film theory
Reading this made me think of Brian Dauth:
http://fleshbot.com/sex/flesh-flicks/flesh-flicks-giving-alexis-amore-some-props-291415.php
Flesh Flicks: Giving Alexis Amore Some Props
Now when the establishing shot of a scene is a close up on a giant
purple dildo/vibrator, isn’t it pretty much a given that the device
in question will figure prominently in the action? (That’s called
“foreshadowing.”) And when there are other phallic objects in the
room that usually means the director is trying to establish a
particular visual motif, in this case to get the viewer thinking
about the insertion of large objects. (That’s called “mise-en-
scène.”) So how does Alexis Amore completely ignore the purple
elephant in the room and only think to put it inside her after the
considerable deed is already over? (That’s called “missing the
point.”) We will never understand abstract cinema.