Review – Burning Angel Entertainment’s Ass-Fucked (2011)

I thought about gentling down the title of this film with symbols – like writing A$$-F*cked, or something – but I eventually decided, no. This collection of scenes and Ms. Joanna Angel herself deserve to be stated as boldly as they bring it – Ass-Fucked.

Ass-Fucked.

Ass-Fucked!!

Ass-Fucked (2011) is a collection of five scenes from Burning Angel Entertainment, each starring Joanna Angel. In each scene, there is some ass fucking. Accordingly…

Scene #1: it’s Christmas, and two Jewish kids are headed to a party!! James Deen cajoles a begrudging Joanna into attending a Christmas party. She, wearing the most splendid of festive *red & green thigh-high stockings plus amazing* outfits, is no less miffed when they finally arrive at the party – “it’s like Christmas threw up in here!” But Ms. Angel changes her tune when she sees her presents (which are the actual purpose of her presence) – Mick Blue and Mr. Pete, wearing scarves and hats and nothing else. Mick, Mr. Pete, and James then proceed to fuck Joanna silly.

Scene #2: two dudes are playing video games, and moderately annoying girlfriend Joanna wants a sandwich. Somehow she convinces her moderately annoying boyfriend (one of the two aforementioned dudes) to put down his video game controller and get her one. Leaving her alone with the remaining dude, her bf’s bff Mick Blue. Then they fuck.

Scene #3: keeping with the whole holiday theme thing, it’s now Valentine’s day; and James Deen gets the lovely Joanna the nicest box of chocolates CVS has to offer. When he realizes she’s not happy with his half-assed efforts, he calls up Mason Moore. Mason comes over to give Joanna her real, albeit last minute, gift – a “filthy fucking Valentine’s Day.” (the lead in to this scene is hilarious)

Scene #4: Joanna is doing some solo stuff on a couch when, all of a sudden, two cocks pushed through zippers come walking in. Then they have sex. In the end, those cocks both pop in Joanna’s cupped hands and… well, you’ll have to watch for yourself.

-interlude-

Now before I get to the final scene, I have to say: Ass-Fucked was a already fine little film four scenes in. It has the cute, funny, and hilariously ridiculous lead-ins you can only see in a Burning Angel film. Joanna is compelling on multiple levels, and she manages to be shy and sweet and excited and overwhelmed and in control and downright dirty all at once… and all without seeming contrived. It’s impressive!! (and so was the incorporation of Dillinger Escape Plan!! see “Gold Teeth on a Bum,” which is featured throughout Ass-Fucked)

So I was already liking this movie when it came up on Scene #5…

Scene #5: Joanna is in a cage (a cage!!), and she has on a “crazy girl” outfit and make-up. She’s having all sorts of rough times with herself and is desperate to reach this lone dildo that’s placed conveniently out of reach. It’s a good tease, and you actually feel her tension. Luckily, when it almost gets to be too much, Manuel Ferrara arrives to help our caged Joanna out…

And then, just like that, Ass-Fucked jumps to a whole different level. It was good before Scene #5 and I refuse to ruin it for you by revealing what happens next (what could make it so impressive??), but just imagine Manuel at his best – able to fine-tune his intensity and find a specific woman’s particular edge… or at least that’s what it looked like to me.

…and imagine Joanna pushed to her limits while still being able to keep up. It was amazing, a little difficult to watch at points (in the spots where it just wasn’t my thing, but not because it was bad), and definitely one of those scenes that should be cited when people claim women in adult do not enjoy their work. Sometimes, just sometimes, some of them clearly obviously totally do.

Recommended for: Joanna Angel fans, anal aficionados, and those who wanna see how it can be done.

 

Notables

With performances from Joanna Angel and Mason Moore. Also featuring Manuel Ferrara, Steve Holmes, John Strong, James, Deen, Mick Blue, and Mr. Pete.

Directed by Joanna Angel for Burning Angel Entertainment. Released in September, 2011. Get Ass-Fucked (buy it and/or watch it now) right here (teehee!!)

Check out Joanna Angel’s blog at xoxojoannaangel.com.

(pictured: from xoxojoannaangel.com and too cute not to share)

* * *

PVV Recommended Films – a special distinction for exceptional content.

Like what you see? Follow PVV on Facebook and Twitter!!

You may quote anything herein with the following attribution: “Reprinted from Porn Valley Vantage/PVVOnline, copyright © Chauntelle Anne Tibbals, PhD (www.PVVOnline.com).”

PVVOnline – Critical Commentary on Adult Production

4 thoughts on “Review – Burning Angel Entertainment’s Ass-Fucked (2011)

  1. Very interesting. Anal sex has always been a distant third in heterosexual porn. And it’s not difficult to see why. Vaginal sex has the appeal of being potentially procreative (i.e., it suggests the raison d’être of sex). Oral sex focuses on the woman’s face. Anal sex is just sort of “dirty” to most people. But anal sex has it over the other two in one category: power!!!

    Just look at the title. “Joanna Angel Ass Fucked”. There’s nothing tentative about it. It places her (as subject) in a passive context. Who’s in the active context? Who knows? Buy the DVD and find out. It also offers her, the subject, as a complete person. (It’s not Joanna Angel’s Ass Gets Fucked. SHE gets ass fucked. It’s not that her ass is fucked. There’s a big difference.). It also suggests identity/agency issues. Again, the title COULD be “Joanna Angel Ass Fucking”, but instead it’s “Ass Fucked”. The focus is on both the act and the transformation of identity.

    An anti-sex feminist will undoubtedly criticize a DVD like this as debasing women. But you, Dr. Chauntelle, and the readers of this blog know better. The act of being ass fucked may involve a kind of primal submission to power, but the CHOICE to engage in that act does not. And this is, after all, Joanna’s party. Maybe 20 years ago, the anti-sex feminists might have had a point. Maybe. But ideas of sexual boundaries have fortunately expanded since them. A woman can loooooooove anal sex and all that goes along with it but still preserve her essential agency. The men, after all, are just cocks that walk in the door or Christmas presents. In fact, if homosexual male attitudes are any guide, the vector of power may be more complicated than most of us commonly think. The male who is on the receiving end of anal sex is often considered the “manlier” or more alpha partner. Could the same be true of Ms. Angel? Heaven (pun intended) forbid!

    Plus, a strong, educated Jewish woman in a video with shades of cuckoldry? Where do I sign up?

  2. @LL – heeee!! right?? I was a little stumped as to how to start this one, and I was walking around saying “Ass-Fucked” over and over… the answer presented itself ;)

    @KC – I love your reading of this film (well, your reading of my assessment of it at least haha) The language/way the title is phrased (such a simple point, but the implications are huge) and the fact that the title is but one part of an overall destabilizing text that reclaims a subjectivity that is all too commonly construed as passive (or weak or victimized etc etc) – brilliant!!

    It is true that sexual boundaries and ideologies have shifted and expanded, but it is still all too common for women to be fingered as passive simply because they are on the receiving end of a sex act that involves a power differential. It’s easy and obvious (and superficial and presumptuous) to focus on JA getting ass fucked; but it’s challenging, destabilizing, and certainly unsettling to some to acknowledge and consider the fact that she orchestrated the ass fucking.

    (ps I adjusted that “this” thusly ;)

  3. Upon reflecting on this article and going to Ms. Angel’s site and viewing the trailer, it occurred to me that the problem with anti-sex feminists (and with many but not ALL anti-porn activists) is that they begin with at least one correct premise. This makes them “sort-of” right. And, as I don’t need to tell you Dr. Chauntelle, people who are “sort-of” right are far more difficult to dissuade from their errors than are people who are absolutely wrong. Academia is full of the former, and you, of all people, undoubtedly know what they’re like.

    What’s that one correct premise? That people ought not to be victimized. Seems pretty obvious when stated so nakedly. And then they note something that is basically true, namely that to be a victim, one needs to be the weaker of two parties in an interaction.

    But then they make at least two big errors. They confuse a necessary condition for a sufficient. Even if victims are necessarily weaker than victimizers, it doesn’t follow that those who are weaker than others with whom they interact are weaker.

    They also wrongly assume that someone who is in the weaker position in one context is always in that same position.

    Let’s look at the first error. Ms. Angel, in this video, clearly enjoys being put in the weaker condition than the men she’s getting fucked by (and I use that phrase because she does). For right now, there’s no need to qualify this. I’ll do that when I get to the critics’ second error. She writes in describing the video, “Steve Holmes and John Strong tossed me around like a good little whore.” She does this, obviously, with some satisfaction. Again, let’s stipulate for now that being tossed around and being a whore necessitate being in the weaker position (although it strikes me as being correct). Does it follow that she’s victimized? No, not at all, because she has chosen to put herself in that position.

    Some might argue that choosing to be put in that position is, in itself, a complicit act of victimization. But of course, this makes victimization a matter of free choice. And that just seems silly. Also, many people get their greatest pleasure exactly from that sort of treatment. Who on earth is anyone else to tell them they’re wrong? And even if they were “wrong,” why should that matter? Are they supposed to give up their greatest sexual pleasure for the sake of an abstract ideal, even if that pleasure is achieved totally with consent? That seems pretty strange. In fact, it suggests that the ideal can’t really exist in the first place.

    As a cuckold, I believe that my own highest emotional satisfaction comes with the sexual pleasure of alpha males and married women who enjoy taking a somewhat subordinate position to them. Am I supposed to surrender that because it puts me in a weaker position?

    The second error of the anti-sex feminists is no less absurd than the first. Okay, Ms. Angel goes in a cage. There’s no doubt that, within at least some scope, this makes her the weaker person than anyone outside the cage, particularly the men who are fucking her. BUT, she’s the stronger party in so many ways. Not only because she’s running the site. Not only because, even if she weren’t running the site, she’d have the leverage of negotiating whether she’d be on the site. Not only because she gets to control where viewers pay attention (a subtly exercised power that can be masterfully used by the most talented female performers). But most important because she’s in the process of making an implicit and, in some cases, an explicit evaluation of the men.

    And this is something that I think being a cuckold makes you realize. Bulls (the alpha males in the cuckold dynamic) are in a constant state of evaluation. They need to put up or shut up. And it’s very categorical. There’s no margin for error. Experienced cuckoldresses know they can always switch to another bull. They don’t get forgiven because the whole point of a bull is that he’s supposed to be so sexually desirable just as a physical being that all other criteria go out the window (“Oh, am I married? I forgot for some reason.”). There’s no, “that’s okay, I understand. You just weren’t feeling it today.” The evaluation is as ruthless as, say a beauty competition.

    Of course, the rewards are pretty spectacular. No strings attached with married women who are looking to feel (in general) as if they’re the consort to the stud-of-the-world. And, of course, when a bull is ejaculating inside another man’s wife, you certainly can’t say that they’re not exercising some power. (Extramarital pregnancy is, by the way, extremely rare in cuckold marriages. It just isn’t something that women want or men either. But the symbolism of providing a married woman with a creampie is undoubtedly a powerful one. And even though its subjective, it takes on an objective psychological power.)

    Still, the bull is constantly under a sexual sword of Damocles. I’m not so sure that I’d want to ever be in a position like that for anything. (Damn, I want to make a joke about the cuckoldress being underneath a more desirable sort of sword, but I… just… can’t… make… it… work.)

    And back to Ms. Angel’s video. Implicit in what is required of the men she’s working with, they too are under a sexual sword of Damocles. They too don’t get a margin for error. And that puts the power in her hands (or other parts of her anatomy). Her subjective appreciation of men becomes the bar by which they objectively are defined. And THAT’s power.

    You talked about this in the reference to the “Man vs. Pussy” video a few months back. It seems, then, that we may be entering a new era for adult video. Women are going to be evaluating men based on unabashedly sexual criteria, exactly in the same way that men have been evaluating women forever.

    Of course, this is part of a new sexual dynamic in which monogamy can be truer to what people thought they believed it to be, a way that two people can find an attachment to one another on some deep emotional, moral, intellectual, and spiritual ground (that may or may not involve sexual exclusivity). I say “thought they believed it to be” because monogamy has traditionally been not that at all but a way that men had of securing sexual privilege in exchange for providing women with economic access.

    Now that women don’t need to engage in that bargain (one that was forced on them), both men and women can pursue monogamy for the reasons that they pretended they were before. Of course, this TERRIFIED cultural conservatives. They wrongly thought that monogamy was going to collapse. They were wrong. It’s just that their power to confer legitimacy on monogamy has been weakened. (Hmmmmm. I wonder if that power was what they really cared about in the first place. Gee. Whaddaya think?) And monogamy isn’t going to collapse because of gay marriage or divorce or porn or anything else they don’t like. In fact, it’s becoming stronger because now it’s TRULY voluntarily chosen. And I’m in favor of that. I’m very pro-marriage. I’m very pro-partnering. I think that people are basically (though not absolutely) hardwired for dyads.

    It’s just that now that partnering is truly voluntary, women’s sexual freedom has become more obvious. (Whether this is just because it has only come into being since the sexual revolution or because we’re only now aware of it, I’m not sure.) So, we get things like this video. And, of course, the extensive involvement of women in porn at so many levels that you acknowledge, examine, and celebrate in this blog. And, in some cases, cuckoldry (yay!)

    Whew. Those are a lot of words. I don’t have a conclusion. I’m not even sure that’s a coherent whole. I just wanted to express what I’ve been thinking about for the last few hours.

Comments are closed.