Lucía y el Sexo  (2001) from Tuna and Scoopy

Tuna's comments in white: Lucia y el sexo (2001) was released in Europe, and then showed up there on video as it was being released theatrically here. The European video price was around $100.00 US.  It has finally been released in Spain at sell-through prices, and, I believe, is still playing theatrically here. You might remember that Seattle newspapers refused to print advertising for it, because of strong sexual content.

The IMDB summary was written by writer/director Julio Medem, and is worth quoting here.

"Lucía is a young waitress in a restaurant in the centre of Madrid. After the loss of her long-time boyfriend, a writer, she seeks refuge on a quiet, secluded Mediterranean island. There, bathed in an atmosphere of fresh air and dazzling sun, Lucía begins to discover the dark corners of her past relationship, as if they were forbidden passages of a novel which the author now, from afar, allows her to read."

Frankly, after watching it, that is not the summary I would have written, but may, in fact, be the correct one. The story is not told in a linear fashion, and it is difficult to figure out what is real, what is fantasy, and what is part of the novel. I believe this was intentional, and also effective.

There is no question about the nudity and sexuality in this film, Paz Vega as Lucia, Elena Anaya as a babysitter, and Diana Suárez as her mother, a porn star, all show all three Bs, including good full frontal shots. Another woman, probably a stunt double, is naked in a night underwater sex scene. It was Najwa Nimri's character, but I doubt it was her, and the scene was too dark, anyway. There is also plenty of male full frontal, including a closeup of Vega stroking Tristán Ulloa's erection. A shower nozzle masturbation scene from Anaya, as well as one with a dildo on a sofa while watching one of her mother's porno films sizzle.

I found myself caught up in the characters, and in the scenes, and didn't mind that I had to work to figure out what was really happening. My only criticism of this film has to do with the decision to shoot it on digital video. The camera was simply not up to the task, especially on white sand beaches under full Mediterranean sun. Much of the film is very washed out.

Scoop's comments in yellow:

You have to give a tip of the ol' hat to director Julio Medem. Get this: he makes a medium core sex film on digital video for about twenty bucks. Many of the scenes are in white and white, with only some vague outlines of things in cyan to indicate that the film is still rolling. The director obviously has no script or plot of any kind, just some mostly unrelated scenes where people act breathlessly, as if every word were pregnant with meaning, ala The Young and the Restless. In fact, there is a death by rottweiler because of someone else is too busy having sex with the babysitter to intervene. I think they did actually use that on The Young and the Restless.

SPOILERS COMING

The funniest scene was the one where Lucia finds out her boyfriend is not really dead. You see, the entire movie hinges on the fact that Lucia receives a phone call from the police while she reads a farewell note from the boyfriend. She drops the phone, runs off to some island, does a lot of thinking, blah blah. Well, it turns out that the police were just calling to solicit a donation for the Policeman's Ball, and the boyfriend is perfectly OK. Lucia is in a room, the boyfriend's best friend walks through the door, we hear footsteps, we see shadows. We know another person is coming. Who could it be? We hear some more footsteps, and see some more shadows. Finally, the friggin' guy walks through the door. Hilarious!

The writers for The Young and the Restless should sue this guy!

To cover up the fact that he has no storyline except that a guy presumed dead is really alive, the director has one of the characters pose as the author of the story, and he narrates with such portentous and pretentious lines as "but suppose our story does not end, but simply falls into a hole, whereupon it begins again in the middle!"

Awesome.

This guy is a genius. Not only does he get people to accept it as a mainstream film, but he actually gets  the Spanish academy to give him some awards, and gets people to declare that it is a work of art.

Well, it is, in a way. It is one of the most arty medium-core sex films ever. It is artier than The Lover with Jane March. But The Lover has a comprehensible story line, and is one of the most beautifully filmed movies I've ever seen. This is ... well, it's not a bad sex film, but it's not an especially great one either.

On the other hand, it is a good sex film that allows you to watch and beat off while telling your wife that you're studying the new expressionism of the contemporary Spanish cinema. How can you complain about that?