>>>>Please elaborate on how most of the video can be fake but the crying and extream tickling reactions at the end be real. <<<
Your wish is my command! I mean the plot & circumstances were fake, not the tickling. I fully belive NCT II is also real, in the sense that the tickling was done on truely ticklish ladies who found it to be a challenge to take. Haven't you seen fictional films, but using the Stanislavsky Method of acting, the performers can reach into a false scene but pull up real emotions? The plot and circumstances of the video were fake, I believe, but the tickling and reactions were 100% real. But stay with me, it gets long.... and I won't even bring up my typing skills.
First, about me: I work in the field of video production, so I know some about how videos are set up, shot & edited. Also, in getting my degree in Radio/TV/Film (and as a personal interest) I've seen a lot of documentaries, including ones dealing with prostitution. And there's an amazing psudo-documentary from the 70s in which a woman recounts being raped on the steps of the building where her film-maker friend is testing his new camera. The woman is completely falling apart at the end, it's emotionally the most taxing film I've seen... and then the credits roll, revealing it all to be fiction. Can't remember the name, but perhaps another film student out there will recall it.
Secondly, I own another video, produced in the late 80s in which a woman was tickled into frantic tears, so I know what it looks like - and yes, what happens in the NCT video is 100% real to my knowledge.
Third, I myself, although more a 'Ler, also engage in the 'Lee role... and my first time tied, I was taken to the limits and pushed and know what it feels like.
Finally, I've hired call girls for tickling before so, along with the documentary background and some research into the world of sexually oriented businesses (I was very curious in my college years) I know a little how that goes, too.
BTW, prostitutes do indeed call the police when they think they need to. It isn't a standard thing, but it happens. The 1984 "pickle case" of Duncanville, TX - my hometown- comes to mind. If they're scared or venegful enough, they'll try to put someone away- and the investigators won't bring her up on charges of solicitation for several reasons, but especially if they get an actual assualt on tape. They'll let a piddly little solicitation charge slide if they can nab a potentially violent male. Onward.
This video (NCT) was not 100% fake - what happened to the girl at the end looks real by all accounts. But it was set up and excecuted very well as far as plot, look, and backstory goes. But it was supposed to seem real for the video to work, just as the Nazis in the Indiana Jones movies and aliens in the Trek films needed to be real for everything to fall into place. But this isn't an unknowing call girl they tricked and tickled.
1.) Look at the commentary that the guy makes at the beginning of the film, and then at the end, which supposedly occurs at a differerent time, before and after the tickling. By the looks of it, these were actually shot at the same time, and edited to seem like they were done separate. In the shots, he's sitting in the same exact place, same posture, and even his clothing is in the same position, from the hat on his head & the jewelry around his neck. Now how did he match everything that exact? Nothing was dishevelled from vigoursouly tickling a girl he had hired and that had fought him- nothing moved an inch. And he even has the same tone of voice and stilted, monotone delivery. I believe even the lighting conditions were the same. There was no "before" or "after" here, in reality.
2.) He claims that this was a call girl they hired from an agency. Many agency girls call their agency to let them know they got there safely and to let the agency know when the time of the session is starting. They almost always call after the session, to report that they are safe and to find out if there are any more jobs for them. Some agencies even have drivers who accompany the women, just in case there is trouble. Believe me, if this girl was truly, unexpectedly attacked, the agency would hear about it, and something - legal action or not so legal action - would happen to the filmmakers.
3.) Most call girls simply won't do bondage. Certainly not on a first time job. An amature looking to make money might, but not a call girl.
4.) The guy (Shawn) claims they knew the girl (Sharon) was ticklish because they paid a friend to get girls from call girl agencies and tickle their feet during a massage. Now this will tell you this is a fictional film! What kind of budget do these people have? They paid a friend to repeatedly go to prostitutes and test their ticklishness until they found one? First, how do I get that guys' job??? Second, how did they know that this woman would still be ticklish when tricked under ropes, and wouldn't go numb under the stress or fear- unless they interviewed her for a tickling video ahead of time? And how long were they going to keep paying the way for thier friend until he found just the right one? It's been awhile for me, but an agency girl for an hour would be at least $150, without bondage, and that's not CA prices.....
5). Quite frankly, call girls are either great actresses or quite naive, amaturish and business like. The good ones make your fantasies as real as possible and make you feel like they're doing everything you desire for you because it pleases them.... or, they're like, "So, O.K, you like feet? (in an amused tone) O.k., what do you want me to do? O.K., how do you like that?" The acting on both the parts of Shawn (he also goes by the name 'Machine' in other videos) and Sharon were quite bad. Neither relistic nor plain, just stereotypically bad. "Oh, I like EVERYTHING!" "Oh, baby, we are going to have so much fun". Very unreal. It felt like it was all just being made up, but while still trying to stick to a certain topic. It was like the hooker in the cab scene in Taxi Driver, and that film was done in 1975!
6.) Hookers generally are not defensless. IE, they can fight and often carry a weapon, usually a blade. When Sharon got loose at the end, she launched into an almost pathetic slap-fight-girly kind of attack. Had she been 100% tricked and horriblly shook up, that guy would have been hurt. She would have gone for his eyes, his groin with a knee, or she would have headed for her purse and pulled out the knife. She may have been unprepared for the intensity of the tickling, but all indications that I can see are that she knew what the video was about (more on that)...
7). It is exceedingly rare that prostitutes use the names of their first time customers (it's usually "Hey baby", or "Honey" until you become a regular). It's part of the culture - they don't know you as a friend personally, and, like (not) kissing on the mouth, it keeps things less personal and is an emotional shield. She was calling them Shawn and Heather all over the place.
8). Sharon was tied up -according to the plot- for oral sex. They even mention something about "eating out" Sharon (I think Heather says it, she wants to get a good shot...) BUT Sharon was put into bondage with her panties on. Was this not a red flag for a sex professional - how was she going to get her panties off tied up? And what agency allows their girls actual unprotected oral penetration in the AIDS time we live in?
9). They seemed to imply that this was a simple case of one person taping the activity of another. Almost a spur of the moment job. But in the framed pictures over the bed, I'd swear that I could see a reflection of a key light of some kind placed, so there was a little planning & set up involved.
10.) There's a point where Sharon bites they guy's hand - or does she? I watched that over and over. It looks like he lays his hand over her mouth by cupping it, so her teeth can't reach him, not palm flat to her lips, where she could get him. Sid bit a cop's hand that way, too, in Sid And Nancy, but you never saw the actual bite onscreen.
So much of this video depended on setup and acting. But now we get a little deeper.
Watch the tickling closely. After about every 2-4 minutes or so, there's a break or edit point in what the camera records. And after that, there seems to be a change in action. I mean, she's tickled, then a break. Then she's tickled, and yelling, then a break. Then she's tickled, and swearing, then a break. Then she's tickled, then bites the guy, then a break.... on and on; it's as if during the breaks in filming Sharon is being given direction on what to do next. Plus, these breaks are rest for her. Yes, the tickling was intense, but it was not continuous.
And let's look at the laughter. For much of the video, it starts out light and upbeat, then grows deperate, fearful and angry. Then there's a break, and the laughter almost always starts out in that light, upbeat mode again. It's as if the girl knew what was coming (like maybe she was fully aware that this was an intense tickling video?) and therefore wasn't scared or upset until it went very far. Ask around on this board and most will tell you either through what they've read or experienced, anyone who's tickled who hates it screams more than laughs, and even thought the laughter might be upbeat at first, it would eventually become - and stay - harrowing. She kept returning to that upbeat laugh after the breaks.
And the final bit. Sharon is released, then there's another break,or edit point. And in fact you can see the lighting change. That would indicate that the camera was completelty turned off, or there was a battery change, and they camera operator did not white balance the camera again (That's when you point the camera at something white and push a button, "telling" the camera 'define this as white', and then the camera calibrates all the other colors to what is considered white. If you don't white balance the camera, the colors and look of the lighting will be off. That's what happened here). So, from the time Sharon is released to the time the camera comes back on, some time had past. Maybe a minute, maybe 15. The point is, there was some time between her release and her attack of the guy. Also, this would be another rest break (so these people weren't heartlessly cruel) and at this time they probabaly came up with the bit of business about having Sharon attack Shawn and the camera op could drop the camera - 'Hey! we're making a fake documentary, and my name is 'Heather'... I could drop the camera at the end of the film & it'll be just like Blair Witch!" The fact that there's this long break in shooting and the attack was so unthretening adds to my disbelief that this was a woman completly tricked into being tickled terribly. And, if it means anything, the most intense tickling was about 10 minutes long or so; tought to take, but it wasn't as if Sharon suffered endlessly for 45 minutes.
So, from what I see, this was a video production, in the true sense of the words. Except for the P.T. Barnum-like marketing, I think in no way was this woman tricked into being a victim. I see plenty of evidence indicating it wasn't a big secret played on the girl, and I see little or no evidence that she was a victim of trickery. I felt more sympathy for the woman in The Boogyman. I really think she didn't know what she was getting into.
However, the frantic, panicked reactions from Sharon I believe were 100% real. The tickling was intense and her vocal and physical reactions looked totally convincing. My first time ever being tied and tickled, I was "done" by two women who were not specifically into tickling, but were real sexual sadists who got a natural high from abusing a willing victim. I can attest that no matter how much you want to be tied and tickled, you will be nervous your first time, and the tickling will eventually reach a point where your logic fails and out of self preservation you will scream or babble wildly and with fear. It felt scary, and was not pretty. If those two woman back then (1992) had asked me anything - PIN numbers, phone numbers, etc.- they would have gotten them becuase they would have been screamed out with no control over it by me. I have not only seen what Sharon went through, but for a brief time I tasted it. It ain't nice. But I did have the most amazing opium-like high afterwards, and I must admit, I'm curious to this day, wondering how long it cold have gone on. What would have happened if they didn't stop when they did. Curious to try it again.
But back to Sharon. From what I gathered from the video, the set up, the interatcion of the characters, etc. I simply got the idea that Sharon - likely a real call girl - was called and told about this video. She would be tickled, but with a twist- it would go on until her limit was reached. And she agreed to it. Again, that's what I feel. There doesn't seem to be any REAL indication of dishonesty and trickery, and most of her reactions, at least until it got intense, were simliar to those who have been tickled consentually in other videos. This one simply went farther, and she couldn't handle the panic, by definition - it's a panic, and you can't plan for it. And it looks rough and nasty. The other video I mentioned above? That was a girl who consented to be tickled but clearly changed her mind once it started. The videomakers didn't seem to believer her, and thought her protestations were part of the natural tickling reaction ("please, stop", et al.) Until she started crying. Then, with a look of some shame and sympathy on the tickler's face, the girl was released, hugged, and the video ended early. In this video things got intense, to the point of unpleasantness for Sharon, but I can see her discussing the video with these people as they tell her what's going to unfold- she's going to be tickled beyond the limit, where tears and frenzy come to the surface it is no longer fun and games. Either thinking she's strong enough to handle it, or not really aware of what the experience of pushing her limit would be like, Sharon agreed to it (hence the use of the people's names, the willingness go undergo the ropes, her general comfort level AT FIRST with the tickling and coming back from the breaks, the cuts or rest breaks to give her direction and so as not to wear her out prematurely). I think Sharon consented to give up consent - I see no evidence otherwise, and a good deal of real world evidence supporting that premise. While she may have regretted it, I don't think anything more evil occured than a woman biting off more than she could chew and the video makers making sure she lived up to her role. Paradise Vision knew this was a fantasy of many and made a real, edgy video of it to the best they legally could, and when faced with what a nonconsentual fantasy looked like brought to life, many people couldn't hande the horror of the victim or their guilt of being a party to such a thing, even in a secondhand way. It was ugly, but it wasn't a crime.
And a daughter licking a mother's feet? As I understand it, Gia isn't a blood relative to Renee, and Renee is a hot mama! I'm fine with it. Maybe their relationship isn't real!
