Cheeky

Some films are simply about the appeal of one character. That's all that matters.

There seem to be two types: those that depend on the charm of attractive women, and those that have to work some other engagement. Often that's the acting challenge.

I'm thinking in particular of Audrey Hepburn and "Funny Face." The story and all else is there only to showcase the woman; She is only there for us and we for her. Soft porn should be the place we see much of this, simply because it affords a wider set of seductive options. But it just isn't so. I think there are several reasons for this. When a film is marketed as smut, expectations aren't very high and what you usually get is something that is measured as less than "the real thing."

Tinto Brass, in some of his later films tries to make something genuinely seductive I think, something that is itself. And he has a good eye, a good cinematic sense. Unfortunately for me, what he thinks is seductive in terms of body types doesn't score. Its a cultural thing.

But what he aims for is casual intimacy, the type of casualness that isn't deliberately seductive, but the center of being of the woman. So when you see the nude actress, it is more likely to be her lounging around the house. Its a study in a woman.

A second reason you see this so little is, well, there are few women on screen who can charm like say Audrey Hepburn. The ones that can act go to a different market. The ones who can't end up in the higher paying "adult industry." So it must be quite a challenge for Brass to find a woman sufficiently natural in a sexual appeal to built a film around.

The story in this case if you don't know it is that he found this woman as a waitress in a pizza place and charmed her into the role. She IS successful at being what he needs, apparently because its what she really is. So in a way, its a documentary, if you subtract out the story, which you'll do even if you aren't interested in the process.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.