The Pornographer (1999)

Director:

Doug Atchison

Writer:

Doug Atchison (writer)

Plot:

A socially inept man's amateur porn film wins him a contract with a small-time pornography distribution company, where he faces a series of moral crises and is forced to face his own porn addiction.

Plot Keywords:

Independent Film

Awards:

1 win

Cast

Michael DeGood	...	Paul Ryan
Craig Wasson	...	Spano
Monique Parent	...	Charise
Katheryn Cain	...	Kate
Todd Feder	...	Randy
Marjorie Harris	...	Teresa
Kelly Stone	...	Natalie
George Hertzberg	...	Tom
Mariam Parris	...	Kristina
Rena Riffel	...	Tiffany
Melinda Scherwinski	...	Sugar
Fay Kato	...	Noriko
Franc Luz	...	Kristina's Father
John P. Petrelli	...	Kristina's brother
Gary Hill	...	Andy

Also Known As:

The Imagemaker (USA) (working title)

MPAA:

Rated R for strong sexual content and language.

Runtime:

89 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Color:

Color

Certification:

Iceland:16 | Philippines:R-18 | New Zealand:R18 | Australia:R | UK:18 | USA:R

Explores the Male Experience of Female Power

The Pornographer is a pleasantly surprising movie. Contrary to its name, it is not a pornographic film, nor even a chincy hard R. Rather it is an insightful movie about a man who toys with the idea of making adult films.

This movie helps communicate more about the too little (seriously) explored male experience, just like Swingers did. Consequently, I disagree with some of the other posters' evaluations of the main character's lack of social ability.

With regards to sexually attracting women, young males often experience forms of frustration, humiliation, and insatiable, unfilled longing--unbeknownst and probably incomprehensible to most women who grew up with the privilege of being able to attract decent, fairly attractive members of the opposite sex with comparatively little effort and (little more than passive) risk of rejection. I know that the indignation and sense of injustice that I felt over how unbalanced the distribution of sexual power is scarred me for life. I am certain that it has had a significant (though publicly unacknowledged) negative effect on most men's psyches, even if the men were unable to identify it or verbalize it.

If you think that the main character is socially inadept, then you have missed an important part of the movie's context. The protagonist, Paul Ryan, is a typical twentysomething who lacks Don Juan's confidence and charm, an MBA, MD, Harvard Law degree, or high paying computer science job. Most young males have difficulty sexually attracting decent women with regularity. The protagonists' experiences at asking women out for a date were very ordinary and sadly all too commonplace.

If he truly lacked social skills he would have had difficulty fitting in at a high-powered law firm and his character would not have seemed as endearing to us. He did not seem to have difficulty talking to women; he just did not have the desire to expend large amounts of effort attracting them.

In the film he explained that he was satisfied with prostitutes, but as his character develops he comes to realize that he desires an actual romantic relationship and not just sex. The real tragedy of this movie is that his past experiences and propensities kept him from seeing the forest for the trees. He could have had a real relationship with Kate, and I think he wanted to, but he was so fixated with breaking into the world of pornographic film that he turned her into a business opportunity. I get the feeling that, as a result of his previous frustrations, he was almost unable to conceive of the possibility of his having a relationship with her, which is real sad.

The film raises an interesting question. Why didn't he enter into a romantic relationship with Kate instead of trying to push her into the world of pornographic film? Had he completely given up on women? Was he just determined to succeed as a pornographic filmmaker at any cost-even the heavy cost of foregoing a real relationship? Or was he unable to conceive of it?

The movie raises another interesting question that the filmmaker may not have intended to raise. Do men perceive a significant difference between (1) paying women for sex, which seems like a straightforward and honest undertaking and (2) asking, begging, bending over backwards to please women in the hopes that they will one day agree to go to bed with them, risking rejection and spending the same money (while investing much more time) wining and dining them? Is it possible that, for some frustrated men like the protagonist, he may have found more satisfaction and less degradation with prostitution?

This movie was good for the aforementioned reasons. However, in light of these questions, I wonder what the movie would have been like with a talented, serious scriptwriter who could further explore and develop those issues while maintaining the film's same overall tone and feel. It really does show just how far a good idea and content can take a film-the director produced a much better film than most of the big budget junk.

The Pornographer and Swingers are the only two movies I know of that seriously explore the male experience from a point of view that is at least peripherally sympathetic to males.