(Sex) Life Doesn’t Finish At 30

The very glamourous Micki. It is a testament to trickiness that I was wondering whose image to post, because I didn’t want a model saying “Oi are you saying I look old?”

We’ve got a few ideas in the air for new projects. Some will develop into RE updates, some into ES movies, and one or two might even end up as new websites.

One idea Ariel suggested a while back is a website featuring older women in bondage, because eventually she is going to be one and she still wants to enjoy bondage and modelling.

This is something I could really get behind, and after a flurry of fun discussions on Twitter I thought I’d mutter a few thoughts.

In the entertainment industry attractive women are generally written as aged 30 or less. There is a serious under-representation of older women unless they are playing someone’s mother. http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2012/apr/30/julie-walters-older-actors.

Erotica and porn is no different. Most of the attractive women in mainstream porn are represented as under thirty, and if your physical age is older than that, you might have to fib to get cast. I know many models whose profile age stopped incrementing at some point, because they were worried that the work would dry up.

There are certainly sites featuring women older than 30, but they’re no longer described as “women” (without qualifier). In porn, “women” means “women below the age of 30”.

Porn sites do feature older women, but they are described with various terms which seem to me to be a bit derogatory and unsatisfying.

There’s MILF (Mom I’d Like to Fuck) which has a certain enthusiastic gusto but which has that same “someone’s mother” stereotype and also defines the person solely by their relationship to other people (their offspring, and the person who wants to fuck them). There’s cougar, which implies a rather predatory older woman making out with younger men, and her cousins the fox and the vixen (not to mention the Black Widow). Then there’s the granny stereotype, the trophy wife- again defining in terms of other people!

Sadly a lot of the sites which use these words are not respectful, sex positive or celebratory in tone.

I don’t think “STILL looking good for her AGE“. I think “Looking Good“.

So can we just celebrate all women? (Please let’s leave aside issues of conflation of attractiveness with value for now, OK? I’m already over-analyzing myself into a tizzy). In an ideal world we should just celebrate everyone’s sexuality equally and every sexuality should co-exist. But individual people have individual preferences, and that’s OK, too.

To build a business, you need to be tightly enough defined to be able to offer value for money to your members. So a certain degree of focus is essential to getting anywhere. It is fine to pick one thing and go for it.

Why not just broaden the model pool for Restrained Elegance?

Good question. We have worked with models from ages ranging from twenties to fifties, but the average age is solidly in the mid-twenties. RE already features a broader range of BDSM activities than many bondage websites.

Frankly in a recession I am wary of mucking about with Restrained Elegance. I know that’s a bit timid. RE does a good job of what it does right now. So let’s spare my worry beads and not muck around with it, let’s do something new.

I’d like to run a website which glories in how awesome and fun BDSM is for women outside the default porn age range. To do so will necessarily mean confronting and contradicting the “sexy leading lady = younger than 30” stereotype. Which probably means positive discrimination in favour of models whose physical age is 30+.

I hope our prospective models will not regard it as insulting if we invite them to model for a new site where the average age of the characters, and hence of the models we book to play those characters, is 30+.

(It will not preclude their appearing on RE too).

I hope prospective customers will agree that the sexiness of women in their thirties or more is well worth celebrating and that it sounds like a fun thing to watch and be part of.

My personal taste has always been for elegance and sophistication rather than wide eyed innocence and ingenue-ness. Power exchange seems much more interesting when there’s plenty of power to be exchanged, and what 18-year-old innocent has power?

So writing roles for older characters would be right up my street. My photographic style is glowing and flattering because of the way I like to light. The way we approach photoshopping is not intended to make the models look younger, which in the circumstances would be nothing short of insulting. It is just intended to make her look like herself on a good day, so there’s truthfulness there. And I hope it is something the models would find fun to do.

I hope I’m not letting go of trade secrets by saying that the lady I find sexiest in the world is not in her twenties either 🙂

All of which is why I think the idea could be an exciting one for me, because I think I could do it WELL. For me that’s the most important thing.

Is it something you’d like to see?

Porn, Batman, Twilight, Gladiator and Fifty Shades of Grey

9 Replies

Slavegirls. Do you care who these girls are?

Do you care who these slavegirls are?

Compelling Viewing in Movies and Porn

In the last few days I’ve watched some interesting movies. Some good (Gladiator, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises) some stinkers (Robin Hood, Prometheus).

I’ve been wondering why a team who can produce something as bombastic and yet sublime as Gladiator can go on to make such unsatisfying fare as Robin Hood and Prometheus, and what is it that makes Christopher Nolan’s work so excellent. What lessons can I learn for my lowest of low budget erotic films?

If you’re a regular visitor you’ll know that I have a fetish for image quality in my own work. This is a long standing quest from my earliest photos on toy cameras, a desire for stuff to look sharp and crisp and cool and colourful and perfect.

It’s necessary therefore for me to recognise that the importance of how good it looks comes a long way down the list of necessary qualities a movie must have. I think the most important elements are:

What happens. If nothing happens, you have no movie. The events that unfold have to be interesting and compelling to watch. We have to hunger to find out what happens.
Who it happens to. We have to care about the people in the movie. For mainstream movies, personally, I need someone to root for. There has to be a connection.
That it makes internal sense. Not so much in petty continuity; all movie makers make mistakes (e.g. the clock on the wall shows the wrong time. Who cares?). I mean in terms of coherence. Once you’ve established a character to be painfully honest, they shouldn’t start expeditiously telling whoppers a few scenes later unless they’ve undergone a major life changing experience.
That the rest of the movie making doesn’t obscure the top three. As long as you can follow the big three elements unfolding- you can see and hear what’s going on clearly enough- anything else is icing on the cake.

We can quibble over the relative importance of these. I’m sure you can think of a movie with characters we really care about that are fun despite them not making a great deal of sense, or where the awesomeness of the plot carries you over the fact that the characters are all dicks. I think a truly great movie has the big three ingredients polished to perfection, and the rest of the art, craft and spectacle of the movie merely serves to present the top three elements to you in as glorious a way as possible. If the spectacle gets in the way of the core ingredients, the film will be rubbish however big the budget.

Following Perfection: Even The Masters Make Mistakes

Gladiator and The Dark Knight are two films which rise above their genres to achieve perfection. Both managed to turn their potentially unlikeable lead characters- a billionaire
playboy turned violent vigilante, and an army general who participates with exhilaration in bloody battle- into nuanced real-seeming people we felt for. Not just the leads, but the support cast whose lives were touched by the main story (Rachel Dawes, Alfred, Jim Gordon, Proximo, Lucilla, Jubo). They were also elevated by two of cinema’s most intelligent, interesting and peculiarly plausible villains, in the Joker and Commodus.

Part of the magic was provided by the actors. One of the reasons movie stars are movie stars is that they bring that connection to the screen. Joaquin Phoenix, Heath Ledger, Christian Bale, Russell Crowe and the others gave stunning performances. Indeed, possibly career-defining performances. And there’s a clue- the actors can’t do it alone. They need the script to give them the what happens and the internal sense. Only then can they grab our emotions and run with them.

It is interesting what films the directors of those two films did afterwards. How do you follow perfection? Most particularly, how do you follow perfection when you revisit the same ground? Ridley Scott revisited the scenes of earlier triumphs with Robin Hood (another historical epic with Russell Crowe) and Prometheus (a prequel to a much earlier perfect movie, Alien). Christopher Nolan had the third film in his Batman trilogy to deal with. How did they do?

With all due respect to Ridley Scott and the teams of talented people who worked on the films, I’m afraid I didn’t like your movies. I thought they were stinkers. And it begs the question- how can a team capable of producing something a great as Gladiator make a movie as ragged and incoherent as Robin Hood?

My opinion? Bad script.

The story was rambling at best, with the most interesting element strangled of oxygen and buried under the weight of set-up and pointless spectacle. The interesting story? An imposter comes home from the crusades to Marion’s lands and bed, and she falls in love with him anyway. The film could have started an hour in and concentrated on that plot-line, taking all the tedious mucking about at the crusades as read. I think that would have transformed the movie for the better.

The characters were not made engaging enough: they were mostly indistinguishable boozy squaddies or indistinguishable arrogant posh knights.

The one character who really stood out (Marion) was immediately undermined as the plot demands temporarily rendered her incapable of rescuing a stuck pig without help from manly he-man Robin. Despite all her previous resourcefulness she didn’t think to order manly he-man to grab a rope and pull her out, which would have let him be manly whilst keeping her resourcefulness intact.

The film was a stinker because the script failed to provide interesting events, sympathetic characters, and lacked self-consistency in dozens of similar, character-undermining ways.

Dark Knight Rises? I thought that was a very good film. I don’t think it reaches the heights of Dark Knight, but really- how could it? Wisely, the things which Christopher Nolan concentrated on were an engaging story, engaging characters and making sure that everyone got satisfying closure without doing violence to self-consistency. If anything, the spectacle was turned down from the last one, despite the events being bigger in scale.

What Christopher Nolan did was concentrate on the essentials. He tried to find another great story to tell, not another spectacular movie to make. I’d love to be able to make a film that good!

Lessons for Erotica

Can we learn from this, even producing tiny budget erotica? Are the same elements are important? I think the rules apply, but not always in the most obvious of ways.

Here’s my take. In the field we primarily work in, female-sub BDSM, you need a pretty girl (rule 2), and BDSM stuff needs to happen to her (rule 1), and you need to be able to see and hear it (rule 4), and her reactions should be consistent with the sort of storyline you are filming (rule 3). Every website producer will tell you that content is king. Nothing matters if the material isn’t compelling viewing.

Characters

In erotica, instead of someone to root for, I personally need someone to fancy. As a heterosexual man, that means a pretty girl. Ariel says that she can imagine herself being in the position of the sub even if the sub is male, so a scene where a man is heroically resisting interrogation could be hot for her by transference. (She does like it to be a man being the top though, I think). If there is any transference for me, I’ll imagine myself in the position of the top, or more likely as the top’s boss watching the scene unfold. I know Pandora Blake is a big advocate of female/spankee gaze i.e. having a sexy dom, something which is at best irrelevant to me, maybe even counter-productive since I don’t want to feel annoyed and intimidated by watching an oh-so-perfect-chisel-chin-dom strutting about the place.

So there’s interesting difference number one: you may need different things for different parts of your audience, to an even greater extent than the mainstream.

Do I need to root for a character in the same way as I do in a mainstream movie? I don’t think I do. I don’t need to root for the dom- the dom could be the cackling cartoon baddy as long as he does appropriately bad things to the sub (and doesn’t do anything inappropriately bad- un-hygenic butt plugs being licked clean squick me, even in fantasy).

And rooting for the sub might be counter-productive since I’m definitely going to want bad things to happen to her (rule 1: that’s why I’m watching a female sub BDSM movie in the first place).

In our films we’ve been trying to expand on the characterisation a bit. I don’t know if this is the right thing to do. It may be that finding out more about the characters might hinder the hotness- hotness is in the mind of the beholder. If you are a damsel-in-distress fan, you might want the sub to be innocent. Someone else might like her to be an ice queen who has done bad stuff and might deserve it. Another viewer might want her to be loving it. If we do too much storytelling, do we risk addressing too narrow an audience?

Should we leave the characters more enigmatic?

An enigmatic dom should let the viewer step more easily into their shoes. It certainly seems to have worked for the female leads (and their legions of female wannabes) in Twilight and (shudder) Fifty Shades of Grey.

And the perfect echo to those “step in” enigmatic doms? A superbly attractive sub, whose reactions might be sexy enough to pass for innocent fright, chagrined suffering or play-acted suffering-but-turned-on.

We’d end up with that most basic of bondage website videos- five minutes of a girl struggling in bondage, going “mmmpfh!” through the gag and not getting out, with barely a sight of any dom. Maybe that’s why that form is the most basic- it could be the most easily transferable.

Only one step removed from that is the “top-and-tail pro performer” BDSM video which is the staple of kink.com and their many imitators. In the “top” at the start of the video we meet the performers, they are excited, they are going to play out a hot BDSM scene in front of the camera. A plotless (but BDSM action filled) scene follows, “tailed” by the post-orgasmic interview where the performers say how like, totally awesome it was and how they had a great time and why, sure they’d do it again.

I must admit, if the sub is attractive to me and the BDSM action is something I want to see, I can find videos like that pretty hot.

So are we misguided in trying to stealthily add flashbacks, visual storytelling, and more overt characterisation into our movies? I honestly don’t know- one of the problems of producing your own erotica is that using it as porn becomes almost impossible. You can’t get far enough away from it to be able to view it that way.

Storyline, or just Action?

Do we also do our movies a disservice by trying to fit the hot BDSM action into a framing storyline? By trying to provide meaningful reasons for the hotness to happen, are we actually taking it out of the realm of erotica and making lame mainstream movies with a bit of bondage in them? I know that when I make a movie, I want to have it make sense and I want the story to move forward in ways that seem rational and motivated. But there doesn’t seem to be much BDSM movie erotica like that around, so I’m struggling to judge how good I’d find that as porn.

It’s the BDSM action and the girl that makes me click the buy button. A super-sexy girl getting hard bastinado and I’ll probably give it a whirl regardless of the framing storyline. However I find the monotony of top-and-tail or total lack of storyline gets stale fast, and I get bored before downloading more than a handful of videos. That’s part of the reason why I started making my own.

Satisfying Self Consistency

In a mainstream film I want the emotional high of a satisfying ending for the characters I care about, in a way which feels right and natural.

Cynics would suggest that no porn needs to have any content past about ten minutes in, as once you’ve come you don’t care what happens next. Is that true?

We’ve noticed in the stories we write for Restrained Elegance that we often have a beginning and a middle, but fade to black in place of having an end. Do we want the girl to live happily ever after? Or to fall in love with the dom? Or is it better that we leave it to the imagination, perhaps hinted at by a twist just before we fade out? Of course in bondage what always happens is that the girl gets untied, but this is definitely an anti-climax (in many senses!) We don’t particularly want to show them fucking (it just isn’t something we’re interested in filming) so where does that leave us?

So should we work on giving our characters closure? Or leave them in media res as though they dwell in a world of continuous hot BDSM sex?

Not Messing The Rest of it Up

Here at least we can be clear. Our job is to show the action clearly, with good sound, so we can participate in the film-maker’s objective of fancying the hot girl, enjoying the bad BDSM stuff that is done to her, and makes her look at her very best.

Without false modesty, this bit we now know how to do. We can improve, surely, but we’ve got to a level where we can show what we want to show on screen and make the girls look great. The question is- what should we be showing? Should we spend much longer working on the scripts before shooting, as I believe the Robin Hood crew should have?

Why I Think It Is Worth Trying

I think it is worth trying to draw from the lessons of mainstream movies, because we might end up hitting a sweet spot the way The Dark Knight and Gladiator did.

If your fantasy is the innocent damsel in distress, surely we can do a better job of a damsel-in-distress story by showing her innocence. If you want to be the evil baron who has her tortured, surely it is better to show him, and make his motivations clear. Each decision we make on the storyline and the characters can make the film better for you if that’s your thing. Sadly it might narrow the already niche audience even further, potentially excluding people who’d have enjoyed watching the hot BDSM action with the hot girl if we’d left the surroundings more enigmatic.

There is clearly a place for “context free” shorter videos of hot BDSM action. We enjoy making them as short Restrained Elegance videos, and sometimes we’ll be doing that for Elegance Studios films too.

But I hope you’ll agree that it is also worth trying to make erotic films that step beyond the context-free hot BDSM action and also tell a satisfying story where some interesting other stuff happens to characters you want to watch as well as just the BDSM. It doesn’t need to take up much screen time if we are smart about it. Doing that without compromising on the hotness is a key objective for Elegance Studio films at the moment (as we did in Slave Auction, for example). But are we right to even try?

I’d very much like to know what characters, action and story-lines you’d enjoy watching, or whether you think they are an annoying distraction.

Camera Shootouts

Leave a reply

If you are at all nerdy about video camera tech, you’ll have heard of the Zacuto great camera shootouts. The first episode of the 2012 edition was just released.

Previous years focussed on relatively scientific tests. Each camera was pointed at test charts and a few staged scenes, with the same lighting and (where possible) the same lens for each camera. They picked and lit the scenes to be torture tests for the cameras. How far could they see into the shadows without disintegrating into noise? How hot a highlight could they hold, and how ugly was the burnout when it came?

I learned some useful things from those, confirming what I’d learned about how to juggle highlights and lowlights on the cameras I’d used (Panasonic AF100 and Canon dSLRs) and showing me that pretty much all the cameras in a given price bracket had similar issues.

This year’s shootout sounded much more interesting. They were going to take a scene, pre-lit, but allow the camera operators some time to fiddle around with the lighting as they liked, and similar time to grade the footage to their requirements afterwards. There were some limits on what lights they could meddle with (I think the idea for part one was to simulate shooting on location with sunlight outside, which you couldn’t fiddle with).

The range of cameras they tested was very wide, ranging from an iPhone through dSLRs (including the hacked GH2 which many people are very impressed with) through to full-on digital cine cameras including the big boys Sony F65, Arri Alexa and RED Epic. Again they used the same extremely expensive lens on all the cameras they could.

Problem 1: We are watching this on very highly compressed web video which will kill most of the detail and a lot of the subtlety. But hey, if you buy our videos you’re also looking at it after (not quite so heavy) web compression. So it’s kinda fair.

Problem 2: All the shots look pretty rubbish to me 🙁 Whether because of the above web compression or what, I thought most of them looked really muddy, and the “outside” bit looked comically bad, like a very cheap soap opera where they couldn’t afford an external shot.

Problem 3: The shots look more alike than different, overall. So the differences are fairly subtle, which is not the sort of thing you want to be using web video to look at in the first place. But now we discover that there’s a new issue because they were allowed to change the lighting. I am now looking at someone’s artistic preference for lighting too, and it is a different preference for each camera.

I happened to like shot B best on first pass. But a second look at it tells me that it has a ton more fill than some of the others (you can tell because the girl in black is casting a shadow onto the front door, which is absent in most of the rest of the shots). So I liked the shot with the most fill on the girl in black, and where I thought the face of the girl at the end looked nicest. I photograph girls, of course that’s what I was looking at.

Suppose we discover in due course that this was the iPhone (I don’t think it is, you can figure out from depth of field, since it has a tiny sensor compared with the rest) or a hacked GH2. Does that mean that the hacked GH2 is “better” than an Epic or Alexa? Clearly not. Does it mean that it is “more to my taste”? I don’t even think it does that. It is just that the way that camera operator lit it, in conjunction with the camera she/he was using, was more to my taste for the bits of the scene that were important to me: the pretty girls who drew my eye.

And here we hit the biggest problem with the test. Although it was trying to do something interesting and more “real world” it falls down, because the lighting available to everyone was the same. This is an unrealistic as having all the cameras shoot the same scene under the same lighting.

I suggest that if you have access to 5K HMI lights and multiple kino-flos, with all the light modifiers you might need and a $50,000+ lens… you would only shoot with an iPhone or a 7D out of a sense of perversity, maybe as a b-cam to get a really cool angle, or for the feeling that limitation is the friend of art.

If the budget can stand trucks worth of lighting it can handle hiring a higher spec camera for the day. And why wouldn’t you, because that higher spec camera will have the right inputs to get good sound, the right outputs to have a big monitor, shoot much less compressed footage so you can grade more easily, budget to hire a focus puller to nail the focus every time, and so on.

On paper I thought it sounded like a cool idea. Much more meaningful to be allowed to tweak the scene to make your camera shine.

Unfortunately by going part of the way towards making the test a more “real” one for the cameras, it just emphasises how unrealistic the rest of the test setup is.

A more realistic test yet would be to give a kit bag of appropriate price to each shooting crew to work with, and a page or two of script to bring to life. The GH2 and 7D guys should probably have had a bag with three red-heads, a softbox and a few CT gels. One low-power HMI at an absolute push. The iPhone guy shouldn’t have had any kit at all beyond a few dollars to buy a phone holder. The Alexa, F65 and Epic guys should have the whole lighting truck and more.

Even then, to fairly compare the results you could get with each set-up, you’d need the same director with the same aim in mind trying to wring it out of the poor crew. And that would just tell you which camera and cinematographer and crew were best at bringing that look to life for that director.

So although the exercise is bound to stimulate much discussion on the internets, and it is always informative to see detailed documentaries on how people are working and how the finished results appear, I think “Camera Shootout” is a misnomer this year.

Nothing beats using a camera in anger to shoot your own vision. I think that’s going to be the lesson from this year’s Zacuto exercise: if you make the test more realistic, you dilute it to the point where all it tells you is that you need to get your hands on a camera and try it for yourself.

It’s still a fun thing to watch, but next year- why not have a detailed and in-depth documentary about cinematography and the making of a few different films, at different budget levels, and forget the “shootout” element? There’s a dearth of good, detailed, technical documentaries about cinematography.

What Ho, Producer Head On

10 Replies

Good heavens, I am indeed alive. I actually have proof of this, having done a million things in the past 3 weeks. I think I’ll tell you about some of them now 🙂

First of all, oh my goodness, I scripted and directed a bastinado movie. Bastinado is something I have an uneasy, love/hate type relationship with. I love the BDM . He loves bastinado. I, therefore, have experienced lots of it, with various implements. Foot caning works beautifully for me, hooray, but I absolutely hate, hate, hate anything with leather straps involved. The BDM loves leather strap bastinado beyond all other things as a result. BDSM’s awfully complicated, isn’t it?

So writing and directing my own bastinado movie seemed like a good opportunity for me to explore my feelings for and tolerance of bastinado. With me as the lead actress, it was inevitable that I’d have to. (I know this is horrifically Kevin Costner-esque but I don’t know any other models who’re keen to try foot torture). I hoped that, by writing a story that appealed to me, I’d give myself the best possible chance of making it through the painful scenes.

So that’s what I did. I’ve been exploring the ‘visiting professional disciplinarian’ idea in fantasy and play over the last couple of years and it appeals to me massively; I love the idea of an incredibly detached, disinterested professional being in charge of administering carefully calculated punishments, so that’s the role I wrote for the BDM (I think it suits his scientific nature, so I had a good excuse for it). His character appealed to me enough to help me through the most painful bits of the movie.

I’m not clever enough to be able to capture the peculiarly cumulative, inescapable fire-y pain of bastinado in words alone, but in my experience it can be far, far more all-encompassingly painful than any kind of spanking I’ve ever experienced. If the potential success of a BDSM movie could be measured in the tears of pain shed during the shoot process, then we might have a blockbuster on our hands.

Here is a teaser trailer;-

(For a lovely big version, go directly here)

We shot a final scene today, and I’ll be editing the whole thing myself over the next few weeks. I’ve been editing videos for Restrained Elegance for the last 6 months, but a feature-length movie will be a fab new challenge. It’s particularly exciting because the BDM has upgraded all his equipment, so the whole project was shot on a super new camera called a RED which frankly I don’t understand awfully well. Except that;

a) its really easy to use, so I can operate it and get the shots I had in my head without feeling all sweaty and asthmatic.

b) it makes everything look absolutely beautiful, even suburbia in the rain.

c) it has a touch screen so you can pretend it’s a phone.

Lordy, that was a lot of talk about only one of the things I was planning to talk about. So I’ll finish (I’m baking our wedding cake at the same time as blogging, and I don’t want to burn it) by talking about last week, when Restrained Elegance kindly took me on a week-long location trip to a lovely (except for the strangely ill-equipped kitchen) old house in the English West Country. And here are some frame grabs from the movie we started making there.

The girls. From left to right – Hannah, Sophia, Scarlot, and meeeeeeeeee.

Scarlot is failing her slave-position test, and it’s my job to tell Mistress Kate…

Here I am, considering whether I can face cleaning a customer’s shoes without the use of my hands.

It’s all about slave training; I’m the ‘resident slave’ who belongs to the auction house, and it’s my job to get the new girls ready for the sale. We were joined by the luminous Sophia Smith, delicious Hannah Claydon, patrician Anita de Bauch, and ingenuous Scarlot Rose, who got the lead role of the uncertain newcomer into the hedonistic auction-house world… Hooray, Temptress Kate appeared too, as the icy-cool head slave-trainer!

It was a splendid week (punctuated by trying to prepare food with knives that’d probably be blunt enough to be sold at the Early Learning Centre ) and I’ve got high hopes that the videos we shot will be as fun to watch as they were to make.

Thanks as always for reading, and I’ll update again within the next few weeks with news of various extra-fun projects I’m working on.

All the best,

A/a

PS Re-reading this post, I discover that I’ve forgotten how to write anything that makes sense. And how did I end up writing such lonnnnnnnnnng sentences? I need some sort of strict tutor to help me with my grammar. Mmmmmmmmmm.

Day in the Life – in Post Production!

2 Replies

Hi All,

We just got back from a week’s location shoot in Somerset with awesome models Scarlot Rose, Ariel Anderssen, Hannah Claydon, Sophia Smith, Anita deBauch and Temptress Kate. As part of our trip we shot a feature set in the world of “Slave Auction”, provisionally titled Day in the Life.

Post production will take us a considerable number of months- even transcoding the footage so we can edit it will take two solid weeks of CPU- but to give you a taste of what’s to come, here are a few framegrab stills from the film!

Cheers, Hywel.