April 22, 2004

  • I saw a statement in an EXP press release from director/producer/performer Rodney Moore that caught my eye this afternoon.  In a prepared statement regarding the current HIV crisis, Rodney writes:


    Quote:

    I just hope that in the future, directors and companies will think long and hard before telling some naive girl she has to do an anal cream pie shot ... ***  I would also add that it's unfortunate that some (not all) movie reviewers encourage directors to shoot high-risk behavior (i.e. cream pies) by giving them very favorable reviews when they do so.


    In other words, is the apparent safety of the performers a legitimate concern for a reviewer to be worried about when critiquing a porn movie? 
     
    Rodney seems to be suggesting that if we see something like a "cream pie" (an internal cum shot) portrayed on screen, or presumable anything where the medical risk to talent is higher (anal, double anal, dp, gang bang, a2m), than a reviewer should either ignore it or rate the movie lower, but certainly not rate it higher because it will encourage more producers to film similar raincoater content. 


    I want to respond to Rodney's statement.


    As a porn viewer (before I started SRR), when I rented a XXX tape, I was most interested in whether or not a particular movie or scene was going to get my dick hard.  Most of the time, I selected rentals on the basis of the starlet or theme, such as anal sex.  The last thing I wanted to think about was the health care concerns of the talent.  Porn is about fantasy, and what can destroy the fantasy more than worrying about STDs, HIV and other nasty consequences of "forbidden" sex acts?  Those things are just ewwww.


    As a reviewer, I try to put myself in the shoes of the porn fan when writing my analysis.  I believe the main purpose of my reviews is to convey my honest thoughts about the movie.  I don't think that most viewers really care about the occupational hazards of being a porn star.  And so, when I write about a film, I don't feel it would be appropriate to consider medical risk as rating criteria.  Instead, I am focusing on whether or not the scene is "hot". 


    Of course "hot" is subjective and can take many forms, but let's be honest here.  This is porn we are talking about, not an art film.  The whole point is to document some pretty, young babe doing nasty things for our wanking pleasure.  The more innocent and fresh she looks, the better.  It enhances the "I can't believe she's doing that" factor, especially if the act is truly perverse.  Few viewers want to see the same thing they get in real life.  It's always going to be more thrilling to see something unusual and/or taboo.


    I'm surprised that Rodney would make such a statement.  On one hand, it's a little bit flattering that he would assert reviewers like myself have so much power in shaping what the public wants to see.  However, I doubt it is true.  The music industry is full of critic's darlings who can barely sell a fraction of the number of CDs that Brittany Spears does routinely.  What makes porn any different?  On the other hand, the statement is a little bit offensive.  Rodney's comment is a backhanded way of blaming reviewers indirectly for Darren James' and Laura Roxx's tragic predicaments.  I've read a lot of crazy finger pointing this past week, but blaming Rog or Snowman because they gave the "thumbs up" signal to some raunchy raincoater flick takes the cake for the biggest stretch.


    This is also puzzling given the source.  Rodney Moore's movies will never be confused with Andrew Blake's.  For many years Rodney has filmed the same "high-risk" type content he is now condemning.  You know, "cream pie" themes are not the only thing the Surgeon General would frown upon from a medical safety standard.  Going all the way back to mid 90's, "Cumm Brothers" movies frequently featured long segments of unprotected, anal sex.  That doesn't sound too safe.  Recent movies follow this formula as well.  In addition, he has a whole series named "I Swallow", which revolves around girls swallowing big loads of gooey semen.  I'm pretty sure that falls in the "high risk" category too.


     -- Snowman

Comments (1)

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment