Smart People: Conflicting Reviews in the Blogosphere

This weekend I saw Noam Murro's Smart People (poster pictured left). I had anticipated this film's release for some time; in addition to being a fan of Thomas Haden Church and Ellen Page, producer Michael London (one of Smart People's fourteen producers) has consistently impressed me with his work ever since Thirteen and completely dazzled me with Sideways. After seeing the trailer for Smart People I became even more excited as I thought that the film remarkably sparked my interest without giving away too much of the plot. After seeing the film I had very mixed feelings and was curious to read the reviews of others which led me to the blogosphere. I was quickly able to find two reviews from two different blogs that I admire very much and, to make it all better, the authors have almost wholly opposite opinions. The first post that I found was at The New Republic's site and is by Christopher Orr, online film critic for The New Republic and former writer for L.A. Weekly, Salon, The Atlantic Monthly, and The New York Sun as well as having been the editor of The Washington Post, The Atlantic Monthly, U.S. News and World Report and Mother Jones. Orr's post, "The Movie Review: 'Smart People'" takes the negative position toward the film. The post in support of the film, "Smart People Review," from TheMovieBlog.com is by John Campea, editor of The Movie Blog and former client services director of Satellite Studios. Orr and Campea, both experts in their field, have almost diametrically opposed viewpoints on this film; my responses to their posts are offered below, as well as on the author's respective blog posts.

"The Movie Review: 'Smart People'"
Comment:
First, I would like to thank you, Mr. Orr, for your insightful and engaging contributions to the blogosphere. At the beginning of this comment I find it pertinent to state that I saw Smart People on the day of its release and with a genuine excitement for the film, but also knowing very little about it (or more accurately having a misconception about the film from seeing its trailer compared to seeing the actual film). You made some very astute observations about the film however, after reading your review, I was left wondering what your thoughts are about the importance of the film's message (or attempted message) and how that correlates to the film's overall quality. You label the film a "seriocomic tale about coping with loss and finding a balance between ambition and decency," after which you go into detail about the characters and plot of the film with very little mention of its message (for lack of a better word). What do you feel is the significance of the message of a film? Is it possible for the film (any film) to be high-quality based solely on the strengths of the message? And, finally, do you feel that Smart People, even with its shortcomings, conveyed the message that it intended to convey? In the last paragraph of your review you write, "The premise of Smart People is that even a complete jerk can have an attractive mind, that even a pedant may sometimes have insights to share. But the movie never grants us access to Lawrence's mind." You back this up by your examples of how his intelligence is never exhibited, though often commented on. It could be said that even with no examples of Lawrence's intelligence the messages of "coping with loss and finding a balance between ambition and decency" are still met. Your claims are well reasoned but I could not help but think that the discrediting of the characters does not inherently discredit the film as a whole. I would love to hear what you have to say about this and hope to hear from you.

"Smart People Review"
Comment:
Mr. Campea, thank you for you passionate and intelligent post about Smart People, as well as former well-informed posts. I feel it necessary to state that I saw Smart People on opening night. Like you I fond of Thomas Haden Church and Ellen Page (pictured right) very much, and think that Sarah Jessica Parker and Dennis Quaid have done excellent work many times over. Also like you I was very excited to see the film since the first time that I saw the trailer (though I do not share your love of Juno). In your review you write that "The one weakness of this film is the Sara Jessica Parker character," and you go on to explain that the relationship between her character (Janet Hartigan) and Dennis Quaid's (Lawrence Wetherhold) is forced and unnatural. However you also laud the character and performance of Quaid, as well as Ellen Page, Thomas Haden Church and Ashton Holmes. While watching the film, at many points, I felt that the characters were all a bit too one-dimensional, so much so that I found them all a bit forced and unnatural, and thought them difficult (sometimes impossible) to connect with. Your first paragraph under the heading "The Good" seems to go into detail that the themes explored in the film resonated with you so much that the film caused you to enter a state of self-reflection. This brings me to a question: you thought that the characters were all (with the possible exception of Sarah Jessica Parker's) well-developed and also you connected with the themes of the film, I thought that the characters were one-dimensional, is it possible to connect with a film's themes and not its characters? What relationship does a films characters and themes have, does appreciating one beget appreciating the other? After seeing the film and reading some reviews, it seems that Smart People destined to be one of those films that people will either love or hate. I am very curious to know any responses you have to this and hope that I will hear from you.

The Ruins: An Exploration Into the Post-Modern Horror Film

This past Friday night a friend and I went out to the movies. We had not checked show times and did not have much of an idea about what was playing at the time. When we arrived it was decided that we would see Carter Smith's The Ruins (for the sake of reputation I feel it necessary to clarify that my friend picked the movie). To be honest I was mildly excited, I had not heard or read any reviews and had not seen the trailer too many times; the experience began to remind me of what I was sure it must have been like to see movies many decades ago, before technology was so readily available to enable a movie-goer to find show times and check reviews. After the movie was over a conversation was prompted about the state of horror films in today's seemingly unshockable day and age. In theaters at the time of this post are The Ruins, Shutter and American Zombie, with Prom Night and Pathology opening later this month. As this conversation drew to a close the conclusion was reached that horror films now are suffering from a severe lack of plot, character and style.

The first point that my friend and I came up with is that horror films today are hurt due to their lack of plot. Too often have we seen movies about a group of young, good-looking twenty-somethings that have terrible things happen. The Ruins, for example, is about four American college students on a trip (presumably during spring break) in Mexico when one of them decides that they should take part in local culture so they go to explore Mayan ruins that are off the beaten path. Allow me to digress for a moment, this movie is written by Scott B. Smith and it is based on his novel (pictured left). Smith is the same person that wrote the novel and did the theatric adaptation for Sam Raimi's A Simple Plan, and Smith was nominated for (though did not win) the Oscar for best writing in 1999 for his work. This obviously accomplished writer is (partially) responsible for making The Ruins. The fact is that this movie has almost the same story as Hostel, Turistas, Wolf Creek and The Descent to name a few. The horror movies that seem to get made today fall into one of two categories: they are either American remakes of high-quality Asian horror films (as is the case with The Ring, The Grudge and most recently Shutter), or they are remakes of this one horror story (which could be traced back as far as the original The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or the first Friday the 13th, even John Boorman's Deliverance). These films' lack of plot is evidenced in the fact that they rely too heavily on shock-value and not enough on developing a truly disturbing, frightening story. The fact is that if something sudden happens on the screen, with a loud noise to accompany it, the audience will be startled. However this reaction does not compare to something like The Exorcist, which reportedly caused audience members to faint and has incited nightmares for over three decades.

These films also suffer from an abundant lack of character. Just because an actor or actress is good looking and willing to have terrible things happen to them while they are scantily clad does not replace genuine character development. In the case of The Ruins what the filmmakers seem to not understand is that if a viewer does not care about the characters then there is no reason to care about the things that happen to them. The current directors, writers and actors of horror movies make their films to appeal to people that are around my age (older than seventeen because of the R-rating they will almost certainly aim for, but not so old that they are unable to imagine themselves and their friends in these situations; both my friend and I that went to see The Ruins are twenty-two-year-old college students) but they completely fail to portray college-age people as anything but sex-starved alcoholic party-goers that act like children. Usually the actors that appear in these films make the best out of what they are given (or at least that is how I usually excuse their bad performances), but in this way The Ruins is unique. The star of The Ruins is Jena Malone, a talented actress that has proven her range in films such as Donnie Darko and Saved! Jonathan Tucker of Sofia Coppola's The Virgin Suicides and Joe Anderson of Across the Universe support Malone's performance. While watching the film I could not help but think that the on-screen talent should have opted out of doing this movie in the first place, and therefore the bad performances are inexcusable.

The style of these films (like the plots and characters) are completely generic and recycled, and are therefore of no good. As opposed to the movie being unique in any respect the filmmakers seem to just try to make their films more similar to the others, ride on the coat-tails of the success of others. A lack of atmosphere has been replaced by an excess of shadows as shocking imagery replaced development of story. Director Carter Smith, who got his start as a fashion photographer and makes his feature film debut with The Ruins, brings nothing that we have not already seen to this movie. Even the cinematography of Darius Khondji, which has been so brilliant before in Se7en, seems dated and uninspired. But this again raises a problem with the current state of horror films: they all look the same, there is not any variance to the presentation of these movies. Horror movies are no longer unique pieces of art.

To call The Ruins a complete waste of time would be an overstatement. The movie is not particularly good, but it is not exceptionally bad either. It is just another in a series of generic horror films to which audiences have been subjected. There was a time when a horror movie was more than the sum of its completely average parts; where there were hearts and souls behind and in front of the camera that had something to say, and said it using horror's techniques. But that time seems long gone as we are now inundated to the same horror movie over-and-over again with only slight variations to the one that came before it, and that is the most horrific thing of all.

Seeing What the Web Offers: or Another Linkroll Examination

This week I explored the web again in a search for sites and blogs that would be not only informative, but pertinent and lesser known. As before I used IMSA and Webby criteria in discerning these sites. First I explored the website of the Motion Picture Association of America, this site is an excellent resource for any concerned movie-goer, however it is often times hard to navigate, and is ultimatley weak unless a visitor only cares to know the rating of a specific title. The second site I visited is the website of Janus Films, one of the premiere foreign film distributors. Their site offers visitors information on some of the greatest foreign films ever made, in addition to information about screening of these films and resources on how to purchase them. The third site I visited is SlashFilm, this site has a wealth of new posts regularly which is their greatest gift, however they also have a cluttered and cumbersome layout that is neither welcoming nor pleasing to the eye. Next I visited Rotten Tomatoes, which, with it's unique voting system has become a resource for interested fans. Their site is well maintained and informative, however because of their voting system they are not the most reliable source on the web. The Internet Movie Database (IMDB) has become one of the most popular websites for movie lovers, and it is a great resource. The site is easy to navigate and highly informative, but because of their more relaxed standards in fact-checking the site is in many ways unreliable. A valuable resource in movie news, Total Film, is a charming site that focuses on providing visitors with the latest news in the movie world, however it too has a cluttered layout that is not welcoming to the eye.

Empire Magazine's webiste offers the online experience of the phenomenal publication. It has a busy but sophisticated layout that is informative and welcoming. The Hollywood Reporter, one of the most respected trade publications, is a website that is near flawless. Their simple design and layout is pleasing to look at and it makes a visitor enjoy reading the articles which are uniformly brilliant. One of the other trade publication, Variety, offers a similarly wonderful experience. In addition to have some of the most insightful reviews in the world today, they offer unique stories that are more pertinent than most other sites and have a more industry slanted viewpoint. In a similar vain to the MPAA, but less administrative; in a similar vain to The Hollywood Reporter and Variety but less official is the wesite Kids In Mind. This site is a haven for concerned movie-goers to rate and review a film's appropriateness (or lack thereof), it suffers from the same problem as some other, comparable, sites in that it is by no means an official source, however it is an interesting and unique way to learn about the public's reaction to a particular film.

Violence in the Media: What an MPAA Rating Means for a Film

The Motion Picture Association of America has been used domestically to rate a film's appropriateness since it was founded in 1968. Currently the MPAA has five ratings categories including G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 (originally there were four categories), and these ratings are the standard by which an audience member (or more specifically a parent) is able to judge content used throughout a film's exhibition. These ratings, and the ratings board, are upheld by the studios, including Paramount, Disney, Sony, 20th Century Fox, Universal and Warner Bros. Something that is fascinating about the ratings system, and the MPAA, is what the rating itself can say about a film. Even more fascinating is that many of the most quality films (at least if the Oscars are the determinant of quality) are R-rated (the last time a film not rated R won the best picture Oscar was in 2005 for Million Dollar Baby; the last time a film won the best picture Oscar that did not contain any violence as part of the rating was in 1999 for Shakespeare in Love), and the thing that all of these films have in common is violence. The MPAA cites "intense or persistent violence" as one of the criteria capable of earning an R-rating; there is the sense that films these days must contain at least a minimal amount of violence in order to gain any sort of recognition, financial or critical. It is about time for American audiences to be hit with a wave of "summer" movies, which are often big budget action films, and so this topic seems relevant now more than ever. Violence in film is a tool, and is neither inherently good or inherently bad depending on how it is used.

Of the twenty top grossing films of 2007, according to the MPAA's own 2007 U.S. Theatrical Market Statistics Report, ten of the films were rated PG-13 (Sony's Spider-Man 3, pictured left, has the top spot with $336.5 million dollars; of these ten the only film that is not rated as containing violence is The Simpsons Movie), six of the films were rated PG, three films were rated R (one of which, Knocked Up, does not contain violence), and one film was rated G. Whenever terrible things happen in our culture there are always people who are prepared to blame violent films and video games (as well as other media); but are we a violent culture because of films and video games, or are films and video games violent to reflect our culture? In J. Hoberman's article in The Village Voice, "If It Bleeds, It Leads," he makes the claim that American films have become more violent due in part to the war that we have been fighting, "Why shouldn't we be preoccupied with homicidal sociopaths? America's been at was for the past four and a half years." On a different, but related note, Peter S. Goodman in "Economists Say Movie Violence Might Temper the Real Thing" for The New York Times wrote that, in a study conducted by University of California professors Stefano DellaVigna and Gordon Dahl, movie violence actually helps to deter violence in real life, "violent films prevent violent crimes by attracting would-be assailants and keeping them cloistered in darkened, alcohol-free environs." There is no question that there is violence in movies, and it is also unquestionable that as a culture we have grown accustomed to watching some violence, but the thought that the violence in films could account for the acts committed in reality does not follow. Violent films are often shocking and brutal, but, like all great art, they exist to instigate thought and discourse, not violence. When a film ceases to strive for these goals it also ceases to be art, and instead becomes a weapon.

There is, in a sense, the belief that films might lack academic or intellectual merit if they are not of a certain rating. Many of the more prestigious films that come out are often times dealing with more "hard-hitting" subjects and warrant R-ratings. This years Oscar winner for best picture, No Country for Old Men (pictured right), is one such example. But this begs the question of whether or not it is possible for a film to be both topical and without age restrictions. Movies like Knocked Up and Romanian import 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (which is actually unrated in America, but would certainly warrant an R-rating or worse) are both films that concern themselves with the issue of unplanned-for pregnancies. This is an issue that is current, relevant and pertinent, and there are other films like Juno (rated PG-13) that deal with similar topics; however the fact is that there should be films with a variety of different ratings, aimed at a variety of age groups, that all promote thought and discourse. To say that movies are better or worse, less or more relevant, because they fall under a certain rating is ridiculous. Filmmakers (artists in general) should be able to express themselves any way that they see fit, a film being more or less respected on the grounds of it's objectionable material is in it's own right reverse-censorship.

There is an ongoing debate among filmmakers about whether or not the MPAA ratings system exists purposefully or not, that is whether it is a valuable system or an inappropriate form of censorship. That debate will probably never be settled, many filmmakers will continue to believe that it is a form of censorship and concerned people will continue to believe that it is a necessary outlet of vital information. But whether or not a film is good or bad because it has a certain rating, whether or not a film is credible or not, should not be determined by the rating it receives. There are good and credible films in every ratings category.

Linkroll Examanation: Exploring the Internet's Film Sites

This week I explored the blogosphere to try to find some of the most interesting websites I could. While conducting this search I started by looking at many familiar favorites and I ended up discovering some sites I never knew existed. In an attempt for this blog to be a resource I have included these sites in my linkroll; in deciding the sites that should be included I applied the Webby criteria in both my decisions of a sites inclusion as well as my analysis of that sites strengths or weaknesses. When I began my search of what sites to include I started in fairly common, comfortable territory, as a subscriber to The Village Voice (in print) I have always found their film section to be brilliant; Village Voice film is a very strong site overall, the content is strong and the site is easy to navigate and wonderfully designed. The biggest weakness I found on Village Voice Film is in it's functionality, the site is very functional but due to The Village Voice's strong regional dedication someone not from New York might find the site a bit impractical. This drawback on Village Voice Film is what inspired me to find my next two sites, Los Angeles Times Entertainment and New York Times Movies. Los Angeles Times Entertainment is a sophisticated site which allows a visitor to receive film related headlines in an eye-catching manner, this strength is also the sites greatest weakness, because of the sites emphasis on the headline-style layout many of the most interesting stories are pushed toward the bottom of the site. The New York Times Movies page has much the same problem having a daunting number of links and an emphasis on visitor convenience with checking showtimes this page's great strength is in its search tool which allows a user to search the entire site or just the movie section. Premiere's site has an emphasis on visitor appeal which gives the impression of it being watered down, it is easy to navigate and highly interactive but the articles are given a backseat to the glitz and glamor. The critics of Premiere's site made me consider critics in general, and it is that that led me to Roger Ebert's site. This site has it's emphasis on film reviews and the content is rather strong; the visual design of this site is lacking, the site is sloppily and busily designed which makes the experience overall less than pleasant (but the reviews make the site tolerable to endure). A review on Roger Ebert's site (in this case Chicago 10) made me think about the Sundance Film Festival (debatably America's foremost festival), and when I connected to their site I found it to be visually arresting; Sundance Film Festival has some of the strongest visual design I have seen from a site. Their content is strong, the structure and navigation are also strong, the only weak point I found was with the site's functionality, it took quite a while to load. Internationally the Cannes Film Festival is one of the most renowned in the world, their site exhibits their prestige. The site is very sophisticated in its design, it is functional and has informative, academic content for any film lover. Cannes Film Festival is one of the strongest sites that I found. While on the Cannes Film Festival site I became inspired to explore the site of DVD publishing company the Criterion Collection. Their site has a strong visual design with an emphasis on the films themselves, not the DVDs, and the site has many wonderful links to read about the DVDs as well as to buy them. The sites overall experience is not bad, however it in many ways leaves a visitor wanting more; in many ways the site is just a store for the DVDs which is ultimately unrewarding. This problem occurs too in the Independent Film Channel - Film site. The site tries so hard to be edgy and modern that they collapse under their own weight and a visitor (or at least I) is left pondering why they came to the site in the first place; the site is a good resource if a visitor is willing to brave the abrasive visual design and get to the quality content. The final site I visited was the American Film Institute, this site has strong functionality and interactivity, the content itself, however, is lacking being mainly comprised of "best of" lists and up-coming events. In exploring the blogosphere this week I discovered just how vast the world of film can be, all of these websites are valuable resources in their own respect and I am happy to have spent the time to visit them.

Movie Lists: A Critical Analysis of Critic's Analysis'

At the end of every year I wait anxiously for the Oscar broadcast. Every year I am bombarded by critic's "end of the year predictions" and "best of the year lists," something that I too am guilty of doing (though perhaps more privately). Around this time every year there is an almost overwhelming sense of excitement in the film world as we (or at least I) wait to have our suspicions either confirmed, or else denied (which we then proceed to argue with and refute among friends). After watching one of this year's truly great (here I go again) films, Ratatouille (pictured left), the closing narration resonated strongly with me, "in many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read." This one simple, seemingly innocuous line is full of such truth; and I contend that the opposite is true too. Every year critics, bloggers, and just every-day people come up with their best movie (or movies) of the year and, while there is nothing inherently wrong with this act, it occurs to me that it is an unnecessary act which only serves to perpetuate this narcissistic system. Having only recently entered the blogosphere, this week I became overwhelmed at how many blogs have "10 Best" lists as their topics, and so I decided to explore our culture's prerogative of ranking the best films of the year or making Oscar predictions. The first post I found is by Peter Sciretta it is titled "The Definitive Top 25 Movies of 2007." This post covers not only the author's opinion, but also includes lists from other popular websites. The second blog I found was "Oscar Predictions: Filipino Cruise Ship Bartenders" by Peter Martin. This post is taken from his time spent on a cruise interviewing various bartenders (who have no special film experience) as to what they think will (or should) win at the Oscars. My responses to these blogs are offered below, as well as on the author's respective blogs.

"The Definitive Top 25 Movies of 2007"
Comment:
First I would like to very much thank you for your contributions in the blogosphere, though I am quite new at this I have found your posts both enlightening and engaging, and what more could anybody hope for? I would also like to commend your choice of There Will Be Blood as the best film of the year, I think that it is an excellent film. This, however, brings me to my question. Is there a necessity for popular culture criticism? And if there is a necessity for it, what is that necessity? One aspect of people's day to day life seems to be indulging in other people's opinions instead of those same people forming their own; even people who hold their own opinions (I make these same lists) seem to thrive off of examining, critiquing and disagreeing with others. To me what is even more bothersome is that more often than not these lists (at least many of the most prominent ones) tend to agree with each other; Richard Roeper and his partner Roger Ebert both have No Country for Old Men and Juno on their lists, and New York Times film critic A.O. Scott and Village Voice film critic J. Hoberman agreed that I'm Not There, Terror's Advocate and There Will Be Blood are among the best films of the year. Have we become a society that we now need some kind of vindication to hold the opinions that we do? Or is a movie only good if the mass majority thinks that it is? I read in an article in The Village Voice S.T. VanAirsdale, in his article titled "5 Steps to a Better View," proposed that we "eradicate the top 10 list" as it is "perhaps the ultimate cancer on contemporary film, a backslapping orgy of hype that prizes propriety and capsule-sized cleverness over any sort of art, revelation, or insight." Like I said before I admire your choice very much, and I too am guilty of doing these lists. I am, however, unable to understand what necessitates their existence. I truly hope I get to hear your opinion on this.

"Oscar Predictions: Filipino Cruise Ship Bartenders"
Comment:
I think that the approach that you used in your blog post is both interesting and innovative. As a film student I am often surrounded by people who are more than happy to offer their opinions, and as a result the opinion of other people (those not in film school) often goes unnoticed. As I read your post I noticed that most of the predictions defied the popular belief as to what will/should win. When the list that you formed is put to comparison with the list voted on imdb.com (as of the time of this post) almost all of the bartenders' predictions seem pretty unlikely. The only one that the two lists agree on is best director for Joel and Ethan Coen (pictured right). I think that it is enlightening that many of the people that you interviewed, many of whom have not seen the films, are in almost complete disagreement with the majority of the imdb.com using world. You close your post by saying "I'll be watching to see if random friendly bartenders know more than seasoned Oscar pundits." My question then is, do you think that the Oscars do not accurately represent the masses? Do you think that they have a responsibility to? Many of the people that I know that are not "into" film do not even go so far as to see the films that are nominated (many of these same people feel that they are much more strongly represented by the MTV Movie Awards). Your post seems to make the point that the bartenders are being under represented (or not represented at all), but do you feel that they should be? It is stated on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences website that "the Oscar represents the best achievements of the year in the opinion of those who themselves reside at the top of their craft," do you feel that should factor in at all? I think that your post shed light on the arguable shortcomings of the Oscars, while at the same time being a unique list of Oscar predictions.

Non-Simulated Sex in Mainstream Cinema: Blurring the Lines Between Art and Pornography

There is an issue that is becoming more and more prevalent in cinema today. In addition to being one of the most recent trends in film, it has also become one of the most controversial. This issue, like any controversial issue, has caused a tremendous divide among those people that are aware of it; there are supporters and opponents, both steadfast in their resolve. The issue is that of non-simulated sexual acts in mainstream (or "legitimate") cinema.

This issue has become so controversial that many of the films that contain "real sex" are never theatrically exhibited (at least in North American theaters) and some of the films have been completely banned from entire continents. The films that involve acts of non-simulated sex are both the most groundbreaking and the most controversial of today. For the sake of clarity, non-simulated sex acts will be taken to mean fully exhibited and genuine penile or vaginal contact by any person. Generally it will refer to these acts being performed on one person and by another; however it is also meant to include any cases of non-simulated masturbation scenes.

The topic most often brought up surrounding this issue is the question of whether these films are art or pornography; essentially whether or not these films are excusable in their portrayal of sexual encounters. For this blog pornography will be defined as: films that use real portrayals of sexual acts for the sole purpose of arousing the viewer. This is different from a "legitimate" film (is any film more or less legitimate than any other?) which uses non-simulated sex acts for a purpose that is more redeemable than merely sexual arousal; therefore a "legitimate" film (as opposed to pornography) is a film that has intellectual emotionally or spiritually attempts to connect with a viewer.

The next point to address then becomes, who's to say whether a work is "legitimate" or not? Surely if it were left to the filmmaker to say whether a film is "legitimate" than all films would be. Whether or not these films are "legitimate" or pornographic may never be clearly defined, in actuality art (and porn, or at least what should/does qualify as porn) is a purely subjective creation; and as such these films "legitimacy" or lack thereof is contingent not only on the filmmaker's intentions, but also on the viewer's interpretation.

Another issue posed by opponents of this form of expression is that of necessity. Is there a need for these films to present non-simulated sexual acts, or is it something that could just as easily be done without. Many of the films (if not all of the films) that contain non-simulated sex acts could have portrayed sexual encounters in less explicit ways. The problem with this concern is that necessity is not (or rather should not be) the important issue. The filmmakers made a choice to incorporate this device into their work and the choices that the filmmakers made are, essentially, moderate, this device is neither inherently good or bad.

In 2000 a French film was made, this film is considered by many to be one of (if not the) most explicit films ever made, it is Baise-moi (pictured above, translated the title means "Rape Me"). This film is a story of revenge enacted by two women who were brutally attacked. This film contains extensive scenes of non-simulated, penetrative sex and fellatio; and all this is in addition to the extremely brutal and realistic violence. However this is a film about a brutal crime and by including a more realistic form of expression the message of the film becomes more relevant and heart wrenching. In Baise-moi the filmmakers use non-simulated sex as a device that, essentially, extends realism's mode of representation. This decision, naturally, requires a very dedicated actor who is willing to be at their most physically (and arguably emotionally) vulnerable in an attempt to portray sex as it really is; effectually the actors taking part in these films are practicing a very extreme form of method acting.

Many people feel that these films are not art, because they are exploitation; that the films are controversial for the sake of controversy, and not for the sake of expression. Evidence in support of this argument is an example like Vincent Gallo's The Brown Bunny (2003). The Brown Bunny is a film (one of the very few American films) that contains a non-simulated sex act, specifically it contains an act of fellatio. The film is controversial in its own way, however the marketing campaign for the film was even more controversial. In July of 2004 a billboard was erected over Sunset Blvd. which depicted a still frame from the fellatio scene, albeit blurred out and partially edited (pictured right). The use of this image for marketing is certainly daring, and arguably unnecessary or excessive; however the film itself should not be held responsible.

Whether or not these films are good is a subjective decision to be made by people who view the films. However, quality aside, the fact is that these films have a right to be seen by people. Also the filmmakers that make these movies should not be labeled in a negative way, rather they should be commended for their creativity in the face of adversity. Just because some people may object to this type of expression, that does not make the expression any less valid; in fact, if somebody has become inspired to become vocal enough to object to these films, than the films must be doing something right by being powerful enough to start a dialogue. Other questions posed about these films (like whether they are art or pornography) is just as subjective as to ask whether they are good or bad; the fact is that for the people that want them to be art, they are art and vice-versa. What is unquestionable is that it is unreasonable to prevent, or even attempt to discredit, this form of expression on the grounds or whether or not it is objectionable.