under and sweep me away. Sometime I feel foolish for devoting my life to making films about sex.

But not today.

Today I am reassured. Today I am hopeful. Today I am redeemed!

So yesterday YouTube decided that our trailer for “Bill and Desiree: Love is Timeless” was not appropriate content, and removed the clip. Against what YouTube does consider “appropriate”, it’s a hard decision to understand, except against the broader understanding that sexual pleasure, even in the most pro-social context is still the ultimate taboo for a filmmaker.

Writers and painter have long had a wide latitude in exploring desire, in whatever context and using whatever language they like. But photographers and filmmaker are still required to limit the scope of their inquiry, lest they be subject to economic marginalization and even arrest.

The intellectual foundation for Comstock Films was laid more than 15 years, in large measure to answer my question, “Why am I, as a photographer, prohibited from trading in subject matter open to other artists?” Along the way a few things happened that changed the context and seemingly the question.

I moved from making my living as a still photographer to making my living as a filmmaker, and discovered that whatever the economic and legal limitations put on the collision between sex and the photographic image, the collision between sex and the moving image was all the more constrained.

As a filmmaker I began doing work that (sometimes) traded in quite horrific imagery. While I have been spared the trauma having a person killed in front of me while I held a camera to my face, I have documented more death and dying than was probably good for me. If it goes too far to say that I am still wounded by making these films, I am most certainly scarred.

By this time Peggy and I had begun the studies that became Comstock Films. Against the films I made about suffering and misery my question changed, “How can it be that these films filled with misery and horror have a place in polite society, but films filled with love and pleasure do not?” I hoped that these studies that Peggy and I worked on in secret would flower into an answer to that question.

But by a few years later, with the rise of the internet the question seemed irrelevant. If the films were provocative on the question of our values and norms with respect sex and the moving image, they seemed so only in the abstract. With the surfeit  of explicit and often repulsive sexual imagery widely available, if anything our films of couples in love making love seemed oddly quaint, and strangely normative.

—-

We have, in our norms concerning what is appropriate to show, and appropriate to see, in concerning what sort of imagery has a place in polite society, the idea that sometimes we might cast our eyes upon things that are difficult, or even upsetting; because we gain something, both in the seeing, and in the freedom to see. That whatever harm might be done by certain imagery, whatever horror might be felt, it is balanced by what might be learned, or understood.

But something has gone wrong. Somewhere along the line something has gone terribly wrong.

In yesterday’s post, along with our own trailer I posted other YouTube clips that featured sexual content so that readers might make their own judgement about whether or not the trailer for “Bill and Desiree” was in keeping with YouTube’s terms of service. But one might answer none of these clips belong on YouTube.

But in the comments I posted links to two more YouTube clips. These clips were not about love, or even about sex. They were about hate, and violence and death. 

The first an execution of three people by hanging:

The second shows the murder of a teenaged girl by a mob:

How did we get here? How did we arrive at this place where we accept that even in its horror,  a video of a girl being murdered by a mob of angry men has a place in polite discourse, but a nine second glimpse of a couple making love, shot from the side and showing no more detail than what one might see on any beach, does not. How did we get here?

How did we get to this place where we are so concerned with the possibility of accident exposure to sexuality that we are willing to excise “clitoris” from all “SafeSearch” returns? How did we get here?

How did we get here? And how do we get out? How do we get to somewhere with some semblance of sanity? Those are the questions I’m asking today. And I hope in some small way my films are part of the answer:

Yesterday we put up a trailer for Bill and Desiree on our YouTube account. Today YouTube deleted the video for a TOS violation. Here’s the trailer, off our own server:

Here’s a College Humor clip from YouTube.com that’s received over 4,000,000 views:

This is what YouTube has to say about sexuality and nudity:

YouTube is not for pornography or sexually explicit content. If this describes your video, even if it’s a video of yourself, don’t post it on YouTube.

Most nudity is not allowed, particularly if it is in a sexual context. Generally if a video is intended to be sexually provocative, it is less likely to be acceptable for YouTube. There are exceptions for some educational, documentary and scientific content, but only if that is the sole purpose of the video and it is not gratuitously graphic. For example, a documentary on breast cancer would be appropriate, but posting clips out of context from the documentary might not be.

Of course anyone who’s clicked around YouTube knows there are all sorts of “sexy” video clips on YouTube, so before we put up the trailer we clicked around a little to get an idea of where YouTube draws the line. Here’s a little of what we found.

A bit from a Lindsey Lohan movie:

At the end of the Lohan clip, YouTube suggest we might be interested in this Japanese schoolgirl fetishist clip:

At the end of the quasi-pedophiliac video, YouTube thought we might be interested in a little sex ed:

Then YouTube thought a testicular exam was in order:

And then finally this clip, mislabeled “Britney Sex Tape”:

After watching the above clips, you might feeling a little confused about what is and is not acceptable on YouTube. The trailer for “Bill and Desire” does not show full nudity. There are no female nipples shown, and the swell of Desiree’s breast is barely discernible between her and Bill’s bodies. There is no pubic hair and no genitals. There are no buttocks or ass-cracks. In short, there is no objective difference in the degree of nudity shown in the trailer for “Bill and Desiree” and these other clips that YouTube is hosting. But YouTube has an answer:

Please take these rules seriously and take them to heart. Don’t try to look for loopholes or try to lawyer your way around the guidelines—just understand them and try to respect the spirit in which they were created.

That clears it right up, doesn’t it. Like YouTube’s parent company Google, YouTube favors pranksterism over candor. The College Humor clip shows just as much skin as our trailer, but it’s meant as a joke, so that a-okay. Lindsey Lohan’s orgasmic moaning and groaning is okay because we know she’s faking it. The pedophiliac fetish schoolgirl clip – even the part with “POV” intercourse between the videographer and the model – is okay because she’s wearing white cotton panties and covering her breasts with her hands. The penile exam clip is just fine because it’s medical.

Oh, speaking of medical, next month “Bill and Desiree” will be playing for faculty and clinicians at the Martha Stewart Center for Center for Living at the Mt. Sinai Medical Center.