snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > NFBSK

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 04 May 2007, 06:40 PM
Bryan With a 'Y''s Avatar
Bryan With a 'Y' Bryan With a 'Y' is offline
 
Join Date: 11 January 2007
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 2,608
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
Likewise, althogh I've never looked for them, the bruises people (who also presumably never saw the film) claim exist are not immedeatly obvious to the viewer.
They were to me. They were most clearly visible on her thighs.

When I saw it in my youth, that was one of the first things I noticed. Rather spoiled the experience for me. After that, instead of feeling aroused, I was just confused as to why they would be shooting the movie with a black and blue actress. When I read about it later, it rather cleared things up.
I'm not trying to fault you for missing it, but I didn't find the signs of her abuse that subtle or well hidden.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04 May 2007, 06:44 PM
matches
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
Or, most likely, they didn't give a sh*t, which is pretty common in the mainstream sex industry (actually in mainstream sex, it's pretty common).
Entierly possible, except that at the time there was no mainstream sex industry. The existance of such an industry relates directly to the production of this film, which is why it is important. As I said, I there were other actresses available Marilyn Chambers springs to mind, who would have been available for the role had the producers felt that the use of this actress would impead the commercial success of the film.

This was not a film intended for the red light district, but instead for mainstream america, although the producers no doubt were not the best judges of the situation, it is doubtful that they directed a woman they thought was there under diress in their film. There are many reasons not to get involved in such situations, (such a person would likely be highly unreliable if nothing else) and many reasons why the producers wouldn't have had to (the number of other women available for the role).

It is definatly probable the producers didn't care enough about the well being of their actors, though I doubt the producer of Batman Begins worried too much about Katie Holms' relationship either. It is not their job to stage intereventions, it is their job to make films. That being said, had they had reason to doubt Ms. Boreman's authenticity, it is likely they would have recast her, it just wouldn't be worth it to deal with someone in that situation on a film set.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04 May 2007, 06:48 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
It is definatly probable the producers didn't care enough about the well being of their actors, though I doubt the producer of Batman Begins worried too much about Katie Holms' relationship either.
And that person isn't dealing with sex, which, like it or not, is different in our culture than acting or doing other jobs. As a result, that ups the responsability of both purvayor and consumer.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04 May 2007, 06:59 PM
matches
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
I'm commenting on enjoying it after you're aware of the issue.
It should not be banned, but it shouldn't be promoted as 'A cheery slice of American culture' or material for masturbation. It should be promoted as a striking representation of the intersection of real-life and fantastical misogyny.
The film itself is not particularly misogynistic, in fact it is filled with a 1970's prosex/profeminity vibe.

The real life misogyny of Ms. Boreman's husband not withstanding, the film should be viewed as what it is, a peice of cinema from a bygone era the encompassed what were perceived as the moral virtues and attitudes of the time within a subset of the larger social community.

Honestly, I am unsure anyone uses Deep Throat for anythign other than a conversation piece or a study piece in rather progressive cinema studies classes. As I stated before the sex in question is rather tame by today's standards and fairly nonerotic, unless you fall into a particular fetishistic catagory of involving softdrinks, or body hair.

The Idea of a woman becomeing a sex therapist in hopes of finding someone who cain aid her own sexual dysfunction was presented as an empowering choice made by the main character. The feminist idea at the time being that female sexual liberation was tied directly to the notion of female political liberation. This notion rises and falls regularly among feminists, but was on the upswing at the time.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04 May 2007, 06:59 PM
Bryan With a 'Y''s Avatar
Bryan With a 'Y' Bryan With a 'Y' is offline
 
Join Date: 11 January 2007
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 2,608
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
Entierly possible, except that at the time there was no mainstream sex industry. The existance of such an industry relates directly to the production of this film, which is why it is important. As I said, I there were other actresses available Marilyn Chambers springs to mind, who would have been available for the role had the producers felt that the use of this actress would impead the commercial success of the film.
IIRC, btw, they didn't write this film and then look for an actress to cast. Ms. Boreman was forced to develop her deep throating skills by her husband for use in prostitution. He showed her off to the filmmakers, and that inspired the film.

Mariliyn Chambers was an interesting example for you to choose, though:
Quote:
Marilyn Chambers was Chuck Traynor's protege after Boreman, and Traynor himself told Vanity Fair magazine (Marilyn Chambers' interview, with Chambers on the cover) that he thought nothing of slapping his woman if she said something he didn't like.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04 May 2007, 07:11 PM
matches
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
And that person isn't dealing with sex, which, like it or not, is different in our culture than acting or doing other jobs. As a result, that ups the responsability of both purvayor and consumer.
Absolutly, but again you come back to a question of sex in the arts in general. No actress takes off her clothes unless she feels she is gaining something from the exchange, either fame in low budget pieces, or additional income in high budget peices. Does the added cash incentive then become coercion?

Certainly the producers should have done more work to ensure the safety of their workers, certainly modern producers should do as much as well. In all situations however there is a limit to what anyone can do. It was suggested that Ms. Boreman activly disuaded some who had concerns from thinking she was not a willing participant. In such a situation, what can be done? And once the product is complete and in the cannon of American Cinema should it just be ignored as new facts come to light? Again I return to the notion of Birth of a Nation. A horrific film in story, and quite frankly cinematography by today's standards, but it is the first film of its type, and so we study it and try and understand what it's deeper meaning as art is. I think the same can be said of Deep Throat, the Devil in Miss Jones, or Behind the Green Door. These were all films from a unique point in history, and the tell us a great deal about our world today.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04 May 2007, 07:14 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
The film itself is not particularly misogynistic, in fact it is filled with a 1970's prosex/profeminity vibe.
No. It's misogyny through a prosex lens. Sorry, but the concept of a clit being located in the back of the throat could easily be argued as a maculinist construction of sex. Often, misogynistic attitudes in sex work are veiled as pro-woman. Doesn't mean they're not in existance, or that, even if they aren't directly intended, they encouarge misogyny.

Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
Honestly, I am unsure anyone uses Deep Throat for anythign other than a conversation piece or a study piece in rather progressive cinema studies classes. As I stated before the sex in question is rather tame by today's standards and fairly nonerotic, unless you fall into a particular fetishistic catagory of involving softdrinks, or body hair.
As already stated on this thread, people generally watch it for the camp values. And they aren't analyzing it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
The feminist idea at the time being that female sexual liberation was tied directly to the notion of female political liberation. This notion rises and falls regularly among feminists, but was on the upswing at the time.
Matches, it kinda tickes me off when you lecture me on my own field. Ya think you can knock it off as a favor to me? Please?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04 May 2007, 07:17 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
Absolutly, but again you come back to a question of sex in the arts in general. No actress takes off her clothes unless she feels she is gaining something from the exchange, either fame in low budget pieces, or additional income in high budget peices. Does the added cash incentive then become coercion?
It certainly can. I'd say its highly dependent on the circumstances, and would be a decision best left to, perhaps, a psychological professional.


Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
In such a situation, what can be done? And once the product is complete and in the cannon of American Cinema should it just be ignored as new facts come to light? Again I return to the notion of Birth of a Nation. A horrific film in story, and quite frankly cinematography by today's standards, but it is the first film of its type, and so we study it and try and understand what it's deeper meaning as art is. I think the same can be said of Deep Throat, the Devil in Miss Jones, or Behind the Green Door. These were all films from a unique point in history, and the tell us a great deal about our world today.
You totally don't read what other people write, do you?

I repost what I posted at 11:37

It should not be banned, but it shouldn't be promoted as 'A cheery slice of American culture' or material for masturbation. It should be promoted as a striking representation of the intersection of real-life and fantastical misogyny.
'
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04 May 2007, 07:21 PM
matches
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan With a 'Y' View Post
IIRC, btw, they didn't write this film and then look for an actress to cast. Ms. Boreman was forced to develop her deep throating skills by her husband for use in prostitution. He showed her off to the filmmakers, and that inspired the film.

Mariliyn Chambers was an interesting example for you to choose, though:
That is an interesting aspect of the story that I was unaware of, however, I am certain that finding another actress capable of reporducing the skill would not have been impossible had it proved unwise to use Ms. Boreman.

As to my choice of Mariliyn Chambers as an alternative, I chose her because unlike Ms. Boreman she is still involved in the industry, and therefore pressumably had a differnt experience in it than Ms. Boreman, that both were under the influence of Mr. Traynor at the start of their careers makes for an interesting case study about how differnt people react in similar situations. Ms. Chambers seems to have nothing negative to say about her early days in the industry, though perhaps her current role as a presenter, and nonsexual performer (Arguably rising to the role of madame) is the cause of her more sunny disposition on the subject.

Honestly, I am hardly what you would call a porn afficienado, I know about the industry through my study of film in general, and I approach the works in the context alone. From that point of view, I really don't worry about what occurs off camera, and am judging the product on its merits alone for what it is.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04 May 2007, 07:24 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
That is an interesting aspect of the story that I was unaware of, however, I am certain that finding another actress capable of reporducing the skill would not have been impossible had it proved unwise to use Ms. Boreman.

It really isn't something that's commonly comfortable or safe for women, which, judging from mainstream porn, and thanks in part to this film, you'd think we were all dying to deep throat. Many men seem to think this too, from the general head grabbing and pushing that goes on, esp. with inexperienced males.

SOrry, but art has responsiblity. If you, as an artist, choose to ignore your responsiblity, you should expect criticism.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 04 May 2007, 07:30 PM
bthyb's Avatar
bthyb bthyb is offline
 
Join Date: 31 January 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8,886
Default

It almost feels like hijacking, but to get back to the OP...

I haven't seen Deep Throat but I did see a documentary about it called Beyond Deep Throat that is available through Netflix.

According to the documentary Deep Throat was a phenomenon. The theaters (at least the NYC porn theaters) were full showing after showing, and full of so-called normal people, even celebrities - this wasn't an underground film.

Once it was available on video I'm sure many people snapped it up because of the buzz. And because of the buzz this film was bought by more than just the normal porn-buying audience, whatever that was.

So you can't really evaluate the potential gross of this film by the standards of other porns - it was much more than just a porn film at the time.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 04 May 2007, 07:37 PM
Bryan With a 'Y''s Avatar
Bryan With a 'Y' Bryan With a 'Y' is offline
 
Join Date: 11 January 2007
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 2,608
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
That is an interesting aspect of the story that I was unaware of, however, I am certain that finding another actress capable of reporducing the skill would not have been impossible had it proved unwise to use Ms. Boreman.
Possibly, but that doesn't mean she was cast for artistic or even businesslike reasons. Here's one account of her casting:

Quote:
Traynor and Lovelace got their big break at a cocktail party for swingers where they met Gerard Damiano, a director of softcore porn who was casting hardcore scenes for a new movie called Changes. Damiano was so impressed with Lovelace that he wrote a script especially for her. That script would become Deep Throat, but first Damiano would have to convince his Mafia bosses to use her.

Louis "Butchie" Peraino was the Colombo associate who had to approve the budget for Damiano's Deep Throat script, and the 300-pound "Butchie" was not impressed at first by Lovelace. He knew her as the star of the M series of loops. He wanted Carol Connors, a big-breasted blonde, to play the lead in what was, for him, a major investment of his father's money. But he changed his mind when Damiano had Lovelace demonstrate her sexual technique for him.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 04 May 2007, 07:41 PM
matches
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
Matches, it kinda tickes me off when you lecture me on my own field. Ya think you can knock it off as a favor to me? Please?
That was not meant as a lecture to you, obviously I expect you to undestand that, however it is a public message board, and I felt that the additional line of information would have been helpful to complete my thought to someone reading who was unaware of this notion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
It should not be banned, but it shouldn't be promoted as 'A cheery slice of American culture' or material for masturbation. It should be promoted as a striking representation of the intersection of real-life and fantastical misogyny.
I do undestand that you do not advocate the banning of the material, however once one crosses the rubican of saying a piece of work is unacceptable the natural progression is toward censorship. That you seek to limit the way in which the material is viewed, suggests a move towards censorship of the material. The film is "cheery slice of American culture" regardless of the story of it's creation.

There is a story, though perhaps apocraphyl, of the grandmotherly model in Norman Rockwell's painting of a Thanksgiving Dinner, collapsing of a heart attack due to his harsh abuse of his models (standing for 8 hours straigh while holding a 40lb turkey on a tray infront of her). If this story were true does that make the art itself nolonger a peice of art idealizing the "Rockwellian American Family"? I would argue the art exists outside of its creative process. Just as Burroughs can be enjoyed by people who don't find his lifestyle choices pallitable, or Ian Rand can enjoyed even if you find her political ideal repulsive.

The misogyny of the subject matter of the film is debatable. The deformity can be seen as a fantasy of female subjegation, or it can seen as a tale of female sexual empowerment, of taking control of your own body and not simply relying on someone else to happen upon what fullfills your sexual desires. Given the tenor of the times, I would think the intention of the producers of the film, was capture the later idea, although the former may have influenced them as well. Of course there is not a way to know for certain what their personal motivations were aside from money.

There were many men who welcomed the sexual liberation of the 70's because it meant an easier time getting sex, certainly the producers were among them. However simply enjoying the results of the sexual revolution doesn't mean they did not understand, in their own way, the spirit of ideal.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 04 May 2007, 07:52 PM
matches
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
SOrry, but art has responsiblity. If you, as an artist, choose to ignore your responsiblity, you should expect criticism.
I am unsure what responsibilty Art has except to be hung on a wall. Art should not be concerned with who it offends, or how it is made. Certainly outside of the artistic judgment of a peice, you should prepare yourself for criticism if your project violates laws or basic human dignity. For the adult industry however, such concerns blend into the background of the general milue of antiporn rehtoric.

The facts of the case seem to be that the artists had limited reason to assume Ms. Boreman's lack of willingness to participate in the peice. That she has since renounced the work makes for a tragic footnote to the peice, however the peice itself is unrelated to the story of its creation.

This film is not high art, nor is it particularly good porn, what it is is a window into our modern culture at its inception. The tragedies surrounding the film should no more take away from (or for that matter add to) its existance as a film, then the tragedies involved in the filming of other films, (The Crow, Twilight Zone, etc.) should add or take away from thier role in the canon of film.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 04 May 2007, 07:56 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
That was not meant as a lecture to you, obviously I expect you to undestand that, however it is a public message board, and I felt that the additional line of information would have been helpful to complete my thought to someone reading who was unaware of this notion.
thank you for clarifying. Your reading, however, is incorrect. Female sexual liberation is always in favor with feminists. What is often not in favor is the "anything is liberating" attitude, since "anything" so often mirrors male-centered sexuality.




Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
That you seek to limit the way in which the material is viewed, suggests a move towards censorship of the material.
No it does not. Any more than being sure to acknowledge the racism inherent in Gone With the Wind censors that piece.



Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
The film is "cheery slice of American culture" regardless of the story of it's creation.
Cheery, no. Slice of culture, yes. Regardless of the abuse it depicts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
f this story were true does that make the art itself nolonger a peice of art idealizing the "Rockwellian American Family"?
I don't think an analysis of the piece would be complete without acknowleging the hypocracy therein.

Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
I would argue the art exists outside of its creative process.
Perhaps, but not outside of culture, and its effects thereof.

Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
Ian Rand can enjoyed even if you find her political ideal repulsive.
Psst. Ayn

Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
However simply enjoying the results of the sexual revolution doesn't mean they did not understand, in their own way, the spirit of ideal.
Even if they did, that doesn't mean that the charges of misogyny are unwarrented.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04 May 2007, 08:03 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
I am unsure what responsibilty Art has except to be hung on a wall.
The responsiblity is in what it communicates, same as any other text.



Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
Art should not be concerned with who it offends, or how it is made.
It should be concerned with what it promotes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
For the adult industry however, such concerns blend into the background of the general milue of antiporn rehtoric.
So they are lazy and unconcerned?



Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
however the peice itself is unrelated to the story of its creation.
I disagree, as her abuse was intergral to the concept of the piece in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04 May 2007, 08:29 PM
Bryan With a 'Y''s Avatar
Bryan With a 'Y' Bryan With a 'Y' is offline
 
Join Date: 11 January 2007
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 2,608
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
Art should not be concerned with who it offends, or how it is made.
Normally I would try to debunk a sweeping overgeneralization like that with an absurdly exagerrated case, e.g.: "So you're saying that a film dramatizing a woman being raped should be judged the same as a film of a woman actually being raped?"

I can't do that here, because that absurd example is exactly what we're discussing.

Leaves me somewhat at a loss.

I think, however, that it's disingenuous to link the first part of that sentence with the second. Not being concerned with who your work offends is hugely different from not being concerned with how your work is made, and I don't see how you can lump them together. Makes it look like a last-ditch effort to duct -tape this onto a strawman first amendment issue.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 04 May 2007, 09:20 PM
matches
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan With a 'Y' View Post
I think, however, that it's disingenuous to link the first part of that sentence with the second. Not being concerned with who your work offends is hugely different from not being concerned with how your work is made, and I don't see how you can lump them together. Makes it look like a last-ditch effort to duct -tape this onto a strawman first amendment issue.
Perhaps, I am being unclear in my defense of the peice.

It is not that I particularly defend the actions of the producers. I really don't know exactly what did and did not happen, what they were and were not aware of, and what they interpreted from what they witnessed.

Simply being aware of an abusive relationship that your actor or actress is involved in is not necessarily a) your business as a producer or b) reason to suspect your actor or actress is being held against their will on your set.

If the producers were aware of what Ms. Boreman endured during the filming and how it related to the project they were producing, it is sad that they did nothing to remedy the situation.

That being said, the work itself, in my mind exists beyond the story behind its creation. Obviously it is hard to seperate this work from its story as they are intertwind in certain ways, however I think that the art , such as it is, needs to be understood devoid of its back story.

Many many classical, modern, and popular artists were awful human beings. That should not take away from the art they created.

That a painting was made by Hitler for example (uniformly bad paintings I might add) should not influence ones analysis of the peice. That the artist is also a heinous human being is trivia, and sepeerate from the art's criticism.

That Ms. Boreman endured these horrors during production again is simply a note on the film, not something that adds or detracts from the film. A viewer should observe art for its own sake and make a judgement about it as art, not because its politics or its story offends you.

Wagner is said to be an anitsemite but his work is still beautiful. You can judge Wagner as an antisemite, but it is much harder to judge him as a composer. Granted his operas are long and sometimes tireing or even boring, but that is a judgement that you should make seperate from your judgement of his politics.

Again, this is a harder situation in which to do so, but I think to be honest, one needs to. To judge art by its creators or its origin story is to make the art seperate from it's purpose which is communication.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 04 May 2007, 10:12 PM
Bryan With a 'Y''s Avatar
Bryan With a 'Y' Bryan With a 'Y' is offline
 
Join Date: 11 January 2007
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 2,608
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matches View Post
That a painting was made by Hitler for example (uniformly bad paintings I might add) should not influence ones analysis of the peice. That the artist is also a heinous human being is trivia, and sepeerate from the art's criticism.
Oh, I knew we were hovering dangerously near Godwin territory here.

Leaving that aside for the moment, it's not just whether the filmakers were bad people. You want to judge their other works independent of this one, go ahead. You want to judge Hitler's paintings in a blind exhibition and get people's impressions of his work independent of the other spheres of his life, go ahead.

This isn't like that. This is more like judging something he actually painted with Jewish blood.

There's a difference between art made by a criminal and art whose production was a crime. In that respect, Deep Throat is better compared to child pornography.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 04 May 2007, 10:17 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

Dear Bryan-with-a-Y,

I notice there is a woman in your profile picture. You must get rid of her immediately as you are now my new internet-only boyfriend. (Open Mike Night: you had your chance!)

That's all,

Chloe
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.