Real Sex In The City?

The second episode of Tell Me You Love Me aired last night...and I think I'm done. Too sombre or serious or something like that but it just isn't grabbing me. And while the explicit sex was toned down considerably, it was still a factor...enough of a factor to keep me wondering "how real is it...really?"

In fact, the show and one scene in particular was referenced in a New York Observer article about full frontal nudity finally 'arriving' to mainstream television:

In one of the many (many) startling scenes in the new HBO drama Tell Me You Love Me, which debuted Sunday night, a young, attractive married couple sit side by side on a sofa, watching a boxing match on TV. The wife unbuckles her husband’s pants, and after some noisy kissing, she pulls away and says, “I want to see it.” She sees it and—holy cow—so do we.

Over the past few months, the breathy buzz on the show—about married and almost-married couples in various stages of intimacy-related despair and dishabille—has centered on the amount of its frank sexual content. And it was there all right—from minute two, when a man masturbates under the covers, to real-time full-monty couplings, to angelic, white-haired Jane Alexander kissing meaningfully down her husband’s graying chest.

Throughout the hour, as bodies moved and eyefuls of flesh and bikini waxes flashed, it was still the sight of that erect penis being clinically manipulated into a graphic orgasm that prompted did-I-just-see-what-I-think-I-saw gapes from less action-packed couches nationwide.

The article is correct...that was the reaction elicited from me at any rate. But the 'reality' of it all has been nagging at me since. And then I read this comment from kmjk68 on an IMDB thread:

"...this is all hype. I have a cousin who is working on this show and he has sent me the first 5 shows. He told me how they pulled off all of these scenes to make them look so real. You do get to see all of the characters naked(not much real nudity(except for Michelle Borth)), but all of the close up shots are ultra realistic looking props. During the scene with the hand job, all you see are cuts from the penis(prop) and the hand of the actress. Then a cut to the faces of the actor and actress and then a wide shot where the actor has a different prop over his genital area. The shot is far enough away so it looks real. The ending fluid shot is from a pump out of camera view.

The blow job shot is done in the same manner with the actress with a prop in her mouth and so on. The scenes with shots of close up female genitalia works on the same principle. What you see are ultra realistic looking props combined with a few shots of actual nudity. I hope people don't order HBO just for this show. While it looks incredibly real, it is acting. I think people are so excited and maybe even turned on by the thought of real actors doing what they are hearing about that they don't stop for a reality check. I mean do you really think you are going to see Sherry Stringfield masturbating for real?"

I know referencing a comment from a thread is like quoting Wikipedia as a reliable source, but I'm going to take it as true because it helped bring me back into the world of film making.

Look, I know as viewers we were supposed to believe these couples were really doing it (and HBO wasn't making any effort to dissuade us), but at the end of the day, it's still drama or theatre....with actors ACTING. Nevertheless, for whatever reason, I was still left wondering...what if? And so it made a lot more sense to me that the sex was simulated with prosthetics and the like, in the same way that on-screen deaths are simulated with squibs and blood packs. When we watch Chris 'die' in the Sopranos, we know he's not really dead. Televised sex or explicit sex falls into the same category...we watch them 'having sex', but we know (or should know) they're not really f*cking.

Real is an educational film. Or a Discovery channel documentary. Or porn. And I now feel a little silly for even thinking a group of notable trained professional actors would agree to perform porn, even for HBO.

Sexy Time?

Diane Keaton: Sex without love is an empty experience.
Woody Allen: Yes, but as far as empty experiences go, it's one of the best.

From Oz to Big Love, HBO is known for delivering some pretty powerful original drama series. Tell Me You Love Me is their latest offering (it premiered last night on Movie Central up here in Canada), and it has some pressure to perform after the John From Cincinnati misfire.

And speaking of performance, can I say...holy sex action Batman?!

But it's not like you think. We're not talking over-the-top teen movie sex, nor long-winded robot porn star sex...it's real sex, as in, like real life. It's almost as if Edward Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz's "thirtysomething" got together with Clement Virgo's "Lie With Me" and they had a baby. The result is a sex-filled program that's pretty unsexy.

Why? Because it's goal isn't to arouse or stimulate, but to show how sex (or the lack thereof) plays a role in the lives of three couples of different ages and at different stages in their relationships who are all seeing the same couples therapist.

Shall we break it down? I'm going to ask the three questions I always ask of anyone pitching a story to the room:

What's the hook? I guess it's the graphic sex scenes....that's what everyone seems to be talking and writing about (I read a funny live blog of the show that basically read...he's jacking off...some talking....balls, I saw balls!...more talking...etc.). So what seems to be 'unique' about this show is sex scenes between some known Hollywood actors. And they're sex scenes where you see, you know, stuff.

What happens? Lots of heavy relationship talk and drama, interspersed with several scenes of sex either solo or between the members of these three couples.

And what's it about? Who knows for sure, since it's so early in the game, but I'm going to agree with others and say honest or pure intimacy...you know, the desire for each person to find or preserve or recover some degree of passionate closeness with whoever they are partnered with.

So, did it deliver the goods?

It's too soon to tell, but my feeling is that the parallel stories might be it's undoing. There's a distancing effect that occurs to a viewer when you intercut three or four disparate storylines --- you feel like an observer as opposed to being drawn in and moved emotionally (think Syriana or Traffic or Babel). I know this style makes the whole and the juxtaposition of the parts more important than the parts themselves, which can be swell for a movie, but for a continuing dramatic TV series, I'm not sure how well it can work.

And then there's the discomfort that can happen when you watch shows that cut a little too close to the bone, as it were. In this boys opinion, real life and real issues and realistic relationships can be informative and educational, but they're not very fun or entertaining. Entertaining is what I want my TV to be.

Then there's the fact that the world of the show is pretty, um, normal. The Sopranos and Buffy and Six Feet Under and Deadwood and The West Wing and Oz and on and on were fascinatingly entertaining because they took us to a unique new arena. But real life...real relationships...real problems...real issues - all set in a non-unique arena?

Sorry...been there, done that. Don't know if I want to relive it. And that's not to knock the acting or the drama that was being portrayed...I enjoy seeing all that stuff, but set in a funeral home, or an old west town, or the White House.

And lastly, there wasn't even a hint of a smile in the one hour. Pretty sombre serious stuff. Could've used a little sprinkle of the Woody Allen I say.


But what do I know...I just tuned in for the boobies.