Was there ever a worse filmic sub-genre than the late '60s, early '70s genre known as "art porn"? These were still dirty movies. They just made you wait 20-30 minutes in between the sex and nudity - and in the case of Radley Metzger, generally interposed something between you and the good bit, or focused the camera somewhere else. Wow. That's arty. "Man".
I guess the actual movie, or at least the "art" part, was whatever was going on during those long breaks in between sex scenes. What was going on in those scenes, you ask? Um, generally just rich people wandering around doing and saying nothing of interest.
I assume this is what made these movies "arty" - or what fooled audiences into thinking that that was what they were. You see, if something happens that has no apparent meaning or purpose... it must be art. At least, that is what you are supposed to think.
There are movies with excess sex and nudity that were nevertheless fantastic movies aside from, or despite, this content. Try "Turkish Delight", "In the Realm of the Senses", "The Dreamers", "Shortbus". I think in the '60s they hadn't yet realised how to pull off a serious movie with sex.
This one seemed to be "about" some rich kid from America who goes to Rome where he meets a bunch of rich types and goes to parties and whatever... but I think it was really about one of the women he meets, who has a few other guys circling around her. It's hard to tell. The focal point seems to be the environments, rather than the people in them.
The movie makes you wait almost half an hour before it shows you even one breast. Nothing happens in the meantime.
And it doesn't even give you a good look. I guess that's another arty affectation: if we don't properly SHOW the nudity, it must really be about something else, right? ...Right...?
The movie's first sex scene has the lady with some guy in a room full of mirrors. These mirrors actually prevent us from seeing what's going, but perhaps we're supposed to be impressed with Metzger being able to hide the camera. You have to admit that a straight-up porno movie probably wouldn't be able to conceal the camera in such a room. But then, they'd focus on the people in it, and thus probably wouldn't need to hide the camera...
Metger's chief method of hiding the dirty nature of his movie is to focus on something else while sex is supposed to be going on. In another scene, the camera focuses on a flower, going in and out of focus, while we hear some traditional female panting and moaning sounds.
When we finally get to a sex scene we can actually make out, we get what might be the next arty contrivance, and it's strange to behold... the couple don't move. Everybody knows that the only way to simulate sex is to fake thrusting along with the moans and gasps. The movie just shows two people lying on each other. It's weird. It's like they don't know how to do it properly. Maybe they saw a drawing of the missionary position in a book, and didn't realise that movement is also involved.
The scenes of drama and dialogue in this movie come to absolutely nothing. They are just wastes of time. The movie has no real story, nor any characters.
There is a climactic scene at a party-cum-orgy in which some people are shown to have sex while others wander around or stay still. AGAIN, you can barely make out any nudity, and the sex seems completely inert.
Unfortunately, Metzger did the same thing in "The Lickerish Quartet": he filmed actors and actresses poorly simulating sex, and didn't bother to give us a good look. This may have fooled late '60s audiences into thinking they were seeing something more sophisticated than your average porno flick. But I wonder if even they were fooled into thinking they'd seen a good movie?
I guess the actual movie, or at least the "art" part, was whatever was going on during those long breaks in between sex scenes. What was going on in those scenes, you ask? Um, generally just rich people wandering around doing and saying nothing of interest.
I assume this is what made these movies "arty" - or what fooled audiences into thinking that that was what they were. You see, if something happens that has no apparent meaning or purpose... it must be art. At least, that is what you are supposed to think.
There are movies with excess sex and nudity that were nevertheless fantastic movies aside from, or despite, this content. Try "Turkish Delight", "In the Realm of the Senses", "The Dreamers", "Shortbus". I think in the '60s they hadn't yet realised how to pull off a serious movie with sex.
This one seemed to be "about" some rich kid from America who goes to Rome where he meets a bunch of rich types and goes to parties and whatever... but I think it was really about one of the women he meets, who has a few other guys circling around her. It's hard to tell. The focal point seems to be the environments, rather than the people in them.
The movie makes you wait almost half an hour before it shows you even one breast. Nothing happens in the meantime.
And it doesn't even give you a good look. I guess that's another arty affectation: if we don't properly SHOW the nudity, it must really be about something else, right? ...Right...?
The movie's first sex scene has the lady with some guy in a room full of mirrors. These mirrors actually prevent us from seeing what's going, but perhaps we're supposed to be impressed with Metzger being able to hide the camera. You have to admit that a straight-up porno movie probably wouldn't be able to conceal the camera in such a room. But then, they'd focus on the people in it, and thus probably wouldn't need to hide the camera...
Metger's chief method of hiding the dirty nature of his movie is to focus on something else while sex is supposed to be going on. In another scene, the camera focuses on a flower, going in and out of focus, while we hear some traditional female panting and moaning sounds.
When we finally get to a sex scene we can actually make out, we get what might be the next arty contrivance, and it's strange to behold... the couple don't move. Everybody knows that the only way to simulate sex is to fake thrusting along with the moans and gasps. The movie just shows two people lying on each other. It's weird. It's like they don't know how to do it properly. Maybe they saw a drawing of the missionary position in a book, and didn't realise that movement is also involved.
The scenes of drama and dialogue in this movie come to absolutely nothing. They are just wastes of time. The movie has no real story, nor any characters.
There is a climactic scene at a party-cum-orgy in which some people are shown to have sex while others wander around or stay still. AGAIN, you can barely make out any nudity, and the sex seems completely inert.
Unfortunately, Metzger did the same thing in "The Lickerish Quartet": he filmed actors and actresses poorly simulating sex, and didn't bother to give us a good look. This may have fooled late '60s audiences into thinking they were seeing something more sophisticated than your average porno flick. But I wonder if even they were fooled into thinking they'd seen a good movie?