Pornography
Test case at Totnes
David Holbrook
On Tuesday, the magistrates at Totnes re" jected an application by Mr Holbrook that they exercise their powers as the Licensing authority and order the film "WR — The Mysteries of the Organism " not to be shown until they had seen it to judge for themselves. On the other hand, the Bench refused to make an order for costs against Mr Holbrook.
The scene is a converted barn on the campus of a college of art. The students' Arts SocietY
is presenting a political revue. In the front row sit a vice-chancellor of a famous university, a professor of drama, a professor Of '
music, the secretary of the local arts society. some representative of the county council. the principal, and other staff. The students
are in the first and second year of what is In fact a teacher training course. Before long, they will be teaching your children, and w1,11 be responsible for helping them with their moral development, and counselling them. In one of the sketches on the stage a riake man is brought in. A girl manipulates his genitals, until they are ready for her to take 0 plaster cast. As soon as she succeeds, the scene changes into one of political farce. The audience roars with laughter. Later, the maP and girl have (real) sexual intercourse in varY ous positions. In the programme a -di tinguished critic is quoted as saying, "This is a loving revue, a funny revue, a human revue: and, indubitably, in this case, a hopeflu revue."
This did not happen; at least not quite in that way. What did happen, however, Was that a film showing the same scene could be shown, to an audience of people who were mostly student teachers. The vice-chancellor, the professors, and the other responsible figures were not in the auditorium. But the film that was shown came to the Barn Theatre with their endorsement, and through their agencies. They were present in print, or bY indirect influence — and there is no doubt that the pornographic incident which these, young people saw came to them with the fu'' approval of these educationists. The British Film Institute, which has on its Board Proles' sor Asa Briggs, offers the film in its catalogue.
The film is WR — The Mysteries of the orgasm, and it was made by Makavejev, Yugoslav film director. It is being chosen h,Y local film societies for their programmes thl!, summer. The quotation above is amend' from an extract from Mr George Melly, front their brochure. The British Film Insitute 105 as its purpose the encouragement of cine. matograph and television as media of ente1. tainment and instruction. Not only did the Arts Society, choose this film to show ,t°, an audience which, they knew, would cons's' largely of young student teachers on the campus, it advertises it 'students 40p, child. ren 30p"It also advertises five other-1 X' filrns for educational showing. Last time the MI5 Society showed a ' blue ' film of this kind. I T Curious Yellow, the Society let in some chil0" ren from the school on the campus as young
as fifteen, even though the film had not even
been given an ' X ' certificate — it was an urY certificated film showing simulated se"; Nothing so old-fashioned in WR — it shoo'', scenes of group sex, a couple having . real, sexual intercourse in various ,positions, a" various other explicit material. The film, WR, presents itself, of course as having a serious message, and it has been aP proved by the liberal progressive press f0' both its treatment of sex and its political mes; sage. It offers itself as a serious treatment 0'
the life and work of Wilhelm Reich. This, however, seems a ' front ' for bold ' filmmaking, the clue to this deception may be found in the reaction to it of the followers of Reich himself. They have declared that "the film is very far removed from the message of joy and bodily freedom Which it is claimed to be." It tries to suggest that Reich's goals and those of the American sick sex scene are identical. It presents his therapy sessions as some kind of orgy. Kari Bergravy who took the documentary sequences was deeply shocked by the travesty made of his .work, as was Alexander Lowen. One Reichian said, "Anyone who loved Reich ages when seeing this film." A. S. Neill — the Progressive educationist — said that the scene of the girl manipulating a man's penis Would have infuriated Reich — who hated Pornography. The film is being shown at Dartington, to students of the college of art, and the public, by an Arts Society which has a number of schools as members on a ' group ' ticket. School children will obviously take the imPlications that blue films are educational. partington, as a centre of progressive educa tion, is to some extent based on the ideas of, Reich — so we have the ridiculous spectacle of a place like that showing a film which mocks and smears one of its founder thinkers. But, what is worse, the film is a powerful
form of education in that harmful kind of voyeuristic sexuality, full of sadism, which Reich condemned.
I have now asked for the local licensing committee to see this film, to see whether they believe that it offends Clause 10 of the licence of the cinema in question, which says that a film must not be shown which "con tains matter which, if exhibited, would offend against good taste or decency. ... or be offensive to public feelings ..." Is it the function of higher education, teacher training or training in the Arts, to
Spread psychic sickness, by displaying forms Of exhibition hitherto shown only in the broLtbel? This is the question I was trying to put, 0Y this test case, at Totnes.
Previous page
