Whip Her Breasts!

Reine Margot, you see this is a pic [redfeline.com] I could live with and find aesthetically pleasing. This one is even more enticing [redfeline.com], but then that thing that looks like a giant mole on her arm just snuffs the flame; particularly since one knows it is not a natural growth or skin defect, but self-inflicted damage.
frog

Enticing pictures don’t tell the entire story, but they can move people just as well. Graphic magazines like Killing, told stories in pictures, and there were something like maybe 20 to 30 pictures, in total, out of 384 in the 64 pages of the magazine that had Gimp in them, and all of them of girls in bikini or underwear, none naked. And yet, they were very popular before the days of VHS. One could find a variety of reasons why not like them. Their loss.

Reine Margot wrote:“I think the PC part does not belong to me, it fits perfectly those that decided to set what Petelobo calls The Party Line. That’s the true PC attitude that proposes that things should be done in a certain way or not at all. (The expression is my way or the highway, right?) Most people here quarantine themselves, so as not to catch that virus, while others indulge in spreading it around thinking that they will, eventually, turn everyone to their point of view. I have news. It won’t happen.”

I was not implying that the PC part belonged to you, what I meant was that when you start thinking about posting or not posting because you are being “offensive” then, in a sense, you are limiting yourself, as the PCrs would wish. So I’m glad you are back posting “offensive” pictures. I think a great deal of what is posted here is “offensive”, but I do not care. I also do not have a party line; I am just expressing my opinion and my taste as a consumer. Whoever wants tats can have them and wallow in them for all I care, but I can just be tolerant about that and do not have to accept it as aesthetic, which most of the time it isn’t. If it’s a life style, so be it, but I will not buy it. Nor do I expect to turn everyone to my point of view. I know I am on the losing side of a cultural change, but so what; losing sides are not necessarily wrong.
frog

Your point was made, and then it was made again. Later on, it was made and just to make sure it was made, it was made again. I’m sure you’ll make your point again, and then just in case, you’ll make it again. I get it, you don’t like tattoos. I will post pictures from the CruXtreme Series for as long as I need to, not the same picture, again and again, but many, many pictures and in some of them, maybe not all, Dani’s tattoos will be visible. The reason is because she has tattoos! Oh the humanity! And they were not covered with make-up for this particular series. They were covered in Monxa Mala, maybe not always successfully. When the light hits her body in certain way you can tell there’s something other than a shadow.

There’s the plan of making another inquisition movie, maybe two or even three of them. Those films will be budgeted to have at least two make-up artists in the set to cover tattoos. Dani will be the protagonist of La Femme De Chambre, another De Sade inspired story, and because it is set in the times of the French Revolution, no tattoos. But there will be critics that will find something they don’t like. Like they found in Maleficarum, Le Marquis de la Croix, JUSTINE, Dead But Dreaming, Olalla… and all the rest.

**Download CruXtreme I – DV or HD version**
http://bit.ly/2SGbtWS

You also wrote:“When Trump whines about Fake News, over and over and over and over and over… it gets annoying, really. The same happens when someone whines and whines and whines and whines and then whines some more about a tattoo. It’s annoying. So, instead of concentrating my mental powers in blowing off the whiner’s head, I don’t post pictures, the forum goes quiet, no whining, and suddenly there’s a conversation.”

First off, if you are equating Trump’s whining with what your critics here say in ways that cannot be compared to his third grade logic, you are really skirting the edges of gratuitous insult. You might call criticism whining, quite a Trumpian thing to do, but it is not that. I am not whining when I say a picture or a scene is wrecked by tats, I am just stating an opinion as to why I will not buy the product. If the producer of such a product wants to indulge in whatever, so be it, but do not expect me to be a consumer and don’t try to foist it as great art. Just say it is what he wants to do and leave it at that. Finally, no one requested you not to post pictures and there was a conversation going on before you decided not to post.
frog

You’re very generous with Trump when you give him a third grade logic. I know plenty of third graders whose logic is far superior. They can argue a point and if they are wrong, they can admit it. So I can understand why you feel insulted. I was only referring to the annoyance of endless repetition of one single point, which continues to be repeated. But that’s fine. As a consumer you have the right to reject what does not please you. I hate Adam Sandler’s films. Maybe I liked one of them, but I can’t stand the guy, for some reason I can’t even explain it to myself. So, I don’t watch his films. It’s unfair, I know, but I just can’t put myself through that. So I understand. But I don’t go around complaining about it every chance I get and I visit many sites where there are film reviews. I think people would think I’m a “Pesada” for telling them over and over again why I don’t see his films.

When you mention Jac’s credentials as a documentary director and producer you are mixing two things which are not necessarily related as to the stature of his work. The issue here is his latest work, which is not comparable to the films that have earned him renown and is work in a different genre of film, in which he may have a distinguished place as you well say. I have some of Jac’s previous work, like Maleficarum (which has Amy’s stamp on it), but the recent productions I just do not really care for. So, as you say, Jac can bask in his well-earned laurels and do “whatever the fuck he wants to do” I’m just not buying and I will not whine, I’ll just call it as I see it.
frog

One recent work is JUSTINE, it has Amy in the leading role, and there are no tattoos. Mila’s tattoos were covered nicely in both JUSTINE and Pygmalion, the films were shot almost back to back, and yet, there were some here who went ballistic with JUSTINE, to the point of declaring it a failed film, which is fine and perfectly normal. Jac’s first masterpiece, that opened at the Cannes Film Festival to great reviews, caused a stir at a Cornell University’s Robert Rafferty Film Seminar when it was shown. This is how the Village Voice described it:

“One film in particular seemed to mark the crisis atmosphere and the subsequent breakdown of dialogue that was to plague us, Jac Avila and Vanyoska Gee’s powerful film on Haiti, Krik Krak Tales of a Nightmare, sparked a volatile post screening discussion. One woman even voiced her desire to slap Avila. Accusations of exploitation and gratuitous violence were balanced with words of praise. With a histrionic flourish, French filmmaker Willy Rameau jumped up front and passionately defended Avila, while John Akomprah from British Black Audio Film Collective adroitly steered the discussion away from polemics”.
Village Voice

Every film will have those who praise it and those who hate it. But in both cases, those people voice their opinions AFTER watching the film. Eventually Amy made a tremendous impression and now that she ‘retired’ from the genre that people like here, some people decided that they won’t get our films anymore. Monxa Mala doesn’t show Mila’s or Dani’s tattoos, they were covered, but just the same. “I won’t get that movie“ is the cry of some, very few, of course. “Too much red paint“ is their main complaint. So be it.