To use Serpent's phrase, the "SWOP posse" (hey, we can put that on a t-shirt, Serpent!) viewed "The Price of Pleasure" this weekend at two separate venues in Chicago: DePaul University and Columbia College. My review is obviously biased but it is not going to concentrate solely on criticizing the technical aspects of the documentary. I have comments about the audience as well.
The Audience:
The audience last night at DePaul seemed a lot more diverse and a little more genuinely intelligent. Perhaps I am being prejudice since I am a student there and since I have an enormous capacity for vanity since I know I am very intelligent then all other Demons (school mascot), by virtue of being fellow classmates are at least as equally intelligent. And I am definitely not saying this to hint that DPU students who screened the film had the same reaction I did. However, the comments from all sides of the aisle sounded well-thought out and mature.
At Columbia there were far too many pompous asses that were attempting to sound more learned than they were. No offense to other CC students (me mum went there!) but there was this one guy I could have gladly slapped the smirk off his little pinchy face.** Maybe it was the timbre of the voices of most of those students but it was so "Yes, I have almost completed my second quarter in college and I KNOW SO MUCH!!!" But...I could be projecting.
The Film:
Content aside, my personal pornified views aside, the film was not objective. Especially considering the fact that the two credited Senior Consultants were Gail Dines and Robert Jensen. I don't have a problem with them voicing their views that they think are based on incontrovertible fact. But there needed to be a balance. Personally, the most obnoxious non-objective element was the music. Bethdeath and I were ragging on it during the DPU screening. Mainly it is the music at the end of the film that was so melodramatic. I felt like I was watching a war film and the scene being shown is when the hero(es) fell in battle. Anyone who pays attention to music in fictional or nonfictional film knows there are cues. Music is specifically chosen to underscore a point being made. Even in a fictional film, music being casually listened to by the characters is rarely, rarely accidental. I'm no film student but I love watching movies, especially scifi/fantasy movies, and I know that much.
There were many slow-motion or zoom in shots that were obviously chosen for pure shock value. The movie showed a testimony given by a woman in silhouette about her husband's stash of porn pictures hidden in a dictionary. The dramatic re-enactment, which I felt was unnecessary, showed the pictures tumbling out of the book in slow-motion and this extremely dramatic music being played in the background. Honestly. I don't have a problem with her testimony being included in the film; it would be necessary in a truly (attempted) objective film. But the presentation of her testimony was manipulative. It could have just been her describing her husband's actions, her reaction to his actions and that's it. It would have made the necessary impact. But the slow-motion and melodramatic music? No. Not needed.
There were several other shots, especially showing SM porn and the more aggressive porn, where the music served to underscore the opinion of the filmmakers that YOU SHOULD NOT LIKE THIS! PORN=BAD! Of course both Robert Wosnitzer (co-producer) and filmmaker Chyng Sun fervently declared their objective status but with evidence like this, I cannot believe it. At all.
In my opinion, most of the statements made by the anti-pornography side and the narrator, which predominated, should have been phrased differently for an "objective" look. For example, at the beginning the narrator asks, "How do these pornographic images shape our perceptions of sex and relationships?", instead of "Can they...?" or "Should they...?" To me, this is a huge and importance difference. Pornographic images certainly can shape perceptions and for some people they do. This also begs the question of whether or not this is a negative thing. It is negative, definitely, if you take the default view that pornography is bad. The way the question is phrase does not consider the possibility that the consumption of pornography will not shape the viewers perception of sex. Should porn shape perceptions? Yes and no. I think it can be a good outlet to watch depictions of a sexual act the viewer may already have a burgeoning interest in or for people already participating in such acts, suggestions for variety but it the average porn is still not for educational purposes. But this doesn't make it bad. For the no part to that answer, it shouldn't be used as force to shape the perception of a person who is uninterested.
This lack of consideration is underscored by Gail Dines declaring later on that "Pornography leaks into the everyday world of your life," and that one can't just "zip up [their] pants then zip up [their] brains". Why not? David Law made the comment at the DPU screening last night that the movie was a bit misanthropic at times and I think he was pretty much referring to this. The idea that people, specifically men, are just mindless automatons. You see it, you do it is Dines' view when it comes to pornography. That statement and opinion should be insulting to every conscious human being. We'd all be suffering from multiple personality disorders if we adopted the behavior and persona of everyone we see in a film!
Continuing on this point of view, Pamela Paul stated later that some men she interviewed for her book told her that "porn images" come "unbidden" during sex. Okay. And I'm sure those aren't the only images that come "unbidden" during sex but it is curious that there is an acknowledgment of consciousness during sex when the prevailing view of that side is that people are mindless when it comes to sex. As I was saying, I wonder if Ms. Paul asked what other images come unbidden during sex for these men? I doubt it is just those nasty porn images.
Other comments made could have been rephrased to still criticize pornographic depictions without condemning the entire genre were two others posed by, again, Gail Dines: 1) That porn is a way to understand relationships for people who watch porn. Not that it is a way some people who watch porn try to understand relationships, which would be accurate. But all porn users, period. (2.) That African-American women are depicted as animalistic whores that can't get enough sex. First, her use of the word whore as an insult. Thanks a lot, Gail. Next, if she were really concerned with specific issues instead of an all-encompassing, naked hatred of porn what she or any other researcher would ask is, "Why does it seem as though sexually voracious (or adventurous or open, etc.) black women are depicted in a light that would shame them for being very sexual in porn?" And actually, this is a subject I will be tackling in a post within the next week. Probably by tomorrow night. She also made a statement about the depiction of black men in porn that, I have to agree, is very racist in content, but I really did not want to dissect that one. Mainly because I kinda agree on that count. The myth of the black man with the huge cock is just that, a myth, very racist in origin and that simply doesn't exist in large numbers in real life. I say this as a woman who has banged many black men including the one I am with now. Their sizes are as average as any other Tom, Harry or hehe Dick. But I will say that I appreciate the porn films that do make a more obvious attempt to mock and subvert and satirize the myth.
I know.
Shortly before displaying statistics that are highly questionable, they explained that the movies were chosen from Adult Video News' best sellers list. The titles highlighted by way of sending them via cgi sailing toward the audience on the screen, were those with the titles that would shock and titillate those who don't watch porn (or wouldn't admit to it in public). I will not say that those movies should not have been considered or highlighted (because I love porn titles, they're hilarious and kitsch if nothing else) but honestly, why not give the same treatment to titles like Pirates, Briana Loves Jenna, or Teradise among others? But they wanted to make sure to shock the audience into moral indigation with titles like Meat My Ass, which, speaking of, would serve the double purpose to disgust any PETAesque vegetarians or vegans viewing this (of course, ignoring that Jenna Jameson is vegetarian and a publicized PETA supporter).
These are the statistics given in the film upon serious analysis of its contents by people who know better than any of the consumers and definitely any of the performers or producers:
89.8% verbal or physical aggression
48% verbal aggression
82.2% physical aggression
94.4% directed at women
Now, all of this seems to obfuscate for the viewer of the documentary the fact that this is still scripted, often overdramatized fiction. Personally, I have a problem with people voicing misogynistic comments in public and having violent actions that reinforce said words. But that is referring solely to comments and actions IN REAL LIFE, not any sort of scripted fiction no matter how real it looks on film.
This flows into the later concern voiced by one of the academic researchers whose name I can't recall. She complained about what she implicitly thought was a false enjoyment by a female performer during a gagging scene and the apparent callousness of the male performer not stopping as she gagged but continuing with the scene. Never mind, the gagging scene was the point (fetish, perhaps?) of the movie, it was a staged scene agreed to by both actor and actress in negotiations. I would venture a guess that some sort of safeword was established just in case it went too far for the actress at that time. Of course, she isn't taking into account that like every other film, mainstream and popular porn alike, EDITING! A good editor can make a single scene shot twenty different times look seamless.
All of the academics were anti-pornography and not one of them was pro. I asked Chyng Sun about this lack of balance from the academic standpoint at the screening at Columbia College today. She and Wosnitzer danced around the question and never actually answered it. I asked if she tried to get in contact with Professor Nadine Strossen, Dr. Marty Klein or Dr. Annie Sprinkle among others. The response was everything except an answer to my question, though later Sun said that she talked to Prof. Strossen but most of her statements were about free speech and that wasn't what the film was about. I would like to know what questions Chyng Sun asked Prof. Strossen because I cannot believe that the latter would have only talked about free speech if the questions had reflected those posed in the film.
The Price of Pleasure also made a casual but undeniable link between the United Nations definition of torture and the depiction of torture in SM porn. No, I misspoke. The link was not casual, it was obnoxious now that I think more on it. A drawing of a torture victim from the UN handbook on torture (I'm guessing from the way it looked) was shown immediately followed by a similar pose held by an actress in an SM porn film. To me, it said, THIS=THAT. That there is no difference between, oh, say, the torture in Abu Ghraib upon men who ARE NOT actors who did NOT sign a contract consenting to those actions and certainly DID NOT benefit from said actions...to an actress who DID sign a contract and DID benefit from said actions financially or sexually but hopefully and probably BOTH.
At this point another subjective question in an "objective" documentary was posed, "What makes torture/pain sexually arousing?" I feel a more objective question, while still critiquing, would have been, "Can these images be sexually arousing?" or "Are these images of abnormal behavior and what is considered abnormal in sexual activities?" But to ask questions like that one has to assume that they do not already have the answers. Again, this is where the melodramatic music makes its final and most wretching appearance.
The movie ends with a possibly traumatized but certainly morally indignant college student interviewed earlier who declared, "This is not sex. This is not how I wanted to experience sex." Well, no, it is sex. It shouldn't been considered sex ed and even some porn performers would agree on that. I think it is perfectly fine that pornography, especially the more "exotic" sex, is not how this young man wanted to experience sex. But that is how some people want to experience sex some of the time. The way he made the statement sounded as though he did not explore sex outside of pornography or that he was incapable of doing so. I wonder if he may consider himself a sex addict or something if that's the case. I've noticed a link there.
I could say more, but honestly, I'm tired of typing. SerpentLibertine will have her own post up at some point and I'm sure she'll talk about things that I did not. Naturally I'll post a specific link when she does that. And that's it folks. My opinion on watching The Price of Pleasure twice within twenty-four hours. I think I need a straitjacket.
**A Star Wars reference was made in relation to ppl not separating fantasy from reality (dude asked if I knew any SW nerds and I was like, I am one) and I really didn't get a chance to really shut him down the way I would have if I didn't think the moderators, if you will, would have used that as an excuse to cut me off. They were already looking for one. I am a huge Star Wars geek. So much so that upon viewing Viva Zapata! for a history class, I noticed that the villianous General Huerta (true historical figure and bad guy in La Revolution) said the line, "Wipe them out. All of them." In The Phantom Menace, the future Emperor Palpatine, in his "true face" (according to him in RotS) as Darth Sidious gave the EXACT SAME command to his Separatist cronies to wipe out the joined Naboo and Gungan forces. I told the girl sitting next to me, "ZOMG! GL totally used that in TPM when Sidious wanted to wipe out the Naboo!!!!111!eleven!" (she gave me a blank look in response). I just geeked all over her that day. I know George Lucas MUST HAVE seen this movie and borrowed that line because I know The Flanneled One is a Mexican Revolution aficionado, used that as an inspiration for the Rebel Alliance as well as for Princess Leia's cinnamon bun hairstyle, which was a real hairstyle popular among women in certain socio-economic classes at that time in Mexico. THAT is how much of a Star Wars geek I am.**
10 comments:
Hi. Found you through your comments on this film at BPPA. Thanks a lot for this -- I've not seen the film and am curious about it.
One thing struck me, though:
"The response was everything except an answer to my question, though later Sun said that she talked to Prof. Strossen but most of her statements were about free speech and that wasn't what the film was about. I would like to know what questions Chyng Sun asked Prof. Strossen because I cannot believe that the latter would have only talked about free speech if the questions had reflected those posed in the film."
I think you're right here, but I also wonder about whether Strossen was making on-point comments about free speech. I've noticed that a lot of the time, ANY comment about free speech gets taken as off-point by anti-porn folks. Like, "I'm talking about how this stuff programs men to hurt women, why'd you bring in the Constitution?"
Which totally ignores that part of what it means to defend porn on free-speech grounds is to say that even IF pornography is speech that's potentially harmful to women, people are actually BETTER OFF living in a world where they aren't protected from dangerous speech, and that just about any legal avenue for "stopping porn culture" is GOING to involve restricting that world.
I mean, yes, it *is* possible that free speech is Strossen's favorite topic and that she gave some canned answers that awkwardly sidestepped questions like "What do you think repeated pornography use does? Does it alter people's fantasies?" But I don't think the pure fact that she spoke a lot about free speech meant she was being off point. It seems more likely to me to mean that Sun and Wosnitzer decided to ignore those defenses because they wanted to artificially narrow the discussion.
But, well, haven't seen it so I could be wrong.
Excelent review, Apasia..but then, I'm more than slightly biased. :-)
Anthony
AHAHAH, EXCELLENT review! I wish I coulda been with y'all.
@ Trinity: Yeah, I totally agree with you. That's why I REALLY want to know exactly what Chyng Sun asked Prof. Strossen and if Sun told Strossen specifically what she was working on. I dunno. But Nadine Strossen has done SO MUCH work on the issues surrounding pornography, albeit mostly legal in their aspect, that I am sure she would have some educated answers that could have been on point for the film. Alas, we'll probably never know.
@ Anthony: Thanks! Yeah, bias is a bitch but we all have it. Like I said, I try to be as unbiased as possible. I do acknowledge the good and bad of porn or any other sex work...unlike the folks involved with this film.
@ Ren: "AHAHAH, EXCELLENT review! I wish I coulda been with y'all."
Heh, me too! Although, that'd be 'cruel and unusual punishment' for our opposition. Nonetheless, it woulda been awesome.
Trinity –
Basically, what you said, concerning the importance of free speech issues in the porn debate.
I think that Robert Jensen's last couple of books on the subject ("Getting Off" and, some ten years earlier, "Pornography: The Consumption and Production of Inequality") clarifies where he's coming from on not really addressing free speech concerns. Basically, he's saying that free speech issues are often the beginning and end of discussions on pornography and that this constitutes what he calls the "constitutional dodge" – that once you've established porn as protected speech, that there's nothing further to discuss. (And that's certainly something I, among others, have been accused of saying, I think unfairly.) Jensen states that he wants to go ahead with discussion of pornography and its "harms", whether or not porn is protected speech or not.
And that's all well and good as far as it goes, but I think when you're dealing with people who seem to have a very thinly-veiled pro-censorship agenda, I don't think you can simply put that side of the conversation aside. One has to ask whether they even agree with some of the basic tenets of strong free speech protections – that even if a work expresses some noxiously bad idea, that it still has a right to be expressed, and, if not, who decides what ideas and images are so wrong that they should not see the light of day. (And certainly, this is where I would start to part company with Jensen, since he endorses some very problematic MacKinnon-esque views about speech in his contributions to the anthology he edited, "Freeing the First Amendment".) If these people are of the view that the state (or some vaguely defined entity like "the community", "women", etc acting with the blessing of the state) should intervene in controversies over images and ideas to punish the speech of the "privileged" (however they define that), then I really don't have any sympathy for their position at all, and I really don't think there's much basis for further discussion.
But if they agree in principle with the idea that ideas and images, even bad ones, in the realm of politics and art are deserving of protection as speech, then I would like to know what do they claim makes pornography different. And this is where all of their emphasis on "these are the behavioral effects of pornography" fall flat – because, guess what, all kinds of ideas and images often do affect behavior, often in very powerful ways. (Though in much more complicated and nuanced ways than the "monkey see/monkey do" behaviorist model that the antis seem stuck on.) The presumption behind free speech rights is that ideas and images are granted protection, even though they might affect attitudes and behavior, for better or worse.
In other words, I don't think the discussion of porn is separable from politics of speech and expression in general, even if you're going to momentarily not discuss legislative strategies.
Also, I look at this way – the context of where somebody is coming from really does have an effect on the conversation at hand. If the subject is barebacking in the gay community, the kind of conversation that you're going to have with somebody who's purely interested in the public health aspect of this behavior is going to be very different from somebody who brings the issue up as part of an anti-gay agenda.
@ IACB: "And that's all well and good as far as it goes, but I think when you're dealing with people who seem to have a very thinly-veiled pro-censorship agenda, I don't think you can simply put that side of the conversation aside."
Exactly. Abso-fucking-lutely. The motivations behind censorship are so often "Well, since I (or that person over there) can't handle [insert 'vice' here] then we have to ban it!" The censorship represents the interpretation of the content.
"One has to ask whether they even agree with some of the basic tenets of strong free speech protections – that even if a work expresses some noxiously bad idea, that it still has a right to be expressed, and, if not, who decides what ideas and images are so wrong that they should not see the light of day."
"I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I hate the Klan and I'm not so hot on Nazis, Zionists, Black Panthers or any racial/ethnic/cultural extremists, but they have the right to exist and speak under our Constitution. As a population, what WE can do is turn our backs and ignore their tracts.
"But if they agree in principle with the idea that ideas and images, even bad ones, in the realm of politics and art are deserving of protection as speech, then I would like to know what do they claim makes pornography different. And this is where all of their emphasis on "these are the behavioral effects of pornography" fall flat – because, guess what, all kinds of ideas and images often do affect behavior, often in very powerful ways."
Yes and yes. I would like to know what makes pornography different too from someone who could successfully fulfill that qualification, which I do not think is that difficult to accomplish.
"what he calls the "constitutional dodge" – that once you've established porn as protected speech, that there's nothing further to discuss."
Yeah, that is unfair. I mean, my position is basically, "Yeah, a lot of porn is formulaic, and that ranges from silly to creepy to troublesome. But where YOU say the solution is destroying the industry, I say the solution is more: more variation, more quality, more seriousness.
Anti-porn feminists complain that pornographers will never listen to women because women's fantasies don't sell. I can't say I get that -- romance novel publishers seem to do pretty well fro themselves -- but even if it's true, isn't it easier to get the people with the cameras listening if you say "I'll buy THIS" rather than saying "No decent person would buy THAT?"
God I'm so sad I missed out on fun times with the SWOP posse. Excellent synopsis!
Here we are at that goddamn BDSM v. torture shit again. I've gone off about this before, so I'll hold off. It makes me want to spank them all! *grrrowl*
It was a party, Jane, to be sure. Wish you coulda been there, though!
"Here we are at that goddamn BDSM v. torture shit again. I've gone off about this before, so I'll hold off. It makes me want to spank them all! *grrrowl*"
*sigh* Yeah. Every time I think they'll finally lay off that nonsense they come right back with another permutation of it.
Post a Comment