From [email protected] Tue Jul 11 11:18:44 EDT 1995
Article: 68994 of alt.sex.movies
Path: netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.uoregon.edu!news.bc.net!news.infoserve.net!unix.infoserve.net!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Frederick Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.sex.movies
Subject: State of the biz (re;
Date: 10 Jul 1995 21:26:46 -0700
Organization: Infoserve Technology Ltd.
Lines: 150
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: unix.infoserve.net
Status: RO


To: [email protected] (Peter van Aarle)
Subject: Re: State of the biz (re;imp)

a > I don't really see many porn directors out there today who are
a > all that expert in directing the sex scenes...

July 10th, 1995
Dear Peter,

You have a good point, but it seems to me a director of a sex scene
wouldn't necessarily be offering standard `direction' (rehearsing
the actors & such), as much as being a director of the crew to be
prepared to shoot certain angles when he tells the actors to get
into certain positions.  

Truly, a good director in my book is one who choses the basic angles
- be they angles of coverage (wide or tight) or whether they'll be
up or down.  I can't say how many scenes I've seen where I could
tell the actors were really putting out the effort, but the director
ruined it by directing the cameraman to shoot all the wrong angles &
he couldn't tell the lighting was all wrong etc

Personally I think it's a waste (for which I blame the director &
*NOT* the Director of Photography or cameraman), when the Director
(who should be & *IS* responsible for calling the shots), ends up
telling the DP on a missionary or spoon shot, to shoot down - over
the shoulder of the girl towards their genitalia - or what little of
them can be seen.  Indeed, since it's then upto the viewer to use
his imagination to decide what's *really* going on, I routinely rate
such segments B1 & B2 (low & lowest).  

Similarily, I can ONLY blame the director & *NOT* the actors or
camera crew for the following example - one of the WORST I've ever
witnessed:

This is just an example, but I think you'll see what I mean -  

#!Super Blondes 1*0~*1^ 2.5H:F '88:Vid Excl Dr:Jonny Stallion 
St:S Strong\!  Michelle Mattell(aka Barbie Dahl)*
Kathy Gantre(aka Kathy Gentry)  Stella Starr!  Laurie Lai\
Blake Palmer  Buck Adams  Don Fernando  
Pr:Marc Curtis  Wr:Jeremy Stone (the editor of the AFW Directory?)
DP:Wm Elliot  Mu:Rusty Chops  Ed & Titles:Regis Black
Uncredited host Ron Jeremy intros a series of random encounters 
1c \\Samantha walks into a den in blue sweatshirt & pink shorts to
start stripping for some uncred'd dude in recliner  Then after she
removes her front closing bra & fluffs the 40cish guy, she removes
her shorts, they changes places & he eats her until she dogs B2 on
the chair (completely the wrong angle chosen by the director - NOT
Samantha's fault).  However, the piece de resistance (used in a
negative sense only), Sam RCGs B2 - the shmuck director couldn't
direct a shit to as toilet in this scene, IMHO!  Again, this was a
B@ RCG (the lowest of my segment ratings), *NOT* because of anything
Sam or the cameraman did or didn't do, but because the director
must've directed the cameraman to concentrate on Sam's face as she
bounced up & down - virtually ignoring her genitalia & leaving that
part to the viewer's imagination!   Now since this was a loop
carrier, I wasn't expecting a plot or character development, but I
was expecting to SEE sex & not to have to imagine it!

Anyway, the director finished off one the worst scenes I've ever
witnessed with yet another B2 dog   Damn!  Seldom in the course of
adult vids, has so much been promised by a luscious babe &
not been delivered - due to an incompetant director & his *8REALLY*
poor choice of shots & angles!

I'll continue with my review after I discuss my point about Sam's
poor scene - especially her atrocious RCG - if those words can even
go together  - an atrocious RCG?  :-)

Truly, I'd easily nominate this scene as an example of some of the
all time worst directing in porn & for the dreadful waste of an
otherwse very sexy actress because of it!   Hey, if I was a
professor of porn somewhere (dream on McDuff), I'd put this scene on
the required viewing list as a glaring example of what NOT to do &
what can result if the director doesn't know how to tell the camera
crew to cover the action!  Indeed, for that reason alone, I deem
this scene worth having! 

Anyway, for those who might be interested in the rest of my notes on
this vid, here they are:

2c |!Barbie Dahl* (creditted as Michelle Mattell), being sluttily
sexy with a top ponytail in a blk teddy, fluffs Blake Palmer A1 on a
plain wool couch before he A1 eats her superb unit  Then the little
screamer spreads a micro brief ^(A1+).  This shot was stretchable
with looping, but it wasn't done (I know most people don't like
looping, but in this case I'd say it was mandated - being as how it
was the best shot of her in this vid).  Finally she dogs a ~^ (near
A1+) before taking the cream on her butt 
3c |Kathy Gentry, a perky short haired blonde in a blue bikini
spends too much time fluffing Buck Adams by the side of a pool until
she lays back on a blue mat, lifts up her top & he takes off his
sunglasses to suck them  Then he eats her w/o taking off the lower
half of her suit c he just pushes it aside before he drills her A2
(there's that not quite the right angle again, but not so bad this
time - still without removing the bottom part of her bathing suit).
Finally the drector called some good & long ~A1 bottom angle shots
until she dogs B2 (he loves those B2 dogs)   CS .5 way up her back
4c \Laurie Lai, a socso light brunette, wearing a wh `Venice' tank
Tcshirt & shorts, strips them off in a flash before fluffing Don
Fernando on a couch with a multi colored cover  Then he goes
straight for the spread, but it was only an A2 show c followed by a
B2 dog until she jax him   poor scene - I blame the director again
5c |!Stella, a socso statuesque platinum blonde in purple lubie
outfit w/wh sequinned panties & heels strips off the top & slowly,
even sensuously removes them by the side of a pool before proceeding
to play with herself for the entertainment of bathing suit wearing
Don Fernando   Then she fluffs him very shortly until he eats her ~^
until she RCGs ~^ (briefly & barely stretchable) - which easily
could've been an ^ c if the director had been competant  

Man!  Again, once again a the director or really blew a fantastic
opportunity to develop some obviously willing talent!

The BV?  That's easy c Barbi Dahl, the little screamer slutty blonde
in scene 2, but the statuesque platinum blonde's strip from her
lubie outfit & micro brief ~^ RCG in the final scene was also in
contention  Unfortun-ately identifying the parts was rather tough c
especially considering the slack of role credits c either written,
oral or video  BTW, I could be mistaken about Laurie & Stella, but I
made a gut call 

N'ertheless, the waste of Samantha was nothing short of creative
criminality on the part of the director & to a lessor degree,
possibly the editor    Damn!

BTW Peter, you said Lisa Lipps is in the '94 rereleased version, but
I'm not sure who she replaces or if she's just additional  :-)

So, I don't often go into as much depth, but I hope I made my point
- namely although a director might not be able to rehearse the
actors in sex scenes, but he *HAS* the final responsibility to call
the shots & if he thinks he can delegate all those `mere details' to
his subordinates, then he misses the whole point of being the
director!  It's obviously *NOT* just to say `action' & `cut'  :-)

My apologies to ASM for the length of this post - what can I say?  I
guess I got carried away  :-)

Ciao,

Frederick  /|\ The Fujitive /|\

... How come wrong numbers are never busy?


___ Mountain Reader II - #00000017