20071109

MYSTERY’S CHOIR DEMYSTIFIED:
Nudity, Sexuality and Art in American Cinema

It’s past 3 in the morning. I have incredible Insomnia.

I normally do not suffer from it. So this means my soul wants to say something. So I have to write.

Although an explanation is not called for–by anyone in particular; I have been withholding some information about the art film I shot, wrote and directed in 1999: Mystery’s Choir. There is a mission behind it–that I understood when I conceived it; but as time has passed, I see now that I must finally explain it.

For those who do not know, and for those who have not seen the film–and many will not–because I am not distributing it; the idea behind the film is as follows:

NUDITY AND ART

Before nude paintings became a possibility for painters, the artist had to get prostitutes to pose for their paintings. It was simply not what people do or the prospect of nude figure modeling was not considered to be Art.

Even today, in certain (primarily third world) countries, if you say you own a “massage” parlor, people frown upon it; because they think “massage” means prostitution. In the states and elsewhere, touching the body–the nude body: is considered a Healing Art.

When I set out to make Mystery’s Choir. I was 24 years old and hell bent on freeing up Sexual, Feminine and Homoerotic Art. My goal was this:

If a character is willing to:

1. Gain (or drop) 100 pounds to play a certain body type

2. Put on tons of makeup requiring three hours of styling in order to deform or change a face or physique

3. Go through tormenting Physiological or extreme Environmental conditions

4. Shave off hair, grow hair or modify any parts of the body

5. Learn to sky dive, fly airplanes, jump of cliffs, perfect or defect one’s aptitude or skill sets

and face the most extreme challenges in life in order to “Be in Character” for a “Role”–

Then, Mystery’s Choir begs to ask: “Why on God’s green earth will no one play a character having (real) sex without it being considered ‘Pornographic’?”

I continually asked myself, “Why do actors do all these things for a role because they claim they want to ‘become the character’ yet you ask them to have sex (as a character) in a film–they say, ‘I can’t do that, that’s real sex. I’m acting. I’m an actor?’”

To me, this was a Hypocrisy in filmmaking that disturbed me greatly. And as I began casting for the film, I faced the conflict of “I’m an actor” and “Real sex is pornography.”

My additional artistic trouble was this: I did not want to show real sex in a “beautiful erotic way” nor did I want to fall into the trap of exhibitionism and porn (which I have no issue with).

Since the time I made the film, I have heard that numerous films have utilized “real (uncensored) sex.” I have not seen the films.

But based on some of the trailers I can only assess a few things: the real sex that other filmmakers are shooting are not “directorial” and the actors are not acting: they are probably literally “fucking,” the crew is probably getting off on it, the director is probably giddy at the opportunity to shoot pornographic situations, and the actors are drunk or on drugs.

In Mystery’s Choir, every sex scene is directed: down to a movement of a glance, a hand gesture, a breath and a kiss…And this was intentional, because I wanted to challenge my actors to “Be in the character of that character as they would express themselves sexually.” So in essence, the sexual characters in the film were not “having sex” as “themselves” but rather: they were “in character.” They had a “sexual identity” (or role) that I needed them to play. I did not just “let loose” and shoot “real sex” for sensational purposes.

Now that I got that out of my system, I would like to square a few other things away:

My eyes have often been disturbed by censorship of beauty and natural things in life.

I never could understand why every film that has a sex scene will show a nipple, a butt or an assumption that someone is going down on someone or getting fucked–but they would always “insinuate.” I felt that this “insinuation” is based on a Puritan thinking that corrupts the Mind and natural instincts of the eyes and body to think, feel, and truly perceive (that is to say, the point of films is to allow the audience to Witness; therefore to Identify, Intake, and Experience).

When you “cut away” from something–you’re telling an audience that “it’s bad” or “sex is bad” therefore you shouldn’t see it. In Mystery’s Choir: I wanted people to see it, to see it, be it arousal or complete distaste–but at least you see it and experience it.

So this “cutting away”–I felt was harmful, as a product to society…YET our (Western) societies perceive sexual expression as harmful.

Well, it is harmful if you oppress it, hence permitting it to come out in defective ways. If you kept an Animal in a cage all its life for instance–do you really think it will behave normally once it acquires freedom?

Why was sex so important to me then? Well, at the time, I was hell bent on healing the human relationship to sexual expression. I wanted to set it Free.

I wanted to counteract the hypocrisy of a society that deemed sexual expression and nudity to be so “harmful” or “taboo” yet the way that media exploits women (sex in the form of pornography and sensational advertisement) perpetuate greater addiction and unhealthy obsessions.

The Harmfulness and Fear of Sexual Taboos wouldn’t be Taboos if people were given the Liberty to experience and view sexuality as a fundamental part of human hunger and expression.

The casting was very difficult. I was blessed to find two people who understood my vision and had the courage to sacrifice their vulnerability as actors to do this film. One actor, Jill is a professionally trained actress, and Deidre was the only pretty younger girl I could find who understood the part. Deidre is very courageous. At the time she was a performance artist, very much an exhibitionist loved challenging themes.

I seemed to be looking under rocks: going to gay clubs, approaching women out of the blue and asking them if they wanted to be in a film. That was how desperate I was.

I met a very beautiful femme-butch woman in her late 20s who was willing to play the 30 year old woman: after several meetings and discussions–she backed out. She told me she really believed in the project but had great difficulty with the idea of making “actual” love to someone on camera.

Most of the actors I met felt that love making is something that you do with your own partner, not with another person on camera. To them, it was an entirely new idea. And I understood this perception: but I was hell bent on a mission–and I could not permit myself to compromise and fake the scenes.

In films today, a lot of sex scenes go a bit further than the tilt down to the groin and CUT. And although I love the sex scenes in Little Children for instance (I love Winslet), you know that the guy is wearing a sock and the scenes are loaded with dry humping. Most R-rated films are in essence, “Soft porn.” Now, these movies are a different type of film; and I don’t expect every film to have explicit sex (for the mere sake of it).

My deal at the time was akin to the painters who had difficulty finding nudes to paint: and I wanted to express something about the beauty of sexuality on film that was limiting director, the actor, audience and film as a visual medium.

I am especially grateful to Jill for taking on the lead role of the older woman in the film. She was involved in a long term relationship with her female partner–and I can’t explain the respect I had for her and her girlfriend; and mean, for her girlfriend to be as equally visionary and accepting of Jill–to “let” her do this role.

So, for all that its worth, I felt that to the defense of the film–I had to make a statement about it.

How do I feel today about the project? I believe it falls into the “cult” category, and for now, I am protecting it until the world is really ready for it.

I think that people have seen a lot of sex in media and have become bored (and jaded) with the idea that anyone could do anything different or important with it. But I feel that the territory of Acting and “directed sensuality” (as creative growth for actors, directors and film as a art) remain uncharted.

In the social climate we live in today, any form of Sexual Truth–is difficult for the artist to express.

On one hand–we have the overt proliferation of pornography (which is fine in my book). On the other hand–we have the Puritan attitude that sex is bad.

A very large divide persists between Sex being nasty and Sex being bad. There is nothing in-between that shows or shares that it’s beautiful: that it is an essential part of our being.

Hence, Sexual Themes for Artists–are based upon an Archetypal agenda; on a Form that projects our essential Self. And being a Form: it does not have to be “hot,” “gross” “athletic” “buff” or even erotic.

With Mystery’s Choir, I wanted to avoid the trap of making sex look “pretty,” homogeneously “erotic” or “beautiful”–the way photographers produce mist and soft lighting around a woman’s breast while she’s smelling a rose, eating an apple and what not–or leaning in a way where her body is imitating nature. To me, this stylization of sex contributes to the Taboo of sexuality as being something you shouldn’t “feel” but rather, observe with sterility. Pretty Eroticism in this regard: destroys sensuality and connectivity to true human senses.

I also wanted to demystify portrayal of “Love Making” because when people love one another, they may do so emotionally, but their physiological passion is to “fuck like animals in bed.” In Mystery’s Choir, there are scenes of tenderness, and then there are scenes of pure passion.

I wanted to open and put into motion a creative exchange; to promote a Visual Dialogue of how people really “feel about” and perceive sexuality in reality–and not only relate to it in the closet, behind a back room, in a strip joint, on the secretary’s desk, after-hours in the oval office, on the kitchen table, politicized in school and church, or condoned to the bedroom. I wanted to take this relationship to the Screen and to Project.

We have a great way to go to demystify falseness in life–in many areas. And I think for Artists–we try to do it as productively, constructively and uniquely as possible. The Media doesn’t feel the same way about it because it does not have a responsibility to.

Currently, I am not interested in making sexually explicit art films (I never intended to make a “career” out it)!

I’m moving into other areas where I can reach an audience in a deeper broader way. Once I’m able to achieve the goals that are set out before me–I may then continue to build upon my earlier ideas.

My concern at this time is not sexuality but violence. In my bigger narrative films to come: I want to address violence (hence, suffering) in a way that will hopefully bring some heart into the matter.