NobleCon wrote:Parados, are you certain of this response? In other words, have you read it prior to its posting and found absolutely no errors in it?
Those two statements make perfect sense, in that the one qualifies the other, and vice versa. As for the "black" people in Amistad, well, let us think this over...
A movie such as that involves the script, the actors carrying out the script, and so on. We know the story and the plot, the ending as well. In an adult movie, the script is minute in details and story, and the actresses constitute the prime objective of that script. More, the actresses "are" the script, and the script revolves around that. But this is secondary.
On this note of yours, I say that the actor, or the "black" actor as you put it, does not involve himself or herself in the same sorts of activity as the adult actress; torture scenes perhaps, but not that the activity is the movie. In adult movies, the activity is the movie, and the actresses, for the most part, are the activity. You can not equate the two: one is historical- factual at that- that depicts the historical record, the other is anything but historical, and the activity of the latter is the entire movie. The formats are not equivalent, and so the objectives are not equivalent; then, your comparison is not just.
As for the rest of your reply, it underakes an assumption that is just that: an open assumption of your own doing. I will tell you that it is false entirely, and you continued onward with it without question. Thank you for such consideration.
I am naive, my sexual attitudes that is? Please qualify...
I never said the 2 statements conflicted. I used them as showing how you had a continuing thread that doesn't make much sense. If the film depicts people as slaves then why should you be offended that it "resembles" that. The normal behaviour is to not look at things that offend you if you can avoid them.
The actors are the script? Where did you learn your film criticism? Actors are NOT the script. The script is the script. The actors are the actors. The script can be a loose script in that it defines action or plot without much dialogue involved. Many "mockumentaries" like "Spinal Tap" and "Best In Show" have less written dialogue than an average porn film. Because the script says "the band goes to the airport" or it says "the pizza delivery boy delivers a pizza to 2 naked women" doesn't make one a script and the other one not one. Much of a film script is made up of action that will occur and shot selection for the cameras. When a porn film's script says that now there will be girl on girl action and then at this point there will be male female
I am confused about your argument that the "activity is the movie." Actors engage in activities in all films. Just because the activity in one involves sex doesn't make the activity of wearing chains any less in Amistad than it does in a porn film. A bad script doesn't make the movie not a movie nor does it make the actors not actors. Lots of horror films have terrible scripts and the only purpose is to splatter blood and gore across the screen. Lots of chase movies only have the purpose to crash cars. A sex film has a purpose of depicting sex. Because it completes the goal for which it was made doesn't make it not a movie. I don't know of any porn film that is made up of only one activity. Most of them are several different sexual scenes with some cheesy dialogue in between. When comparing porn films to mainstream films, I agree, the formats are not equivalent because the objectives are not. But that doesn't mean that the objective makes one valid and the other not and it certainly doesn't lead to your "slave" conclusion.
It is your comparison that isn't just. You seem to think that because actors in one movie are chained and shown being tortured it is OK while actors in another movie chained and tortured is not OK. The ONLY difference is the purpose of the film. Both depict torture. In neither case are the actors injured or forced to do something they don't want to or were not paid for. (Amistad is a fictional depiction of an historical event. Your logic here would make it perfectly alright to do a porn film depicting Jefferson raping a chained Sally Hemmings.)
Your naivity comes from your attitude that you seem to feel you can decide what others are feeling when they have sex. You are naive when you think that everyone should be the same as you and you are offended by what some people think is OK. I pointed this out because you obviously have never had a sexual partner that is more adventurous than you and asked you to do things you felt uncomfortable with. If you had then you would understand that bounderies are different for different people. When it comes to sex between 2 people, as most on here can attest to, you find what works for both of you. You explore the limits of what makes you feel good and what makes you uncomfortable. You respect what your partner wants and what they desire. If you are too far from each other in what you want then the relationship will probably fall apart. Some people like the control and submission of bondage and S&M. It may seem strange but that doesn't make them bad people as long as they are consensual.
If you only answer one thing, answer this question. Are you offended or otherwise disgusted by the idea of a woman being bound during sex?
It's perfectly fine if you are. It's also perfectly OK if you are disgusted by pictures of bound women. You don't have to do it nor do you have to look at pictures of others doing it. The problems occur when you try to force your morality on others by claiming things exist in those pictures that aren't really there.
