Annoying things in vintage porn

[Toxic Dog]

Now I enjoy classic smut as much as the next bloke here does.

But I've recently been watching some old CC loops from the late '70s / early '80s. Some are truly excellent, but many others could have been done so much better, and I can only conclude that some of the directors and cameraman responsible for their creation must have been rank amateurs. So here are a few things that I think sometimes mar what would otherwise be great vintage loops:

1) Choppy editing: Just for example, one second a couple are having their first kiss, then CUT and suddenly they're both stripped off with the girl riding the man's dick.

2) Interminable close-up shots (found a lot in the SE loops from the States, to a lesser degree in CC loops). Now you have these gorgeous, sexy, natural girls with Farrah Fawcett hairdos and hairy pussies, and more to the point they're usually clad in the sexiest suspender belts and sheer nylon stockings. So what do you get - in a sizeable minority of loops at least (though fortunately not all)? Zoom-up-close footage of a dick pumping a pussy filling the entire screen and lasting for up to 30 seconds - then a quick 2 second shot showing the woman in all her sexy glory - then straight back to another 30 seconds of up-close genital zooming which, quite frankly, could be of practically anyone. Surely it should be the other way round?

3) Clutter. It really pisses me off when a couple are filmed having sex with a coffee table in between them and the camera, with bottles, cups, glasses, potted plants and half-eaten plates of food (yuk!) obscuring part or even all the action.

4) Long, lingering close-ups of the male performers' faces. Does your average smut connoisseur really want to study the facial grimaces of some Burt Reynolds lookalike, a Richard O'Sullivan clone with huge sideburns or some ugly German bloke with a ferret moustache and a mullet haircut? Let's face facts and leave aside any politically correct pretensions here: Porn is first and foremost about the women involved - they are the real stars. It's a celebration of female pulchritude. The men are merely "essential movie props".

Garish wallpaper, upholstery in various shades of brown and orange with large circular patterns on it, lava lamps, awful Seventies fashions and posters of Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin on walls in the background are, however, pluses in my book, adding as they do to the essential period charm.

Anyone else got any other similar thoughts or gripes?

[doyle]

I'm with you, Flat (may I call you Flat?). Inept editing is the curse of vintage porn. They've got all this
exposed footage...and they don't know what to do with it! They have only the dimmest idea of how to
build a scene, create tension and eventual release so their audience will be drawn in and do the same.
It makes you understand why virtually none of these directors went on to bigger & better things. Have you
seen any of the "legit" films Chuck Vincent made? In one of them, the boom mic kept making cameo
appearances and you could clearly see the top of the set w/ lights etc.
Another thing is shadows. In Bad Girls (1980?) there were shadows in vital spots in sex scenes and
"inverse editing"- lotsa c in c, but little of the girl's facial response to what she was doing. At least that's how I
remember it, though I haven't seen this thing since the late 80's. I started going to porn films in 1972, and I remember how it used to annoy me when an extraordinary
girl would be wasted in a scene through plain old ineptness. And sure, they're not actors, they're essentially
athletes (as someone observed), but that's where the director's skill comes into play. Only it doesn't - not as
often as it should.

[hamletmachin]

I've wondered if these kinds of probelms were due to the incompetence o fhte filmmakers or their limited imgination of what hte viwer might want to see onthe big scren (making movies modelled on those shown in porn theaters). But I've also wondered if it wasn't also partly deliberate, almost a kind of saidsitc revenge the pronographer takes on the viewer--now you see it, now you don't (or not for very long or very clearly).

[far_cue]

what about the black sox ???

lmao

[lambique]

I can't agree with you about the wallpapers. Indeed they are ugly but it's part of the fun. It's the "Back to the future touch"...

[Wulfram]

I saw a lava lamp in a shop-window recently, just as repellent as ever; where they properly belong is in old porn films, along with the orange shag carpets. I agree about the endless close-ups of pumping genitals, which leave me totally indifferent. What is really erotic to me is to see an attractive woman getting gradually turned on (or at least give a plausible impression of doing so). There is all too often no build-up or sense of intimacy in porn films. What fun is it to look at a couple who barely interact with one another except at a purely physical level? This is as much a result of the limited acting skills of most of the people who appear in these films as it is of the deficiencies of the directors. What I really hate are the inevitable scenes in which the man withdraws and sprays all over his unfortunate partner as she pretends to go into ecstasies. Totally unreal and spoils the illusion. Not to mention the surreal dialogue and dubbed moaning. The lighting is often far too bright and clinical - soft light is surely far more erotic, just as in ordinary life; soft porn films are often much better in this regard, as they are in the trouble that they take over the clothing, decor and acting.

[keenks2]

not enough swallowing

[cannon]

Now I enjoy classic smut as much as the next bloke here does.

But I've recently been watching some old CC loops from the late '70s / early '80s. Some are truly excellent, but many others could have been done so much better, and I can only conclude that some of the directors and cameraman responsible for their creation must have been rank amateurs. So here are a few things that I think sometimes mar what would otherwise be great vintage loops:

1) Choppy editing: Just for example, one second a couple are having their first kiss, then CUT and suddenly they're both stripped off with the girl riding the man's dick.



nearly totally agree with Toxic Dog on this subject with the exception of quote #1. when watching porn flicks, i'm not interested in romance or any of the other blather they inject into the flick to make it...a so called work of art. if i want alleged romance(which just might be no sex at all), i'll watch the woman's network channel(not) or richard gere movies. otherwise, i regret, TD, that i'm guilty of chopping(super chop...i'd even cut out the first kiss) editing when it comes to ripping these flicks to dvd. fun thread tho TD. if only the directors and producers would use our keen insight when marketing these movies. :D

[mellowyellow]

2) Interminable close-up shots (found a lot in the SE loops from the States, to a lesser degree in CC loops). Now you have these gorgeous, sexy, natural girls with Farrah Fawcett hairdos and hairy pussies, and more to the point they're usually clad in the sexiest suspender belts and sheer nylon stockings. So what do you get - in a sizeable minority of loops at least (though fortunately not all)? Zoom-up-close footage of a dick pumping a pussy filling the entire screen and lasting for up to 30 seconds - then a quick 2 second shot showing the woman in all her sexy glory - then straight back to another 30 seconds of up-close genital zooming which, quite frankly, could be of practically anyone. Surely it should be the other way round?

4) Long, lingering close-ups of the male performers' faces. Does your average smut connoisseur really want to study the facial grimaces of some Burt Reynolds lookalike, a Richard O'Sullivan clone with huge sideburns or some ugly German bloke with a ferret moustache and a mullet haircut? Let's face facts and leave aside any politically correct pretensions here: Porn is first and foremost about the women involved - they are the real stars. It's a celebration of female pulchritude. The men are merely "essential movie props".


I do agree on these two points, as do most of my female friends, at least those with whom I ever discussed the subject. Even my own girlfriend doesn't mind watching porn but long lasting close-ups and above mentioned not-so-handsome blokes are all a big No-no.

All the interior issues, furniture, drinks, clothes on the floor etc. are in my opinion not too disturbing and can give those vintage movies their special 'feel', a charming sort of clumsiness in contrast with todays perfection frenzy with ubercool interiors, skinny shaven models living on vitamin-pills and not a smile to see in an entire movie.

[toddrrr]

not really annoying, but part of most old loops was the guy holding up the womans top leg from behind, and pumping. A lot in the SE loops.

Seems to mostly have disappeared.

[eelcat]

Too many lengthy side on camera shots...ie a couple of girls partaking in a 69 and the camera spends most of the time side on and you get to see bugger all.
(Mind you, I've only seen this in 80's and 90's US flicks....a period I tend to avoid if possible).

[slowdiver]

Black socks, gringo moustaches and pork chop sideburns. And not forgetting the Kevin Keegan perm of course :)

[ifr2lax]

I have almost NEVER found a strip/dance tape or film where the fool cameraman can't just LEAVE THE CAMERA ZOOM ALONE.

The gal is dancing and the camera is IN! OUT! LEFT! RIGHT! Focus on guy in audience drooling...Focus on curtains...scan back to the girl and all her clothes are now off...THE ENTIRE STRIP took place while "Dufus the photograper/editor" is being artsy/fartsy with distracting "stupid camera tricks".

Regardless of the subject, over editing ruins what I want to see...the women dancing her brains out whilst stripping.

If the camera would:

1. stay put, or move minimally and pan very SLOWLY if you want a different view

2. the light would be coming from in FRONT of the subject...not behind washing out the footage.

3. FORGET filming the drooling guys in the audience...I do NOT want to see the leering crowd.

Most films would be 100% better, IMHO.

Thanks

[thyguy]

The lousy (i.e. nonexistent) lighting, where you can't see jack shiite. Yeah, the circus contortions are annoying too. And close ups that are like - like the guys orifice fills the whole screen.

[Mufflover]

The rickety-rackety music. Drives me bonkers. Why didn't they let us just hear the pumping and moaning and heavy breathing and dirty talk and Veronica Hart's this-is-fun giggle?

[RyderKnightley]

The rickety-rackety music. Drives me bonkers.

Talking about he music; I rmember a comedy sketch show way back where they did a spoof of a real quiz show "Film Buff of the Year" as "Blue Film Buff of the Year". The quiz master played a clip of 'rickety-rackety music' then asked one of the contestants, "which blue movie of the 70's was this the soundtrack to"? "All of them", said the contestant. "Correct", replied the quizmaster.

My gripe is when they pad out the time by repeating sequences. You are watching the sex and then you see an action and camera angle which you recognise from about two minutes earlier. What is worse is that two minutes later you will see it again.

[Futuro]

"Scene" with 7 minutes of only this "camera-angle", with tired male-voice dub going: "Ea-ea-ea-ea Ea-ea-ea-ea Ea-ea-ea-ea...."
Add on that some bad accordion-music and you are in the core of boredom.

http://img226.imagevenue.com/loc506/th_20947_10_123_506lo.jpg (http://img226.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=20947_10_123_506lo.jpg)

[mcduck]

Accordion music? That's a new one on me--must be a European thing.

Those who appreciate/are maddened by the exquisite horror of porn soundtrack music will find an illuminating discussion here of why the 70's stuff is the shits and "why 80's porn music is far superior (even though it's much worse):"

http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2009/06/how-dare-you-other-bloggers-look-at-the-title-of-my-post-here-in-the-typepad-program-before-it-goes-.html

[JerryFalwell]

Sound and video out of sync. Come to think of, it still happens. ???

[RyderKnightley]

I've seen on a few occasions shadows of round objects with bits sticking out which look as if Sputnik is orbiting the woman's arse or that one of those Jedi training droids from Star Wars has appeared from a galaxy far, far away.

[zuckerman]

The O-Face shot. The cut-away to the male performer's orgasmic expression.

1) I know he's having fun. I kinda got that from the context.

2) If this is putting me on notice to Synchronize the Splurge, the last thing I want to see just before I cum is some sweaty geezer's O-face.

[Bill Bulloney]

I sort of agree with #19 above. But then again, it sort of sounds like teh voices are coming from the depths of a tunnel. Eccos and booming.

Or what about outside scenes. The cars going down the road are WELL older than the copyright on the movie. Does it really take all that long to hit the big screens?

Or what about whoever did the editing, for he took a big chunk out someplace and made the cast reappear magically in an adjoining building, not the one we last saw them in. Poof... here we are in yet another building (or room).


Bill

[SwedishEroticaFan]

Don Fernando. 'Nuff said.

[Mal Hombre]

:DVoice overs that are mainly obscene drivel in an annoying accent

[Jism Jim]

Hairy armpits, arses and cunt lips.

[Aubrey]

:DVoice overs that are mainly obscene drivel in an annoying accent


I used not to like those as well. But lately I've got to like them - well, the bloke on the C@nai films at least, who sounds sometimes like he's reading a script phonetically, that he doesn't understand - emphasis in the wrong places, etc. (By the way, does anyone know who he is?)
It reminds me - not the accent -of the way the BBC used to do european childrens programmes ion the 60's & 70's, not dubbed, but with a narration - a very cheap way of doing it, and better.

[bl0wfish]

I hate dirty feet. Especially in porn from the 70s.

[horse]

It's got to be some of the dubbing or voice overs.
Also anything with Peter North or Ron Jeremy.
Cum shots that are fake or over the arse.
I agree with the long shots or endless close up pussy banging and male face close ups at orgasm time.
A girl may have a great pair of tits but all the director wants is a close up of her pussy.

[riteman]

Actually, the worst thing was That, while almost all the women did, many of the guys in the early days did not think to wash their arses. That's rough going when you're watching a bed post view of missionary position fucking -- or when the poor girl has to do a 69 with her nose pushed right into the offending area.

Especially in the US films, the orgazmic moment was the cue for the guy's biggest acting opportunity, often to absurd extremes. But the funny part is that they are too absorbed at the real moment and then go into gyrations or extended yells after the last spurt has oozed out. Others have tremors throughout their entire bodies as if they're going into cardiac arrest!

As for sound, in the early days we're talking about the full length movie because the loops were silent. Really it wouldn't possible to just have heavy breathing [occasionally interrupted by "Does that feel good?"] for 90 minutes in a cinema environment .

With the arrival of VHS, music was needed when the old silent or dubbed films were re-released and one would for the most part hear what amounts to a tape loop [I never heard accordions either]. They couldn't use identifiable music tracks because royalties would have been due to the publishers and the owners of the recordings.

[sharke]

Some of the overacting in movies from the "psychedelic" era really gets on my wick. There is nothing worse than seeing some straggle haired hippie guy with a walrus mustache throwing his head around with his eyes closed and sucking air through his teeth as if the pleasure is just too much to cope with, when all he's doing is some garden variety missionary pumping. Meanwhile, the girl is cross eyed and thrashing around like a landed fish while screaming like a banshee.

It's all a little too theatrical for me.

Another thing which is really annoying is seeing REALLY ugly guys getting their end away. I know I'm not supposed to be worried about what the guy looks like, but come on, some of those dudes in German porn from the 70's and 80's are just hideous. It annoys me because I can't stop thinking about how unlikely it is that such men would be screwing such pretty girls in real life.

As a side note, one thing that really puzzles me is when you see one of those old European pornos with period costumes and a plot and half way through you'll see one or more children involved in one of the non-porn plot scenes. I have a couple of old German movies this happens in. It's like....whiskey tango foxtrot, who would agree to let their KID be an extra in a porn movie? And what do they tell the kid? How do they explain not letting the kid watch the movie he or she is in?