StyleSk8r
At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.
Shuggy
An exposé of the gay porn industry this is not. Keywords n o t needed include: Mafia, organised crime, drugs, Viagra, exploitation, huge endowment, fluffer.It begins with a short history of gay porn, done entirely in voice-over, with many familiar images from Bob Mizer's Athletics Models Guild, Tom of Finland, etc. all better covered in earlier documentaries, such as Beefcake (1998). The growing role of the Internet is touched on. Then follow a series of soft interviews with some quite ordinary people, illustrated with cutting-room-floor clippings, and a great deal of underwear product-placement. Two of the subjects are of some interest but the others are given far too much time to say too little. All seem to work for the one studio, and the whole film seems little more than an extended promo.The shooting of some sex scenes is shown, but all from a distance; there are only glimpses of organs, and none of orifices. Most of the film would be PGA-rated.One fact of interest is touched on, that performers in gay porn are paid more than in het. porn, but just how much we are not told. The figure of $2000 was mentioned but whether for one act or a feature-length film was not stated. This means that men with female partners may work on camera at sex with men ("gay for pay" as they say), and the fluidity of sexuality was touched on. Where the multi-billion-dollar profits go is not answered, because it is not asked.A California ordinance, Proposition B, requiring porn actors to be tested regularly and to use condoms in sex scenes, was discussed mainly in negative terms (the costs have driven some of the industry out of the state). An overview of the troubling issues around "barebacking" porn would have been welcome.This will be of little interest either to the friends of porn or to its enemies.
