I'm not down on gonzo--whatever that is. In almost ten years of shooting sex, I've yet to hear a good definition of what constitutes gonzo. I guess one knows it when one sees it. There was a time I would have said, "Gonzo is amateur stuff, distributed by pro companies." But that's not true. There is some good gonzo produced. Finding it is often difficult.
Is it plotted? Must not be gonzo. But this is untrue--I've seen plotted gonzo, or at least thematic gonzo. Where the line blurs is between what's called gonzo and what's called wall-to-wall sex. Some people think of gonzo as being 'free-form,' or without walls or limitations. In live theater, and in television and the cinema, when a character speaks directly to the audience, it's called breaking the fourth wall. Is that what gonzo's about? I don't know, maybe.
But you can shoot a feature that way too. I once shot a flick called "Shooting Sex." It's basically a porn mock-u-mentary. It was sold as a feature, was reviewed as a feature, was nominated for Best Sex Comedy by AVN as a feature, but it wasn't a freakin feature. It had elements of a feature (a plot and story and all), and also elements of a gonzo (fourth wall broken constantly--very free-form), and most certainly elements of a faux documentary (a la "This is Spinal Tap"), but it didn't fit neatly into anyone's categories.
I guess that's what gonzo is--something that doesn't fall neatly into the any other categories. This, of course, covers the majority of porn.
I shot another feature once called "Nightshift." It was a takeoff on HBO's "Taxicab Confessions." In it was a scene that the AVN reviewer said was 'chillingly close to the best gonzo we've seen from John Leslie.' This was a feature though. Go figure. I was grateful for those words as Leslie is my fave.
My biggest gripe is quality: picture, sound, editing, duplication. And we certainly don't need ultra-experienced, award-winning Hollywood cinematographers and others to achieve this.
Between you and I and anyone else who might read this, I'm working to transition to providing web content as opposed to media content. There's a reason everyone's trying to copy Bangbus, problem is all there trying to copy is the content, not the intent. The intent is to provide unique, entertaining, decently-produced, reality-based content. It's not about cloning second-rate, look-a-like shit. We need to be like the Japanese. Look at what works. Copy what is a success--but improve it, make it better, put your own spin on it, your own hook. Make it feel like it, but not be like it, if that makes sense.
jimmyd
http://www.simplyjimmyd.com
http://www.sinamotion.com