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.