I have referenced this show already, perhaps partly to note a supporting character that charmed me in such films as The Devil Wears Nada (her personality, that is; her body is fine too, but it's her personality and humor that is particularly notable). My latest satellite package ("cable" no longer fully accurate) brings with it lots of channels, including some that has late night soft porn.
Most is pretty forgettable, but as with other pay channels, there are some shows and so forth of some note. Life on Top and Lingerie included. I earlier, in a brief form of this entry, referenced the first episode of the title series. I also saw the first episode (as with other shows, child, teen and adult, the episodes are replayed often) of Lingerie. More so than Co-Ed Confidential, though that has some charm, some of the characters on these shows are interesting.
Suffice to say, long form, soft porn needs more than breasts. That's said in part since that is the most evident thing, though other parts of the body (though rarely front male ... watch prison shows for that) are seen. One thing not seen is bodily fluids. This includes sweat. These people have sex at a drop of the hat, put their clothes back on (it helps, of course, that the women tend not to wear bras ... and not only because they are too small) and go about their business. The reference to a condom (even showing it) in the Life on Top premiere is as rare as a reference in the movie cited above of a character still smelling of sex.
The series premiere of Life on Top put some effort in making us care about the female characters (Lingerie has more focus on males, though the leads are women; btw, I notice many teenage Nick/Disney show lean female, while many animated shows lean male -- very few female characters, e.g., on Bugs Bunny), who also have some acting ability. It might be assumed that acting is not the point here, but for series television (and for some, even films), it does matter. The first episode even had one of the characters lead her partner in sex (that is, tell him to "go slower") while her sister had a sexy bit of foreplay in a car. [I saw the third episode last night and it had a quite acrobatic sex scene that looked like it required some choreography to accomplished.]
These type of shows/films rarely have such context and lack something in the process. The "Bella" (and "Regina" aka Brandin Rackley) of Life on Top were also in a few soft porn films that are basically take-offs of other films. They are amusing ... when you aren't really expecting much, a bit of something means a lot. I guess it might be a matter of taste, but in this area, I like a bit more than soft porn sex with cheap music and a 50/50 shot (at least) of fake boobs. Tiresome. Might have to see what Disney/Nick re-run is on instead. Seriously, a bit of "pillow talk" and character goes a long way.
These shows have some, though watching a few episodes beyond the pilots, not enough. Still, the acting and writing is pleasant enough to be worth a look some night. It brings to mind a show from the 1990s (a "Desperate Housewife" was in the cast, long before she was that well known) called Bedtime, a cable soap opera with some explicit sex. I will now shift gears.
A re-viewing of The Jane Austen Book Club took place about the same time I tried Austen's first book (if one released after she died), since it seemed to have amusing elements and was pretty short. I was somewhat disappointed with it, since it didn't seem to focus enough on the "abbey" of the title. Persuasion kind of felt the same way -- after the lengths of the other books (and I have not yet read her longest, Emma), it seemed a bit too abrupt. The satire of "abbey" was not given enough attention in my opinion and too much of it took place at Bath.
The charm of her writing is her felicity of expression, the emotional lives of some of her characters and (often in particular) the many boobs and knaves among her casts. Like in many an adventure story, the good guys often aren't what makes or breaks things. It is the flawed characters, particularly the bad guys (or girls). Austen has lots of them and they are very fun. Looking at a collection of "her other writings" (including unfinished books), notes Jane herself took underlined the point. She lists various reactions to Mansfield Park, and many don't really like Fanny Price, one person thinking her "insipid," another "could not bear" her. Edward also got a mixed reaction, such as "cold and formal."
Austen's works are a social commentary of her times and she clearly finds much to fault in society, though she shows a certain "Tory" (one biography notes she was a loyal Tory) respectability. One source noted that she felt for Fanny, a bit of a dull sort who couldn't bear a somewhat racy (involving an unwed mother) play to take place while her husband was away. The notes cited shows many at the time liked Pride and Prejudice better while some even wanted Fanny to marry some lively young cad type that underwent a change of behavior once he fell for her. She had only one true love and when the love is respectable, the Austen way is predictable.
Austen had a limited range in her novels (an unpublished early work, Lady Susan, suggested she had the potential to focus on a more flawed character) in that sense. Pride and Prejudice was not only lively but had the most independent young woman character (though published later, in an early form, it was written years before) as well as the most interesting male one. Darcy fell for Elizabeth and though we read mostly about her family, he has a special role. His emotional center of gravity fell apart and we get more of a sense of his inner feelings than male characters in other works. More so than an Edward in Mansfield Park. Again, I have yet to read Emma, which might be worth noting. Unfortunately, unlike her siblings, Jane died fairly young, so we did not see if future novels would go past the Fanny/Anne quiet heroine role.
I will comment on Emma (the source material for Clueless) when timely as well as whatever biography I choose to read. It is noted that Jane Austen's writings (including letters) are online, since even ridiculous modern copyright laws don't go back to 1817. Also, Becoming Jane -- not to be taken that seriously as biography (well, at least, with a large grain of salt) -- was pleasant to look at but around 1/2 way in, I got bored.
[Update: The commentary track was done in such a plodding way that it too was tedious. I do think the lead, who actually wrote a thesis paper on JA, was pretty good. The film as a whole didn't do it for me, though.]
Most is pretty forgettable, but as with other pay channels, there are some shows and so forth of some note. Life on Top and Lingerie included. I earlier, in a brief form of this entry, referenced the first episode of the title series. I also saw the first episode (as with other shows, child, teen and adult, the episodes are replayed often) of Lingerie. More so than Co-Ed Confidential, though that has some charm, some of the characters on these shows are interesting.
Suffice to say, long form, soft porn needs more than breasts. That's said in part since that is the most evident thing, though other parts of the body (though rarely front male ... watch prison shows for that) are seen. One thing not seen is bodily fluids. This includes sweat. These people have sex at a drop of the hat, put their clothes back on (it helps, of course, that the women tend not to wear bras ... and not only because they are too small) and go about their business. The reference to a condom (even showing it) in the Life on Top premiere is as rare as a reference in the movie cited above of a character still smelling of sex.
The series premiere of Life on Top put some effort in making us care about the female characters (Lingerie has more focus on males, though the leads are women; btw, I notice many teenage Nick/Disney show lean female, while many animated shows lean male -- very few female characters, e.g., on Bugs Bunny), who also have some acting ability. It might be assumed that acting is not the point here, but for series television (and for some, even films), it does matter. The first episode even had one of the characters lead her partner in sex (that is, tell him to "go slower") while her sister had a sexy bit of foreplay in a car. [I saw the third episode last night and it had a quite acrobatic sex scene that looked like it required some choreography to accomplished.]
These type of shows/films rarely have such context and lack something in the process. The "Bella" (and "Regina" aka Brandin Rackley) of Life on Top were also in a few soft porn films that are basically take-offs of other films. They are amusing ... when you aren't really expecting much, a bit of something means a lot. I guess it might be a matter of taste, but in this area, I like a bit more than soft porn sex with cheap music and a 50/50 shot (at least) of fake boobs. Tiresome. Might have to see what Disney/Nick re-run is on instead. Seriously, a bit of "pillow talk" and character goes a long way.
These shows have some, though watching a few episodes beyond the pilots, not enough. Still, the acting and writing is pleasant enough to be worth a look some night. It brings to mind a show from the 1990s (a "Desperate Housewife" was in the cast, long before she was that well known) called Bedtime, a cable soap opera with some explicit sex. I will now shift gears.
A re-viewing of The Jane Austen Book Club took place about the same time I tried Austen's first book (if one released after she died), since it seemed to have amusing elements and was pretty short. I was somewhat disappointed with it, since it didn't seem to focus enough on the "abbey" of the title. Persuasion kind of felt the same way -- after the lengths of the other books (and I have not yet read her longest, Emma), it seemed a bit too abrupt. The satire of "abbey" was not given enough attention in my opinion and too much of it took place at Bath.
The charm of her writing is her felicity of expression, the emotional lives of some of her characters and (often in particular) the many boobs and knaves among her casts. Like in many an adventure story, the good guys often aren't what makes or breaks things. It is the flawed characters, particularly the bad guys (or girls). Austen has lots of them and they are very fun. Looking at a collection of "her other writings" (including unfinished books), notes Jane herself took underlined the point. She lists various reactions to Mansfield Park, and many don't really like Fanny Price, one person thinking her "insipid," another "could not bear" her. Edward also got a mixed reaction, such as "cold and formal."
Austen's works are a social commentary of her times and she clearly finds much to fault in society, though she shows a certain "Tory" (one biography notes she was a loyal Tory) respectability. One source noted that she felt for Fanny, a bit of a dull sort who couldn't bear a somewhat racy (involving an unwed mother) play to take place while her husband was away. The notes cited shows many at the time liked Pride and Prejudice better while some even wanted Fanny to marry some lively young cad type that underwent a change of behavior once he fell for her. She had only one true love and when the love is respectable, the Austen way is predictable.
Austen had a limited range in her novels (an unpublished early work, Lady Susan, suggested she had the potential to focus on a more flawed character) in that sense. Pride and Prejudice was not only lively but had the most independent young woman character (though published later, in an early form, it was written years before) as well as the most interesting male one. Darcy fell for Elizabeth and though we read mostly about her family, he has a special role. His emotional center of gravity fell apart and we get more of a sense of his inner feelings than male characters in other works. More so than an Edward in Mansfield Park. Again, I have yet to read Emma, which might be worth noting. Unfortunately, unlike her siblings, Jane died fairly young, so we did not see if future novels would go past the Fanny/Anne quiet heroine role.
I will comment on Emma (the source material for Clueless) when timely as well as whatever biography I choose to read. It is noted that Jane Austen's writings (including letters) are online, since even ridiculous modern copyright laws don't go back to 1817. Also, Becoming Jane -- not to be taken that seriously as biography (well, at least, with a large grain of salt) -- was pleasant to look at but around 1/2 way in, I got bored.
[Update: The commentary track was done in such a plodding way that it too was tedious. I do think the lead, who actually wrote a thesis paper on JA, was pretty good. The film as a whole didn't do it for me, though.]