I knew nothing about the history of this film and film-makers so assumed that this was a one-off production by people who knew something about sex industry. Knowing now that it was a second offering of a format previously produced in a juvenile detention center I am surprised that they managed to get such candid interviews from the porn actors. I think that is a feat in itself if you are not known as a 'sex work friendly' filmmaker.
I also assumed that the songs/poems were written by the actors themselves. Discovering that this was not the case I am actually outraged that the filmmakers have presented these artworks as authentic sex-worker art. Maybe if I was a more discerning audience member I would have realised this but in any case it makes the whole film a weird mixture of doco and fiction. A film presenting sex workers/ porn actors experiences and art would have been relevant and insightful. As it stands it is just another bullshit amalgam of real imagery and interview material warped to present the filmmakers' disturbed vision of the porn industry.
Having read the other reviews I am disappointed to find that the reading of the film was heavily influenced by the reviewers pre-conceived ideas about working in the sex industry, also. Two of the reviewers here found the most relevant bit to be the description of the watersports shoot where the actress is debriefing afterward with the camera. Why is it that people need to see 'damage' for sex industry representations to be 'insightful' to them? Why don't all the other statements about porn work get through? If this were a film on police officers or nurses or something would we seize on the one scene where the subject has gone through a new and challenging part of the job? dunno.
Overall I found the film to be revealing and moving but that was before I realised that the songs and poems weren't authentic porn actors' art.