A Criminal Intent to Arouse
Right now several dozen people are sitting together in the dark in a small theater in the Fitzroy district of Melbourne Australia. Along with the theater owners and the MUFF festival organizers they are about to become party to a crime. They are about to be party to the public exhibtion of Damon and Hunter: Doing it Together, a sexually explicit film that has been officially rated X by the Australian government. Because it is X-rated, it is illegal to present Damon and Hunter publicly, even to a theater full of adults who know exactly what they’ve come to see. Because it is X-rated, it’s even illegal to sell Damon and Hunter in many parts of Australia.
We could have challenged this rating (as 9 Songs did), but it’s rather costly (about $8,000) with no certainty of success – too much for a small studio like Comstock Films. So our lovely little film about love and sex goes into the world as a bit of a pariah, a scarlet letter X emblazened on its chest.
So as much as it is a celebration of sex and love, the public exhibtion and distribution of Damon and Hunter is a wilful act of defiance, a challenge to the status quo, a pointed question – why is the depiction of joyous, passionate, carnal love treated like a crime?
Meanwhile, in another part of the Common Wealth, The Tate Modern, one of Englands most prestigeous museums is preparing to show Destricted, a collection of sexually explicit shorts. Says the British newspaper The Telegraph:
“Destricted, an Anglo-American production, is a two-hour compilation of seven short films made by artists and independent film-makers who were commissioned to “explore the fine line where art and pornography intersect”.“It is supervised by Gaspar Noé, the French director whose 2002 film Irreversible featured a nine-minute rape scene. Critics who watched it at the Sundance and Cannes film festivals say it leaves little to the imagination.
“It features numerous acts of sexual intercourse. The contribution of the British artist Sam Taylor-Wood, the wife of the Old Etonian art dealer Jay Jopling, is an eight-minute scene of a man masturbating outdoors in Death Valley. Another section shows a man having sex with the driveshaft of a 50-ton lorry.
“After considerable agonising, the British Board of Film Classification granted an 18 rating for Destricted this week, to be released uncut on DVD. But it said that it must carry a warning that it “contains strong, real sex”.
“A source at the board described the film as “awful”. Unusually, it was not approved until it had been seen by the board’s president, Sir Quentin Thomas.
“The board had considered granting a Restricted 18 DVD classification, reserved for work intended to be arousing. That would have meant that a Destricted DVD could be sold only in sex shops and would have ruled out the possibility of its being put on sale in the shop at Tate Modern, where the film is to be given five screenings in September.
“Sir Quentin said that Destricted was so explicit that it would normally attract an R18 rating but he judged that it was a work of art not intended to arouse.
“He said: “In purpose and effect, this work is plainly a serious consideration of sex and pornography as aspects of the human experience.
“We think that there are no grounds for depriving adults of the ability to decide themselves whether they want to see it.”
“Tate Modern said the film was art not pornography.”
A man rubbing his penis on the drive shaft of a 50 ton lorry? No, that doesn’t sound like it was intended to arouse, does it? But is it art? I suppose that depends on whether it’s presented in black and white or color.
But the gist of the Destrict ratings kerfluffle doesn’t seem seem to have anything to do with art or porn. It seems to have to do with whether or not the Tate Modern will be able to sell DVDs of Destricted in the museum gift shop. If Destrict is art (18-rated), they can. If Destricted is porn (R18-rated), they can’t. As is often the case, issues that are offered as questions of morality or aesthetics are actually questions of commerce.
My films are not about “the fine line where art and pornography intersect”, they are about the broad vista of love, sex, desire, and pleasure. I have said and will continue to say that my films are made with the absolute intention and hope that my audience finds them arousing. (Which is why it’s unlikely you’ll ever see rape, or lorries, or Death Valley in my films.)
It’s my sincerest hope that right now, in a darkened theater in Melbourne, people are getting turned on by Damon and Hunter. I hope jeans are getting stretched tight by hard cocks; I hope panties are being dampened by wet pussies. I hope people have smiles on their faces as they think about how wonderful it feels to love and be loved.
What do you suppose Sir Quintin would have to say about that? What would the Tate Modern say? What do you say?
July 11th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
If I didn’t live 3000km away I’d go.
Australia’s censorship laws have always been restrictive, and the conservative government is working to make them more so. It is bizarre that a rape scene or a man putting his dick on a drive shaft can be “art” but the minute you try and turn someone on, it’s a crime.
July 11th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
When I read that “Irreversible featured a nine-minute rape scene that left little to the imagination” I couldn’t help thinking, “That’s very nice, Mr. Noé, but I’ll go you one better. My movies have love scenes that go well into double digits, and leave nothing to the imagination.”
Making sex films isn’t for pikers
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:16 am
[…] got himself into hot water taking naked pictures of adolescent girls. She linked back to my essay “A Criminal Intent to Arouse”, but I’m afraid she’s missed the […]