Soft in the Middle Andrews Fm 3Rd.Qxd 7/24/2006 12:20 PM Page Ii Andrews Fm 3Rd.Qxd 7/24/2006 12:20 PM Page Iii
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Andrews_fm_3rd.qxd 7/24/2006 12:20 PM Page i Soft in the Middle Andrews_fm_3rd.qxd 7/24/2006 12:20 PM Page ii Andrews_fm_3rd.qxd 7/24/2006 12:20 PM Page iii Soft in the Middle The Contemporary Softcore Feature in Its Contexts DAVID ANDREWS The Ohio State University Press Columbus Andrews_fm_3rd.qxd 7/24/2006 12:20 PM Page iv Copyright © 2006 by The Ohio State University. All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Andrews, David, 1970– Soft in the middle: the contemporary softcore feature in its contexts / David Andrews. p. cm. Includes bibliographic references and index. ISBN 0-8142-1022-8 (cloth: alk. paper)—ISBN 0-8142-9106 (cd-rom) 1. Erotic films— United States—History and criticism. I. Title. PN1995.9.S45A53 2006 791.43’65380973—dc22 2006011785 The third section of chapter 2 appeared in a modified form as an independent essay, “The Distinction ‘In’ Soft Focus,” in Hunger 12 (Fall 2004): 71–77. Chapter 5 appeared in a modified form as an independent article, “Class, Gender, and Genre in Zalman King’s ‘Real High Erotica’: The Conflicting Mandates of Female Fantasy,” in Post Script 25.1 (Fall 2005): 49–73. Chapter 6 is reprinted in a modified form from “Sex Is Dangerous, So Satisfy Your Wife: The Softcore Thriller in Its Contexts,” by David Andrews, in Cinema Journal 45.3 (Spring 2006), pp. 59–89. Copyright © 2006 by the University of Texas Press. All rights reserved. Cover design by Dan O’Dair. Text design and typesetting by Jennifer Shoffey Forsythe. Type set in Adobe Minion. Printed by Thomson-Shore, Inc. The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials. ANSI Z39.48–1992. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Andrews_fm_3rd.qxd 7/24/2006 12:20 PM Page v For Samuel, who did his sweet best to thwart this book Andrews_fm_3rd.qxd 7/24/2006 12:20 PM Page vi Andrews_fm_3rd.qxd 7/24/2006 12:20 PM Page vii 1 Contents List of Illustrations ix Preface and Acknowledgments xiii Chapter 1 Introduction: Approaching the Softcore Feature 1 Chapter 2 Soft v. Hard 23 Chapter 3 The Disorderly Feminization of Classical Sexploitation: Tracing the Genealogy of Contemporary Softcore 45 Chapter 4 “Spicy, but Not Obscene”: Industrial and Formal Retooling in 1980s Sexploitation 77 Chapter 5 Class, Gender, and Genre in Zalman King’s “Real High Erotica”: The Conflicting Mandates of Female Fantasy 110 Chapter 6 Sex Is Dangerous, So Satisfy Your Wife: The Softcore Thriller in Its Contexts 131 Chapter 7 Softcore as Serialized (and Feminized) Featurette: Postfeminist Propriety on Late-Night Cable 159 Chapter 8 The Softcore Public: A Cult of Bad Faith? 184 Chapter 9 Corporate Softcore and Its Discontents: Weightlessness and Weightiness at Playboy Enterprises 205 vii Andrews_fm_3rd.qxd 7/24/2006 12:20 PM Page viii viii—❚ Contents Chapter 10 “From Skin to Scream”: Evolution and Elevation at a Cult Softcore Label 230 Conclusion Whither Softcore? 251 Notes 259 Film- and Videography 288 Works Cited 305 Index 317 Andrews_fm_3rd.qxd 7/24/2006 12:20 PM Page ix Illustrations Figure 1 Soft, “deflective” stylization in the promotional art for high-end hardcore. ©Studio A Entertainment and Andrew Blake, 2003. 20 Figure 2 Soft imagery and literary allusions in the promotional art for high-end hardcore. ©Studio A Entertainment and Andrew Blake, 2002. 40 Figure 3 The paradigmatic image of soft-focus fantasy: Sylvia Kristel in a production still from Just Jaeckin’s Emmanuelle (1974). © Trinacra, Columbia, and Just Jaeckin, 1974, and RCA/Columbia, 1984. 41 Figure 4 Rape as female fantasy in Russ Meyer’s Lorna (1964). From the collection of Eric Schaefer. 55 Figure 5 An ad-mat for Mantis in Lace (1968), a fully softcore production that emerged from the roughie-kinky tradition. From the collection of Eric Schaefer. 59 Figure 6 Aspirational stylization in Joe Sarno’s Butterflies (1974). Used courtesy ei Independent Cinema. 67 Figure 7 A scene from Joe Sarno’s awakening-sexuality classic, Inga (1967). Used courtesy ei Independent Cinema. 70 Figure 8 The “empowered babe” in a production still from Al Adamson’s The Naughty Stewardesses (1973). From the collection of Eric Schaefer. 72 Figure 9 Video-box art for Young Lady Chatterley (1977), a classical vehicle in the Emmanuelle mode. ©Alan Roberts, 1977, and Monterey Home Video, 1996. 89 Figure 10 Sexploitation-style promotional art for the Barbarian Queen films. ©Concorde—New Horizons and Roger Corman, 1985, 1989, 2003. 103 ix Andrews_fm_3rd.qxd 7/24/2006 12:20 PM Page x x—❚ Illustrations Figure 11 Equal-opportunity objectification in the promotional art for Andy Sidaris’s Hard Ticket to Hawaii (1987). © Malibu Bay and Andy Sidaris, 1987, 2001. 105 Figure 12 Soft lighting of the low hero’s chest in a frame enlargement from Zalman King’s Two Moon Junction (1988). © Lorimar, 1988, and Columbia TriStar, 2000. 118 Figure 13 A frame enlargement from the autoerotic shower sequence of Zalman King’s Two Moon Junction (1988): an immersion in female subjectivity. © Lorimar, 1988, and Columbia TriStar, 2000. 126 Figure 14 Glenn Close as Alex Forrest, the psychopathic femme fatale of Adrian Lyne’s Fatal Attraction (1987). Theatrical erotic thrillers in the Fatal Attraction mold tend to front-load their sexual spectacle. © Paramount, 1987. 134 Figure 15 Sharon Stone as Catherine Tramell, the imperious femme fatale with pronounced exhibitionist tendencies in Basic Instinct (1992). This theatrical erotic thriller is markedly closer to softcore than earlier films like Fatal Attraction. © Carolco, 1992. 137 Figure 16 Though Jag Mundhra’s Night Eyes (1990) represented a significant step in the development of the softcore thriller, the film’s straightforward use of noir devices also posed obstacles to the same. © Prism Entertainment, 1990. 144 Figure 17 Video-box art for Alexander Gregory Hippolyte’s Carnal Crimes (1991), a noir-romance hybrid that also qualifies as the first fully softcore erotic thriller. © Axis Films and Magnum Entertainment, 1991. 145 Figure 18 Promotional art on a “one sheet” for three ultra-low-cost MRG 16mm thrillers. Note the high degree of standardization in the titles. © Mainline Releasing, 2001. Used courtesy Robert Lombard. 154 Figure 19 Three more ultra-low-budget 16mm softcore thrillers from MRG. The promotional art accents a noirish quality that is carefully restricted in the films themselves. © Mainline Releasing, 2002. Used courtesy Robert Lombard. 156 Figure 20 A production still from Emmanuelle (1974), a crucial postfeminist influence on Red Shoe Diaries (1992–99) and many later softcore serials. © Trinacra, Columbia, and Just Jaeckin, 1974, and RCA/ Columbia, 1984. 163 Figure 21 The second video anthology of Zalman King’s pioneering serial, Red Shoe Diaries (1992–99). The use of “mystery lighting” in this promo- tional art emphasizes the upscale noirishness of King’s psychosexual vision. © Showtime and Zalman King, 1992, and Republic Pictures and Zalman King, 1993. 166 Andrews_fm_3rd.qxd 7/24/2006 12:20 PM Page xi Illustrations ❚—xi Figure 22 The “swinging Playboy male” as reimagined in the video-box art for a corporate softcore drama, The Model Solution (2001). © Indigo Entertainment and Playboy Entertainment, 2001. 213 Figure 23 The dark, self-reflexive promotional art for Tom Lazarus’s first Playboy film, Word of Mouth (1999), suggests the director’s departure from corporate softcore convention. © Mystique Films and Playboy Entertainment, 1999. 222 Figure 24 House of Love (2000) reinforced Lazarus’s status as a corporate softcore “dissident.” © Indigo Entertainment and Playboy Entertainment, 2000. 223 Figure 25 A frame enlargement showing the alien protagonist of Surrender Cinema’s cult softcore hit Femalien (1996). Femalien is widely credited with introducing a new explicitness into contemporary softcore cinema. © Full Moon Pictures and Charles Band, 1996. 231 Figure 26 This DVD art for Lord of the G-Strings (2003) demonstrates Seduction Cinema’s stress on exploitation-style art and its heavy promotion of the women it trumpets as “contract players.” Used courtesy ei Independent Cinema. 238 Figure 27 A production still from SpiderBabe (2003), a higher-end spoof from Seduction Cinema. Used courtesy ei Independent Cinema. 242 Figure 28 A 2006 sales catalogue for Retro-Seduction Cinema. Used courtesy ei Independent Cinema. 245 Figure 29 A telling sign of the cultural penetration of the Janet Jackson affair: an ad for Siemens stoves. © Siemens and The Chicago Tribune, 2004. 252 Figure 30 Janet Jackson’s notorious “wardrobe malfunction” may have contributed to contemporary softcore’s current decline. © CBS and MTV, 2004. 252 Andrews_fm_3rd.qxd 7/24/2006 12:20 PM Page xii Andrews_fm_3rd.qxd 7/24/2006 12:20 PM Page xiii Preface and Acknowledgments My most formidable challenge in writing Soft in the Middle was the paucity of prior theorization on contemporary softcore itself. When I began this project in 2002, good work was at hand on the “classical” genres. Compara- tively little research, however, was available on post-1990 softcore cinema— and if valuable, the work that was available was limited by narrow sampling and narrower agendae.1 I filled this vacuum as I could by studying the gener- ic matrices that have enmeshed softcore and its precursors. Thus I inspect- ed the literature on classical exploitation and sexploitation; examined the research on other low-budget forms, including “cult” films and hardcore videos; and delved into the scholarship of theorists working in related media like noncinematic pornography (hard and soft), romance fiction, and soap opera. The bulk of my research was, of course, devoted to softcore texts and the industry that produced them. Unlike colleagues working on older forms, I did not find it difficult to screen a representative sample of the genre.