Wanted: Real Actors and Canon HD video camcorder to rent or buy

[Rebel Rob]

If anyone knows of someone with a Canon video recorder (preferably high definition), I'ld love to talk with them about a rental or purchase arrangement.  I'm helping a friend start up an extremely unique film business here in New Hampshire and we're in need of a second camera to complement our high definition Canon HV20.  We'ld love to have something higher end, but would be grateful for anything made by Canon.  We'll be making one film in late March and another larger film over a weekend in May.  Here's a link to the company's website (warning: Some Adult Content): http://houseofecstasy.com/application.html  The film in May is described in the "click here" link on that page. 

Peace 'n love to you all,
Another Yourself

[Puke]

You appear to be talking about a porno.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Yeah, you can hardly find that anywhere!

[Rebel Rob]

I don't think you'll be able to find an erotic film quite like it anywhere else, but I'll let you be the judge of that after it's released.  Did you read anything on the website?  http://houseofecstasy.com/index.html

[Sam A. Robrin]

Well, I remember Vic Koman's novel, Starship Women (originally titled "Saucer Sluts, but that was rejected as "too crude" by the publisher--Hustler Books!).  He managed to work a decent bit of libertarian propaganda in, between the sex scenes.

[Rebel Rob]

Sounds interesting, but probably not much like what we're hoping to conjure up. 

[J’raxis 270145]

What àpropos timing for this:—
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2008/nh-supreme-court-rules-porn-not-prostitution

[KBCraig]

What àpropos timing for this:—
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2008/nh-supreme-court-rules-porn-not-prostitution

You got there before I did! 

[Coconut]

I have an HV30...

They're pretty cheap on Amazon though if you're looking to buy.

[Kat Kanning]

This must be some sort of elaborate sting operation.

[Sam A. Robrin]

This must be some sort of elaborate sting operation.

Katherina: If I be waspish, best beware my sting!
Petruchio: My remedy then is to pluck it out!
Katherina: Hah! If the fool could find where it lies!
Petruchio: Who knows not where a wasp doth wear his sting? In his tail!
Katherina: In his tongue!
Petruchio: Whose tongue?
Katherina: Yours! -if you talk of tales, and so farewell!
Petruchio: What? With my tongue in your tail?

(Just a little porn to shake your spear at . . .)

[cxxguy]

This must be some sort of elaborate sting operation.

I would be very surprised if so.  In the case posted above, the conviction was overturned when the defendant offered to pay to videotape a couple having sex.  He has a previous conviction for offering to  pay a couple to have sex while he watched.  This is evidence that his actual intent in the later case was sexual gratification.  None the less, the NH Supremes found that the figleaf of offering money to record (rather than watch) the act was sufficient to render the whole thing First Amendment material.

All this makes me question whether a XXX stage play would be similarly protected, and I don't see any reason it should not be.  Which makes we wonder further whether the defendant from the case above could go back and get his first conviction overturned, since what he requested was, in fact, a stage play for an audience of one.  How do we (or the justices) know that his intent was prurient rather than artistic?  They don't.  Since he attempted to commission  and be the audience of the first "play", the question --- I would think -- would be whether talking to yourself constitutes protected speech.

If someone opened a club offering XXX stage plays, they would surely make a fortune, as people would come from all over the NorthEast to see such a thing.  Note that only CA and NH have ruled on the prostitution/porn argument.

IANAL

Katherina: If I be waspish, best beware my sting!
Petruchio: My remedy then is to pluck it out!
Katherina: Hah! If the fool could find where it lies!
Petruchio: Who knows not where a wasp doth wear his sting? In his tail!
Katherina: In his tongue!
Petruchio: Whose tongue?
Katherina: Yours! -if you talk of tales, and so farewell!
Petruchio: What? With my tongue in your tail?

(Just a little porn to shake your spear at . . .)

I love that play, when they don't butcher it by removing the play-within-a-play aspect.

[Sam A. Robrin]

I love that play, when they don't butcher it by removing the play-within-a-play aspect.

I think excision of the probably incomplete Induction scenes are an improvement.

[cxxguy]

I love that play, when they don't butcher it by removing the play-within-a-play aspect.

I think excision of the probably incomplete Induction scenes are an improvement.

The problem I have with it is the effect on the theme.  Without those scenes, it reads as a pretty straightforward argument for brutalizing your spouse.  If presented that way, I find the play too brutal to be enjoyed.

With the play-within-a-play scenes, in which a bum is conned into believing himself a lord, and has the play presented for him, the meaning changes.  It adds a question:  has Katherine conned her new husband into believing himself a lord, or has she actually been "tamed".