Nothing But Glorified Porn

[deleted]

The OP seems to be contradicting him/herself. Either it is "glorified porn" or "neither of those things"; it can't be both.

I see this film as similar to a film like Vengeance Is Mine: a somewhat clinical reenactment which cares little about how the viewer will respond to it. In the case of In The Realm Of The Senses, there probably isn't as much public documentation to go on, so what you have is a film which attempts to recreate the sheer feeling of a very intense, very world-oblivious sexual relationship. The result is that the shocking ending feels natural and inevitable.

Does the film sexually arouse its viewers? Maybe on occasion, but I imagine most people simply looking to "get off" would rather watch something that doesn't end in murder and castration. Does the film do anything else? Of course it does. It tells a story: nothing more, nothing less. Whether the Sada Abe story is worthy of a feature film (let alone several films) is perhaps debatable, but I liked it just fine.

The scene is edited in some form for every single version, except maybe the Japanese version. Don't use it as an excuse to call the movie disgusting.

[deleted]

You people really deserve today's summer "blockbusters"!

Yes, very boring. Not worthy of the Criterion imprint.

[deleted]

Art? Of course it is. Porn? No. Art with pornographic elements? Yes. MarcDom, i see what you're trying to do here, this film is obviously deserving of a hell of a lot more thought and consideration than "it's porn!!!!!" and what have you, but to deny that there is indeed a pornographic element at play in certain sequences (but not all, and not even all of the hardcore ones) or that EVERY sex scene is shown in a cold, clinical, terrifying fashion is just, well, wrong. The close up in the famous side-view / sofa business (i won't be explicit) is very clearly doing something other than presenting the act in any kind of cold, clinical, terrifying fashion. It's insane that you have to defend a film like In The Realm Of The Senses against the "it's porn!!!!" brigade, but don't let that fight blind you to the really interesting interplay between, yes, pornographic material designed to arouse and titillate - which DOES occur in In The Realm Of The Senses, albeit in intermittent, fragmented bursts - and that cold, clinical, terrifying material you mention. The correct approach is neither to view it as a detached, psychoanalytical excercise nor as a pure honest-to-god rut-flick - somewhere between the two, the truth lies. Both elements are working throughout. That's what's so fascinating about it. londoninbrokenc.blogspot.com

For me there's one scene that changes the whole movie, and erases all doubts I had about it being or not being a pornographic film, and that's the scene where Kichizo Ishida passes by a platoon marching in the opposite direction. It gives a whole other meaning of what is going on in the relationiship. Kichizo is consumed with guilt and (social) frustration, and hides himself by having private sexual pleasure (with a woman who worships him). That relationiship soon becomes very public and goes back to the social space. I think the film is somewhat more about the man than about the woman. Kichizo death is as much a murder as it is a suicide, ultimate freedom/power comes from giving yourself completely to another human being. For Sada Abe, the obvious progression of pleasure is pain and destruction, much like what happens in everything in human life - art is an example of this.
The film is also about how fun sex can be, of course.


R.

I feel this whole "porn vs art" discussion is fundamentally wrong.
This film is art BECAUSE it is about sex. The argument "porn is only about sex, while art is about... whatever" is just as wrong as the well-established puritan crap.

Actually, porn IS NOT about sex, while art CAN be.

Because art is about essential human emotions, sex included. What is generally seen as porn fails at that because it cannot really transmit human emotions, due to its lack of originality, power, knowledge, empathy, creativity... well, its lack of artistry, basically!

So, I will contradict you (adult) people: if you get excited, in any way, about a film, then there is at least some art in it. And there is nothing wrong with that.
See a movie about childhood - you get moved by the happiness/innocence/cuteness.
See a movie about war - you get moved by the horror/dignity/bravery.
See a movie about sex - you wouldn't expect to be moved by anything else but sex, right? If this means an erection, I would say you are a normal person and the director a good one. Just as with fear while watching war movies - the message was delivered!


...oh, and by the way, this movie is about more than an erection, anyway.