Below all of my text is a little tidbit of the Fangoria interview, with yours truly. Even if this issue has flown off the newsstands in your area, you'll still be able to get a copy of #323 on Fangoria's website! I love the tag lines, "The Passion of Amy Hesketh", and "An American filmmaker pushes bloody boundaries in Bolivia". Seriously love this (as well as the alliteration)!
I read an article today (click here for the link) about how Lars von Trier is super-imposing the genitalia of porn actors over his own actors for the sex scenes in his new movie, Nymphomaniac.
Is this cowardly, and done just for shock value, as my friend @alanbnogueira tweeted? Or was this a compromise made in order to have the scenes he wanted, with the cast he wanted? With names like Charlotte Gainsbourg involved, it begs the question.
This was rather prevalent to me since, last week, the Bolivian TV station ATB interviewed us about the "type of films we make". We asked what the show was about, they waffled around a bit and said something about "erotism in film". We did the interview, talked a bit about the erotic scenes in our movies, how we feel about that, how others feel about that, etc. Basically, I told them that we make art, artists/actors use their entire bodies as their "medium". Therefore, nudity is not the subject, nor the object, but the vehicle for expression. I was stating the obvious.
So, later that night Jac and I sat down to watch the show, and lo and behold, the feature was about pornography. Due to the shoddy journalism involved many viewers were left with the impression that we were making pornographic films. This would not bother me if we were actually making porn.
What bothered me is the fear the TV people apparently had at coming out and telling us about the content of the show. That was cowardly and unethical. They attempted to clear it up the following night with a statement basically saying that "(the filmmakers) in last night's feature contacted us to say that they don't make pornography". Whatever.
Was this just shoddy journalism, or are people here really that intimidated and unable to understand the movies we make? I'm not talking about all people, there are many educated, intelligent people in this country.
The only intelligent speakers on the show were three women who were very good at defining what pornography is and isn't. Citing Georges Bataille, and the Marquis de Sade, among others, as examples of eroticism, not pornography. Better.
This does bring up that age-old question, though: How far will (or should) an actor go in the name of art? Personally, the only reason I would be opposed to an actual pornographic scene in one of my movies is what most people fear with any casual sexual contact with someone else, disease. I do not demonize sexual acts. Sex is part of who we are as human beings, and quite often the motivating factor for many of the zany things we do in life.
Other than my neurotic fear of disease, I don't see why it's such a big deal. I enjoy portraying, whether as an actor or director, realism in my films.
According to TV and some movies, one would think that men never touch women's breasts, and that women never take their bras off during sex.
So including real sex acts in a film about one woman's sexual journey, is completely justifiable. What would have happened if some of Lars von Triers actors had said, "Sure, ok, let's do it!". Would the world have ended? No. Would some closed-minded people have thereafter demonized these actors? Perhaps, but we also would have gotten over a huge (pardon the pun) hump in filmmaking. And I don't know why Lars would be worried, because many people already think he's crazy. There's a certain freedom in that.
When I saw Catherine Breillat's Romance, which has real sexual penetration, I was intrigued. But not scandalized. Was it important for the film, or did the director do that just because she could? I certainly don't remember the film for the sex, but, instead, the acting and character arc of the lead protagonist.
Perhaps this has something to due with how I view the medium of film. Cinema, to me, is a medium for making conceptual art. It is a translation of the story, and of the self.
I think we have a long way to go before real sex in film is no longer shocking and can be seen a simply part of the storytelling.
These observations are vintage Hesketh. They bespeak of her total commitment to what seems to be everything she does.
ReplyDeleteI think we must distinguish between graphic content and pornography. Pornography can in essence grind the film to a halt while the act is completed. Further, it has an intent to entertain through dosumentation of sexual performance.
Hesketh's cinema is not meant to stimulate her audience, nor to document. but to express herself, or her concept. Graphic sex in this context is just another mechanism by which she expresses herself.
The realism she references is her commitment to realizing another's scripted reality or her own.
It is fundamentally wrong to refer to Pachamama Films when doing a show on pornography. The product, as well as the intent, is anything but. Those ignorant of the important difference between a graphically realized imagination and pornography do the actress/cineaste and the film company - and their viewers - a great dissservice.
While I do not understand the need to graph the sexual organs of others onto actors (perhaps a misguided attempt to create or to perpetuate ideas of perfection, etc.), von Trier has used graphic sex before (in "The Idiots") without substituting body parts. While I regret his decision to do this in his latest production, we must wait to see how it all fits in to his his film, puckishly interpreting Confession in a secular light.
I would remind Hesketh to be true to herself, and pay no mind to the misunderstanding/ignorance of others, Bolivian or not.
What I most take away from your post is the cynical observation that the Media is ever-vigilent to seek out anything remotely salacious to gratify the languid voyeurism of the public and the greed of TV advertisers to sell product in commercial breaks.
ReplyDeleteSince you make media for consumption by the general public you will always face this annoyance. Hell for the Creative would be something like - You get to be Salvador Dali, but your only venue is the local garden club meeting of prozac-laden Housewives. "Say Dali, why do all the clocks look like they're melting? Speaking of melting would you like another slice of Key-lime pie a la mode?"
You get the idea,...
Please! Release more productions!
Andrew/No URL
Thank you, as ever, Andrew, for sharing your thoughts. No worries, we'll keep cranking out the films!
DeleteI must complement Hesketh on the accuracy of her comment about sex as a motivating factor. In my analysia of the process of creativity, I find sexual identity, attitudes or preference to be the single most revelatory clue as to an artist's motivation,inspiration or nature, whether acknowledged or not. There is no other aspect of an artist that reveals their core more clearly than their sexual perspectives, longings, fantasies, etc.
ReplyDeleteHesketh's observation bespeaks of her maturity, intelligence and insight. I applaud and admire her.
Thanks you very much for the words, and sentiment, Charles!
DeleteMiss Amy...
ReplyDeleteCongrats on getting due recognition. I have a question for you: In your opinion, which of your films best demonstrates your acting skills? I'm talking in terms of dialog, where your character is interacting with another character (in English). In MALEFICARUM, your performance is first-rate, but you speak little and then in Spanish. I'd like to acquire another film where you speak a lot more, in English. Which film would YOU recommend? Thanks!
N.R. Gasan/Christopher Jennings
Thank you Christopher! In my role in Barbazul I speak exclusively English. :)
DeleteIn my next film, Olalla, I'll be speaking English as well.