It is high-concept, art-house, and even watchable, but it is still pornography.
The definition of pornography (which I checked as soon as I got home, having left the cinema without looking anyone in the eye) is something along the lines of "sexual images created for erotic rather than aesthetic pleasure". Michael Winterbottom might argue that his intentions - to tell the story of a relationship through sex - were aesthetic, but there are three problems with this.
First, the images were unquestionably titillating. (Other reviewers' protestations that there is no erotica tells you more about them than about the film.)
Second, most of the sex scenes were interchangeable. Some were appropriate to the stage of relationship at which they were shown, but most were not.
Third, the "money shot" did not enhance the story. It was baldly gratuitous, and served only to show how far Winterbottom was willing to go.
I don't have a problem with pornography, but to claim 9 Songs is not, merely because it has characters and a story (of sorts) is disingenuous.
The definition of pornography (which I checked as soon as I got home, having left the cinema without looking anyone in the eye) is something along the lines of "sexual images created for erotic rather than aesthetic pleasure". Michael Winterbottom might argue that his intentions - to tell the story of a relationship through sex - were aesthetic, but there are three problems with this.
First, the images were unquestionably titillating. (Other reviewers' protestations that there is no erotica tells you more about them than about the film.)
Second, most of the sex scenes were interchangeable. Some were appropriate to the stage of relationship at which they were shown, but most were not.
Third, the "money shot" did not enhance the story. It was baldly gratuitous, and served only to show how far Winterbottom was willing to go.
I don't have a problem with pornography, but to claim 9 Songs is not, merely because it has characters and a story (of sorts) is disingenuous.