« C is for community | Main | Style and substance »
5 Questions: Tony Comstock, part 1
May 22, 2006
A while ago I decided to start doing 5 question interviews, but I didn’t promise any regularity, and its a good thing, because I am both busy and scatter brained. Anyway, here’s one I did with the ever-awesome Tony Comstock - well, the first of the five questions. The man can go on (not at all in a bad way). For each question I’ve asked him, he’s asked me one in return.
Dacia: I must admit that I was a little surprised the first time I heard you say that you and your wife haven’t watched porn in years. What kind of effect do you think this abstinence (couldn’t help myself) has on your porn-making?
Tony: I think my and Peggy’s porn watching experiences aren’t that uncommon. When we first moved in together (about 10 years ago) there was a neighorhood video store with a pretty sizable adult section, with some pretty alluring box covers. But after a few unsuccessful attempts to spice up the evening, we quit looking. It wasn’t that we were grossed out by what we saw, we just weren’t very interested in or turned on by any of the tapes we rented. Not too long after that we started doing the first test-shoots for what eventually became Comstock Films.
A few years ago I thought it would be a good idea to get up to speed on what was going on in porn, so I got an X-rentDVD account and solicited suggestions on AdultDVDTalk.com. But if anything, the porn being produced had become less interesting to us. Out of about 20 rentals, the only one we enjoyed was “The Opening of Misty Beethoven,” a film produced 30 years earlier. Peggy has gotten together with her friends a few times for cheesecake and gay porn, but unless she’s not telling me the whole story, it’s really more of an eye-candy giggle with the girls than a get turned-on and jack-off experience.
More than what we don’t watch, what has had an effect on our porn making is what we do watch.
One of my favorite shows ever is America’s Funniest Home Videos, which aside from being great slapstick gives rich testament to the startling power (albeit in this case harnessed for low comedic effect) the camera has as a witness. I’ve also been seeing some amazing personal testimony-based documentaries on The Military Channel.
Peggy is a devotee of the Scifi Friday line-up on the SciFi Channel and can be counted on to get sucked into what I call ‘potato chip television’ –shows like The Biggest Loser, American Idol, and Project Runway. She also was a devoted Oz fan (hot man on man action), and watched The Shield until it turned into a repetitive soap opera. We both LOVE David Simon’s The Wire, and also love his books and other TV shows.
So as much as I make a mental note when a bit of porn (almost exclusively stills these days) catches my eye and turns my crank, I also think a lot about what makes other things work on me, what makes them suck me in, and then try to see if there isn’t a place for those observations in my films.
Now my first question for you: How, if at all, has your porn viewing changed in the years that you’ve been “out” as a sex-worker and activist?
Dacia: Certainly my porn viewing has changed over the years – actually it changes constantly, depending on what kind of mood I’m in, what body part I’m fixated on, what new discoveries or dirty thoughts I’ve been having. I’m pretty open minded about my porn and will watch just about anything. This is really the result of having been a porn reviewer and tape logger for the past few years, because I’ve had to watch all manner of stuff that I didn’t think I’d be into, and I’m consistently surprised by what I end up liking.
I didn’t really watch porn until I was in college, and I bought my boyfriend a copy of Tristan Taormino’s Ultimate Guide to Anal Sex for Women 2, ostensibly to watch together because I didn’t think he’d be psyched about me building my own porn collection. He was surprised that I picked the second and not the first video (which has a lot of workshop-y educational content in it), and I told him flat out “I don’t want to learn, I want to watch people fuck.”
I know I’ve become a lot more jaded since I first saw porn and still had that giddy “those people are really doing it” feeling - I do get burned out on watching too much porn, and my tastes have become somewhat more refined over the years, but the thrill is still alive. Although initially I was super picky about seeing porn with people who I thought were attractive, these days I care less about that and more about chemistry. If someone tells me about a scene where the chemistry is really hot, I don’t care what kind of body parts the people in the scene have, or they boobs are plastic and scary or the dudes look like ogres – if they chemistry is genuine and the people on screen really seem like they want to be there and they can’t get enough, then I’m all over it.
Posted by Dacia at May 22, 2006 07:51 PM
Comments
I’m a big fan of testimony based docos, the voyeur in me loves the story, I like all the details, I like to know and be able to emphathise in some way.
As far as chemistry goes I think you’re right on Dacia - if I get a sense that the players are genuinely enjoying themselves, that something good and fun is happening I think I’m much less concerned about decor and looks - heck I’ve forgiven Rodney Moore in one of his Hairy Horny Girls escapades for wearing his socks in a scene because there was some kind of chemistry thing happening! It’s rare.
I bought Misty and love it!
Posted by: ell at May 25, 2006 10:47 AM
groan He outed my lowbrow TV addictions. Now I must kill him…
Re: chemistry — right on, dude. I dunno, I just haven’t been able to deal with FFing through enough stuff to find those moments of chemistry. Sometimes I miss being young and easily wowed by the “they’re really doing it!” factor. I guess I’m more of a crochety old geezer than I realized. g
Posted by: Peggy C. at May 25, 2006 08:42 PM
Amen on the chemical dependency thing.
In fact, the whole ‘real couples’ approach is in large measure a way that, as a producer, I can feel relatively assured I’m going to have two people on the set with some measure of chemistry; and that as a director I can leverage the ‘realness’ to communicate the couple’s sexual desire for one another to the audience in a way that feels authentic and credible.
And in the same way that you don’t care about looks so much Dacia, I don’t really care about sex acts or sexual orientation. At this point I just want to see what sex looks like when it’s depicted in a nominally craftsmanly and authentic feeling manner.
As to my love wife’s low-brow TV addiction, I think I have her trumped with AFV. What I like about all these shows is that whether to my taste or not, they are undeniably entertaining. Whenever I hear someone putting something down as being “merely entertainment” I can’t help but think of the climax of “Sullivan’s Travels”. There are worse things a person could do that make people forget their cares for a while.
Posted by: Tony Comstock at May 26, 2006 10:34 AM
You’re so right about the “chemistry factor.” I want to see what going in their heads as much as what’s happening with their bodies. If the vibe is right, the sex will be great. I guess this is one instance where movies and real life ARE the same…
Posted by: tdneel at May 27, 2006 06:32 PM
