things become the most wonderful things in the world for a period of time.
After I got a VCR, I rented
[1972],
[1972], and
[1972]. I was planning to write an analysis of those films (or so I said to myself!) that explored my suspicion that the experiences many men have watching them are more complex than we usually think, that the nature of the gaze
Page 258
is not all that obvious. There's this very erotic scene in
that's terrifying in its implications for women. It's the first sex scene.
I don't remember it; I saw the film years ago.
Well, there's this incredibly long blow job during which Georgina Spelvin vocalizes tremendously. She's constantly affirming that she wants this, do it more, and then at the end of the sequence, she's saying, 'Hurt me, hurt me, hurt me,' and he fucks her in the ass. I believe that what's hiding behind that scene is a kind of homophobia. The character we identify with in that scene is Spelvin. I think the men who are excited by this scene have the repressed desire to be 'feminine,' to
fucked, but that since they cannot admit such a gender-confusing idea, the desire transmutes into a pain- giving experience.
A lot of people interested in film theory see the gaze of the camera as intrinsically male. But if you're a woman, who do you identify with? One of the things I've found to be true, for me, is that I identify with both men and women freely. But then, I've been bisexual, so that may change the way you experience these things. What's interesting to me, though, is how you can justify what you said earlier about menthat they hate their bodieswith the narcissism that goes along with the desire to fuck themselves.
I'd just say that when men look at women in pornography, what they want to see is women adoring having sex with men. What they're really looking for is an affirmation of themselves.
I saw all this at work when I looked at
. The central character in the film is a woman (Marilyn Chambers). You meet her and follow her around, developing an identification with her. We
gaze at her quite a bit; she's very attractive. But she's also the only character in the film we know well enough to identify with. The male viewer 'becomes' the female, who subsequently, during the sex scenes, has men (and women) come in to her. What they do to heras the camera angles emphasizeis done 'to you.'
I saw all the famous porn films a long time ago because my aunt used to distribute them. That was about ten years ago. They're so old now. But I'll have to resee that one.
I think if enough men admitted that they identified with the female being fucked by the man, things would get better for both women and men. Because it wouldn't make them gay at all. It would just make them more empathetic.
I've always wanted to do a porno film for women. Something that women could see and really get excited about. It's funny, because
is the opposite. It's totally about not doing any of that. What I resent about the censorship of my film, the censorship in terms of ratings, is that basically
is not pornographic. Many different
Page 259
elements of this film have been affected by what people think of pornography, but this isn't pornography: it's
about turning men on.
Has the film been censored? I know when I first saw it in Toronto, the scene where Molly masturbates the Asian man who refuses to shower or wash was painted over (it was funny because you could see the shot through the paint). That shot is gone in the version of the film now available.
When I tried to get an R rating, I found out that so much would need to be cut to satisfy the MPAA [Motion Picture Association of America] that there'd hardly be a film left. I decided to distribute the film without an official rating. I did end up cutting the hand-job shot: it was six seconds. The only other changes I made were to revise the ending a bit and to change the prostitutes' names (to avoid a suit!). Also, I added a bit of conversation between Molly and the Ricky Leacock character at the end of their session.
Anyway, I'd like to make a porn film where you're aware that a woman is controlling the camera. I mean, is the cinema apparatus intrinsically male? Is the voyeurism that happens in film intrinsically a male approaching, attacking, a female? I guess I don't believe so.
It'd be funny too, to make a film about the awkwardness of sex. Sex is so awkward. It's always awkward; you can't get it in the right place, or whatever. When it's passionate, you laugh about the awkward parts and then
