Talk:9 Songs

message: I've just saw the film.i am not a puritanist but i find this film a bad porno.Why is this noise about? only because of the name of the director.Please take a look at ai no corrida or sex and lucia if you are interested in free sex.That is about the main thougt of the movie because if you discuss the direction you will find Brasse's movies thousand years better.
*I didn't find the film pornographic at all. I thought the sex scenes were portrayed very honestly and realistically. They look like the sort of sex you'd recognise from real life, not the artificial forced rubbish you find in porn.
Even the ejaculation scene I thought was tasteful; the shot is of the whole bed, not a gratuitous close-up.
Man ejaculates during sexual activity. Well, yeah, it happens.....
I think the point Winterbottom was making was that apart from the sex and the music, there's not much else more to this couple's relationship, really. It's just a story, that's all, a bit of a thin one. If I had one criticism of the film it's that too long was spent seeing interchangeable, mediocre indie bands performing utterly forgettable songs (whatever happened to real indie?!).
I won't be buying the DVD but I'm glad I saw the film, in order to find out what all the fuss was about. As usual with these sorts of films, it was about nothing much....Martyn Smith 22:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page is not the place to talk about the film itself, only about the Wikipedia page concerning the film. Kthxbye. Swap 18:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you shouldn't have put that comment here.--137.205.76.74 17:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You guys need to shut up. Yesitsnot (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: 9 Songs (film) → 9 Songs – Uneeded dab. Only item with the title. Crumbsucker 14:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Centrx→talk • 03:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: "The film was controversial on its original release due to its sexual content, which included unsimulated footage of the two leads having sexual intercourse and performing oral sex as well as a scene of ejaculation." appears twice. Is it supposed to? Bitwiseb (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the whole sexual content is described rather redundantly. Should the intro be cut down to "unsimulated sex" and "criticised for [it]" and the entire detail moved to the criticism section OR somewhere else in the content? It's pretty verbose and when I want to know what 9 Songs is, I don't need to read through a list of every single sexual act performed in the film (and I think a view were missed out (e.g. footjob, although "manipulation of genitalia" might cover that) and others repeated). It's more like something that belongs in a Trivia section than hard facts, though -- we don't have scene-by-scene descriptions of porn movies on Wikipedia either. -- 88.153.24.75 (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated text 

message: I think you could mention it is a porn by using the general definition of porn. American Heritage dictionary "Books, photographs, magazines, art, or music designed to excite sexual impulses and considered by public authorities or public opinion as in violation of accepted standards of sexual morality. American courts have not yet settled on a satisfactory definition of what constitutes pornographic material. (See obscenity.)" As you see the movie does feature real sex, penetration, oral sex (close up shots), and ejaculation. It really does not matter if it has a story some movies classified as porns have stories too. Besides the real sex and close up shots with penetration and oral really was not needed for any artistic purpose. This movie and short bus should be cited by this general definition and also cite many resources classifying it as a porn. The movie had these scenes for sexual arrousal which most countries agree. Even in the US MPAA did not even rate the movie because there was no rating that would match this, but technically porn is not illegal so it really could not be blocked.--98.172.115.234 (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since "porn" is a value-laden term, loaded with judgement, let's leave it out of the article. A simple description of the sexual content of the film is more than enough for the reader to form an impression of the subject matter. The addition of the descriptor "porn" would only be superfluous, or worse, misleading (whatever the merits of 9 Songs, it shouldn't be confused with Debbie Does Dallas) and would breach NPOV. Pinkville (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

text: It's of no interest to me, but if you can find an independent, verifiable source that refers to this film as "porn" then go right ahead and add it. I have no idea what such an appellation is meant to add - it's not at all informative, the terminology is far too vague, for example. If you don't like this film, or any other film that features sexual content, that's just fine, but who cares? I still can't see how Michael Winterbottom, et al can be classified as porn purveyors, unlike, say, Seymore Butts, but maybe you have a different sensibility than me... Another reason why the term "porn" ought to be avoided. I similarly don't give a f how you would categorise Shortbus. Pinkville (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not pornographic in the legal sense because it's not intended to be just something to make you want to fondle yourself. It's overtly graphic, though, no doubt. It's not exactly what I would call a good film or something I would want children to see, but I can say the same about, say, Rambo. -- 88.153.24.75 (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is a porn 

message: This movie went way beyond the R status. If it was R, children underage 17 could have seen it with a parent or guardian. Since this was unrated and way beyond the R status did they ban children from seeing it. I know if it was on the internet there would be a statement saying no one under 18 shall view the content. I did not see this mention in this article, does anyone have any sources for it having or not having a ban on children from seeing it.--98.172.115.234 (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascinating. Provide sources, etc. or else you have nothing to add. Pinkville (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text: It's simply a film. The fact that various countries (though not mine, incidentally) consider it "pornography" or, more pointedly, "obscene", is irrelevant to the article, except inasmuch as one might mention its status (if properly referenced). The term "porn" has no objective meaning, and so cannot be used. Pinkville (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was there a ban on children seeing this (Underage 17) 

message: Franz Ferdinand does not perform MICHAEL but JACQUELINE, therefore im changing it. I dont know who was the idiot who wrote michael but it doesnt matter, i believe the song is in the film but on that gig scene im 100% sure they play J. if anybody thinks im wrong just check the soundtrack
They play Michael on the car stereo much earlier in the film, on the way to the country weekend or whatever. But yes, it is definitely Jacqueline at the live show.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.177.156 (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  MUSIC 

message: The film is regularly shown on the French / German cultural TV channel Arte. Completely uncensored. No big deal in central Europe. 217.250.162.139 (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arte TV 

message: "It also shows their weekend getaway into the countryside, and their travels around London." The film shows them fucking, and fucking and fucking, fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation, cocaine-sniffing... something more? --Manfariel (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot