February 12, 2005

Brown Bunny Sex Scene Quictime video. NSFW
  • [This is bad] You know, I think I can find my porn on the Internet for myself.
  • This need to be deleted quickly...this is NOT monkey filter material.. Sullivan, you've made a mistake....
  • Hey, hey, hey - it's not porn, it's art! Seriously, you want to watch out saying things like that. Gallo is quick to anger, and holds grudges. Don't fuck with the V-Dawg.
  • I know it's bad. Vincent Spano thinks this is art. He defends this scene to death.
  • I meant Gallo. Not Spano.
  • He may well hold a grudge, but he can't shoot porn for shit.Gallo needs to go back to the winemaking and leave the camera alone. Or at least add in some proper wackachacka music. C'mon! Pizza? My sister and I didn't order pizza... Anyway, when posting direct links to porn, do try to give some mitigating context. Else it will probably get deleted.
  • ""Fox turned into a hard-core porn channel so gradually, I didn't even notice." - M. Simpson
  • What part of "NSFW" and "sex scene" do you not understand? Seriously, I bet the vast majority of monkeys heard about how this movie bombed at Cannes and the now infamous sex scene. I understand why Gallo did this flop.I can't understand why Chloe Sevigny would agree to this after a Oscar nomination for Boys Don't Cry. She's the one with the promising career. An online friend of mine in the PR biz for the entertainment industry told me that Gallo and Sevigny used to date on and off. Not seriously.
  • I know it's bad. Vincent Spano thinks this is art. He defends this scene to death. So? If you're not just posting shit, give us some context. Who's this Vincent Gallo guy? What movie is it from? Why does he feel it's important? What are the articles dealing with this scene? Otherwise it's just crap.
  • I am with you, alnedra, but after reading sully's last comment, I believe that I remember this. This was a scene from an actual movie that was intended for some sort of release, if I am not mistaken. I suppose that makes it more post-worthy. Still, it would seem that a bit more info on the front page would have been useful. Now, back to my own porn...
  • Okay. Here's context. Roger Ebert review
    In May of 2003 I walked out of the press screening of Vincent Gallo's "The Brown Bunny" at the Cannes Film Festival and was asked by a camera crew what I thought of the film. I said I thought it was the worst film in the history of the festival. That was hyperbole -- I hadn't seen every film in the history of the festival -- but I was still vibrating from one of the most disastrous screenings I had ever attended. The audience was loud and scornful in its dislike for the movie; hundreds walked out, and many of those who remained only stayed because they wanted to boo. Imagine, I wrote, a film so unendurably boring that when the hero changes into a clean shirt, there is applause. The panel of critics convened by Screen International, the British trade paper, gave the movie the lowest rating in the history of their annual voting.
  • Thank you.
  • Sullivan, it's a CRAP POST. If you'd made the post about the context and provided a link for people to see for themselves, it might be a good one. As is, it's not different to just linking to an mpg of Deep Throat and then getting huffy that people don't magically understand you want to talk about issues of consent in porn movies.
  • Second part of Ebert's review.
    But to reveal how it works on a level more complex than the physical would be to undermine the way the scene pays off. The scene, and its dialogue, and a flashback to the Daisy character at a party, work together to illuminate complex things about Bud's sexuality, his guilt, and his feelings about women. Even at Cannes, even after unendurably superfluous footage, that scene worked, and I wrote: "It must be said that [Sevigny] brings a truth and vulnerability to her scene that exists on a level far above the movie it is in." Gallo takes the materials of pornography and repurposes them into a scene about control and need, fantasy and perhaps even madness. That scene is many things, but erotic is not one of them. (A female friend of mine observed that Bud Clay, like many men, has a way of asking a woman questions just when she is least prepared to answer them.)
    Ebert is suggesting that the scene is art and was never intended to be erotic.
  • rodgerd, Deep Throat is my link for tomorrow. How did you know?
  • I call the post a Glenn Renolds post. Instapundit doesn't describe (or read) his links!
  • There was also a rather infamous billboard when it had a - ahem - "limited release" in the US.
  • I remember the movie and the reviews and the resulting brouhaha. I like the post. and Ms. Best threw out all my girlie mags
  • Ebert is suggesting that the scene is art and was never intended to be erotic. First off, that's Ebert's opinion. Secondly, images and scenes, when lopped off from context, will look very different. If I made a pastiche of Titian's paintings of Venus, but with only parts showing breasts and private parts, that might be construed as pornography. If the scene you just linked to was cropped further, showing only the parts where the blowjob was highlighted, that can also be considered pornography. Of course, this is a slippery slope argument. However, I think there's cause enough for me to feel rather offended that such an explicit sex scene was just linked without explanation (and no, sorry, I've not heard of Brown Bunny and only once or twice of Vincent Gallo). But in the end, what really pisses me off is that you feel we're stupid to think that a FPP simply stating "sex scene" and "NSFW" might not contain extremely explicit imagery. Both warnings can cover a wide range of possibilities. The "Money Shot" FPP for instance has videos showing some (many?)bared breasts and implied sex scenes. Very different from yours, but still "NSFW" and "sex scenes". Oh, forget it. Next time...there won't be a next time.
  • A post (like a joke) that requires explanation is no good. Seriously a bad porn clip from an even worse movie??? The second half of Eberts review that you posted said there was a great scene in the movie. Ebert describes his scene as having dialogue and a flashback. This was not the scene you posted.
  • Great snark from Ebert here. Vincent Gallo has put a curse on my colon and a hex on my prostate. He called me a "fat pig" in the New York Post and told the New York Observer I have "the physique of a slave-trader." He is angry at me because I said his "The Brown Bunny" was the worst movie in the history of the Cannes Film Festival. [....] I am not too worried. I had a colonoscopy once, and they let me watch it on TV. It was more entertaining than "The Brown Bunny." [....] Gallo all but wept in a Cannes interview as he described the pain of "growing up ugly," but empathy has its limits, and he had no tears for a fat pig and slave-trader such as myself. It is true that I am fat, but one day I will be thin, and he will still be the director of "The Brown Bunny." Ebert apparently got thin too.
  • What I find amusing is people complaining about seeing a sex scene when I stated I was linking directly to a sex scene. The truth is people wanting to see something nasty. It just wasn't the kida nasty they wanted. I don't think people are stupid. I should have provided a better explanation for other monkeys. What I find hypocritical is people hitting a NSFW link and finding something that offended them. Big surprise. For the record: many other monkeys have posted NSFW links with no descriptions.
  • the only good thing about this post is that it reminded me how to directly link a .mov from ifilm. Very useful
  • Man, Ebert did drop weight. Good for him.
  • Personally I didnt care that it was porn. Just that it was so boring.
  • the only good thing about this post is that it reminded me how to directly link a .mov from ifilm. Very useful Yeah, I was looking for the Moneyshot link and found Brown Bunny. Go figure.
  • Sevigny was evidently dropped by her agency for shooting that scene.
  • Sullivan, now you're just being a half-wit. Do you throw drinks on people in bars and then get upset when they hit you?
  • Several years ago a bunch of my friends and I rented some trashy movies and in one of the scenes they showed some brown rabbits and one had mounted the other, but from the front. The rabbit on the bottom was not happy about getting hit in the face repeatedly. We rewound and watched that 10 second clip a dozen times. I was really hoping that was the brown bunny sex scene in question!
  • Ebert is suggesting that the scene is art and was never intended to be erotic. Ebert has always been a fat moronic piece of shit. Not erotic? Check. Art? If Horrible horrible 3rd rate porn with awful production values and the actress making bizzare noises that dont even sound like pleasure is art, then I guess so. As much as Hollywood movies like "bad Boys" piss me off, they are far far more artistic than "indie" stuff like this and at least they look good. The world needs to stop paying attention to sub-moronic posers like Gallo.
  • I like it when people aren't afraid to express their opinions.
  • Sullivan - I'm still unclear as to why you thought it was a good idea to post this. Great cinema? Your comments seem to indicate that you don't think so. A telling commentary on the decadence of modern society? Sounds as though it's just a blow job. Tittilation because a famous actress is involved? Does that make it post-worthy? And, no, I haven't checked it out. From my haughy, schoolmarm high horse, I always read the comments on NSFW stuff to see if I care enough to click. So, with only hear-say evidence, I'm willing to say it's at least as unworthy as that rat colonic thing was. And, you know what, I suspect it reflects badly on MonkeyFilter.
  • jccalhoun: wasn't that from the "Dracula Sucks" movie? Wasn't that the same night we all rented the puppet porn? I haven't laughed so hard that many times in my life.
  • Hot blowjob MonkeyFilter. I think Sullivan is just trying to see how far he can push it. I'd say a timeout is in order here.
  • I stand by my comment...there was no redeeming value to this post and the clip was neither art NOR pornograpy, it was a hack scene from a bad movie... a waste of our time..
  • hmmm "pornograpy" a new word, but seems to fit.. off topic.... sort of... I'm wondering about what direction we are heading with all the NSFW posts, foul language, sex, etc.... If this is what MonkeyFilter is becoming, I'm in the wrong place...... No judgement here, just trying to figure out if I'm in the wrong community....
  • I'm not usually one for participating in a dogpile, but I do think that you could've brought a little more to the post. I vaguely remembered the title of The Brown Bunny, and that it generated more than a little bit of controversy. You did your required minimum by flagging it as NSFW, but I think it's clear that you also left a lot of potentially useful context out of the post that would certainly have made it less likely to recieve the vitriol that it has. Again, you did what was required, but I think the phrase Due Diligence might be apropos, here. If I were to make an FPP based on this content, I would've shown a lot of other info, perhaps Ebert's review, an article with Gallo's defense of his work, and perhaps even info about Chloe Sevigny, finally including the link as "the scene in question." That might have generated some discussion, or at least a bit fewer pointy sticks aimed in your direction.
  • I don't see what Sullivan did wrong here: the post was clearly marked as NSFW and containing a sex scene. Anyone not able to read those warning signs probably has more difficulty in day-to-day life than they ever could inside this cloistered little meeting place. As for the merit of the post, that's entirely subjective. All sorts of things get discussed here, which reflects the varied interest of the many members. Personally, I like both extended writeups and short, catchy headlines which make you have to click into the discussion, if not on to the link itself, to find out what's going on. Where did all the puritans come from? What's so wrong with porn (even badly produced 'art' porn) that it's apparently given so many people the willies?
  • The acting sucked, the dialogue was sketchy, the sound effects were trite, and was that a real Whizzinator? I'm a fan of blowjobs. I've been known to seek out porn. No puritans or willies at all that I see in the various comments. Perhaps you should read with comprehension as well as with an itch to hone. A porn scene with no context. To me, this is much like a little kid whipping out his dick to see what kind of response he gets. Since this is a community, I expect that #1 will take these varied opinions into account. I'm just throwing in my 2 cents.
  • Truth be told, I like my pr0n, but there are websites that I visit specifically for thatd content. It is not the reason I come to MoFi. And people wonder why I say that this site has gotten too Fark-like and frat boy-esque lately? Even though I am not in any way personally offended, I'd have to weigh in that your argument for posting this is far below the intellectual standards of this site.
  • For the site admins future review I would like to add to the dogpile. I remember the bad reviews, particularly of this scene, and now have found the link (which I appreciated) thanks to Sullivan. Maybe not the "greatest" (haha) FPP ever, but it was short and (not so ;)) sweet, properly labeled NSFW, easily ignored if that was your wish. Additionally, Sullivan provided feedback in the comments; I feel that's a big plus. And what coppermac said.
  • And squid, please forwad me and Sullivan a copy of the by-laws highlighting the "intellectual standards" subsection.
  • stirfry, I think that only a puritan would complain about 'porn' in a link so clearly marked as this one twice was. Don't like NSFW stuff? Don't click on it. I think the NFL is pointless in the extreme, but if someone had posted a thread all about the stupor bowl, I'd have happily ignored it. We do have the ability to decide what to read all on our very own.
  • fatnat: here are the by-laws highlighting the "intellectual standards".
  • I would have wanted to see it if I knew the story. I also agree that the post was pretty clearly marked, at least clearly enough that people's expectations clicking the link could not have been that far off from what they got.
  • If that was Monica and Bill I'd still consider it to be a piss poor FPP. Although it would hold my interest a bit more as I'd be interested in the tecnique of people I'd heard of. This dog was just nonsense.
  • coppermac; for me, it's just that I always fear that the posting of porn will change the way the site is seen by new viewers, so that it drives out some of the really good stuff when they sign up based on a leading post. I know that I'd stop coming here if too much of it started showing up. You are more than free to search out porn. I think it's kinda boring, but that's just me. I could even see a reason for posting something less than really hardcore stuff here if there were some issue involved in it, but there appears to be none in this case. That may be "Puritan", or it may be just us other folks trying to keep this a place where we feel comfortable and interested in visiting.
  • 1) Yes, of course it's art. If it was created with the intention of it being art, it's art. The question of whether it's good or bad art is a different (and much more interesting) matter. I was actually under the impression that questions of this nature had been resolved several decades ago, but it turns out that not only did loads of people not get the memo, but the world doesn't even operate by system of memos! We've been lied to all this time. Dang. 2) No, there was nothing formally wrong with it as a post. It says "sex scene" and "NSFW". That's pretty damn unambiguous. If you have personal standards by which certain specific types of NSFW sex scene offend you, but you're fine with others, then I am bemused, but would suggest that maybe you should err on the side of caution. You wouldn't want to see some nasty, unpleasant fisting when you were expecting just good clean rimming. 3) No, it wasn't a particularly great post, because Sully didn't provide any context, which is what's fun about the whole business. Ebert slating it, Gallo flipping out (then flipping back in again, then just flipping around at random), the billboard, Chloe Sevigny's unorthodox career path... it's good stuff. It's always a good idea to provide context, because we are large. We contain multitudes. Not everybody has the same reference points, and the purpose of the site is to introduce people to new and exciting things, no? Vincent Gallo's controversial penis surely counts as such. 4) We've always had NSFW posts here, often in large mumbers. They tend to cluster, I notice. Nothing wrong with that. Also, by and large we love the swearing, always have. We're very fucking good at it. If there's been a drop off in the quality of discussion recently, it's not because rude or dumb stuff's being posted, it's because people aren't discussing the more intellectual stuff anywhere near as much as they used to, or in anything like the depth. Probably because they're all too fucking busy finding something to complain about somewhere else.
  • Hear hear, flashboy!
  • I didn't click on the link. Were there rabbits involved?
  • I, for one, thought that everyone knew about the Ebert/Gallo conflict and the blowjob scene. Since I won't be able to see the movie for a long time, I liked the clip.
  • I imagined something like the closing titles of "The Plague" from Father Ted.
  • I think the link is fine. This was a much-talked-about scene. I was interested in seeing what all the fuss was about. And I think there's plenty of stuff that's much more significantly controversial posted on MoFi. So I don't think Sullivan should have to apologize for the link. At the same time, though, Sullivan, how hard would it be to say, "You know, maybe I COULD have provided a little more context/info in this FPP. I'll try a little harder next time"?
  • I see your point, path, but all the content here (and all over the web) is perceived subjectively. You might not like porn or the way that a site addresses pornography in its threads, but there are probably more than a few people here for whom those topics are vital or interesting or fun to discuss. Me? I don't like porn much at all, but I didn't see any need to hammer on Sullivan for his choice of topics, especially when s/he made it abundantly clear that the subject was porn. Newsfilter posts always catch flack for being too obvious. Double posts or new threads which address recently reviewed topics outside of original threads are bashed. Self-linking is frowned upon, and many, many other tenets and guidelines are challenged, violated and complained about here and there every day on this site. However, I think almost all new threads are welcome: it's not like we have dozens of deserving threads falling off the page daily to disappear into the void all because someone wants to point out what nonsense can happen in filmland. Let there be more posts and threads, I say -- it gives us all more to dicuss, and might even broaden some horizons.
  • I think that part of the problem is "NSFW" - it's come to include things as banal as breasts or swearing or other such things. So I know that I wouldn't have expected NSFW to lead to, you know, actual porn - unless there was context. I knew about the controversy, so I was able to recognize that "Brown Bunny Sex Scene" meant that it was an actual sex scene from the movie. However, as jccalhoun pointed out, if you didn't know, given the usual standards of what NSFW means, and the usual standard of what's posted on this site, one could very well have thought "bunnies humping, probably a humour site" and clicked on it. I've never, ever seen NSFW attached to out-and-out porn before on this site. And I have to say, I don't like it. *If* Sullivan had actually given context, I think it might be okay. Still not really great for Monkeyfilter, but okay. I think what's most annoying about this is assuming everyone would know about the controversy. Um, if you're not North American or possibly some brands of European, or a follower of film festivals, how would you know? Don't assume things on the Internet. It sucks ass. (Or, in the spirit of this post, it blows!)
  • Buffalo '66 was good. real good.
  • ))), flashboy!!!
  • In case anyone's interested, Gallo has since done some editing on Brown Bunny, and the final cut is actually pretty good. I look forward to renting it someday. I've liked other stuff he's done; I thought Buffalo 66 was really good. The embroglio between him and Ebert was mostly a misunderstanding, and they've reconciled. The cut that was shown at Cannes was pretty much a rough cut -- Gallo's editor left to do a different job before he could finish, and Gallo had to finish editing it himself, which he was not really qualified to do. He admits the rough cut was pretty shitty. As for the porn scene being "art", taken completely out of context like that it's impossible to say. Maybe Ebert's right. Personally, I don't find it offensive so much as boring. On its own as an FPP, I would have liked to have seen a bit more said about it, such as why we should be interested in seeing it out of context like that. Otherwise, why not just post a .jpg of Chuck Norris.
  • Monkeyfilter: You were expecting just good clean rimming
  • Otherwise, why not just post a .jpg of Chuck Norris. ok. this is pretty sweet imho.
  • There is the really cool website, called tubgirl... Rodger Ebert thinks that the photo is teh cool!
  • Wedge, next time, please preface that with a NSFW. Thanks so much.
  • a flashback to the Daisy character Well, THERE'S the problem!! I always read the comments on NSFW stuff to see if I care enough to click. I'm with you there. GramMa's been around too long to be seriously shocked (except for that goatse-thingy--whoa!) but there's more to life than bad porn. Seen one, seen 'em all. Like baseball, watching is boring, I'd rather partic--nevermind, TMI. If this is what MonkeyFilter is becoming, I'm in the wrong place...... I would say that most of us are here for interesting posts--Best of the Web, hopefully, or just a bit of fun/social interaction. I enjoy the serious discussions even though I seldom contribute--usually I'm more interested in what others are saying, or someone has already said it better than I can. This doesn't sound like BOTW, more like dreck from the comments, and that would indicate to me that it wasn't worth pursuing. I must admit that I'm guilty of participating on Urine Day, which was also rather tasteless, but that post garnered a few laughs and some "fegh" comments. The bottom line on a good post vs. bad post is the response. It appears that your public has given you a thumbs down on this one.
  • Blowjobs make me angry.
  • What Bees said.
  • I think it's a little premature to be calling MoFi out over a single post within a plethora of high-quality threads. If one post in the last however-many doesn't float your boat and that's reason enough for you to want to leave, then I'm both surprised and bemused. Sully's post could indeed have done with context (I, being an insular type, have no clue what most of you are on about) but it was supplied in the end by him and others. Since Sullivan consistently provides discussion-worthy posts on other, mostly political, topics, I'm vehemently opposed to any suggestions of a time-out. And that deals with most of the opposing comments on this thread. I'm going to shift this off the front page because it's more meta-debate than discussion of the post - which is a pity, because the impression I get is that with enough surrounding links and background information, it could have been a damn good thread, NSFW-tag aside. If you wish to continue to discuss the quality of the posts here, it might be a good place to work out a tolerable level of NSFW-ness that people could choose to adhere to.
  • The trailer for brown bunny is exceptional, though. Maybe he should have only made that.
  • Wow. I missed this and only now see it from "new comments". You only have to have enough interest in film to pay attention to what happens at Cannes every year to have the context to understand this post. I don't think it's that obscure. However, Sullivan linking to this scene is doing the film a disservice, and he's not really furthering intelligent discussion of the issues surrounding it, either. I'm not going to watch this clip, even though I'm curious about it, because in my understanding it's pretty important to the denouement of the film and I only want to see it in context. It's not porn, regarldess of subject matter, because (from what I've read), it's very relevant thematically and the scene works well within the film. That makes it, by definition, not porn because the film as a whole isn't porn. Catherine Breillat's Romance is notorious for its explicit sex, but it's not porn because, arguably, the explicit sex is not gratuitous. But by linking to this scene by itself, Sullivan is reducing it to being effectively pornography. Which I find very disprespectful especially with regard to Chloe Sevigny who made the brave decision to do this scene and for which she's paid a price. For those not familiar with Gallo: the man is a nutcase in the stereotypical artiste fashion. He didn't come out of nowhere, he's done much more than film and is a painter, too, I believe, and is well-known in many avant-garde circles. As others have said above, Buffalo 66 was an excellent film, widely admired. Brown Bunny was reviled at Cannes, and much press came of this; but Ebert is not the only critic who has seen the released version and believes that it's much, much better than what was screened at Cannes; and, in fact, many critics have given the film good reviews. Given all this context, in theory this could have been a good post because of the great interest in this scene. But Sullivan didn't provide the context and, anyway, even with context isn't watching this scene in isolation more voyeuristic than anything else?
  • Is there some publication I am not reading where everybody is getting their information on Cannes? I usually don't hear squat about it until I find out there is a new winner. Then I go to IMDB to find out about the different films' awards. Is it just a matter of reading more mainstream film critics over Filthy?
  • Heh 69 posts. *snkk* aw crap!
  • I do find it amusing that this bad post has generated so many comments. If I made my usual political post about a subject like Social Security I guarantee that it wouldn't have generated as many comments. If you check - I did admit that I should have provided a description. Unlike another monkey I used to bash for not admitting the errors of his ways (who has since changed his profile) - I will bear monkeys complaints in mind if I ever make a NSFW post again. As far as I know, I have never posted a NSFW meme before. I still think that some monkeys wanted to see a nasty NSFW post and they were just disappointed that it wasn't their kind of nasty.
  • Proteus: I found about it here or on metafilter. Cannes, the Oscars and the like usually create obligatory thread. There, you can read the comments of people who follow the movie scene far closer than you or I do. Plastic.com also does that kind of stuff.
  • Check also the moderately obvious: Ain't-It-Cool, Empire, Defamer, ComingSoon, or any one of the myriad movie sites linked from those sites. Covers most bases you might wish to be covered; if it's not ruffling their feathers, then it ain't worth mussin' your own feathers over. Or, you know, something. Er. Um.
  • Ah, late to the party. I liked this as a FPP; I'm reasonably culturally literate (and the complaints that if you're not American or familiar with Cannes then you won't understand it is amusing. If you follow film at all in the West, you should be familiar with what Cannes is showing and the controversies. If not, you're simply not following film). As for the scene, it was surprisingly pornographic. I expected something more tame than what I got, but I got what I got. I happen to think Gallo is an overrated piece of shit artiste (Buffalo 66 was crap, despite the plaudits of fellow monkeys above), and I find his "it must be art because it's egotism" to be painfully shallow. Still, it was nice to see what all the fuss was about. This was worth an FPP, more worth than the various "I've got a splinter, internet friends! Please advise!" crappers. Too bad very few people chose to address the content, and instead focused on whether this was too explicit.
  • Let's not burn the monkey house down over one 'difficult-to-explain-to-the-children' moment. The post was fine, but, as I also have learned, it's always a good idea to give people as much warning as possible if you're linking to something that might be shock-Shock-SHOCKING.
  • Sully, any post that generates a tagline can cause the poster to be forgiven all sins. Oh, no, not THAT! MonkeyFilter: They were just disappointed that it wasn't their kind of nasty.
  • Too bad very few people chose to address the content, and instead focused on whether this was too explicit. In their defense, js, they were addressing the content, which was simply a pornographic Quicktime video. On its own as an FPP, it's pretty pointless. Some context was given later as an afterthought, but if you ask me, the post seemed kind of hastily thrown up there. Even a "follower of film" shouldn't be expected to figure out what Sully's intent was ... he should have provided context, IMO. Not the "worst FPP ever", but certainly one of the lazier ones.
  • So we're all agreed then? Great! Last one out please turn off the internet.
  • No way - that's where all the pr0n is at.
  • look! it's a brown bunny!
  • NSFW Dish -- that bunny's getting fisted!
  • This need to be deleted quickly...this is NOT monkey filter material.. Path, give us some context! Don't just post something provocative and fuzzy without a hint.
  • Rosebud!
  • Um, I think it was HuronBob who said that, BlueHorse.
  • GramMa was distracted ;)
  • Looks like Brown Bunny beats Money shot in the comments department. Heh, art beats porn.
  • Heh, art beats porn Apparently you are not acquainted with the monstrous Daisy_may thread, Sullivan. So scum beats art?
  • No, no. Pen missle beats art. Pen missle. Nyerm.
  • MCT Wins
  • Looks like Brown Bunny beats Money shot in the comments department. Heh, art beats porn. However, Money Shot definitely wins the Spelling competition. Quictime indeed.
  • "Quicktime" - happy?
  • Path, Petebest, I was trying to be funny. NEEEEVER MIND! OK then, paper beats rock.
  • damn you rock!
  • Damn, you RAWK!
  • Ok...this is pretty funny. Why is that sex scene 'boring'? Because the didn't just cut to the good stuff, and the camera wasn't a well-lit few inches away from his dick and her mouth at all times. Kind of like...real sex? And not porn? And where's the indignation about this; "Chloe Sevigny who made the brave decision to do this scene and for which she's paid a price" In an industry where macho action actors who 'do all their own stunts' are admired, and that information is made public to boost both the career of the actor and box office take, I highly doubt any male actor would have been punished for doing a real sex scene going down on an actress. "Sevigny was evidently dropped by her agency for shooting that scene" Yet everybody was creaming in their pants when Charlize Theron gained weight and looked like shit to play Aileen Wuornos. "Real" is only acceptable, apparently, when it isn't. I'll bet you that if "The Brown Bunny" would have been lauded at Cannes and/or made big box office, Chloe Sevigny would be being adored for her daring and dedication to her craft. "I can't understand why Chloe Sevigny would agree to this after a Oscar nomination for Boys Don't Cry. She's the one with the promising career." She agreed to it because she is an unconventional actress who is willing to take an artistic chance, and who isn't psychic. As for the post itself, are we individualizing the meaning of NSFW and 'sex scene' now? Maybe Sullivan isn't psychic either. Do we really want to show potential members that while we can discuss rape and abuse intelligently and at length, a clearly indicated NSFW sex scene from a Cannes-screened film gets our knickers all a-twist? Who, exactly, is this site wanting to attract? I would hope the open-minded and tolerant. This thread was embarrassing not because of the FPP itself, but rather some of the responses. Yes, Sullivan could have provided more context, but "The Brown Bunny", the film's reception at Cannes, and the controversy about the scene he presented were widely reported. That's where notoriety comes from, no? If you weren't paying attention at the time, fine; but why lash out at Sullivan? Sorry for the rerail...
  • *taps cane on desk* Heah! heah!
  • You're my hero, moneyjane.
  • Thank you, thank you. *Adjusts tophat, fluffs feathers, flies away*
  • Who was that tophatted woman?
  • If Charlize Theron had been fat and ugly to begin with, and had given exactly the same performance in "Monster," she doesn't even get nominated.
  • I saw the whole movie (thanks to bittorrent) and it wasn't that bad. And lifting this scene from it's context doesn't work for me. If you know what happened before it gets a whole different meaning.
  • And don't miss the last article for sale on the page. This guy is fucking nuts.
  • The entire vincentgallo.com site has such a rare and magical beauty. I worship.
  • " . . cheap, prostituted wankery and piffle." --PeteBest Quarterly, p.67