Evidence of actual sex in softcore movies?

[larrydickman]

Originally Posted by duffield

Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie were rumoured to have been doing it for real in Don't Look Now.

after seeing that scene i would be hard pressed to say they wernt.

[lavec]

Originally Posted by saint421

what about in Caligula? there's a bunch going on when he is in that chamber with his soon to be dead Grandfather. been a while since i've seen it though.

Clips and complete movie are posted in these threads:



http://www.vintage-erotica-forum.com...light=caligula - page 1

There's a documentary and short discussion in the threads about what happened to the complete HC footage of the Imperial Bordello(the orgy scene) which in the final uncensored version is only 6-7 minutes long but actualy there's been hours and hours of shoted material, which is pitty if it didn't survived.

Here is the linkt to the documentary:

CALIGULA - The making of.. - page 1

[cutilaie]

Yes indeed there were at least 2 hours of hardcore sex filmed by Bob Gucionne that ended up on the floor of an editors shop. It would have surfaced by now.

[AlanF]

Carre Otis and Mickey Rourke in Wild Orchid was a definate. I have a 1990 Playboy issue from about July that has a layout of the scenes that were filmed, and Mickey atests that the cameras were automatic as Carre was nervous of cameramen for the scene. He also atests to being a perfectionist and thats why he ploughed her instead of simulating it

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by AlanF

Carre Otis and Mickey Rourke in Wild Orchid was a definate. I have a 1990 Playboy issue from about July that has a layout of the scenes that were filmed, and Mickey atests that the cameras were automatic as Carre was nervous of cameramen for the scene. He also atests to being a perfectionist and thats why he ploughed her instead of simulating it

Does she agree that actual sex took place? Men have a tendency to boast and lying about it is common. (And "I'm such a perfectionist about acting that I just had to fuck her" certainly sounds like boasting to me.)

There's also the simple inconsistency of her being so shy about doing even a simulated sex scene in front of a camera yet has no problem having full blown intercourse with someone who is just a co-worker.

That applies to the directors and producers as well, if they can get the actress to agree to actual intercourse (which runs into all kinds of major legal problems right there) you really think they're going to restrict themselves with lighting and camera angles and that they're not going to use all the footage they can? Not to mention the various rules SAG has regarding pasties for women and "socks" for men.

[Nudist Couple]

Also, Rocco and Caroline Ducey in the movie "Romance". Rocco says they had actual sex, Ducey says no. I don't know, my interpretation of "sex" must be different from hers.


Free Image Hosting by ImageBam.com

[TCO95]

Check out scene two of "Lipstick Girls" in the Tammy Parks thread. It's Tammy and a guy in an elevator. He slips her a finger a couple of times, however, they go by quickly so you may have to pause the action and view frame by frame. Watch closely when she blows him it looks like she actually moves his dick into her mouth. I'd love to see an unedited version of this scene.

http://www.vintage-erotica-forum.com...2&postcount=74

[cutilaie]

Nice. Sometimes penetration was agreed between the actors and director in order to keep things "real" and the camera angles were postitioned in a way not to show.

[toonman]

Originally Posted by DTravel

Does she agree that actual sex took place? Men have a tendency to boast and lying about it is common. (And "I'm such a perfectionist about acting that I just had to fuck her" certainly sounds like boasting to me.

The fact is considering the two got married and divorced under bad terms, and nearly 20 years has passed, frankly BOTH their claims are suspect, as both have good reason to deny, while as noted the boast factor exists in the other direction, too.

So we're left with the photographic evidence.

There is obvious image manipulation happening. Today we'd just say someone did something digitally, but this was around 1990 and they didn't have that technology. So they drastically underexposed the film -- that's why certain shots are so grainy, in particular shots where Rourke's block-and-tackle might have been visible in the shot. Now, whether that's to cover up the fact he wasn't doing anything, or wearing a modesty pouch, or to cover the fact they were actually having intercourse, that's impossible to say. I have heard that if this film ever gets released on high-def it might be possible to detect something (the key scene, of course, being the overhead shot where she appears to be riding him). But I'll believe that when I see it -- plus the remastering of the film for Blu-Ray could involve making a digital correction during that process, or they might just do what has happened with a number of BD releases and just issue the theatrical version, making the issue moot.

The other exhibit is Otis' reactions. We've all seen enough porn to be able to tell when someone's actually being penetrated. Today this doesn't apply - I just saw a scene featuring Alexis Texas in a film called Bikini Frankenstein and you can't tell if they're doing it or not (probably not). But that's because today such strongly simulated intercourse is commonplace - plus many of the actors used for such scenes are porn stars anyway (at least in the B-movie/direct-to-DVD realm). But back in 1990 you could barely get away with showing thrusting in a mainstream film, and frankly Carre Otis isn't that good an actor. Neither was Rourke, back in the day anyway. And his reactions seem pretty genuine in the "grainy" shots (compared to the better exposed "R-rated" shots in the same scene). As do her's (I've always wondered what she's saying to him in the one shot where he's doing her from behind and also during the overhead thrusting scene). Doesn't mean anything, I know.

The third bit of evidence is that this was a Zalman King set, not a Scorcese or a Spielberg set - therefore the atmosphere would have been conducive to allowing them to go to it.

The fact is, I think unless someone makes the original raw, undoctored footage available, it's impossible to confirm or deny whether anything happened "for real". The he said/she said can't be taken as genuine, the visual evidence is inconclusive. Frankly, it's this unknown factor that keeps the scene among the hottest ever filmed for a mainstream film. I actually hope we never find out for certain.

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by toonman

There is obvious image manipulation happening. Today we'd just say someone did something digitally, but this was around 1990 and they didn't have that technology.

I just feel the need to pedantically point out that just because they didn't do it on a desktop computer doesn't mean they didn't have the technology to do some kind of editing of the frames. There was plenty of post-production changes done on celluloid before everyone went digital.