Are you asking if the actors had sex for real?
No, they didnt.
well how do u that for sure?
shareNormally, I'd agree, sex scenes are just that, scenes. However, in the orgy scene you can clearly see the dude's dick going up and the girl sitting on top of him.
I mean, probably nothing happened, but it's already way out of protocol to have genitalia touching.
[deleted]
Given what we see on screen it doesn't matter anyway since we can barely see anything. And why would they do it for real if they're not even going to make it look like they could be really doing it?
"...cinema is truth 24 times a second."
[deleted]
OP, it's called acting, it's a job, it's what they get paid for.
Cop: You're going to burn for this, Angel.
Harry Angel: I know. In hell.
Why bash the OP? It's a legit question. In a film with a premise such as this, why not be curious if it was real sex? Not like it has never been done before..
shareyeah it's actually been done quite a few times...
share[deleted]
You're wrong. It's okay. Get over it.
It has been done before.
Yeah. it's caused quite a scene when it's been openly done, but it certainly has been. The majority of times is actually has been done has been kept under wraps...
I doubt it was real in this movie, though.
Aeon Flux should check the facts before resulting to their own child, four letter (all they can probably read) words.....many indie films have actors engaging in unsimulated sex .....Brown Bunny and 9 songs are two which come to mind.
shareother films with unsimulated sex scenes
Ken Park
The Idiots
Intimacy
"No punk bastard ever got a gnarly piece o poontang by being sensitive and considerate."
[deleted]
So wait a minute genius.......Are you suggesting that the idea of people having real sex in movies is completely stupid?
I suggest you dont comment untill you are sure of what you are going to say.
Also the comment where you said the OP was a peado is not cool.
How do you know this and what are the movies that protray it?
share[deleted]
I know of a at least 2 movies that had actual real sex scenes in them. Indie movies like this.
shareI heard that in sex scenes they put modesty tape on the parts so they're not really touching, but the tape much have been small as you could see nearly everything.
shareIf there was actual sex that would make it a porn and give the movie a higher rating then R.
share[deleted]
False.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256103/trivia
Among others.
The screams of a billion murdered stars give lie to the night's peace...
Porn is not defined by actual sex. Porn is defined as something whose sole purpose is to arouse, and nothing else. Playboy has no actual sex, and yet is porn. Softcore porn has no actual sex, and yet is porn. Nine Songs and Shortbus has actual sex, and are not considered porn.
It's all in what is intended, not what is done.
[deleted]
Yes you are right, but this is only the general rule of thumb.
9 songs is an example that has actual penetration and is not considered pr0n.
as some others have brought up you can wiki/search for what movies have real (ie unsimulated) sex scenes.
Wow, the stupidity of the OP. No it wasn't real. That would be porn, dear.
shareAre you seriously not aware of the large number of non-pornographic movies that contain unsimulated sex scenes? Several of which have been mentioned on this very thread, and would need to include Martin Scorsese's Boxcar Bertha as well.
Awesome how you referred to the 'stupidity of the OP', when your own post was laughably inept.
this great blue world of ours
seems a house of leaves
moments before the wind
[deleted]
Swing and a miss.
As one of many examples, read the first entry on this trivia page, moron.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068309/trivia
this great blue world of ours
seems a house of leaves
moments before the wind
[deleted]
He/She proved you wrong, made you look like a fool, and yet you're still an ass Awesome.
Why the *beep* would both those actors lie about that, dumbass?? You were owned once already, let's set you up again
The screams of a billion murdered stars give lie to the night's peace...
[deleted]
No one ever said it was a common practice, dipsh*t. You said that if it would have been real, then it would have been porn. Your admission that some of these could potentially "squeeze by"--as rare as that may be--completely negates that argument.
share[deleted]
As they were quite young, and one of them is related to a famous actor, I doubt they would ruin their acting career by not actually acting to pretend to have sex. Why do some people live on another planet and think films are real life?
shareEven if both David Carradine and Babara Hershey were lying (which they had no reason to), it still proves your earlier point wrong, slick. You said that if there is unsimulated sex, it is automatically porn.
The very fact that these two actors (or any two actors) could have very well had unsimulated sex in any given sex scene proves you 100% wrong. Whether they did or not is irrelevant--what matters is that they could have, and in the context of the movie and what it showed on screen, it was NOT porn. The only way it would have to be considered porn is if they somehow wanted to show penetration or something.
I've seen the clip from Donkey Punch. I doubt they actually had sex. But for you to say that if they had sex and shot the scene the exact same way, that it would suddenly be considered porn just for that fact, is stupid. How could the MPAA possibly tell whether they actually *beep* or not, if the scene is shot the same way?
If two actors had sex for a scene but it did not cross an "R rated" boundary in what was actually shown on screen, it can still be released theatrically. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that.
Nice try, though.
this great blue world of ours
seems a house of leaves
moments before the wind
Wow you're a cocky fruitcake.
Please die.
Did you just call someone a gullible idiot then say "no need to get all indignant"?
Tardbucket...
Anywayz, go look up scenes from "9 songs) and tell us that explicitly showing sex automatically equals porn.
Porn is not defined by actual sex. Porn is defined as something whose sole purpose is to arouse, and nothing else. Playboy has no actual sex, and yet is porn. Softcore porn has no actual sex, and yet is porn. Nine Songs and Shortbus has actual sex, and are not considered porn.
It's all in what is intended, not what is done.
[deleted]
So, in theory, could a PG-13 movie have unsimulated sex take place in it, so long as the camera only focuses on their faces?
shareWhy not? It's rated on what they show on screen.
this great blue world of ours
seems a house of leaves
moments before the wind
It depends on how uncomfortable it makes the MPAA feel.
shareWow cant believe the response I got from asking a question. I knew there was good chance they wasnt having sex in the movie, But Its easy to think the actors were having because the way it shot.
I found it funny how people decided to have pop at me and call me stupid. But as other having pointed out there have been films where actors having simulated it and some who didnt.
One of the funniest threads I've read in a while, thanks guys.
shareSecond that. Someone asks an intelligible question entirely based on a certain angle of a shot (Which is a pretty legitimate reason for curiosity, having seen the movie) and it ends up involving pr0nz, movies involving real sex and ranting at all other idiots.
shareI just saw "Shortbus". The sex in that movie was real.
And no, it's no porno movie.
khou van je voor altijd, cutiepie <3
[deleted]
Touchy subject! The OP's question has certainly provoked furious debate. What's amazing is that some people out there STILL think that actual sex in a film automatically equates to porn (or, incredibly, if a film is not considered porn then the sex scenes MUST be fake!!!) Wow, that's stupid. Traditionally, when you lose an argument, you shut up.
A more reasonable response to the OP's original (totally valid) question would be to state that actual sex does occur occasionally in films but is not commonplace. It usually turns up in arthouse films, like '9 Songs', 'Brown Bunny' and several of Catherine Breillat's films. It's unlikely they'd use real sex in a commercially-minded film like 'Donkey Punch' because it's likely to affect the film's rating. It makes more sense to fake it in this situation. Especially the donkey punch! As a general rule, the combination of sex and violence leads to heavy censorship. If they'd used real sex in 'Donkey Punch', it might well have been banned.
In Australia, the Film Classication Board awards an 'X' rating to any film deemed to be pornographic. The availability of X-rated material is severely restricted. In fact, it's only legally available in Canberra, the capital city, where virtually nobody lives! Films like '9 Songs' and the others I mentioned are given an 'R' rating (restricted to 18 years and over) because they are deemed to have artistic merit and therefore not pornography. These films are widely available to adults in all states.
Whatever you think of films like '9 Songs', the fact remains that they do contain unsimulated sex scenes and are not considered pornographic by the relevant authorities in most countries. So there you have it, case closed.
Ok lets use our common sense here people.
1st : This wasn't any porno movie, the movie ( not porno ) industry has standards, and part of those standards are for actors to keep some kind of dignity when making a movie. Now a sex scene can be uncomfortable enough at the best times for a lot of actors, so usually ( not all cases though ) the men and women will wear some kind of skin coloured patch to cover up there privates parts so to speak. If not then you will find it just a simple case of strip naked, and " lets pretend " to have sex, but without any intercourse.
2nd: Watch this movie closely. Now for all the non virgins out there ( lol ) you will see that during the scene, just as the skinny little kid says he is " cuming " and donkey punches the blonde lady you will see that within easily 1 second he pulls his penis out of the ladys vagina and he dosent have a erection, he is still mr floppy so to speak. As we all know he would still be erect within that second of pulling out of her.
Also, he didn't actually ejaculate as soon as he pulled out. Now common sence will say either 1 of 2 things. He either ejaculated inside her, but he couldn't of because within 1 second of donkey punching her, he pulled straight out of her. The idea is to do the donkey punch then ejaculate as it tightens the ladys vagina, hence the supposed superior feeling when ejaculating ( I wouldn't know myself as I would never be dumb enough to try this ). The other option would of been for him to carry on ejaculating after he has pulled out of her but he didn't. You could see by his face that it just went from ejaculating to panicking within easily 1 second ( as well all know that is stupid as it takes a lot longer ).
Also watch the dude with the funny looking lip. Just as that skinny little guy is about to Donkey punch that blonde lady he is filming her on the camcorder, and we see a close up of his penis. At which point is not erect again. Now any guy in his position would easily have a erection, unless of course you happen to be impotent, but he didn't seem to have a problem for the 1st 5 mins when he was having sex with the blonde lady.
So there you have it. A little bit of common sense, sexual experience and watching the film a little more closely and you will see that this movie like all others ( other than porno ) do not have actuall sexual intercourse.
I thought my earlier post made it pretty clear, but it seems common sense did not prevail on this occasion.
Here is an actual list of non-porno films that feature real sex acts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mainstream_movies_with_unsimulate d_sex
As I said before, a commercial film like 'Donkey Punch' was never going to feature real sex, but it does happen occasionally in 'arthouse' films.
[deleted]
I think that if it was real then we would have all heard about it and would not be debating it. With films such as 9 Songs and Shortbus it was a fact that the sex was unsimulated and everyone knew even before those were released.
This is not an exit
[deleted]
I think that film was mostly made so that Michael Winterbottom would be remembered as "that guy who made a controversial film"
[deleted]
I doubt whether Baldrick could give a monkeys either way, but I think you're referring to Tony Wilson.
The whole idea behind '9 Songs' was NOT to flesh out the characters, but never mind, you're entitled to your opinion. I think it's an insult to Winterbottom that you say he was just adding to his resume - if anything an explicit, experimental film like '9 Songs' was more likely to hamper his career than further it. The music was a pivotal part - hence the title - and if you think the bands are "terrible" then you probably were never going to get much out of it.
And seriously, you are entitled to your opinion, but if you truly believe that Lars Von Trier and Vincent Gallo have anything at all in common, you ought to consider what your opinion is actually worth.
[deleted]
I apologise if my last post was overly harsh; I can see that there are similarities between Gallo and Von Trier. I think the main difference is this: if both claim to be 'the best director on earth', I think Von Trier actually has a case, while Gallo (at this stage of career, at least) is clearly kidding himself. 'Buffalo 66' was good, I agree, but you'd have to admit that Lars Von Trier is unlikely to produce a vanity piece like 'Brown Bunny' any time soon. I know that Von Trier can be a 'difficult' chap at times but his talent is undeniable.
I actually like Vincent Gallo. He has a kind of weird charisma, almost 'Manson-like' at times. I thought he was mesmerising in 'Trouble Every Day', although the film wasn't great. Yet when I think back to some of my favourite Von Trier films - "Breaking The Waves", "Dancer In The Dark", "Europa", "Dogville" etc. - I doubt whether Gallo has it in him. But if he focuses his energies on directing, who knows what he might produce?
I'd tend to agree with your suggestion that a controversial film alters a career rather than hampers it. However, whilst it's unlikely to hamper a director creatively, I do contend that it may limit their future opportunities with regards to more commercial films.
[deleted]
watch the clip right after the donkey punch.Look at the couple on the couch you can clearly see the guys balls and a bit of shaft just under the girls butt.They blurred it out a bit which means they were covering something up.If it was all fake u would of never have needed to see shaft and balls so close to vagina.Ive seen the same tactics used on prepaid t.v channels like hbo,showtime
"If you want art, don't mess about with
movies. Buy a Picasso"
Yeah, that's it. Made in New Zealand...
No, wait, that was 'The Suxth Since'
no, it wasn't real. the actors were convincing enough. the fact that this thread exists highlights how convincing they made that orgy scene. it's easy to smash pelvis against bare butt and create a believeable scene, couple that with moans, screams and whatnot and voila!
share