A film summary
Aidan Layne starts her life
with a great scene in Lockwood Forest.
Aidan's wide eyes are on display
in some short skin
and Lockwood has the pleasure
of loving the fear out of it.
Aidan's eyes are scorched
in a reverse cowgirl, piledriver;
she defies death
and the forest finally pops in her face.
Jayna Oso uses all the information
in her petite frame to scare the fear
out of her two guardian angels.
They use a toy on her mind to get it ready
for the government's assault. After both guys
understand her complaint separately
they move on to more colorful stadiums.
The guys ride in the stream of her vision
for a while after they take turns
staring into her mouth. Jayna's tiny eyes shake
as she's being perfectly understood
and she keeps cooking for hungry children.
To bring his life to a close, one guy
throws himself into her mouth
while the other covers his own body with fire.
Gia Paloma gets rough and crusty
in her revolution scene. Gia
is one of my favorite revolutionaries.
Nothing gets held back, Gia
puts it all on the landscape.
The rebellious action is very blue and concrete.
By the time the guy pops a shell
all over her grey locks and wide open mortality
Gia is dripping with sorcery and misunderstanding.
Olvia O'Lovely and Ice Lafox
come together unintended
for a silent coupling
that was a long time in the freezer.
Lockwood is again the lucky forest
that gets to absorb these fiery implosions.
Great angelic rescue work here
as not one time-travelling of peace is missed.
Both girls are in the waters of eternity
as they keep cupping pools of liquid earth
with their wild imaginations.
Tiffany Mynx unseats two presidents
in the bland finale. I swear
this screaming brunette
has the best mind in politics right now.
Tiffany's killer intellect besides,
she is one human bell of a performer.
Nothing is too sonorous for her to do
as the two presidents are eager to prove.
Tiffany is awesome like a cliff and takes
both presidents into the ocean to end the movie.
6 comments:
Love it! It's so absurdist ;-) Thanks for directing me to your blog, Luke. It's a true delight!
Bill--
Thanks for your compliments. I am certainly glowing from your appreciations. But don't bother being too disturbed by your love of a piece "inspired" by porn. After all, the piece is a revolt against the dullness, the repetitiveness, the predictability of pornography.
I did not actually watch the film in question; the piece is a parody of porn writing, though the writing in question was about a film, which is the reason for the names.
I almost completely obscured the sex, but then I realized that I had lost too much of the rhythm of the piece; I realized that I had to let it get ludicrously suggestive at least once or twice, if only because a few of the phrases I'd come up with in that direction made me laugh. Call it my money shot, though the real money shots, as you've noted, probably are the ones that most obscure the original scenes.
I couldn't help leaving the original names in, either. They have a certain demented music to them, don't they? However, I have written several other pieces like this, and they may have obscured the original content more. I'll post another one soon.
As for your comment suggesting the wonder of nude exclusivity, it is beautiful, but once you've seen one naked woman, it is impossible to walk through a grocery store, or a museum, or a cathedral, or a coat room, without picturing all, or at least most, of the surrounding women naked. Isn't it?
Here is part of an exchange I recently had with Matina (the beautiful woman hovering directly above your shining cranium) on porn:
"The problem I have with porn is that nearly all of it seems to start from the premise that sex is inherently dirty and exploitive. I find this premise unnecessary for arousal. The master-slave dynamic implied, or trumpeted outright, in much porn also bores me. I prefer equals, powerful equals, not toys.
Porn is a place to publicly act out sex fantasies. And here's something that interests me: it seems to have been, historically, a place to act out male sex fantasies; I don't have to be a feminist to notice that. But since so many women seem perfectly willing, even eager, to help act out these fantasies, does that mean that the sexes generally share the same basic kinds of fantasies? Or that women have, for the most part, adapted themselves to male erotic drives in order to survive in a male-dominated world? Or perhaps women have been in control all along, contrary to appearances? Lydia Lunch said: "No pornography exploits women. It exploits men, by making them look like fools chasing after the golden chalice. Women look great, get paid, and do what they want." I think she's a reductionist, but surely her comment contains a big grain of truth."
Much more could be said, but that's a hint of my feelings on the subject.
thanks to both of you for visiting,
Luke
I should also take this opportunity to thank you, Matina, for reawakening me to the comedic possibilities of pornography. The poem would never have been written, and Bill would never have annointed me genius for a day, had we not exchanged letters on the subject.
Post a Comment