1. One day, I am going to learn.
Part of SQIFF, this selection of short films seemed the perfect opportunity to address the conflict between my libido and my desired social identity. On the one hand, I am aware of the systemic oppression of women through patriarchal ideas of beauty and eroticism: on the other, I have a filthy mind that I hope to contain within the wider context of social responsibility.
2. Right...
After that introduction, forgive me if I ramble.
Certain atheists accuse feminism of poisoning things: in this case, it feels as if porn is doing the poisoning. Intrigued as I was to experience women-friendly erotica, four of the films managed to be self-defeating and obnoxious, while the other two (On Your Back and Neurosex Pornoia Episode 2) were playful and experimental, respectively.
3. I didn't really want to write a qualitative assessment of the selection. It feels important that the conversation about feminism porn happens in a safe environment, where matters like ratings are ignored for a broader consideration of the possibilities of feminist pornography.
But the quality of this work is important. Its aesthetic failures prevent the discussion. Some of the pieces (Authority) present enough sex to count as porn, others (Shave Me, Mirror Me) make do with a cheeky wank and ponderous meditations on gender. The interview with director Marit Ostberg, however, is a testament to a painfully self-indulgent, self-regarding vision of both feminism and art.
4. Feminist interventions into pornography (and sex work) have become difficult. The debate over lap-dancing generated by the under-considered legislation knocking about the Scottish Parliament encouraged my insistence that any use of the word feminism needs an adjective to clarify its position.
While I recognise the right of people living in an area to define its tone (the legislation seems to be aiming at this), a more active feminist response might be to ensure that the women who work in the clubs are not being exploited, financially or emotionally. The same applies to pornography: feminist erotica would be made by performers who are getting paid and treated right. Maybe unionised, even?
5. In Marit, the interview with Ostberg, there are repeated references to the politics of her films. She never really explains what the politics are - she recognises that she didn't consider them in the making, and only the circumstances of one film's release forced her to discuss it. There is a vague idea that her working methods (the performers are not doing it for money, they are friends) is an anti-capitalist provocation.
Set alongside a showing of her Authority, however, this is not good enough. Having said that the politics were secondary to the act of making the films (although the sexuality she portrays is consciously queer and she makes a point about making the films because she wanted to represent it, which makes it a political action...), she connects her work to anti-pornography feminists of the 1970s (apparently, it is the same struggle), and answers potential critiques of her material (isn't it rather close to mainstream pornography) with a useless 'it's a paradox' or 'it's interesting'.
It probably is interesting, although saying that it is fails to unravel why it might be.
6. Authority, one of the two Ostberg shorts shown in the programme fails to make much of a political point. Apart from the terrible lighting, which renders her performers pale and insipid, and the weak editing, the actual sex on show is violent.
Okay, so it plays a game, in the relationship between a criminal and a police-officer - there is a vague ironic reversal of power. The low production values might offer the veneer of alternative cinema, but the sex itself is generic and abusive.
That is not to say it is non-consensual, or documents an act of abuse (Ostberg is clear about her performers' desire to act out the fantasies). But it does represent a fantasy of sexual violence. This kind of material is open to exactly the same critique as mainstream violent pornography: that it depraves the audience.
That critique might be invalid, but that the difference between Authority and New Wave Hookers ends up being pretty minimal. And I'm sure Crusty Porn can present low quality film making just as effectively.
7. Ostberg's redeeming feature is her wit: her other short, Ladybeard, is funny. And there is a joke at the end of Authority which is worth a titter. That's not enough to justify a copper getting pumped off a night-stick, though. People walked out, and I am assuming that they were offended by the content.
That is people who came to see feminist porn... not by mistake.
But if feminist porn means porn aimed at women, then I need to shut up (or be taken as a single, subjective voice). But another word came up in the interview with Ostberg, one that is not surprising in the context of SQIFF.
It is a queer festival and the adjective that this programme needed was queer. There is no reason that feminist porn can't be hetero-normative. But this selection was consciously queer, and the 'feminist' tag was dishonest.
I'm realising that my qualitative assessment is becoming increasingly negative.
9. I have a great deal of doubt about publishing this - not just in case my mum reads it, but because I value events like SQIFF, and my experience of the festival is positive. I also value the opening up of the conversation around pornography (it is not going to disappear and take away all of the problems around it (guilt, exploitation, commodification of desire, the imposition of fantasies onto women and men, trans-gendered men and women, ethinic groups et cetera...)).
Feminist porn and queer porn seem like a good idea. This discussion is important. Even my halting opinions have a value.
Coming Soon: Thoughts on Trans Porn and the Use of the word Queer (and why SQIFF have got it right, in my opinion).
No comments :
Post a Comment