Surprisingly, this film does not say anything about such major projects as Emmanuel, History of O, Asian erotic cinema (which is significantly different from European and American), about the changes that have occurred in erotic cinema since the mid-90s, when erotic films lost their uniqueness turning into a standardized product under the conventionally generalized brand Playboy, about the fashion of directors for artificial forms of women and much more. On the other hand, the film authors give a good overview of the history of the appearance and development of not only erotic films, but erotic frames as such. So how do you rate a movie like this? Of course, you should not give a negative assessment of the film, because it is quite difficult to cover eroticism in cinema in all its manifestations and it requires not only a lot of time and money, but also a very high level of knowledge.
As I noted above, this documentary is dedicated to the development of American cinema in the context of erotic frames. Viewers who are interested in film eroticism (eroticism as an art form) know that in the United States there has long been censorship implicated in religious American institutions, which, although it did not have the power to completely ban the production of films that seemed too explicit to them, but could significantly reduce the possibility of demonstration (distribution) in the United States. But the film does not begin with the history of this ... commission, but with the very first (erotic) frames, that is, when eroticism first hit the big screen - since 1887. We can say that as soon as the opportunity to shoot a movie appeared, at the same time the idea to shoot nude nature appeared, and how could it be otherwise, if, roughly speaking, half of European art, one way or another, deals with nude nature (in painting, sculpture, literature, etc.). This film is not considered very well.
And then begins the most scandalous and most famous part of the history of American cinema - the period of domination of the Hayes Code (of which I wrote above). This is perhaps the most interesting part of the film, both for those who are interested in eroticism in cinema and for ordinary fans of American cinema. Indeed, it is very unusual to see such an approach (the Hayes Code) from one of the most liberal countries in the world, especially given how high quality films Hollywood has always made (in every sense). How is it that the censorship of eroticism did not appear anywhere, but in the United States? And that's where we find the problem that I wrote about at the beginning: that the film is confined to the United States. I don’t know what happened to erotic cadres in other countries, but I suppose that there were no such strict restrictions in Europe. On the other hand, the Hayes Code did not have the power to ban the film entirely, but significantly reduced the distribution of the film. In any case, the lack of comparisons in this documentary with what took place in other countries is a clear minus.
The Hayes Codex lost its force after the 60s, and the 70s became the heyday of the erotic film industry and the emergence of films such as Emmanuelle, The O Story, Caligula, Greek Fig Tree and many others (but in the film we meet only the film Caligula). This period also gave rise to the pornographic industry, because it was during this period that the first and cult films appeared, such as Deep Throat, Behind the Green Door, Alice in Wonderland An X-Rated Musical Fantasy and many others. By the way, the film pays attention to pornographic films, but very little and generally superficial (the authors either do not want to focus on this topic or simply do not know what to say here, although there is something to say).
Since the film is more than two hours long, I gave a rough and initial description of what the film looks like and what it is about (from 1887 to 2015 and Fifty Shades of Grey). Here is a chronology of events mixed with (erotic) footage, interviews with various experts and actors and actresses and other commentators. In the end, it turned out well, but not widely enough (the film says nothing about such a phenomenon as Tinto Brass, for example). The film begins with a reminder of the MeToo movement and the Harvey Weinstein case, and ends with the same theme. As I understand from the film, many actresses (at that time) were put in such a frame when they were forced to nude either because they learned about this fact at the time of filming or because the directors, otherwise, they simply would not have taken the role (if they did not agree to the scene with nudity). However, in the film there are interviews with actresses who stated that they see nothing wrong in nudity, and even vice versa perceived this fact exclusively from a positive side. Of course, today, when the leaders of public opinion are rather negative about eroticism, or rather the fact of the presence in the film of seductive eroticism (the topic of sexualization of women in films, games, etc.), many say not what they really think, but what they believe is shared by the majority of society (group thinking, which, however, can only be an illusion). But let’s leave this controversial issue, because the main thing is still not this, but how the first eroticism appeared on the screen, what obstacles faced and how this confrontation ended in the end.
I mention a lot about erotic cinema, but someone will notice that this film is not about erotic cinema, but about eroticism in films, which is why there is no Emmanuelle film and The O Story, no Tinto Brass films, but there are ordinary films in which there is a nude nature (including male): Midnight Cowboy, Last Tango in Paris, I Spit on your graves, Basic Instinct, Boogie Nights, Shogels, American Pie, If... etc. Perhaps the point is that purely erotic films are rarely particularly successful (and popular). Therefore, the author did not take erotic films, but, relatively speaking, plot films. After all, most people watched them. I still don’t understand why many iconic films were not considered. Maybe two hours was not enough.