I have learned how words can constitute the foundation of an entire profession, both in my previous work as an actor, but especially in course of my law studies. While I may have chosen for my life to be more about things I can see and touch, I am now toying with an idea in my head, which – once again – takes me back to the study of words. A word, to be precise.

P.O.R.N. There, I said it!

I am currently involved in a film project in Vienna which eventually will lead to the production of, well, a film – a sexually explicit film. Now, judging by the incredulous and at times hilarious reactions I get from my friends and family (and probably by your own reaction, dear reader), this automatically seems to bring me into the neighbourhood of 1990s thrilling “Missionary Impossible”, epic series like “Game of Bones”, or the timeless Christmas classic “Tits a Wonderful Life”.[1]source: https://runt-of-the-web.com/porn-parody-titles#1 But, does it really? Am I a dirty mind who’s about to submerge into the shady and raunchy outskirts of our society? I don’t know about that, yet. For now, all I will be descending into is the shady (and dusty) part of a library in order to find an answer to the question: What is porn?[2]Ok, fine. It was just my dusty bookshelf.

Raunchy rustling book pages

In university I have learned to approach a question systematically. Despite all the big fuss around its …circumstances, porn(ography) itself is just a word. Well, admittedly words in the context of pornography have so far mainly been the source for some involuntary laughter. But at least someone might have bothered to write a firm definition or something by now. I guess, the place to go would be a dictionary…

I adore textbook dictionaries. With my favourite English dictionary gently resting in my lap, a growing sensation within me gives rise to hope for the fulfillment of my current and deep, veery deep, desire: A generally applicable definition of the term pornography (what were you thinking?!).

Well, my hope wilted. What I found was surprisingly so biased that I needed to check all the other dictionaries in my reach, hoping that Duden, Petit Robert and La Rousse had a less derogatory attitude.

Here’s what caused my bafflement. It’s from my Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary[3]Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Third Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2008:

pornography […] noun [U] (informal porn) Disapproving books, magazines, films etc. with no artistic value which describe or show sexual acts or naked people in a way that is intended to be sexually exciting but would be considered unpleasant or offensive by many people […]

Wow! The world’s oldest publishing house seems to have a rather conservative and dismissive understanding of porn. Go figure. [4]Cambridge University Press’ online dictionary provides an updated but no better definition: “literature, pictures, films etc. that are indecent in a sexual way“.

I am, though, no step further in finding out what pornography really is. Quite the opposite. I was specifically turning to a dictionary because I always assumed that their definitions have somewhat of an objective quality. But if publishers take the liberty to dilute their definitions with opinions, I may find more definitions of pornography than the scandals this genre has caused over the centuries. Or decades, or millennia, for what it’s worth. At least, I now know a little bit about what porn not is: Naked skin on film tumbling and melting into each other with “artistic value” is safe from the judgement of doom and a film-producer’s nightmare: The feared X-Rating![5]In the United States, this rating has been replaced by the NC-17 rating. I highly recommend Kirby Dick’s investigative documentary “This Films Is Not Yet Rated” for more information … Continue reading

If there’s hope, it lies with the French

Certainly, the French must provide a more benevolent take on the matter. After all they invented amour fou, ménage á trois and oral sex (supposedly). Here’s what I found in my 2011 edition of Le Petit Robert[6]Le Petit Robert – Dictionnaire alphabéthique et analogique de la langue français, Dictionnaires le Robert, 2011:

PORNOGRAPHIE […] n. f. […] ▪ Répresentation (par écrits, dessins, peintures, photos, images) de choses obscènes destinées à être communiquées au public […][7]The depiction (in writing, drawings, paintings, photographs, images) of obscene matters which are intended to be published[…] (translation by the author)

Similarly in Le Dictionnaire Larousse[8]Le Dictionnaire Larousse Maxipoche, Larousse Dictionnaires, 2015:

 

pornographie n.f. […] Représentation complaisante de sujets obscènes, dans une œuvre littéraire ou cinématographique.[9]The complacent depiction of obscene matters in a work of literature or cinema. (translation by the author)

This is getting obscene, erm, absurd: While I thought that porn is all about fucking, there is no mentioning of anything sexual in these definitions at all!

Well, it seems that I am not the only one confused. In history there have been numerous overstrained individuals, affected by the confusion, hysteria and helplessness that porn is said to invoke in humans. Individuals, who desperately turn to judicial courts in order to help tem find a definitive answer on the matter that really matters: Is this obscene? (And may I call it hence porn?). We are entering the realm of jurisprudence. And as I am thinking of long black robes, weird wigs and phallus-like hammers banging on hard wood, I am afraid I’ve lost connection to why I came here in the first place.

Obscene Intentions

The question that led me here is this: When a film shows people having sex – explicitly – while following an engaging narrative (no, I don’t mean the mere build-up towards orgasm) and depicts the actors and actresses as having complex emotions and needs, can this film automatically be categorized as porn? So far, dictionaries have proven to be rather vague and allowed only for a categorization on rather subjective grounds (“no artistic value”; “obscene matters”). This categorization, however, comes with substantial implications for film-makers, as it drastically reduces possibilities to advertise their films, let alone to make them available to a wider audience in most societies. One better not relies on dictionaries to decide over the fate of pieces of art! Enter Jurists: It is their job to summarize complex matters of society and put them into words (laws, rulings and judicial opinions, to be precise). The thing is, societies are becoming incresingly complex and having a rule for every single tiny aspect of our social life would be overwhelming (and a real pain to write down). That’s why jurists write their texts in a way that they cover a wide range of similar matters. Hence the term “obscene”. In societies based on the rule of law, a complex system of freedoms on the one hand, and rights of the state to intervene (regulate, prohibit, censor, etc.) is constantly negotiating with each other behind the scenes. When creating movies, the Freedom of Artistic Expression as a fundamental right[10]While some “legal instruments” explicitly name Freedom of Artistic Expression in their texts, for example Art. 5 Sec. 3 of the German Constitution, others understand it as part of the … Continue reading is the reason why many outcries or revulsion have been brought to a sudden halt: “What the…?! Ohh, it’s art!” So, artists may overstep some boundaries and may even display their contumacious creations publicly. A healthy democratic society will have to tolerate of not benefit from it. But there are some lines that better not be crossed with sexuality being the most forbidden of all fruits – which jurits, the most proficient jugglers with words, have demonstrated again and again. One ruling in particular stands out and has made history: In 1961, an Ohio art theatre owner was charged for “possessing and exhibiting” Louis Malle’s The Lovers. While the film shows some mild sex-ish scenes, what arguably really blew puritan American circuits was the depiction of a married woman in bed with a stranger and then leave her burgeois husband. After subjected to a fine of 2.500 $ (a huge amount of money at that time) or incarceration, the theatre owner climbed up the judicial ladder and, three years alter, stood in front of the mighty judges of the United States Supreme Court. The judges then busied themselves with the juggling of words, one of them they threw up in the air the highest: Obscene. Clearly, the film was a piece of art and therefore protected by the American Constitution. But if it was obscene, this protection was void so as to protect the American public from its content. Many European art films would fall victim to this awfully vague legal term before American courts, but not this time: The Supreme Court overruled the previous court’s decision simply because the sex really was not that dirty and the (hidden) agenda to prohibit the depiction of a woman committing adultery was not enough to overstep the constitutional protection of art. After all it was 1964! But what really stands out is the frankness of one of the judges, describing just how much sexuality on screen was subject to highly subjective (and therefore arbitrary) opinions by a few. On the matter if Malle’s The Lovers qualifies as “hard-core pornography”, Justice Potter Steward wrote: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description […]. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”[11]Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964); emphasis by author.

Is it worth it?

At this point, I begin to question if it really matters what other people deem porn, if all we do is trying to find excuses to ban sexual explicity from public display. Since 1964, the productions of, I guess, 90 per cent of all pornographic material focus on uninspirational, wild, hard and disconnected humping and it has become a common belief that pornography is not art. Period. However, there is some light on the horizon. In 2005, on the British Board of Film Classification’s decision to allow Michael Winterbottom’s very explicit 9 Songs for cinematic release, Sue Clarke, the board’s director of communications, said: “The intent of a sex film is sexual arousal. That is not the intention behind this film.”[12]https://www.theguardian.com/film/2005/jan/24/1 While her assessment is also highly subjective (I personally periodically aroused while I watched this film), there is an acknowledgement that if a film wants to tell more than just plain-old-sex, than this needs to be taken into consideration. I agree. And close all those dictionaries lying in front of me and put them back onto their shelves. I better start working on that movie.

 

 

References

References
1 source: https://runt-of-the-web.com/porn-parody-titles#1
2 Ok, fine. It was just my dusty bookshelf.
3 Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Third Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2008
4 Cambridge University Press’ online dictionary provides an updated but no better definition: “literature, pictures, films etc. that are indecent in a sexual way“.
5 In the United States, this rating has been replaced by the NC-17 rating. I highly recommend Kirby Dick’s investigative documentary “This Films Is Not Yet Rated” for more information on the Motion Picture Association of America’s at times rather arbitrary rating procedure and its effect on American media production.
6 Le Petit Robert – Dictionnaire alphabéthique et analogique de la langue français, Dictionnaires le Robert, 2011
7 The depiction (in writing, drawings, paintings, photographs, images) of obscene matters which are intended to be published[…] (translation by the author)
8 Le Dictionnaire Larousse Maxipoche, Larousse Dictionnaires, 2015
9 The complacent depiction of obscene matters in a work of literature or cinema. (translation by the author)
10 While some “legal instruments” explicitly name Freedom of Artistic Expression in their texts, for example Art. 5 Sec. 3 of the German Constitution, others understand it as part of the much wider Freedom of Expression, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
11 Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964); emphasis by author.
12 https://www.theguardian.com/film/2005/jan/24/1