Talk:Veronica Hart
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia. | ||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Did she work at psychology today?
the director jane hamilton mentioned she worked at psychology today, saying her hours in the porn business were certainly better.
[edit] Coffee urn?
Uh, I think this bit of info should be sourced. 23skidoo 20:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ’Couples-oriented’ films, and distribution in an oligopoly situation
When I turned 18 back in the early 1980s, I started renting and watching X-rated films when my parents were out of the house. One of my favorite actresses quickly became Veronica Hart. She had verve, personality, confidence, style. To use an old-fashioned word, she had spunk. And then, my freshman year in college, ‘82-’83, I saw her on the Phil Donahue Show, along with, I think, Seka and John Leslie. And she handled this potentially difficult situation very well, very easily, very naturally. On another occasion, some college buddies and I organized a video night in the rec room, and the last film of the night was to be WANDA WHIPS WALL STREET. Well, we had to move it upstairs due to the rec guy, and I was amazed that a fellow student could hook up the VCR to this crummy little cheap TV set, but it worked!
So, what does all this all have to do with wikipedia? Maybe nothing, although I do want our encyclopedia to be much bolder, and if something is already public, I’m not sure what’s wrong with including it in a biographical article in order to show some of the person’s personality. It seems to me that would be one of the major points of a biographical article! (Often it seems to me that wikipedia is very tame. A whole lot of work goes into building the stage set so to speak, and then everyone seems afraid to dance. We kind of have this sterile concept of “neutrality,” when we’d be much better served by a standard of intellectual honesty.)
I think it would be worthwhile to include the Phil Donahue article if we can find a reference. And WANDA might be enough of a cross-over film to include as well. And even better topics and issues come from Veronica directing films in the mid-80s with Femme Productions (Candida Royalle was also involved). These were ‘couple-oriented’ films, meaning with plot, fully-drawn characters, main arc of the story, etc., etc. So, how successful were these films artistically? That is a hard question to answer, but like with any work of art, it’s worth addressing. We can at least find good articles on the web and include references to them. And if these articles come at it from different viewpoints, all the better. (One thing, it’s just a harder artistic project. You’re trying to create a whole story. Even the best mainstream directors, sometimes fail. Even the best mainstream writers, sometimes fail. And they might not even be sure why, just a feeling that it has not worked out. If, on the other hand, you’re just trying to make standard X-rated fare, well, you show intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, a little anal sex, some pre-sex flirtation, some music in the background, and it’s hard to see how you can go too far wrong. What Femme Productions was trying to do was much more ambitious.)
Then there’s the whole business aspect. Pre-Internet, distribution was always the challenge with adult material. Looking at what was available, there was never much of a question that you could produce films of equal or better quality. But how to distribute them, that was the question. And to do so when a relatively small number of companies controlled the overwhelming majority of the market. That is, it was an oligopolistic situation. And generally in these situations, the established companies do not want anyone trying something new, and they tend to circle their wagons in an almost instinctual way. Add to that, that this was a male-dominated industry, afraid of criticism of how they treated female actresses, although I’m sure each company thought they treated their “girls” just fine, but they didn’t want to take too close a look at it (in many cases, they probably didn’t treat their male actors all that well either). They certainly did not want their business practices to receive the attention of outsiders, or even the possibility of public scrunity. Now, I don’t know all the exact facts, but I have read from a number of sources that distribution was the bottle-neck in the adult field, and it would surprise me if some of these types of motivations were not involved (I mean, every company in the world thinks they treat their employees well! so I don’t think I’m saying anything all that particularly controversial). Femme Productions most probably really had their work cut out for them. And presented in detail, this whole episode would make for fascinating reading. It would largely be factual, but with some interpretation.
That’s the way history is, either recent history or long ago. There’s so much to look at, that to make any sense of it at all, you have to come at it with a viewpoint. That’s fine, as long as you’re honest about your viewpoint, and as long as you share with your readers what you find most challenging about your viewpoint. That’s part of intellectual honesty. To take a classic question from history, What were the causes of the Italian Renaissance? That may be the all time classic history question. By its very nature, it cannot be completely answered. And yet, it’s still a highly meaningful question to pursue. I want questions like this to be included in encyclopedias I spend time reading. Maybe the most prominent theory can be bracketed first and last, but we can allow other stuff to be discussed in the middle. I want wikipedia to become richer, fuller, bolder. FriendlyRiverOtter 23:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Biography assessment rating comment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.-- Jreferee 18:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand why the "rules" stand in the way of creating something good (which will still have well-referenced sources and will still practice intellectual honesty). FriendlyRiverOtter 00:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
