18+ Kerry Fox - Intimacy
- Thread starter Paduano79
- Start date
"Why would any married woman have sex with another actor in a movie to begin with?"
I applied your stupid logic into my question.
"Why would any married woman get naked in front of another man in front of a camera and 20 behind it?"
mamba99999
New Member
Is the penetration confirmed real? Or is it just movie magic?
I dont see anything close to penetration.
Actually,there is a scene where he is penetrating her. You would need to brighten the scene. But, you can see a small amount of shaft going into her. You need to go frame by frame.They say that the sexual was simulated. But the scene thats shows his ball. Is that scene.
SomeGuy
Well-Known Member
Scene brightened from a blu-ray source and I see no evidence of any shaft going in throughout the entire scene.
This is the clearest frame of that scene ... if there was any penetration it would show.
Second scene where they roll around before having sex and supposedly according to that quote from "movienudity" (posted by @myfamousteen)
was "very real". It shows his fingers holding what looks like the shadow of his erection but I see no evidence of penetration .. you have to use your imagination.
Last edited:
If you are using the image from the 1st scene at that contrast. You did not brighten the scene enough. You need to desaturated color and flatten the contrast as well as brighten the image. That will make them appear very pale. The dark shadows with disappearing and you will be able to see his scrotum clearly. There is a split second when you can see the smallest part of his shaft entering her. It is not the moment from the image that you posted. It is when he has his hand on her butt cheek. Once you brighten it properly, You should be able to tell the the movements and angles are consistent with actual penetration.
But, some of you won't believe it unless you see an entire shaft from head to base go in. And then you will say it is AI.
Also, I realize that this is not a determining factor but I will mention it. At the very end of the seen. you can see that the condom has been used. Condoms don't look like that without penetration. I can guarantee you. No director or special effects editor would go through the trouble of staging a used condom for this low budget production.
But, some of you won't believe it unless you see an entire shaft from head to base go in. And then you will say it is AI.
Also, I realize that this is not a determining factor but I will mention it. At the very end of the seen. you can see that the condom has been used. Condoms don't look like that without penetration. I can guarantee you. No director or special effects editor would go through the trouble of staging a used condom for this low budget production.
Last edited:
SomeGuy
Well-Known Member
Brightened closeup of scene where he has his hand on her butt cheek with a clear view of his scrotum
There's a shadow but I'm not convinced that there is any evidence of a shaft entering her.. you can try to boost the brightness some more to see what that shadow is but I don't trust over-brightened images as they tend to introduce artifacts that are not actually present.
If you want to judge it for yourself frame by frame, I posted the short brightened slo-motion clip of the scene close up.
https://www.mediafire.com/file/4s4htgdzcbnkvif/KerryFox.closeup.mp4/file
There's a shadow but I'm not convinced that there is any evidence of a shaft entering her.. you can try to boost the brightness some more to see what that shadow is but I don't trust over-brightened images as they tend to introduce artifacts that are not actually present.
If you want to judge it for yourself frame by frame, I posted the short brightened slo-motion clip of the scene close up.
https://www.mediafire.com/file/4s4htgdzcbnkvif/KerryFox.closeup.mp4/file
Last edited:
NakedDan
New Member
Here is that article by Kerry Fox’s boyfriend: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2001/jun/22/features.features11
I remember reading it 20 years ago when I was up for a film role that would have featured real sex, penetration, etc. That film eventually never happened, but I certainly researched it.
I remember reading it 20 years ago when I was up for a film role that would have featured real sex, penetration, etc. That film eventually never happened, but I certainly researched it.
SomeGuy
Well-Known Member
Thank you @NakedDan. From the article
""The final question was, would they be having penetrative sex? Logical or not, that was the impassable barrier for me, and for Kerry also."
That closes the case for me.
However, there will still be some who are not convinced, they'll say that what was said in the interview can just be a cover story. And that's fine. ... we are here to present all the facts and opinions, it's up to you to decide what you see.
""The final question was, would they be having penetrative sex? Logical or not, that was the impassable barrier for me, and for Kerry also."
That closes the case for me.
However, there will still be some who are not convinced, they'll say that what was said in the interview can just be a cover story. And that's fine. ... we are here to present all the facts and opinions, it's up to you to decide what you see.
Last edited:
I agree at the end of the day. It is what you see. And yes people lie. It's is Hollywood. So, I don't think. It's a stretch to believe that people lie. She could have lied to him. He could have lied to the press. So he didn't look like a cuck. It would not be the 1st time people have lied to cover up there actions. So, if someone choose to believe that I get it. As for me, having spent a little time in the entertainment industry in LA. My experience is 85% of the time people are lying to you. Sometimes, just for the sake of lying. I have watch enough porn to know the difference in the angle in which a body moves upon penetration verse grinding and a penis on top of her stomach. A guys scrotum would be much higher on the body. Also, you would see her vagina from this camera angle. Once his scrotum moves away from her.
Her is an example of what mean
Check out jade 1st.mp4 around 1:50:10. You can see a good example of a grinding angle with his penis on top.
gofile.io
Here is similar angle with penetration
Collen ex marine gets fucked
bunkr.cr
Around 13:10 or -26:47
But again you the judge. And believe what you want to beileve.
Her is an example of what mean
Check out jade 1st.mp4 around 1:50:10. You can see a good example of a grinding angle with his penis on top.
Gofile - Cloud Storage Made Simple
Secure, fast and free cloud storage solution. Upload and share files instantly.
gofile.io
Here is similar angle with penetration
Collen ex marine gets fucked
Colleen ex Marine gets fucked with deep creampie FULL MOVIE Part 3 of 3 in 2128Kbps.mp4
File hosted for free on Bunkr.
But again you the judge. And believe what you want to beileve.
Last edited:
"
The 59-year-old actress, from New Zealand, previously explained that it had actually proved somewhat 'helpful' for her career-wise, despite the controversy it caused.
"As for Mark’s regrets about the film, I suppose that’s the point of taking these risks: you don’t really know how you’re going to respond," she told The Telegraph.
"You can’t control how it will affect your career, but if you don’t take risks you’re destined for a life of boring work. Intimacy was a censorship landmark.
"I remember Jane Campion, who had just made her film In the Cut with Meg Ryan, was really p***ed off with me that we were able to have such a frank oral sex scene."
https://www.ladbible.com/entertainm...ark-rylance-regrets-kerry-fox-083921-20251128 Updated 10:45 29 Nov 2025 GMT
No penertation.
"The iconic actor, who hails from Kent, has spoken of his regret about taking part in an unsimulated oral sex scene with co-star Kerry Fox."
What has Kerry Fox said about the sex scene in Intimacy?
Despite her co-star's qualms about the unsimulated oral sex scene, Fox has a much more positive perspective on it.The 59-year-old actress, from New Zealand, previously explained that it had actually proved somewhat 'helpful' for her career-wise, despite the controversy it caused.
"As for Mark’s regrets about the film, I suppose that’s the point of taking these risks: you don’t really know how you’re going to respond," she told The Telegraph.
"You can’t control how it will affect your career, but if you don’t take risks you’re destined for a life of boring work. Intimacy was a censorship landmark.
"I remember Jane Campion, who had just made her film In the Cut with Meg Ryan, was really p***ed off with me that we were able to have such a frank oral sex scene."
https://www.ladbible.com/entertainm...ark-rylance-regrets-kerry-fox-083921-20251128 Updated 10:45 29 Nov 2025 GMT
No penertation.
No where in that article does it say no penetration. The article's focus is on the fact of the very obvious unstimulated oral scene. But does not mention anything else. Do you really think the actors would voluntarily offer that info. Especially, if no one asked that particular question. I have read many articles/ interviews on this movie. I have never seen one that the Actors or Director said explicitly that any of the sex was simulated. Go check for yourself. Since the scene is filmed with their genitalia mostly in the dark. I don't think anyone thought that they could be doing it for real. So no one asked them. Some might say a case of missing the forest for the trees.
Since we are quoting articles.
What Patrice wanted was to capture the desperation of Jay and Claire's lovemaking. These intense sessions were called "the Wednesdays" and would punctuate the film, being different each time.
We are, of course, fascinated by what goes on in other couples' privacy. Their bodies, thoughts and conversation are compelling. They were for us as children and continue to be so. However, I can't help wondering whether sexuality is better written than filmed. Looking may be more erotic than reading; it is more immediate. But looking may also fail to capture the intricacies of feeling; it won't necessarily increase our understanding. In fact all it might do is make us embarrassed or conscious that we are watching a choreographed sexual act; it might merely make us feel left out.
Perhaps this is because of the way sexuality is usually portrayed on film. Patrice and I talked about keeping the camera close to the bodies; not over-lighting them, or making them look pornographically enticing or idealised. It will be a sexuality that isn't sanitised, symbolised or bland, that isn't selling anything. The point is to look at how difficult sex is, how terrifying, and what a darkness and obscenity our pleasures can be. Patrice will, therefore, have to make a sexually explicit film. To a certain extent the actors will have to go through what the characters experience, which will be difficult for everyone.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/56451/filming-intimacy
Reading this article one could infer that the sex was all real.
But again believe what you want. But personally, after brighting the video as much as possible, leveling out the vibrance , desaturating the color. adding back a little blue color, zoom in and watching the video in slow motion. And with the lack of artifacts that effective area in question. Honestly, can't believe that there is a question. I ask that you all do those steps and then tell me what you think.
Since we are quoting articles.
What Patrice wanted was to capture the desperation of Jay and Claire's lovemaking. These intense sessions were called "the Wednesdays" and would punctuate the film, being different each time.
We are, of course, fascinated by what goes on in other couples' privacy. Their bodies, thoughts and conversation are compelling. They were for us as children and continue to be so. However, I can't help wondering whether sexuality is better written than filmed. Looking may be more erotic than reading; it is more immediate. But looking may also fail to capture the intricacies of feeling; it won't necessarily increase our understanding. In fact all it might do is make us embarrassed or conscious that we are watching a choreographed sexual act; it might merely make us feel left out.
Perhaps this is because of the way sexuality is usually portrayed on film. Patrice and I talked about keeping the camera close to the bodies; not over-lighting them, or making them look pornographically enticing or idealised. It will be a sexuality that isn't sanitised, symbolised or bland, that isn't selling anything. The point is to look at how difficult sex is, how terrifying, and what a darkness and obscenity our pleasures can be. Patrice will, therefore, have to make a sexually explicit film. To a certain extent the actors will have to go through what the characters experience, which will be difficult for everyone.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/essays/56451/filming-intimacy
Reading this article one could infer that the sex was all real.
But again believe what you want. But personally, after brighting the video as much as possible, leveling out the vibrance , desaturating the color. adding back a little blue color, zoom in and watching the video in slow motion. And with the lack of artifacts that effective area in question. Honestly, can't believe that there is a question. I ask that you all do those steps and then tell me what you think.
Last edited:
It’s one of those scenes where the directors wanted to keep things mysterious. It reminds me of the movie *The Lover* with Jane March, where we see a very brief moment that might suggest actual sex between the young actress and the actress in her thirties; however, it’s not explicit enough to conclude that the sex was real.
In my opinion, these are deliberate choices by the directors, designed to pique curiosity without crossing the line into sexually explicit content.
We can only speculate about this kind of scene, but we’ll never know the whole story
In my opinion, these are deliberate choices by the directors, designed to pique curiosity without crossing the line into sexually explicit content.
We can only speculate about this kind of scene, but we’ll never know the whole story
Last edited: