Pornography: The Musical (2003 TV Movie) User Reviews

No authenticity but like sex work itself: good, bad n ugly

[candif · 6/10 · 6 October 2013]

I knew nothing about the history of this film and film-makers so assumed that this was a one-off production by people who knew something about sex industry. Knowing now that it was a second offering of a format previously produced in a juvenile detention center I am surprised that they managed to get such candid interviews from the porn actors. I think that is a feat in itself if you are not known as a 'sex work friendly' filmmaker.

I also assumed that the songs/poems were written by the actors themselves. Discovering that this was not the case I am actually outraged that the filmmakers have presented these artworks as authentic sex-worker art. Maybe if I was a more discerning audience member I would have realised this but in any case it makes the whole film a weird mixture of doco and fiction. A film presenting sex workers/ porn actors experiences and art would have been relevant and insightful. As it stands it is just another bullshit amalgam of real imagery and interview material warped to present the filmmakers' disturbed vision of the porn industry.

Having read the other reviews I am disappointed to find that the reading of the film was heavily influenced by the reviewers pre-conceived ideas about working in the sex industry, also. Two of the reviewers here found the most relevant bit to be the description of the watersports shoot where the actress is debriefing afterward with the camera. Why is it that people need to see 'damage' for sex industry representations to be 'insightful' to them? Why don't all the other statements about porn work get through? If this were a film on police officers or nurses or something would we seize on the one scene where the subject has gone through a new and challenging part of the job? dunno.

Overall I found the film to be revealing and moving but that was before I realised that the songs and poems weren't authentic porn actors' art.

Porn. But not as we know it.

[d1senior · 8 November 2003]

Pornographic musicals are not strictly unheard of - although I haven't seen either, both Jacob Pander's Suck It And See and Bud Townsend's 1976 version of Alice in Wonderland are examples - and, in a strange way, the two genres actually share numerous attributes; beautiful girls, stand-alone performance sequences which disrupt the greater narrative flow, and wilful disregard for 'realism' are key factors in each. It is, perhaps, a shame however that only one of these genres will ever find itself on Sunday afternoon television schedules.

Where Pornography: The Musical really stands out is in its blending of these (apparently) disparate genres with the documentary mode; as anyone who has (and, for that matter, anyone who hasn't) watched any smutty cinema will testify, pornography's detachment from psychological realism is often paramount. In order for these films to work, they can't be realistic portrayals of everyday life. To be fair, Pornography: The Musical isn't porn, and was never designed as such; the filmmakers have gone on record admitting that the whole business unnerves them deeply. (However, Pornography: The Musical has, ironically, more than enough mileage to keep connoisseurs of 'clandestine' cinema happy). This film aims more at being some kind of experimental documentary - candid (and, in at least two cases, surprisingly shocking) interviews with performers from differing parts of the industry, interrupted by segments in which these 'stars' proceed to perform specially-written song-and-dance numbers.

The main problem I had with this was, well, the whole structure seemed somewhat pointless; the recent explosion of television documentaries delving into the world of porn would have seemed to have motivated the filmmakers to creating something fresher and more original, although, in reality, all they did was retread the format of their earlier musical prison-documentary Feltham Sings (2002) in a manner which sadly evokes the desperation of a creative one-trick-pony. Although I am all for artistic expression which exists on the margins of genre and culture, I couldn't help feeling this should have simply been played straight; another porn-documentary may not have set the world alight in excitement, but it would at least have represented a solid, even attempt to understand this world.

As it stands, Pornography: The Musical is wildly uneven at best; the songs' often dark lyrics, penned by the filmmakers, seem at odds with the actual accounts of the performers themselves (only one of whom is less than enthusiastic about her line of work), leaving any intended message garbled and confused. The musical numbers themselves are pretty shoddy, if one is being kind; although generally performed with a definite (amateur) gusto, they are simply too forgettable and cheap-sounding to leave any lasting impact. Although it seems churlish to criticise what ought to be an admirably extreme piece of television on these grounds, if these segments of supposed expressionism are meant to be central to the film's distinctiveness, and we as an audience are meant to find them as interesting as the 'documentary' segments, then a better execution of these sections is surely not too much to ask for.

What the hell was that?

[evan_harvey · 1/10 · 12 April 2012]

Okay, so a doco about porn. Not too original, I hear you say. I caught the tail end of this (no pun intended) on the TV late one night.

It had some relatively interesting parts (like a description of the aftermath of a "watersports" video - I'll leave that to your imagination), as well as some interviews with porn actresses. The ladies speak about what they're doing, what they think of it, why they do it and so on. That part was fine.

But then... seriously? WTF? I mean W. T. F..? Interspersed with these interviews and footage are horrible singing by the girls themselves, singing out-of-tune nonsensical rhyming songs about porn and sex. If you think I'm kidding (and it sounds like I am), well, I'm actually not. It's a bizarre, weird mix that really makes no sense. I couldn't quite look away, yet at the same time I knew it was pathetically stupid.

I hope the filmmakers aren't congratulating themselves, as they end result is that it largely devalues any real meaning that this might have had.

I am somewhat flabbergasted that this was even shown on TV. I assume it was funded... and whoever greenlit this should be slapped. I assume (or at least hope) that the filmmakers were at one stage trying to make a serious doco about pornography and the girls involved, but the bad singing reduced it to such a truly stupid and irrelevant level that it defies belief.

It sounds titillating, but is truly, truly horrible. Some of the interviews are interesting, but the singing is so bad and weird that it's not even funny. If someone had caught me watching this, I'd have been embarrassed... and that's not because of the porn.

Pointless, off tune and a real waste of an hour

[bob the moo · 26 October 2003]

In an attempt to penetrate (sorry) the porn industry in the UK through the media of song, the film interviews several actresses and ex-actresses both in their homes and on the set. The actresses talk about their feelings and experiences of their chosen career and also sing songs and poetry on the subject.

I was a massive fan of Feltham Sings when it was made - it basically put the same principle into a young offenders institution. That was telling, moving and had some really good music in it. This film came on a greater wave of media speculation since it boasted `the most graphic scenes ever seen on terrestrial tv'. And I guess, if you've never watched porn, then you may be shocked by the sort core shot material that is occasionally shown. To the film's credit none of it could be accused of being in there for arousal value as is the case with many so called sex `documentaries'. However this does not mean that anything else is really of value.

Many other films have tried to show porn for what it is to several people - some do it well and others come off as whacking material at best. The media of song is not the best way to do it and the film is overwhelmed by the scale of the subject and ends up not really having anything new or of interest to say. Only at one point was I gripped - where a woman talks (long after the shoot) about her first `water sports' film (basically people urinating all over each other). She looks physically shaken by the whole thing and she is very verbal about how disgusted she is by the whole experience. Other than that the women don't really say anything of interest. Most talking heads are banal while some (the wonderful anal sex anecdote) are just gross.

The songs are all pretty awful. Not only can the women not sing in tune, but the music is uninspired and the lyrics are just poor and don't say anything. I was surprised as I though Simon Armitage could work with anything, but here he is at a loss to turn this sow's ear into a purse. The actresses themselves all start to look the same and all (except one) seem to say, `yeah it's nasty but it's not that bad'. No real insight or vulnerability to them.

Overall this film was a real disappointment. Aside from seeing the aftermath of some shoots and seeing how `damaged' some of the women are, it doesn't really do anything of any great value. The songs and lyrics are uninspired at best and banal at worst. I wanted to like this because I loved it's predecessor - but there is just too little to like here.