"My Bare Lady"

Grushenka

Literotica Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Posts
516
This seems appropriate to post here (sent by a friend, don't know the source). I've never watched a "reality" show and wouldn't be able to name any currently popular tv shows, but this sounds interesting to me, especially since the girls have gone to England to study. Probably will forget to watch it though. :rolleyes:


A Day Job in Theatuh: Wouldn’t It Be Loverly?
By ANITA GATES

The title isn’t much, but the premise is clever.

In “My Bare Lady,” a new four-part reality mini-series (the second episode is on Fox Reality tonight), four American pornographic-film actresses are whisked to London and given three weeks of classical theater training. Their goal is to leave X-rated movies behind and move into mainstream acting.

The show’s goal, it seems, mainly is to titillate, but it may demonstrate other assets as the four finalists work toward London debuts. At least most of them seem sincere about their desire to learn and change.

Kirsten Price, 24, is originally from Massachusetts and travels with pink luggage. Nautica Thorn, 22, from Hawaii, has the most exotic look. Chanel St. James, 34, is from Arizona and has the most attention-getting breasts. Sasha Knox, 22, from California, stands out because of her fresh, natural look. But she’s definitely one of the girls.

“I don’t party, but I do love sex,” Ms. Knox tells the camera. She also announces, “I really am a great actress.”

That may be true. The finalists showed hints of real dramatic ability in the first episode. But the hour focused mostly on prurience or, as Hamlet would say, country matters.

The herd of actresses who auditioned in Los Angeles were instructed to fake orgasms on camera. For no good reason the casting people also asked them for the titles of some movies in which they had appeared. “The More the Merrier” and “18 and Easy” are among the more printable.

Then it was time to ridicule their ignorance. One actress said she had never heard of the play she was being asked to read: “Romeo and Juliet.” A couple were puzzled by the name Montague in the script. One thought the word might be monologue; another asked if it was supposed to be montage.

And even though it was explained to them, few seemed to grasp that in the line “Wherefore art thou Romeo?” the first word referred to cause rather than physical location.

Somewhere in the reality-series code it is written that the losers must be shown, embarrassed and hurt as they are rejected by the judges. “My Bare Lady” is no exception. Most of the rejected are philosophical, reasoning that there is always another audition around the corner. Sunny Lane, Gia Darling and Sunset Thomas are among those who don’t make the finals.

In tonight’s episode the finalists are settling into their London flat (yes, they share bedrooms, to encourage roommate conflict) and beginning their training, which includes voice and dance lessons as well as brushing up on their Shakespeare.

If “My Bare Lady” can restrain itself from adolescent smirking, it may be fascinating. But the odds are against that.

Fox Reality, tonight at 8; Eastern and Pacific times; 7, Central time.
 
As a former starving actor, and current porn aficionado , this is fascinating to me. Ron Jeremy, I understand, had some formal acting training. Of course, there's no training a 10" cock, but you get my point...

There was a golden age of porn, immortalized in the film "Boogie Nights", when porn sometimes had greater aspirations. There were X-rated versions of fairy tales, and pretentious plotlines (certainly not uncommon in the mainstream). I suppose this tradition is carried on in the softcore films made for Skinimax, or those awful cheap Playmate -> spy films made by that guy who seems to like Jeeps and RC planes as much as boobies. The 'gonzo' style of reality-porn sometimes captures some sublime moments, and first-time actresses or amateurs occasionally flash moments of true enjoyment. For the most part, though, as soon as they start to 'act', porn starlets lose their spontaneity and it's more difficult for the viewer to sustain any suspension of disbelief or personal involvement. Why can't they just smile once in awhile?
 
Huckleman2000 said:
Why can't they just smile once in awhile?
My complaint too. Not that I've seen much, but all the porn I've seen (hard or soft) bores me by the second or third "Ahhhhhhhh". I don't mind the bad acting for the non-sex scenes, but please make me believe you're somewhat enjoying the fuck.

I loved "Boogie Nights" for many reasons, including the actor-characters' attitudes to their craft.
 
Grushenka said:
...I loved "Boogie Nights" for many reasons, including the actor-characters' attitudes to their craft.

Yes, there was a sweetness and naivete to them, as sordid as their world was (and is?). Another mainstream movie with glimpses of the porn world was Body Double, where the starving actor goes into the porn world (...of Melanie Griffith :rolleyes: )
She plays "Holly Body", a porn star known for her masturbation routine which she is (ostensibly) hired to perform in an apartment for a voyeur. It is supposed to be a rote performance,based on her attitude towards it later in the film, but it comes across as anything but. I WISH porn actors could be that convincing!

Anyway, the whole dichotomy of 'acting' out a purely reflexive act is so self-referential and brings to the surface so many paradoxes of both acting and intimacy, I just think it could be really interesting.
 
Ah, Boogie Nights!

Huckleman2000 said:
There was a golden age of porn, immortalized in the film "Boogie Nights", when porn sometimes had greater aspirations.
[threadjack analysis]"Boogie nights" is a work of genius, an exploration not only of '70's porn (humorously innocent with it's school-play/action-figure stories and acting), but of innocence lost. The movie captured that strange moment in the 70's which mangaged to mix both sweetness ("Have a nice day" smiley buttons) and wild sexuality. This is reflected in the earnest porn actors who are all rather like children at the beginning of the movie. All playing house together. Eventually, of course, as in any Eden, the innocence is lost--or was never really there; and, like the '80's world around them, they are all required to leave childhood behind.

I remember when my husband and I went to see "Boogie Nights" in the theatre. We were rivited from that first amazing scene at the disco, stunned by the New Year's episode--which says everything about the change of decades--blown away by the tension of the firecracker ephiphany. It's a brilliant film that I'd put in any top ten list.[/threadjack analysis]

There is a problem, however, between the metaphoric (however real or not) innocence of porn stars in that fictional movie and this reality show. Doubtless these girls were picked as much for their lack of education (or willingness to pretend they were innocent) as for their erotic attributes. And as with most reality shows, they're either really foolish or believe that this free exposure (including a trip to England, room board, etc.) will help their careers, win or lose.

Reality tv is the ultimate pornography.
 
3113 said:
Reality tv is the ultimate pornography.
Great statement, thank you.

As I said, I haven't seen this type of show, but I can't help but surmise that what sells it is the humiliation, shaming and coercion of participants (in the name of 'winning' something). Puts me off like date rape.
 
3113 said:
[threadjack analysis]...[/threadjack analysis]

There is a problem, however, between the metaphoric (however real or not) innocence of porn stars in that fictional movie and this reality show. Doubtless these girls were picked as much for their lack of education (or willingness to pretend they were innocent) as for their erotic attributes. And as with most reality shows, they're either really foolish or believe that this free exposure (including a trip to England, room board, etc.) will help their careers, win or lose.

Reality tv is the ultimate pornography.

Ahh, you're absolutely right, unfortunately for me. :cool:

I guess my porn-star fantasies belong in the same bin as my fuck-buddy fantasies. Summarily, there's no such thing as a free lunch, or a free fuck. Certainly, when movie roles are on the line. ;)

Maybe I cling to the Playboy aesthetic, which supposes that there are willing young blondes eager to explore their own sexuality with septuagenarians who happen to have an open outlook. The fact that this exploration includes an entre into a fabulously wealthy lifestyle and access to entertainment industry moguls is conveniently treated as a given, belying the actual value of such access to attractive young sexually assertive women.

If I were a media bigwig or a software bigwig, my silly adolescent fantasies wouldn't be nearly the issue they are. :rolleyes:
 
Huckleman2000 said:
Maybe I cling to the Playboy aesthetic, which supposes that there are willing young blondes eager to explore their own sexuality with septuagenarians who happen to have an open outlook.
Well, they are if you happen to own a playboy mansion ;)
 
3113 said:
Well, they are if you happen to own a playboy mansion ;)

Exactly. But that's never quite spelled out, is it? And few women tolerate being equated with a whore, whatever their price.

It's just too much winking and nodding for me, under the guise of a free and unencumbered lifestyle that simply doesn't exist unless one is free and unencumbered to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

I appreciate what Hugh Hefner does for free expression and sexual freedom, but there are real-life limits that he just doesn't seem to acknowledge. :confused:
 
I am of the belief most porn stars are dead on the inside. This is why they struggle to bring characters to life.
 
Back
Top