Hung: More Than Just Penis Jokes.

A handsome single father of two, frustrated by financial problems decides to become a man whore to give his kids the life they deserve. You have to admit-it has a built in audience. Aside from that it sounds like something Miramax was shoving down the Academy's throat in the mid-90's as a sappy tear-fest. Alas, the HBO show 'Hung' (2009 - ) is none of those things. Its a sharp sex-comedy starring Tom Jane and the illusive but brilliant Jane Adams as Ray the prostitute and Tanya his pimp respectively. 

First of all let me say this is perhaps the best comedy on television since 'Arrested Development'. It is not your typical black comedy, as it doesn't have the cringe factor stapled to it. It's almost Shakespearian if we think of his comedy of manners and how he writes relationships between men and women and their respective views on sex in such plays as 'Twelfth Night' and 'Midsummer Nights Dream'. One could also compare the sexual humor in this show to that of a reincarnation of the 'Lubtisch Touch', updated for contemporary audiences. 

HBO is known as being a network that doesn't censor itself on the subject, and in fact tends to push the standards for 'acceptable television' as seen with shows like 'True Blood'. Cable networks have continuously shock us with the content that they allow past their executive boards into syndicated air time. Programming has come a long way since open mouth kissing being the biggest thing to hit the cast of 'Beverly Hills - 90210'. And we couldn't be more thankful. It shows how television is moving further ahead from cinema in matters of provocative content and shock value. 

This is not in any way to state that 'Hung' is a show that shocks for the sake of shocking. The comedy is crass, snarky, but beautifully subtle. You can't have a show called 'Hung', about a male prostitute and not include scenes of gratuitous sex (unless you're Warhol, but that's another story). In a comedy context, the filming of intercourse can be rather difficult. Especially when you have to strategically place the actors' full frontals away from the frame. Ray (Tom Jane) is a man who is very attractive, but insanely lonely. The only thing he really has in his arsenal as a lover is his ridiculously large penis. Jane Adams begins to enlighten him on the universal truth that is 'it's not the size of the boat but the motion of the ocean'. Which is not true in all cases, but is the centerpiece moral lesson of the show, and as Ray strives to become a better lover, he unwittingly becomes a better man. In the competitive world of man-whoring, a big penis can only take one so far. He becomes in tune with what women need, want, and fantasize about. His growth in technique helps him to grow emotionally. Like that ever happens in real life. But we all wish it would. 

Ray's second 'assignment' as a man whore is with his pimp's friend who is frustrated in her mundane marriage. In this scene she breaks down crying because she feels her husband has never been aware of her needs in bed. Ray says that they don't have to sleep with each other if she doesn't feel like its right, so she responds; 'well, can i see your penis anyway?' He obliges, and I applauded. 

He learns to make love with equal vigor, whether it be a foxy 20 something, or a lonely, homely house frau in her late 40's. He begins to understand that in sex, it's more about the other than about you, and the more you give the more you get, in simplified terms. He grows into pretty much the perfect man and that's why we still tune in (and by we, I mean women). Not only is he insanely attractive and well built, and there is not an episode yet where we don't see his bare ass, he's a guy who is learning the ways of the world from a feminine perspective. It's kind of what we wish every man could do, and also look like. The sex scenes are erotic and hilarious. Completely avoiding awkwardness is very difficult to do when you're working with graphic material, and Tom Jane's voice over really helps. 

Aside from so many clever one liners I can't even begin to quote from them, what's brilliant about the show is that it takes the point of view of a male protagonist and couples it with a firm female perspective, so it's really a sex win-win. 

I'm not going to lie, this show makes me want to consider prostitution as a plan B. If I can find a pimp as wise and supportive as Jane Adams, then I'd definitely go for it. Highly recommended show. Check it out for your own good. 

Countdown of Warhol's Most Significant 'Blue' Films

Warhol's role in the American Avant-Garde is one of profound significance, not only because of its influence on underground and experimental film, but on mainstream film as well and continues to be relevant to contemporary filmmakers. Here is a countdown of his most unapologetic and deliciously perverted films that have shaped not only how we view sexuality on film, but sexuality as a whole. Most who knew him describe his as the ultimate voyeur, which is always used as a cinematic term. The camera becomes the peephole for our voyeuristic pleasure, and no one took that concept to more profound depths than Warhol. Think of the most arousing sex scene in a film that you have experienced, then think of the most disgusting and awkward. Warhol ran the gamete between both. I would call him the most significant influence on voyeurism and the cinema. In cinema, there is sex before Warhol, and sex after Warhol. This list outlines those films I believe to be the most influential on that particular evolution. I'll add more on later. 

1. Kiss (1963)
This film is absolutely paralyzing. It puts the voyeur in a trance like state as he/she is forced to focus on different interpretations of what is usually considered a personal and emotional human moment which Warhol transforms into an almost mechanical act. 

2. Beauty 2 (1965)
This film is so interesting because it allows us to experience from a 3rd perspective what we usually know as a hazy experience; namely being drunk while engaging in sexual acts. Warhol replays the experience as universal, making the voyeur reminisce about their own experiences in situations like that. Of course if you don't drink then this is irrelevant. 

3. Blow Job (1963)
Perhaps Warhol's most interesting practical joke. You knew walking into a Warhol film, there was going to be content you wouldn't otherwise see in the mainstream, and with a title like that, the voyeuristic part of our psyche goes into full functional mode. And what is it we end up seeing? Nothing sexual at all really, and yet, it is the most sexual piece of film. Warhol allows us to experience the mental act rather than the physical act. 

4. Tarzan and Jane Regained...Sort Of (1964)
Warhol's take on a classic Hollywood exploit, perhaps in a effort to point out the hypocrisy of old Hollywood that always stood behind the banner of being clean, while having Johnny Weismuller oiled up like a Park Fair hog and prancing around in little less than a scarf around his privates. 

5. Blue Movie (1969)
The title says it all, but not really. It is a play. It is almost like children during fun time. It is a play on the term 'blue' which at that time meant 'pornographic', it is a play on gender roles, on sex acts, and what we perceive to be erotic. He transforms the grown up conceptuality of sex into an exercise in child's play.

The Women Karamazov: An Analysis of the 1958 American Adaptation

It's going to be difficult for me to do a review on this film without getting into the source material. It remains my favorite piece of fiction, and I was pleasantly surprised when first watching this considering the extensive effort that was put into being true to the philosophical nature of Dostoevsky. Considering Americans always royally fuck up any good literature (especially Russian) when making it a Hollywood thing, The Brothers Karamazov (1958), dir. Richard Brooks, is a refreshing adaptation and yeilds a comparison of sexual prowess and Mulveyain seduction; Katya (Claire Bloom) and Grushenka (Maria Schell).

Here's a little background. Katya (Katerina Ivanovna) is a lady in all respects. She comes from money, and is madly in love with the oldest brother Dmitri.

Claire Bloom is more or less perfect for this part. She's whimsical, demure, lovely, but not gorgeous. Also, she's a bit of an ice princess. She's nice to look at but you wouldn't actually want to tap that. Her hair is cropped tightly behind her head, her dresses are very proper and somewhat smarmy. She definitely has that gentle touch, but it seems foreboding as if any minute she would turn into a venus fly trap and eat a man whole.

Contrasted to her is the free spirited, tenacious, Grushenka (Argafena Alexandrovna). She's a vagabond of a woman, a lady, but wild and rebellious. She is the owner of a tavern, and is having an affair with the elder Karamazov, the father (played by Lee J. Cobb). She soon seduces Dmitri (Yul Brynner) after she buys up his debts accumulated from his father, and he tracks her down to discuss it with her. An excellent exchange between the two goes:

Dmitri: Stop! Wait!

Grushenka: Yes Lieutenant, is that an order? Oh you have come to pay me the money you owe me? Or you have come to beat me? I might like that.

She takes him to a tavern on the outskirts of town and he blows 500 rubles to have a gipsy party with her. She seals the deal when she does a seductive dance in her corset with a gipsy scarf.

The role was originally intended for Marilyn Monroe, who at the time was sick of the menial projects 20th Century Fox was sending her direction and was taking classes under Lee Strasberg at the Actor's Studio, wanting to become a serious actress. And let's face it, how perfect would that have been. As her husband at the time, Arthur Miller had stated; 'everything about her was controversial'. Ergo, Grushenka was the ideal role for her at the time. But for some reason or another, she backed out and the role went to Maxamilian Schell's older sister, Maria. She was pretty enough, great bosom, and a lyrical voice, but she was no Monroe. Nevertheless, she proved to be a good opposite to Claire Bloom's well-mannered Katya.

In this analysis, we can argue that both women as opposite as they are of each other can both be considered Mulveyian, or Haskellian for that matter.

Both exemplify the castration concept that Mulvey theorized about but by different means.

Grushenka is the obvious Mulvey/Haskell incarnation as she is threatening to the male spectator considering how little regard she has for the status quo and 'a woman's place', She is rogue, rebellious, and unapologetic. She seduces not only Dmitri, but also his father, and inadvertently causes a significant rift between the two which ends with Father Karamazov's murder, and Dmitri being wrongfully accused of it. In this, she becomes the catalyst for the great moral conflict of the story of the Brothers Karamazov. She not only causes men to question their choices and beliefs, but is actually capable of transforming them into her idea of a good human being, and a good partner.

Katya on the other hand is threatening because of her stoicism. She is neither affected nor hurt when Dmitri is put on trial for the murder of her father, and also indifferent to his younger brother Ivan's advances towards her. She seems completely impenetrable, and is the only one who does not bat an eye to change herself regarding the new circumstances that engulf the characters in the story. Even Ivan (Richard Basehart), a stubborn atheist ends up recanting his beliefs when he realizes what is what in the whole conflict and Dmitri's demise. But she keeps her cool, and even ends up taking revenge on Dmitri for cheating on her by acting as a witness for the prosecution at his trial.

It can be seen as Grushenka is the catalyst for Dmitri's demise, while Katya is the villain who attempts to completely destroy him afterwards.

Maria Schell as Grushenka on the left, Claire Bloom as Katya on the right. If you watch the film, you will notice there is much more to this distinction than just their physical attributes. 

And while both parts are those that young ingenues dream of playing one day, the more significant is obviously Grushenka. At the time this film was made, it was an opportunity to play a character so opposing of the standards of the times (America in the 1950's). She symbolizes sexual power; one that is incorruptible but is capable of corruption of men's souls. This kind of power is exactly what we as spectators simultaneously admire and fear. All this said, it is actually still played down from what her character is like in the novel. It is a bit of a glossed over Grushenka who is a flirt and tease, while the book portrays her as an indelible feminine force.

I would recommend this film, not only for Maria Schell, but because of how the entire cast is able to accurately translate the characters they play into performance. Dostoevsky is notorious for being poorly translated into English, but even more notorious for being just about the most difficult material to be adapted for the screen. His books are volumes long, very dense, and very philosophical. But the task is still to this day intriguing to filmmakers. And none has before or since done better in my opinion than this film.

Top 10: Sexiest TV Programs Currently on the Air (In Order)

1. Hung

This is a brilliant concept with an amazing cast about a frustrated and poor high school coach who decides to become a male prostitute, and who better to play that part than Tom Jane (insert Arrested Development reference here). Sex comedy hasn't been this clever since Ernst Lubitch. And one of my favorite quotes of television history is now 'what can't they fuck me for me?'. 

2. Mad Men
This show will go down in history as perhaps the steamiest and most sensual program on television, ever. And Christina Hendricks accounts for just like 45% of that whole market. 

3. True Blood
This show is swimming in the sex dough and ranked up its fair share of controversy for being just so unapologetically racy.  If finally did combine two of the things we love the most, vampires and bare asses.

4. Boardwalk Empire
If you haven't tuned into this gem yet, you're seriously missing out. It is a no holds barred attitude towards sex or at least how sex was in the 20's approach to television, and its verite style is appreciated.

5. Sons of Anarchy
For the ladies, this definitely feeds into that whole bad boy fetish we all secretly relish in. The two opposing sides of this coin are Rob Perlman (perhaps the funniest looking man we have ever produced as a society) and then Charlie Hunnam, perhaps the hottest blondie that can pull off a flesh colored beard. There's a lot of drinking, motorcycles, and tattoos. It's simply brilliant. 

6. Gossip Girl
This show was no holds barred from the get go. Chuck Bass seemed to have a problem with keeping it in his pants, and Serena's clothes just kept getting more low cut and shorter. It's a show that's always going to be on a list like this from beginning to end.

7. Big Love
What's sexier than polygamists? well a lot...but these aren't your polygamist wives from that compound with the weird braids and the long dresses. Bill Paxton takes on some of the hottest ladies in Hollywood, and their sexual exploits are interesting to say the least.

8. Californication
The name says it all really, and good think Duchovny can stretch as an actor and play a sex-addict. It's steamy, but also hilarious. And that's the perfect combination.

9. Hawaii Five-0
Though this is a sorry adaptation of what was originally a sorry show, it's nice to have Scott Caan and Daniel Day Kim on the same team...investigating girls usually clad in little more than a bikini. 

10. The Closer
Keira Sedgwick is one Mulveyian wet dream. She can run the whole show completely on her own and still have our interest. In terms of premise, it's only so-so, and there's definitely not enough nudity as I would like, but she won me over pretty early on. 

Chicago vs. Moulin Rouge! No Sex in the Whorehouse

The choreography of Chicago is both suggestive and playful, adding the element of deviance that the plot requires. 

Musicals can be arguably considered a lost art in this day and age. When Rob Marshall was starting pre-production on Chicago (2002), he said that he felt it fundamentally problematic to convince a contemporary audience that people naturally and randomly break into song, hence why all of the musical numbers of that film take place in Roxie Hart's (Renee Zellweger) mind. The other big musical event of that year (well of the earlier year but close enough) was Moulin Rouge! (2001) (and yes there's an unnecessary exclamation point in that title). But back to the matter at hand. Considering these two films were made so close together, and were both a resurgence of cinematic musical culture, not to mention both nominated for a butt load of Academy Awards including Best Picture; Chicago won, Moulin Rouge! didn't, comparing them over a box of chardonnay became everyone's favorite conversation. Just as there are Elvis people and Beatles people, there are Chicago people and Moulin Rouge! people. In my opinion, people weren't taking sides considering the theatricality and quality of the musical numbers, but of the racy aspects of both. One involves a whorehouse, the other a sexy, sexy prison and very revealing underclothes. Deviant women is the content of both. And I think it's beyond who's hotter Catherine Zeta-Jones or Nicole Kidman (in my opinion, its not a question...Caty). But who was better at portraying a vagrant and unapologetic vixen. That is really the best way to measure the deviant quality in either film. 

Nicole Kidman is doing what she does best; playing the ice queen. Even if she ends up falling in love with a poor poet and sacrificing everything for him, you always feel that if you touched her she would crack like very fine porcelain. Considering this, it's difficult to see her in a sexual context. You can dress her up like a turn of the century fancy whore all you want, she's still going to seem like the bitchy older sister. 

reminiscent of a doll I used to own

On the other hand, Renee isn't that great as a seductress either. She's so emaciated that she is too androgynous to be considering a bona fide seductress. She has man-shoulders, and no rack to speak of, and her squish face is a little too overdone in the film. If you look closely, you'll notice that you can't really see her eyes underneath all of that heavy makeup; it's like someone drew two horizontal lines on either side of her nose with a thick sharpie. 

Caty-Z is undeniably the sex pot of Chicago (this is not counting Queen Latifah who is a pretty feisty firecracker herself). She's got a 'real' body, and her costumes are perfectly fitted as if they were directly sewn unto her. She has the dark eyes, cute 1920's bob haircut, supple lips, full boobs, the works. She's a one woman show, and she manages to give sex without smut, while Kidman can't even match the former. 

Also, let's take a look at the setting. I'm sorry but the Moulin Rouge seems like the least appealing whorehouse imaginable. The working girls are all either too thin or too old, and just nasty. It's the bad kind of smut where you would be thinking; 'well I'm horny, but i'd rather go home and jerk it by candle light.' 

As you're watching Chicago, first you're infuriated at how inaccurate the costumes are for the period (then again the same can be said for Moulin Rouge!), but then you're thinking, I should commit a crime so that I can go to prison and these amazing seductresses can dance around me every night...with scarves. 

Basically the premise is almost identical, and very Mulveyian. It is the story of women who are unapologetic for their 'deviant' behavior. Because of this, they are forced to suffer and in the end find some kind of redemption. And then there's glitter, fishnet stockings, elephant trunks, and acrobats...and of course musical numbers. 

Let's in the end judge both by this element. They are musicals after all, and in that genre, the plot is not particularly relevant. Because of this, I'll cast my vote proudly for Chicago. Rob Marshall is a seasoned choreographer and does brilliant execution. He made a stage play work for cinematic language and that is the key to a good musical. He reinvents categorically theater concepts so that they function by cinematic principles. Baz Luhrmann does what he does best; peppers in as much quirky and stylized visuals as possible so that the viewer is distracted by the complete lack of plot and density of the characters. Moulin Rouge! definitely does not work as a musical, quite honestly I'm not sure what to call it. It would make for an amusing music video but that's about it. And as for deviance, let's just say that it's completely ironic how a movie about a whorehouse can be so incredibly non-sexual and more or less just bland. 

Proposal for Transgressive Cinema Conference in April of 2011

Abstract Title:

The Paradox of Flaming Creatures: The Irony of Pornographic Content

The American Avant-Garde of the Post-War era is a movement that defines transgressive cinematic practice by flirting with the boundaries of ‘the acceptable’ or ‘the pornographic’,. I consider Jack Smith to be both the father of modern cinema, as well as the father of pornography. In his career, the film that is most relevant is Flaming Creatures (1963). It can be argued that this film is both the most transgressive and simultaneously least sexual cinematic undertaking. It is completely surreal and devoid of plot or most other cinematic aesthetics. It involves mainly female impersonators dressed as though they are concubines in an ancient Arab harem. They wander around the mise-en-scène of a static camera in exaggerated female attitudes, notable for drag culture of the time. Then the scenario turns violent and there is a long and graphic depiction of a rape. The film permeates with graphic nudity and simulated sex acts, but is paradoxical because there is no transgressive acts taking place, there is only the suggestion of this. This is what I would like to present. The irony of a film that is considered to be completely lurid, perverted, and transgressive while it never depicts any actualization of acts that would usually merit these claims. And though considered ‘pornographic’ by many, I would argue that it cannot be correctly labeled as such because it does not function on the same fundamental principle that pornography does; means of arousing the spectator. It is extremely sexual and simultaneously completely desexualizing of both its subjects and its spectators. 

Still from Flaming Creatures (1963). Andy Warhol credits Jack Smith as being his primary cinematic influence. 

For anyone else who is thinking of applying, here is the link: 

Conference Submission: Transgressive Cinema, San Antonio, Texas. April 20th - 23rd.

Modern Family: Not So Modern

I have all of Modern Family Season 1 on my I-Tunes. I believe it to be a hilarious television event, much in the tradition of the comedy juggernaut, Arrested Development. Of course it’s not as funny, but nothing really could be; the former really set the bar too high for the rest of television, and yet Modern Family is still very entertaining and original. As a show that has such quality, I think it is even more imperative to discuss the big gay elephant in the room. For all of its good parts, one thing seems to eclipse the rest; the sexual part of homosexual. If this was Will & Grace, I couldn’t care less. It’s a lackluster show that relies on dated and almost offensive jokes with a laugh track. But as Modern Family is a show of quality, I feel the need to address this issue. 

The show follows three families that are all connected. There is the ‘conventional’ family of a husband, wife, and three kids. Then, there is the patriarch of the unit who’s family includes his very young and almost comically voluptuous wife and her ten year old son. The third fraction is a gay couple consisting of some of the finest comedic actors of today; Eric Stonestreet and Jesse Tyler Ferguson playing Cameron and Mitchel respectively. In the pilot they are bringing their Vietnamese adopted daughter home for the first time. 

I understand that within a comedic context, there is very little room for verite, but it still bothers me how they do address the whole sex thing. With the other two families, they talk about sex and address it pretty much all the time. And yet, with the two gay characters of the show, they always seem to sidestep the issue. The smell of hypocrisy is just a little to heavy. Why does everyone else get to get laid but not those two? They transpire as having the world’s most plutonic relationship. Both are completely de-sexualized and it’s just not fair. 

And after a while, it’s a bit difficult to believe. They have been together for over five years, adopted a baby together. They obviously have a long-term serious thing going, and yet, they never do it. There is an episode dedicated to Valentine’s Day, in which the conventional husband and wife decide to do role playing at a hotel and spend the majority of the episode talking in innuendo. What do Cameron and Mitchell do? They take out their nephew to his favorite restaurant so that he can hit on a girl he likes (and keep in mind, he’s 10). There is another episode in Season 2, called 'The Kiss', which was marketed as 'get to see the kiss we've all been waiting for', but is it finally a kiss between Cam and Mitchell, no it's Mitchell's father finally owning up to the fact that he's distant and kisses his son on the forehead. 

Maybe I’ve been spoiled on Queer as Folk, but lets face it, it seems like American audiences are ok with gay people on television as long as they fit certain gay stereotypes, and never have sex. It’s the same old hypocrisy that dictates that we’re ok with people being gay, as long as we don’t have to ‘see it’. It seems to harken back to the 1930’s in Hollywood where there used to be an actual stock character called ‘The Sissy’. It would always be a very effeminate man, flailing his arms about and being just a bit too proper. It frustrates me that even in a great show like this, with just about the best talent you can get these days, there seems to be no problem with just how hypocritical it is. It is masked by the humor, so it’s difficult to notice, I suppose. We’ve already dismantled this taboo in film, why does it still exist in television? 

Here is a link to a facebook group that exists regarding this topic: 

Let Cam and Mitchell Kiss on Modern Family