Having had a repressed upbringing where sex was taboo and never discussed, Paul's first contact with porn both disgusted and aroused him. In his mid-twenties he is insecure around women, has a large porn collection and regularly uses prostitutes and attends strip bars. Having had zero luck with recent attempts to get a date, Paul falls deeper into porn and gets critical of its low production values on the whole. Buying a camera, Paul starts to make his own porn movies with prostitutes and a male friend and decides to take his videos to a production company – however offers of a contract seem to depend heavily on Paul bringing a fresh, unfilmed girl with him to the studio.This film was put on late night Friday on channel 5 in the UK – a slot that is usually filled with cheap softcore movies with vague plots and were it not for the reasonably interesting plot summary I would have just ignored it as with so much trash. In terms of softcore action there is a fair amount of nudity but it would be unlikely to satisfy those looking for cheap thrills because, although it looks low budget, it has nothing in common with the pure titillation stuff. This left it open to be a lot more interesting and morally complex and it does do that reasonably well even if it isn't totally convincing in the way that the plot still tries to be a narrative in its own right. It is the story development that is a problem but it still lingers in the murky and rather shameful world of porn long enough to have value as an interesting film on the subject even if it fails to go deep enough into the material or the characters to really stick in the memory.The direction is pretty cheap and not that interesting; his writing is good but his budget never allows him to make it look like more than it cost. The cast is limited as well although some of them are good. DeGood is interesting and his narration helps his performance rather than replacing it – also, it isn't his fault that the material develops his character too quickly and in unlikely ways. Wasson is basic but effective while Cain is sweet and clumsy (an effect that is either deliberate or caused by her not being that good, not sure which but it works either way). The rest are very much video actors and felt clunky; this didn't damage the film that much though because it already had a low budget feel.Overall the film had enough murkiness and comment to be of interest and it is this aspect that you will enjoy. The narrative is little more than a frame but at times the film makes the mistake of making that the focal point and loses sight of the themes within it. Add to this a low budget feel in terms of acting, directing and sets and it is hard to take it totally seriously. Worth seeing once though for what it does well.

I first checked out "The Pornographer" because it starred my favorite B-movie actress, Monique Parent. First, I was surprised to see that Craig Wasson was also in it. Then, I was surprised to see that the acting all around was quite good. Finally, I was further surprised that this movie was actually very dark, serious, and thought-provoking, and wondered why it was I had never heard about it before.Michael DeGood is quite good as the socially weak, sniveling protagonist Paul whose characteristics as such help explain his terrible luck with women. Craig Wasson turns in his best performance in years as Spano, the suave, cold and calculating porn producer. Newcomer Katheryn Cain is extra sweet and innocent, I hopefully look forward to seeing her in more movies in the near future. And of course, Monique Parent is beautiful as always and terrific in her role as the temptress pornstar turned renegade producer. I like seeing Parent in film festival-type stuff, and I hope to see her in more movies like "The Pornographer" (she's actually done several such films, though only a few have been picked up for distribution).Most of the first act is devoted to analyis of the central character, as we see Paul trying to procur a date, failing everytime, and eventually asking out the hooker whom he regularly employs the services of. The sequence of him accidentally asking out a 15y/o girl is particularly gripping, as we are not sure if he realizes the girl's age, or actually has pedophilic tendencies (or, perhaps we are witnessing the unintended origins of such tendencies). Another scene that stands out for me is when he visits the private booth and talks via phone to the stripper behind the glass. I couldn't help but be reminded of the scene in "Taxi Driver" when Travis tries to get Betsy to go on another date with him, but similarly gets turned down.So Paul, feeling utterly hopeless and dull in life, tries his hand at the subject he is most familiar with: pornography. He turns out to be somewhat of a natural at it, and is immediately taken under the wing of Spano (Wasson), who offers to give Paul the opportunity to make some 'real' videos (i.e. - with actors, not hookers). If, however, Paul can find a 'pure girl'. A chance accident leads Paul to meet such a girl - Kate (Cain). But Paul fails at getting close to her, of course, and instead of meeting Spano's challenge, Paul opts for the quicker, easier route of making lesser quality videos for Charise (Parent). However, she soon turns out to be simply using Paul for her own personal gain, and so he finds himself back to Spano and his challenge to Paul. Ultimately, we come to the best scene of the movie - Paul's on-camera seduction of Kate. This scene is done with such intensity and a sinister sense of innocence being lost that you can't help but hope Paul turns his life around to develop his relationship with Kate rather than ruthlessly use her as his ticket to success.With just this one film, writer/director Doug Atchison has proven himself more talented than so many other independent directors who are mass-worshiped after only doing one picture. His strength is definitely in his writing, as he presents us with a fully-dimensional main character that we simultaneously feel pity for and disgust towards. I believe Atchison does justice to portraying today's porn industry in all its cold reality, where people are exploited and in turn exploit others, and those who can't handle it (i.e. - the heroin-addicted fallen starlet) are literally left on the curb. Also, for a movie about pornography, there is little nudity - a sign of a skilled filmmaker. Atchison was probably hindered by a limited budget in showing off very much directing-wise here. However, the almost Cassavetes-like documentary style works for this particular movie. He shows shades of influence from Scorsese as well.The only major flaw I had with this movie was the somewhat slapstick ending, although it still serves to transmit the message of individuals getting forced into a dead-end situation - in this case, the porn industry. The final shot is truly haunting though, and quickly makes you overlook the slightly contrived ending. Besides, I can name over a dozen other great and heralded independent films with utterly ridiculous attempts at a brilliant and all-satisfying finale. "The Pornographer" is just about as good as they come, and I hope to see more projects by Atchison in the future. 9/10.

After seeing this I was impressed by so many things, but it felt so After School Special, and here's why: The writing is really good, and the writer Doug Atchison did a wonderful job of getting some amazing performances out of his actors, but the whole damn thing is lit like a sitcom. There is absolutely no MOOD, or AMBIENCE or TONE. Like in Boogie Nights. The shots are all really flat, and lit like a sunporch. The camera wasbasically locked down and aimed at the scene. That is a real shame, because this movie could have been even better. Doug, you;re an amazing writer, but PLEASE, let someone else direct it next time. You need someone who has a visual style. Like Alan Ball had Sam Mendes on American Beauty. The writing was stellar, but the director put it together visually. I hope you make more films, you did an excellent job.

There were many problems with the film, with plot threads that don't really go anywhere, some cheesy dialogue and daft ideas (that all male porn directors think they are making art - yeah right). However it succeeds in showing the reality of being a lonely male, and the various male needs that lead to use of porn. It looks at different sides of the argument but seems to come down fairly firmly against porn and the industry (the only decent characters are the anti-porn female boss and the naive actress). Makes a valid point that many men would deplore the treatment and exploitation of some women in the porn industry, yet enjoy watching the films. Although the production is pretty bad in some places, it does leave you pondering the issues, which means the film is a success.