User reviews

Once upon a time, you grew old and grey working at a menial job for 35 or 40 years, until you received a handshake and a gold pocket watch. You then spent your retirement regretting not having done the things you dreamed of when you were younger, and with any luck, died in a few years. Oh, the good old days. Thanks to a struggling economy, and longer life expectancies, more retirees find themselves rejoining the workforce just to makes ends meet. Depending on your expertise, this can present some challenging situations.

Jacques' blissful retirement is rudely interrupted by three little words: non-sufficient funds. Lacking a pension, he has to resume his old calling - directing pornography. For Jacques, the pornography business has changed for the worse (?): nobody is interested in artistic vision anymore or plots, all they want is to film the sex and get it to video as soon as possible. The barbarians! Strangely enough, the work gives him the courage to contact the son he never knew, and think about embarking on a new life.

Although the movie revolves around a movie within a movie (the filming of a porn film), the bulk of the film is spent navel gazing, with the main character contemplating his life and place in the universe. Just as Jacques begins to emerge, he turns inward and becomes increasingly withdrawn, severing ties with everyone. While alienation can be used as a tool to entice an audience, neither the characters nor story in "The Pornographer" are strong enough to sustain our interest. The viewer is kept at arms length and never gets the opportunity to connect with the characters - I couldn't even commit to being blasé.

What could have been an interesting, gripping story, is ultimately a pointless empty shell of a film. Nuff said.

Le Pornographe can be termed as a decent film directed by Bertrand Bonello as it does not shock any viewer who has self conceived notions about the film's title.It is one of those typical French films in which characters ramble on various life affirming themes.This is the reason why the film's title is an absolutely inappropriate misnomer as the word "Le Pornographe" does not do much justice to this film's central themes.Bertrand Bonello has made effective use of his film's principal character,a famous French director of pornographic films Jacques Laurent to conduct an observational study about various human relationships which include a troubled father son relationship,a pallid husband wife relationship.These relationships are so strongly portrayed that the topic as well as scant depiction of pornography is easily sidelined.Although this film features some famous porn stars like HPG,Ovidie etc,it is through actors like Jean Pierre Léaud, Jérémie Renier,Catherine Mouchet and Dominique Blanc that Bertrand Bonello is able to lead his film to its inscrutable conclusion.

This film marks the first time I saw a penetration scene on a basic cable channel. It's significant, if not technically or artistically amazing.

It was in medium shot, and at first I thought it was more simulated softcore nonsense since the gentleman appeared to be positioned too far away during coitus. Turns out he was just impressively endowed.

'Pornographe' turns in good performances from the actors, especially Leaud. He has the kind of homeopathic presence that made Sarah Polley famous. From a distance, the French national character appears understated, and quite reserved. Contrast that with the classic German, who is full of bluster, extroverted positivity, and usually neat as a pin. The English, finally, appear perpetually drunk and flooding the sidewalk with urine.

The long meditative shots of trees were meant to convey atmosphere, but kind of made me feel like I was waiting at a bus-stop. A minor complaint - it's worth seeing.

There is a tradition in French film, which very much comes from "The new Wave", of letting the actors saying deadly destiny-filled things with an absolute zero expression in their faces. Every third line usually starts with the words "Écoute chéri". Personally I can't cope with that acting tradition. Unfortunately that tradition is still strong, as one can see in "Le Pornographe".

The plot is about an aging porno director, who once quitted his art, because of his son finding out and his son being disgusted. That could of course be a good script out of this, but it isn't. Not at all. It's hard to find that the people really care about each other, so why should you? Where is two X-rated scenes here, but why? Is it maybe a trick of getting people to the movie houses? They won't be much excited.

Jacques (Jean-Pierre Léaud) is the son of a doctor, born in 1950, who had dedicated his life from 1970 to 1984 to pornographic movies. His wife committed suicide when his son Joseph (Jérémie Rénier) was five, and when he was a teenager, he became aware of the profession of his father and left home. Presently Jacques is broken and has decided to accept the invitation to direct porno movies again. Meanwhile his son, now seventeen years old, decides to approach to him.

This film is so pretentious and boring that irritated me. The story is quite ridiculous, and the antagonistic philosophic behavior of Jacques is funny. A guy who dedicated his life (since twenty years old) to pornography, in the beginning just because he wanted to attract girls for having sex, worked along fourteen years with sex, is not to have an existential middle-age crisis like showed in the plot of this movie. I do not like porno movies and I am not a moralist person, but if I have to see explicit sex, at least lets see with beautiful actresses in erotic situation. I do not know the name of the 'actress' in the explicit scene, but she will certainly be marked for the rest of her career. I do not understand how such a crap was awarded in Cannes. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): 'O Pornógrafo' ('The Pornographer')

In "Le Pornographe" Jean-Pierre Léaud plays Jacques Laurent, an old and famous director of pornographic films in the 1970's and 1980's, who after an absence from filmmaking for many years decides to make his last film projects while trying to reconciliate with his teenage son (Jéremie Renier) who disapproves his father's career. Bertrand Bonello directs a quite controversial material but lost his way while trying to focus the depth of his film on the dramatic side of the story.

Porn is all about the true in front of you and there's no escape from that. At least the sex scenes are performed by the actors, there's no falsity on that. Drama in its highest form only has nuances of reality, it touches reality very closer but it's false, you can see where fiction begins and reality ends. Here's examples of both statements: Action actors (sometimes) depends on the stunt doubles to perform their risky scenes; porn actors don't, they are committed to the sexual acts. Now, the film in question broke the barrier between both medias (dramatic and pornography), made relevant to the story but while it pushed the envelope in a great way in one genre (the porn) it made the other one totally uninteresting, without firmness of purpose and, I really didn't want to say this but, quite boring. This plot on the hands of a Bergman or an Altman (first names that comes to mind in terms of quality in drama) would be fantastic, and they wouldn't use graphic scenes to play their story. P.T. Anderson made something similar and ten times better with his "Boogie Nights". The eroticism was a supporter from the story involving persons behind the porn world.

So, the only interesting thing in the film is the film within the film, the porn film directed by Léaud's character in a very explicit scene (there's two scenes, being the first most shocking for regular viewers of drama films). The way the scenes somehow fit the film was interesting, the reactions of the non-porn actors and all. Towards the end of the film when Jacques is interviewed he says about how he started to make porn movies and here's an interesting question left to us when he talks about pornographic films being an art. In which category you would put a film like "Le Pornographe": in porn or drama? It plays with our heads for a while.

There's no way you can relate with this director living a crisis in his life neither his rebel son preaching a silent revolution to change things on the country with his colleagues; everything they do is so disconnected, a bad presentation of facts, a weak and confusing narrative that doesn't know how to hold the audience's attention (except for the already mentioned film within the film). In short, the drama is fake and boring while the sex is real and interesting. It's a real disappointment that Jean-Pierre Léaud was part of this film with one of his weakest performances (he gets better in the final moments) in an almost meaningless film. Very weak film, watch it only out of curiosity and nothing more. 5/10

Ah La France! The only country in the world where nobody respects rules especially those who makes them!

Here I saw clearly Ovidie (just dressed with a red top) getting slammed by a man and then giving him a blowjob with his juice all over her face and it's not rated X! In addition, see the title and fact that the story is indeed about making a porn movie!

Just because the old senile perverts in the commission found an iconic french actor (JP Leaud, the avatar of an iconic french director Truffaut) and that the movie is dubbed arthouse movie! and it's dubbed like that because it's the kind of movie in which the hypocritical elite tries to be scared: Pornography! usually it's a vice for the poor not for the well educated and born bourgeois!

Well, at the end, X or not, it's still a french movie so a boring, useless, awful production... The only good point here is that Ovidie shows her talent but personnally i have never doubted her from what she did in her ... porn movies!

An aging porn flicks director must change the way he does his thing. But Jacques is more of a thinker than a director. He sees his job as a form of art that's being thorn by the new generation of directors.

Jean-Pierre Léaud is great in the role of Jacques. Some of the scene you would never see in a Hollywood-made movie.

Out of 100, I give it 80. That's good for *** out of ****.

Seen in Toronto, at the Carleton Cinemas, on July 4th, 2002.

It's truly riling when a film reeking of self importance and supposed deep meaning is so obviously a total fake. There may have once been French films in which great existential truths were told with a particularly somber French seriousness. This must have made a lasting impression on many a future director who dreamed of one day putting some of their own deep truths on screen. This led to too many pretentious French films which really have little if anything of importance to say, other than some empty platitudes in the guise of a intellectualism. These films tend to give you the feeling of inadequacy. While others around are imbibing the pearls of wisdom you may sit dumbfounded wondering what it's all about. Don't be fooled for a minute by this hollow pretense.

"Le Pornographe" is a prime example. It's a total bluff and in cinematic terms a complete mess. Jean-Pierre Leaud trades off his legendary younger days as Truffaut's alter ego. This may lend a certain weight to the character, but again it's a mere cloak for the nothingness beneath. The actors are constantly brooding, with a vacant expressionless stare. This is not meaningful as director Bonello would want us to believe, it's simple a façade. Jeremie Renier, one of the more promising young French actors is wasted in this vacuous exercise.

You might think a statement would be made about the nature of pornography, a subject begging out for a truly insightful cinematic investigation. But even that is skirted. What remains is an extremely irritating and decidedly boring film. Even the inclusion of two hard core (though distantly shot) sex scenes, both totally devoid of any eroticism, fails to inject some life into this abomination.

Fakery of the very worst kind.

Jacques (Jean-Pierre Léaud) is more like a philosopher in this movie by Bertrand Bonello than a director of a pornographic movie. He looks back at his life and explores the sense of his existence. It is not clear how he lives when he makes his last movie after some years of interruption and how he sees his future but he takes some comfort in the presence of his son. This movie is very sober and in fact it is pessimistic because it does not give us an answer about the meaning of the life of the main character Jacques. Is he sad about his career as a maker of pornographic movies or is he proud of his work?

This film , as one previous reviewer has mentioned, is pretentious and boring. The sex scenes are gratuitous and add nothing to the narrative. This film has less of a reason to depict graphic sex than DEEP THROAT did yet it manages to work up to a senseless and oddly boring sexually graphic moment and with even worst actors (imagine that!)than that silly camp film.

It is fitting that at the turn of the century sex would be depicted as a silent dirty act by a tired old French director. He blames youth for the impotence in this bogus film and that is not fair. This movie lives in a vacuum of it's own making.

The worst of porn was never this bad. As the ads for the French Classic EMMANUELLE once stated, "x was never like this." The BBFC was right! Take ten second out and you have the impotent tragedy this film really is; Leave them in and you have exploitation of the public under false pretences. The director should apologise to us for subjecting us to this . We expect more out of French Cinema.

We pray the United States Supreme Court is soon peopled by non-Puritans who will believe the First Amendment guarantees Americans the right to produce and watch what pleases them. The current federal court system is full of Reagan-era morons who do not believe we as a people have enough sense to decide for ourselves what we see on television and at the movies.

Having lived through the cultural revolution of the 1960's, I would have hoped to see by now more open minds on the bench and in the federal Executive Branch. Instead, we have had the same draconian moral arbiters we've had since the 1950's. For instance, instead of moving forward toward freedom from censorship, we have to deal with the likes of Bush's Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell (son of "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons" Colin Powell), whose obsession with Janet Jackson's breast drove him to seek higher FCC fines to punish radio and television stations and networks who have the temerity to broadcast words and images which violate his poor Baptist ears.

When I see the morally degrading dreck which passes for mass entertainment these days, it is astonishing that authority in Britain chooses to busy itself policing the rational pleasures of an entirely respectable section of the film-viewing public! I really think that the often abysmally low tastes of the general cinema-going and video - buying public would be a much more worthwhile subject for active disapproval.

It really is as if authority considers the mindless dissipations of the many to be less threatening to society than the critical exercise, amongst relatively few, of the individual's 'organ of thought': Indeed, I really think that it must be the naked expression of an individual brain, unrestrained by any officially-approved views, which gives rise to the greatest offence. I think this is the common and accepted belief of those who see themselves as the guardians of public morality. The brain is the organ which really disgusts them. The expression of thought threatens their whole perverted moral order with irreducible truth.

No bureaucrat can afford to admit first principles into his dishonest elaboration of power. The primaeval statements of raw sex can - and obviously have! - in such circumstances been used to subvert the chilly formulae of social control. It is interesting how the old counter-culture director [Leaud] is subverted in the crucial scene by the assistant director who has been foisted on him for commercial reasons: This latter is truly the shadow of a censor who only approves of mindlessness. This shadow-director unilaterally executes the commercial, therefore political, act of censoring the nominal director's more considered envisioning of the scene. He is the authentic commissar of a thought-police whose home-grown KGB is the BBFC.

This unholy partnership of literally 'filthy lucre' and the mind-control which government has become - obviously more so here than in France - was obviously not something that could be exposed to public view!

And yet, of course, the moral nakedness of the Public Censor's disgusting cavortings makes even those acts of sex which may be misdirected seem positively wholesome. It is the unhealthy obsessions of the moral fanatic which are offensive. Unlike Jacques - the rather Doinel-ish permanent adolescent - there is no hope in the censor's heart that the base material of humanity can be redeemed.

The Censor is obviously just another aspect of the hatred and suspicion which those who can neither understand nor deal naturally with humanity express in order to control it. And in order to control humanity, bureacracies arise to diminish it by the proscription of its primaeval rights. Being deprived of the thoughts arising in the face of the porn-star Ovidie at the moment of the first important statement of humanity in this drama, we are being deliberately deprived of the sense of decency which only comes when the consequences of free-will are tolerated . Outraged decency is the prerogative of every free individual, after all, and not the sinecure of a government official!

Mere 'public decency' is the enemy of the living truth of individual action. The compromising of Jacques's more inward and moral scenario - effectively an attack on two fronts, in Britain! - by a blatantly commercial motivation reveals him as the revolutionary he failed to become, back in the cultural ferment of the '60's.

Our Censor has sent a very powerful signal to Britain: There are thoughts which you will not be permitted to entertain. Public indecencies of every kind are fine, just so long as these are no more than the mindless behaviour of a docile species of cattle.

The thing that illegitimate authority - I mean, the kind that does not understand that it governs merely on sufferance - cannot allow is the generation of ideas by the free association of human impulses!

Such inhuman power is the enemy of the human soul. It conceives as its first duty the neutering of culture. It intends that we shall not even reach a state of intelligent adolescence. It means to keep us 'in loco parentis' in perpetuity. This paternalism is triumphant and out of control in Britain. It is a life-denying perversion of responsible authority, that wants to arrest all human growth, arrogating to itself the monopoly of adulthood in a perennially childish world. One is grateful for a film from a freer and more grown-up country that has made this clear, not so much despite, but because of the Censor's profoundly immoral intervention in its distribution.