Taboos and Catch-22s

davemarc davemarc at panix.com
Sat Jan 25 18:02:12 CST 1997


On the issue of the Larry Flynt movie and his "image," isn't
it...ironic...at least somewhat so...that

1.  For the film to portray Flynt's life and work realistically, it would
have to include graphic sexual imagery.

2.  Such graphic sexual imagery would earn the film an NC-17 rating in the
US market and therefore earn it an "obscene" label and, in all likelihood,
even less money than it's already earned.

3.  So, in deference to standards of decency and commercialism, the film
avoids pornography and portrays Flynt's life and work in an unrealistic way
that people who hate Flynt's pornography still find offensive and even
dangerous.

Seeing Hustler is supposedly "dangerous" because it's so degrading to
women.  But in this case, not seeing Hustler is also "dangerous" because it
makes its publisher seem less "dangerous" and more of a hero.  Or role
model?  

I actually see similar conditions applied to supposedly wholesome subject
matter.  Classic Disney films routinely earned "thumbs up" from ratings
boards and the general population.  Yet their support of the status quo
hardly offered much hope for women who wanted to be anything other than a
happy housewife.  Plus there's the racism of Song of the South, the
unretouched Fantasia, and the general Caucasian view of the USA as
evidenced in much of Disney's work.  Double plus there's the racism and
nastiness of Disney himself.  Don't know how much would be gained by
comparing Disney and Flynt, but I do think it's interesting to note how
much less of a  myth of wholesomeness surrounds Flynt than Disney.

What it boils down to, I think, is that many many people who are terrified
by the way media shape our thoughts and actions want to prevent that from
happening through censorship.  I think, though, that centuries of
censorship show that it's a simplistic and inadequate vehicle for
establishing or sustaining social values.  It is, however, somewhat
effective as a vehicle for terrorizing, inhibiting, and misleading the
populace.  It's certainly no substitute for encouraging creative thinking
and free, non-violent expression.

Shit.  Did I just build some sort of motherfucking podium?  Sorry,

davemarc



More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list