Tag Archives: Greg Dark

Hilarious Dads: A Review of Jacky St. James’ Father’s Day

by Rich Moreland, July 2014

In a classic stag of yesteryear, the main character is the butt of a joke that centers on an early version of the glory hole. On the other side of a farmer’s fence, the buffoon thinks he is copulating with a hottie he can’t see, but he’s in for a surprise. Three young women control the fun, substituting a goat for one of their own. It’s comedic porn in its purest form.

Comedy is the key difference between Jacky St. James’ Our Father (reviewed here) and Father’s Day, an amusing set of tales in which the clumsy step dad is seduced by his sexually aggressive stepdaughter.

father's day 10

The dads are hilarious. In the first episode, Evan Stone is a cheesy disco era throwback with an unbuttoned shirt, lengthy unkept hair, and a medallion. The second segment features a self-indulgent Hollywood agent (Steven St. Croix) who “seduces” his career seeking stepdaughter, but is clueless to the real deception. A shy and warmhearted Mark Wood is led by his stepdaughter through sex with a tender touch. Lastly, step dad Alec Knight is so embarrassed by his stepdaughter’s nonchalant poker face that the smiles keep coming along with her, of course.

These shoots are no nonsense porn unburdened by troublesome issues of real family sex. That’s their magic. Mom is never around and rarely mentioned; this is just a bit of fun.

That Would be Tragic

Casey Calvert is home for summer vacation and mentions that her stepfather always tried to be “cool with the kids.” Once she found this embarrassing, but now grown up, her affection for him has matured.

While cleaning Casey’s room, Evan Stone finds a small object sitting on the bed stand. Remembering his younger days, he immediately thinks drugs and confronts his stepdaughter. Suppressing giggles, Casey casually mentions it’s an “anal plug.”

Casey and Evan Photo courtesy of Eddie Powell

Casey and Evan.
Photo courtesy of Eddie Powell

In an amusing exchange, Evan admits that in his time unless a man was gay, he would rarely have anal sex. “Your mother thinks it’s disgusting,” he says.

“Well, I don’t,” Casey responds and raises her miniskirt to reveal another toy inserted in her backdoor.

With tongue firmly planted in cheek, she says, “You can’t die without ever experiencing anal sax. That would be tragic.”

With pants quickly unzipped, dad is in for a treat.

Other than carrying on a dirty talk monologue, Evan Stone’s character steps aside because the shoot is all about Casey Calvert’s provocative and exotic look. Porn is a menagerie of female body types and the sultry Casey’s is smooth, pure, and perfect.

With her characteristic “bang me hard” frown, she deep throats, loves rough sex and choking, and alternates seamlessly between anal and vaginal penetration. Her reverse cowgirl is the best shot in the entire film. By the way, don’t miss Casey’s turquoise heart-shaped ear studs, appropriately tacky for the sophomoric college girl look.

Of course, a St. James motif is in every scene. Notice the three-pronged candle stand. The center candle rises above the other two, just as anal dominates oral and vaginal when Casey gets down to work.

Jacky St. James’ casting is close to perfect. Evan is the right look for this scene and Casey Calvert is worth the price of the DVD.

The ear studs and a hot frowning Casey. Photo courtesy of Digital Sin

The ear studs and a hot frowning Casey.
Photo courtesy of Digital Sin

Incredibly Naive?

“I guess you could say I nailed the part,” Remy La Croix thinks after doing her step dad Steven.

This episode borrows an old stag theme, the casting couch. Remy is a Hollywood hopeful and stepfather Steven a big deal agent who wants to play her in the finest Tinseltown tradition.

Eying his “incredibly naive stepdaughter,” the self-assured Steven fully intends to use his power to satisfy his carnal desires.

First, he must get her to ditch her hula hoop and “girl next door” look. (Remy La Croix is more than an award-winning porn performer, she’s an accomplished hula hoop artist and dancer.)

Dad, daughter and the hula hoop Photo courtesy of Eddie Powell

Dad, daughter and the hula hoop.
Photo courtesy of Eddie Powell

The high comedy of this episode occurs in the bathroom where Steven’s freshening up routine is sensational . Set for the kill, he kisses a photo of himself hanging on a hook beside a towel.

Later, Steven puts his hands on Remy’s hips, drawing her close to him. “What are you doing?” she protests weakly before demonstrating how much she wants the part and, co-incidentally, how well she is playing a part. As the supposed “victim” of his power play, Remy’s drama skills rival Steven’s bathroom antics.

The diminutive veteran’s sweetness and natural body highlight this segment. Steven and Remy have an overflowing mutual chemistry that underscores their teamwork.

Remy and Steven. Photo courtesy of Digital Sin and Jacky St. James

Remy and Steven.
Photo courtesy of Digital Sin and Jacky St. James

Like other scenes in Father’s Day, this vague familial set up is overtly covered in a porn overlay. The plot line tends to scoot away, though in her usual manner, Jacky St. James drops in a reminder that it is still relevant. In the background are two items of note on a shelf: a pair of trophies (who really wins one for their deception?) and a modern sculpture of two s-shaped figures, one looming over the other. The flowing motion of the art work relfects the Remy/Steven sexual Show.

Incidentally, Eddie Powell’s cinematic trademark—facial close-ups—eroticizes the sex no matter what the shoot demands. Remy La Croix knows how to balance enticement and innocence with subtle expressions.

After the pop, Remy’s voice over reveals a humorous little twist that begs the question of whose lusts are fulfilled. Her wry smile tells all.

The Unbroken String

For anyone who fantasized about making the grade with the blonde cheerleader type will love newcomer Lucy Tyler.

Having attended a sorority gathering with step dad Mark Wood, Lucy wants an after-date payoff. He walks into her bedroom with a few cut flowers as a “thank you” and she seizes the opportunity, pulling his tie to give him a kiss.

Thinking sex with an older man may disgust her, Mark is hesitant. But Lucy tosses aside his concerns along with the flowers. She has an unbroken string of dates with sex afterwards, she says, and she’s not about to stop now.

Mark and Lucy Photo courtesy of Digital Sin and Jacky St. James

Mark and Lucy.
Photo courtesy of Digital Sin and Jacky St. James

Behind her cute, huggable demeanor, Lucy Tyler hides a lusty appetite that feasts where it likes. Though the sex is fairly standard (oral, doggie, mish), Lucy’s smiles create a lighter atmosphere than Casey’s wicked sensuality and Remy’s manufactured naivete.

In a chair beside the bed is a mysterious pair of black platform heels pointed toward the action. Why?

At the end when Lucy and Mark are cuddling like lovers, she says in a voice over this was the day she “slept with her mom’s husband.” The phrasing is odd. Perhaps she doesn’t think of Mark as a father because he is a recent addition to a family she is growing out of, thus the slutty shoes, a mother-daughter commonality positioned to spy on a blossoming affair.

You Should Just Look

The final vignette features a down-to-earth Dillion Harper who disrobes bit by bit in front of her stepfather Alec. The game is strip poker and Dillion manages to lose repeatedly. As her nakedness takes over the tale, Alec psychologically backs away, fighting temptation in the name of preserving family dignity.

A little discomfort now has a payoff later! Photo courtesy of Digital Sin and Jacky St. James

A little discomfort now has a payoff later!
Photo courtesy of Digital Sin and Jacky St. James

He wants to know if she is bluffing him (what do you think?) only to get “Are you flirting with me?” from Dillion. At the height of the merriment, her boobs are staring at dad. “You should just look,” she says, before losing the last hand.

Once the panties are gone, they sit across from each other with mischievous stares.

The camera shifts immediately to the sex and Dillion’s slurpy, bubbly oral is her calling card. She’s as nasty as they come (pun intended) and her eagerness absorbs Alec’s manhood. Because she passes for barely legal, Dillion is perfect for the stepdaughter role.

Dillion enjoying dad. Photo courtesy of Digital Sin and Jacky St. James

Dillion riding dad.
Photo courtesy of Digital Sin and Jacky St. James

This segment has a couple of shooting moments the others pass over. There is good male to female oral and Dillion gets a partial facial, a Jacky St. James concession because most feminist filmmakers prefer to avoid them.

 

 *          *          *          *          *

In the modern era of adult film, the array of fetishes can overwhelm the viewer. Sometimes just straight up sex, charming and not overly gonzo, is a treat.

Of course, the performers are the linchpins of memorable shoots, no matter the subject.

Casey Calvert, a girl who cares and gives her best in every scene. Photo by Eddie Powell

Casey Calvert, a girl who cares and gives her best in every scene.
Photo by Eddie Powell

In the Behind the Scenes segment, Lucy Tyler references the industry’s earlier days when talent would sometime look bored and disinterested. Her remarks brought to mind 1990s director Greg Dark who tired of the business for a variety of reasons, one of which was the attitude of the starlets. In his mind, they showed up for the money, had sex with a “fuck buddy,” and left with no thought of how their performance turned out.

Today the art of porn is challenging such attitudes. Performers, and the directors who bring them together, take pride in their work in a business that is moving closer to mainstream culture. Nowhere is that more evident than in the films of Jacky St. James whose fans can be certain there is no ennui on her sets. In an industry that can get trapped in its reliance on sameness, a St. James shoot has hardworking talent that imbues every scene with a fresh outlook.

Father’s Day stands as evidence.

 

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Pleasure is not about being the same as your Lover

A View of Susie Bright’s Erotic Screen Volume I: 1967 – 1989 The Golden Hardcore & Shimmering Dyke-Core.

by Rich Moreland, November 2011

Historians thrive on primary sources, the stuff that comes directly from the persons who lived the events. We reference them, quote them, and analyze them. Lincoln’s short speech at Gettysburg is a primary source as is Billie Holiday’s sultry voice in “Easy Living” and Linda Lovelace’s testimony before the Meese Commission on Pornography. You get the idea.

Approaching its fortieth year of legitimacy, adult film and its players are now a part of America’s cultural history that deserves to be chronicled. In resurrecting her magazine column from its tucked away past, a leading feminist thinker has produced one woman’s interpretation of modern porn’s early years. The result is a new collection of primary source material cataloged under the title Susie Bright’s Erotic Screen Volume I: 1967 – 1989 The Golden Hardcore & Shimmering Dyke-Core.

I read Susie’s book to spot connecting points for my research. I was not disappointed. However, beyond the academic fill-in-the blanks what rivets me to Susie’s writing is attitude. Butt kicking is her specialty. Susie’s knack is “outing” the bigotry of our culture’s sexual history, a past that spills from a prudish society and dampens our desires. We get wet, but it’s a dunking that chills the spirit.

Susie dries us off and tells we can get wet again, this time for pleasure. She tells us there are no “rules” in the sexual, no definitive boundaries to what we do or when and how we do it. Her words put heteronormativity on trial.

“Pleasure is not about being the same as your lover,” Susie insists, “or doing the same thing to them as they do to you.”

These remarks are found in a 1995 piece entitled “The Blatant Lesbian Image.” Though it skirts the original time frame of the book, the essay is a perfect concluding message. Though lesbian as a sexual identifier is dated for some in today’s queer community, it was alive almost twenty years ago in defining a marginalized group. Lesbians, once sexual outliers whose loving and hard fornication had no voice in the girl-on-girl pseudo-sex of Porn Valley, were joining gay males in erasing their erotic invisibility. Gay women had endured reactionary attitudes in an age in which authentic sex troubled a fractured feminist movement. But as sexuality legitimized its fluidity into the new century, the once mired sexual turf became solid ground. In producing its own porn, today’s genderqueer population should appreciate the history lessons Susie brings to the text.

Her message drew my thumbs up. Look at what she says next.

“If what people do in bed together encompasses the true spectrum of humankind, then sex is as much about hugging as it is about drinking piss or being spanked on a Naugahyde couch.”

Love those words, but here’s the zinger.

“Our society’s notions of normality are completely fake and meta-trendy, since they rely on the changing standards of superstition, religion, Christianity, and gender bias to define.”

Amen.

This last portion of the book is its best from my perspective, but that opinion is not intended to discount Susie’s selected essays from her Forum days and her time as On Our Backs’ editor. She covers lots of chronological ground. Her film reviews, for instance, are historically valuable. She points out that some movies were edited to avoid government scrutiny and the originals may tragically be lost.

Personally, I share her admiration for Veronika Rocket’s 1983 Smoker and F.X. Pope’s and Rinse Dreams’ 1981 Nightdreams and recommend them to you. Both are filled with artistry and recall a bit of the industry’s feature film format celebrated in the 1970’s.

Putting the information she gives the reader into a political framework heightens the impact of her words, especially considering they originated in a time when the conservative backlash of the Reagan years swept through the social side of American culture. The government had pornographers on the run, take a look at her comments on BDSM film and the shunning of penetrative sex, and the women’s movement was filled with anti-porn feminists, not a playing field that any sex-positive feminist would consider to be level.

Susie remained undaunted. Her essay on racism in the adult film business, “The Killed Story: Jim Crow and Adult Video,” should be required reading even for those uninterested in the general history of filmed pornography. She explains that her original 1986 opinion piece was tabled by the editorial powers-that-be and she rewrote it for her journal. The winners of her forethought then are her readers today.

Susie exposes 1980’s racial attitudes that feel quaint and farcical in our current age. Introducing the reader to the beginning of black adult film, she focuses on the making of Lialeh (1973) by African-American musician Bernard Purdy, validating its place in film history. A note of interest is in order here. Because the book is Kindlized it is interactive. Instead of the reader having to seek out more information on a person or film, a click to a webpage brings it home. For Lialeh the movie’s opening musical number is instantly available through YouTube, a plus for the under-forty crowd who needs to frame it in the 1970’s.

Susie relates that there were early makers of interracial movies, most notably Drea, a female director, and Greg Dark (the Dark Brothers), both very white. Taken within this context, Purdy’s film was groundbreaking. Susie rightly believes that Lialeh’s “naturalistic black perspective” was unique at the time and she compares it with the Dark Brothers’ “cynicism and mania between black/white relations.” In fact, it’s Dark who claims there are no “sensitive” moments in his films.

Susie suggests that Dark’s movies reflect the new wave phenomenon that marked ‘80’s culture. During his college days in Oakland, California, Dark chummed with blacks on the neighborhood tennis courts, interactions that gave him some legitimacy as a filmmaker of black sexuality. Susie proclaims that in the porn business, “[i]f Greg Dark made his cross-cultural link with black tennis players, he’s one step ahead of most other white production teams who make black tapes.”

The essay further confronts another not so hushed issue of racism at the time. White females claimed they would not film with blacks.

“In porn starlet interviews from the early days of hardcore,” Susie writes, “the fan mags would pose questions like, ’What Won’t You Do on Camera?’ The most common reply from a white ingenue would be, ’I don’t do anal, and I don’t do blacks.’ Instead of greeting that statement with laughter or disbelief, everyone would just say, ’Oh yeah, of course.’”

Susie reminds the reader that “[b]efore the 90s,” not surprisingly, “there was no such thing as ‘multi-culturalism’ in porn.” But history never remains static; time and attitudes are in constant flux. Susie explains. “It’s become clear that inter-racial projects have moved up from underground stigmatized loops that could ‘ruin a girl’s career,’ to a everybody’s-doing-it theme that is destined to become as common as the pro forma lesbian scene.”

Today we have websites like blackonblondes.com that give the viewer lovely Caucasian girls being penetrated every which way by well-endowed men of color and apparently relishing every minute of it.

Popularity bred a new age of tolerance and real sexual fantasies. For those filming on the erotic margins, African-Americans, queers, BDSMers, and others, theirs were released from a closeted lockup in the “secret museum,” if I may reference Fordham scholar Walter Kendrick. Pornography became the big tent it was always intended to be. Susie’s text is a reminder of this journey.

From the feminist perspective, Susie honors Candida Royalle’s FEMME Productions as pioneering “couples” porn, endorsing sex from a female view, and Fatale Video, the earliest coming out of lesbian sexuality. Both studios framed and reinforced the cinematic “gaze” from an alternative female context. Most important, Susie pays tribute to the groundbreaking courage of gay male porn and its influence on the development of lesbian adult film.

I might add that the early efforts of each ultimately created an environment that abets the independent films of San Francisco’s current queer porn community. Moreover, Susie’s militant “dyke-core” attitude insists that not all women prefer a softer, gentler porn universe. Her view supports the artistry of directors like Shine Louise Houston, Courtney Trouble, and Carlos Batts. Queer performers Madison Young, Syd Blakovich, Jiz Lee, Dylan Ryan, April Flores, Billy Castro, and Buck Angel, to name a few, are the soul of this emerging hard edged adult film. They owe their genre’s success to those trailblazers who stood firm against the reactionary tide of the 1980’s.

Susie Bright gives us a valuable look into adult film during one of the most conservative atmospheres in twentieth century America. Her assessment of feminism and marginalized sexuality is why I searched the book’s locations (Kindle has no pagination) for those primary source nuggets that offer insights for my own work. I do have a suggestion. I wish Susie had added a few more updates to connect her history with today’s adult film world. There are some moments when she does, as at the end of her interview with Sharon Mitchell in mentioning the demise of AIM. But I would like to have encountered more. Perhaps in Volume II we’ll see those connections.

There is so much more in Susie’s text that explains how we got from here to there in adult film history. I can only toss a partial list your way in passing: a review of “super directors,” the meaning of lesbian erotica, Susie’s struggles to get out her message during her On Her Back days, a look at Christopher Rage, and a revisited glance at the hilarious Snuff controversy that continues to feed the paranoia of old anti-porn feminists. And one more, read her 1988 column on “What Do Women Want?” It’s delightful.

Susie Bright presents a kaleidoscope of stories and personal views that allow the reader to cherry pick what is of interest. Get a copy of Susie Bright’s Erotic Screen Volume I: 1967 – 1989 The Golden Hardcore & Shimmering Dyke-Core and see what you like.

If I may borrow her reference to the old Hustler peter-meter as a rating gizmo, from my cis-gendered view Susie Bright deserves a full literary joystick. Or to use her words for her devoted feminist readers, “clits up!” You’ll enjoy the ride.

———————————

Susie’s book is available online and is published by Bright Stuff, 9-30-2011. To find copies go to:

or
——————————–

[References to the book used in this review are documented at Kindle locations 169, 742, 839-843, 858-864, 1074,2739, 2749-2752, 2802-2803, 2852-2854,2893-2895]

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized