In Europe, quite a few pornographic films from the early 1980s were shot in two versions, hard and soft - partly because the industry wasn't sure where things were heading and partly to keep their feet in two rather separated markets. This film is an example for that.
Sadly, it is also an example that shows the fundamental problems of this approach. The soft version suffers from an unprofessional cast that can't act and an over-reliance on sex scenes: it is not wall-to-wall, but comes uncomfortably close, interrupting the narrative and ultimately failing to pick it up again. The hard version enjoys production values modern porn makers can only dream about, but the photography of the coital scenes is unimaginative and rather anonymous, making one wonder how often body doubles were engaged. The smutty dialogue has also badly aged: its novelty value is lost, revealing so much clearer its unsuitability for the historical context in question.
Sadly, it is also an example that shows the fundamental problems of this approach. The soft version suffers from an unprofessional cast that can't act and an over-reliance on sex scenes: it is not wall-to-wall, but comes uncomfortably close, interrupting the narrative and ultimately failing to pick it up again. The hard version enjoys production values modern porn makers can only dream about, but the photography of the coital scenes is unimaginative and rather anonymous, making one wonder how often body doubles were engaged. The smutty dialogue has also badly aged: its novelty value is lost, revealing so much clearer its unsuitability for the historical context in question.