Why do you assume the woman is a maid cleaning the house....she looks like a proud home owner to me....but I´ll let your lazy observation slide if you post yourself in boy lingerie cleaning with a bucket on your head.

Looks like it was shot on film... 16mm?

yes it was 16 mm- with some 35mm stills sometime laid on top

the best I have seen for a long time...modern
sexy,fun....I love it..more...

I agree. Also very cliche (filmed by a male, objectifying women while trying to do the opposite, etc.) I feel like the people thinking it's a great concept and giving such high praise are just because it certainly is on the verge of soft core porn.

Well the title of this piece is quite simple: A girl does the cleaning in sexy underwear.
It does not pretend to be anything else and doesn't seem to be meant to be over analyzed like this. So yes, maybe Nilz you are trying too hard to read something intellectual, trying to break the images into a deep meaning, one that speaks about the objectification of the women...
I think that being able to translate sensuality that well, but through an interesting , different, twisted kind of way, in itself is some form of art. And its not like its provocative, unnecessary or disrespectful nudity...
The curiosity, desire, amazement, and sometimes obsessiveness that men has always had for the women's body is in itself a never-ending source of creativity, and it grinds my gears that every time nudity is explored in short films, experimental or fiction, it is always over analyzed, as if it had to have a deep intellectual meaning... Art school students, especially film school students (I'm one too!) tend to be very stiff and square when nudity comes in to subject... And many of them end up inventing all sorts of ridiculous sophisticated purpose or pretexts to show nudity in their work, and appear to me as much more disrespectful and dishonest directors... (not saying that any of you two are, i do understand the debate)

I do think that it is unnecessarily hard to call it "nothing else then well shot well edited soft core porn". I can show you well shot well edited soft core porn, and it has absolutely nothing at all it common with that video...

We can see that there is an overall vision, interesting ideas and original visual games going on, and also maybe a deep reflection about women, and maybe not. Who cares. Directors are not meant to defend what they create, what a boring and predictable world would that be. I remember Lars Von Trier saying he does not need to defend or explain what Antichrist means, how it portrays women, men, relationship, craziness, and I think he is right. Being a director is also having a license to create something from your instinct and guts, and god knows this is essential to the purest forms of art!!

Or anyways that's how I see things!
so let us not judge either the intentions of the author, nor the pertinence of the viewer's comments, its not a peaceful vibe...

I would say a girl with a bucket on her head against the wall, or a girl flat sticking out from under a carpet are visual images that point towards it trying to be more than "A girl does the cleaning in sexy underwear." But what ever that aspect is is way overshadowed by all of the barely covered pussy that we see throughout the film.

This isn't even about nudity for me, the least pornographic part of the film was the end where she was completely naked. I think nudity is something we should all become more comfortable with. But that isn't what these images within the film were about, the images were about creating a desire to have sex with the shapes and flesh we see in front of us.

Sorry man, as artists or as people, we are responsible for what we create. You can try to rationalize it any way you like, but art effects people, whether that is the artists intention or not. Every one's definitions of what is constructive and destructive are different and moldable, so my comment wasn't to tell the director they were doing the right thing or not.

He doesn't have to defend it, and it looks like he won't,
If the film is trying to critique something then I was trying to understand what that was, because right now it is pretty clear to me that what ever the message is, my primal instinct to take those panties off, overrides that, which to me seems to be the point. That is why I called it pornography, because more or less the film seems to intend on being arousing. I guess you could use the slightly artsier term "erotica" if you like.

Even though I keep calling it pornography and erotica, I don't think that is it's intention, but in this context, on vimeo, with no further explanation, I don't think that it can go beyond that for most people, and with subjects like these, where it could effect the opposite of what you are going for, then that is a problem.

vogue.co.uk/news/daily/100120-damaris-and-justin-andersons-film-.aspx

basically an ad for Designer underwear "Damaris"

Well while I agree with your points Nilz, the whole film made me very uncomfortable with how gratuitous the objectification was. The shots you mention near the end do seems to hint at a deeper intention but don't really follow through on it. Regardless I'd say it was pretty beautifully shot from a cinematography perspective.