- Sep 22, 2013
- 4,956
- 250
- 85
This is a pornography media-parable inspired by The People vs. Larry Flynt.
Cheers,
====
Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington, arguably America's most popular Caucasian and African-American actors, were involved in some pretty heavy media intrigue after appearing together on The Charlie Rose Show to discuss their new film Playboy. The film, directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, was about the emerging pornography industry in America, from the warehouse arthouse photo days of Andy Warhol through the time of tragic 'porn-king' John Holmes and the rise of cable-TV porno-entertainment (focusing mostly on the symbolic role of Playboy Magazine)! The controversy/intrigue was regarding whether or not Hanks/Washington made the film to continue their duo-diligence work with sexuality-politics (after completing the landmark homosexuality civil-rights film Philadelphia in the 1990s).
Pornography had changed much since its days of inception. Audiences were interested in offbeat atmospherics and an almost-crude 'realism' to reflect a neo-French noir-trend in cinema representing pure 'honesty.' This shift in pornography 'aesthetics' was actually explored by Anderson in his landmark porno-market film Boogie Nights (starring Burt Reynolds and Mark Wahlberg). Hanks/Washington wanted to know if Anderson's intention in making Playboy was to use celebrity/star-power to simply forward ideas regarding free-speech, but Anderson explained, "I want a film to capture all the intrigue of modern media progressive interactive pedestrian politics, as shown in recent films such as The Post, The Devil Wears Prada, and The Insider!"
Americans wanted simply a new Hanks/Washington joint-venture involving intriguing modernism sexuality intelligence/imagination (since Philadelphia was so gosh darn popular and well-received when it was first released!).
GOD: The Hanks-Washington duo is a terrific cinematic 'trophy.'
SATAN: If Playboy is made, Americans will rave about free-speech.
GOD: It seems 'media intrigue' is rather...clinical.
SATAN: That's because Americans love video-games!
GOD: No, there's nothing 'cynical/childish' about dialogue/news.
SATAN: Yes, but is MTV really news?
GOD: Would you rather trumpet slave-auctions of yesteryear?
SATAN: Maybe free-speech is violence...
GOD: What's the difference between pornography and horror-cinema?
SATAN: Maybe John Holmes and Leatherface are somehow...brothers!
GOD: Leatherface is a fictional chainsaw-wielding cannibal.
SATAN: True, but John Holmes was a 'chic pornography icon.'
GOD: I suppose there's some sensual-intelligence to 'celebrity/avatars.'
SATAN: I think Playboy would be a good gesture towards lesbian-rights!
GOD: It would certainly be a deviation from Rodney King...
SATAN: Let's imagine that Hanks/Washington decide to embrace Christianity.
====
Cheers,
====
Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington, arguably America's most popular Caucasian and African-American actors, were involved in some pretty heavy media intrigue after appearing together on The Charlie Rose Show to discuss their new film Playboy. The film, directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, was about the emerging pornography industry in America, from the warehouse arthouse photo days of Andy Warhol through the time of tragic 'porn-king' John Holmes and the rise of cable-TV porno-entertainment (focusing mostly on the symbolic role of Playboy Magazine)! The controversy/intrigue was regarding whether or not Hanks/Washington made the film to continue their duo-diligence work with sexuality-politics (after completing the landmark homosexuality civil-rights film Philadelphia in the 1990s).
Pornography had changed much since its days of inception. Audiences were interested in offbeat atmospherics and an almost-crude 'realism' to reflect a neo-French noir-trend in cinema representing pure 'honesty.' This shift in pornography 'aesthetics' was actually explored by Anderson in his landmark porno-market film Boogie Nights (starring Burt Reynolds and Mark Wahlberg). Hanks/Washington wanted to know if Anderson's intention in making Playboy was to use celebrity/star-power to simply forward ideas regarding free-speech, but Anderson explained, "I want a film to capture all the intrigue of modern media progressive interactive pedestrian politics, as shown in recent films such as The Post, The Devil Wears Prada, and The Insider!"
Americans wanted simply a new Hanks/Washington joint-venture involving intriguing modernism sexuality intelligence/imagination (since Philadelphia was so gosh darn popular and well-received when it was first released!).
GOD: The Hanks-Washington duo is a terrific cinematic 'trophy.'
SATAN: If Playboy is made, Americans will rave about free-speech.
GOD: It seems 'media intrigue' is rather...clinical.
SATAN: That's because Americans love video-games!
GOD: No, there's nothing 'cynical/childish' about dialogue/news.
SATAN: Yes, but is MTV really news?
GOD: Would you rather trumpet slave-auctions of yesteryear?
SATAN: Maybe free-speech is violence...
GOD: What's the difference between pornography and horror-cinema?
SATAN: Maybe John Holmes and Leatherface are somehow...brothers!
GOD: Leatherface is a fictional chainsaw-wielding cannibal.
SATAN: True, but John Holmes was a 'chic pornography icon.'
GOD: I suppose there's some sensual-intelligence to 'celebrity/avatars.'
SATAN: I think Playboy would be a good gesture towards lesbian-rights!
GOD: It would certainly be a deviation from Rodney King...
SATAN: Let's imagine that Hanks/Washington decide to embrace Christianity.
====
