Turned On, Tuned In: The Indie “O” Face

Posted by Bethany Perryman (bethany@filmschoolrejects.com) on August 24, 2009

turnedon-oface

What’s turning me on this week? Justin Nowell’s “O” face. And sweaty naked Filipinos.

There’s a lot of sex in movies these days, and, I’d argue — even more of it in independent film. Independent and/or arthouse movies have largely championed what I believe to be the paramount intent of the art form that is ‘film’ — that is, pushing boundaries, re-framing cultural issues, and using a visual story-telling format to express alternative ways and means of comprehending things close, foreign, and completely inimitable.

Truly independent film largely skirts the burden of having to be a marketable piece of cinema, and, as such, can (thankfully) challenge us in several areas — one being the collective sexual identity of humankind. And that’s where I find myself today, finding Sex-as-a-concept dripping all over artful entertainment. In the indie vehicle World’s Greatest Dad, the issue of auto-erotic masturbation (one that’s cropped up all over the place in the last several years) serves as a crucial plot device. The episode of Battlestar Galactica that I’m watching as I write this (not indie, but, for the sake of argument, let’s call it niche) is all about the child sex trade (great show — but the issue is cheaply dealt with here).

Lately I’ve been learning and thinking more about independent and niche cinema, and sex — and I’d like to introduce you to two filmmakers that are rocking my world.

First: Justin Nowell. He makes shorts, and Sundance shared them online. As a fan of free love (and open, um, source), I dig the fact that his 2008 film Sick Sex and his 2009 short Acting for the Camera were free. (Now they’re available on iTunes and Amazon VOD.) These films aren’t porn. The 12-minute Sick Sex has a concise set up: “Amanda has a fever. Ken is horny.” We’ve certainly all been there, Ken. It’s a funny little sex comedy, and worth checking out.

Nowell’s other short, Acting for the Camera, is a fourteen minute short about students in an acting class’s rendition of the orgasm scene from last night — er, I mean, from When Harry Met Sally. Nowell approaches sex from a bit of a blunted position, using it as fodder for comedy, and not equating nudity with the topic of sex. This indirect-but-direct confrontation of sex is somewhat reminiscent of classic standup comedy tropes; it is fresh, and, like Nowell’s uptake of emerging technologies to shoot and distribute his films, it is also youthful and forward-looking.

The other filmmaker, Brilliante Mendoza, beat out seasoned directors like Inglorious Basterds’s Quentin Tarantino to take the Best Director prize at Cannes this year. Mendoza, a neo-realist filmmaker (in both technique and character execution) from the Philippines, uses highly explicit sex in his films — as in this year’s Serbis. He lets full on nudity — sometimes not pretty — and sexual episodes propel his story, provide tone, and deepen his characters. Mendoza’s films have been met with much negative criticism — Ebert called Serbis the “worst film” at Cannes. Mainstream pubs like Variety label Mendoza as exploitative, but Tarantino (and others, such as Sean Penn) are lauding his work. And maybe it is — exploitative, that is. But if there’s one thing that sparks welcome debate, it’s a real artist that forces you to experience a controversial vision. And sweaty naked Filipinos.

What I’m getting at is simple. Films-as-art help us to evaluate our collective human sexual identity, whether it’s through the use of realist gritty scenes of sex, or fully clothed jokes and cum noises. And I think it’s important to care about art, and sex, and how we define and ultimately view both. I think seeking out the new, edgy, different, funny, raw, difficult and, sometimes, even exploitative can help us to better shape our representative stories and inform our views about life — which, as we know, is the highest of all art. That, and sweaty naked Filipinos.

Want some sex advice? Turned On, Tuned In author Bethany Perryman is here for you. You can get ‘in touch’ with her via email (bethany@filmschoolrejects.com) and/or follow her stream of hotness on Twitter at twitter.com/bethatasitmay


Read more articles by Bethany Perryman

« Previous Article | Next Article »

Related Topics:

Site Features, Turned On, , , , , ,

Related Reading:

Your Ad Here

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

  • silent_jay
    sex in films *these* days is F*CKING BORING

    it doesnt serve any purpose. the flirt, the chase, the tease, the after effects, all great and all can serve brilliantly as plots, and sub plots.

    the actual act isnt needed, at all (*THATS WHAT PORN IS FOR ^_^*)

    its there in films today, to me anyway, as sad titilation to fill seats with people too afraid to see actual porn, and to maybe get the film some bad press( = good press)

    leave it out, what the hell is the point
  • Cole_Abaius
    Leave it out completely? One of the points of film is to show the human experience, and there's nothing more human than having sex. It's a fantastic story device to include the chase without the copulation, but that can also be weak and hollow - the signs of someone plain afraid to put sex on the big screen.

    I agree that some films shoot sex poorly...but some films shoot a lot of their scenes poorly...but leaving out sex would be like not giving the audience oxygen to breath in the theater.
  • silent_jay
    not leave it out completely, just sex in detail, its the run up and after effects of sex thats important to the story and film i feel. y'know, the chase, the tease, here comes sex...fade to black..., the details arent important, all you need to know is that they had sex, whether he got head once or twice, or if he or she was on top, doesnt matter.

    it would be like a film with a guy eating all the way through, and when he goes to the toilet, we dont need to know if he wipes with his left or right hand, just that he went.

    moviewise, overly long scenes with sex are just a gimmick, my 2 cents
  • Ya know, I'm all about my sex. Everywhere and anywhere. But I do think that it is often mis-used in cinema. Nasty, gritty, explicit sex is completely unnecessary; it's gross (much like the real thing) and rarly is pivotal in enhancing a story. However, the over-idealized, beautiful sex is a total crock too; sex is gross, end of story, don't pretend that it isn't. So what type of sex do I like in film. I can't really define it. A good example of a movie I've seen where I thought the sex was portrayed perfectly was 'YPF'. I don't know how it was different from the two styles I've just bashed, but I know that I liked it. If I think really hard, I can come up with a few other movies that were pretty interesting in this respect ('Boogie Nights', 'In the cut'), but they're all movies that have a plot based around sex. I don't think I've ever seen a non-sex based movie that required a sex scene to move the story along. I'm with silent_jay, you don't need to show it on screen for kicks. If the movie isn't about sex, then likely it is just being shown for kicks. I understand Cole's point about wakling through the entire character experience, but I still think that unless something revealing is happening during the act ('the Dreamers'), it is unnecessary to put on the big screen. More often than not, the sex scene is put into a movie to sell tickets. If your favorite actor or actress is going to be naked and pounded on the big screen, you pay to see it. So like I said, I like some sex in movies, but it is mis-used by directors more often than not.
blog comments powered by Disqus