Sex and the Law, 1968
In this mockumentary/documentary by Gabriel Axel--the director who made
Babbette's Feast--a woman who has gotten in trouble with the law for being a pornographic model explores the world of pornography and the hypocrisy around how sex and nudity are portrayed in different corners of contemporary culture.
Take this review for what it is because I realized most of the way through what I watched that the version I was watching (on Tubi) seems to be a full 30 minutes short of the film's actual runtime. Why? I don't know. Maybe sequences that were more explicit were excised from this particular print? Anyway, it feels a bit goofy reviewing a movie when I've only seen 2/3 of the film, but I got enough of the gist that I wanted to write it up.
I added this film to my watchlist because the (deceptive, IMO!) description said that it was an exploration of how film changed after censorship laws were changed.
That is emphatically NOT what this film is about.
This film is basically a pro-pornography, cutesy little sexy comedy about the role of pornography in contemporary society. Birgit Brüel hosts the film, playing a woman who has recently been sentenced for being a pornographic model. Incensed by this injustice, she walks us through the benefits of pornography and during several stretches questions why it is that certain material is not considered obscene when it is pornographic, but is considered fine when classified as "art".
The discussion about what makes something "obscene" was interesting, and I appreciated the humor with which the film approaches this question. For example, it starts by noting that it is considered obscene for a publication to show an erect penis, then transitions to footage of a giant erect penis statue being, um, handled in a museum display. It also points out that certain themes and images have existed in etching/painting/statue form for ages and ages. There's also the question of what poses count as obscenity, pointing out that a woman laid supine on a bed is fine, but as soon as she crooks her leg out, it's obscene.
In many ways, my favorite thing about this film is the different ways in which it shows some interesting filmmaking. My absolute favorite thing about the film was showing Bruel's character as basically a working mother. She has two kids and a husband. We see her eating dinner with them and having banal conversations. Yet in the same film there are highly stylized sequences that are really nicely shot, like a series of tableaus showing different sex positions (man on top, woman on top, "I'm the king of the world", and so on) that for me landed just on the right side of sweet not stupid. Then there's a late scene that shows a lonely man and woman fantasizing about each other, then ending up in bed together. This scene has a different energy from a lot of the sexual content that comes before it and it was the thing in the film I found the most legitimately sexy.
When it comes to the way that the movie advocates for the value of porn, I had a mixed reaction. I agreed with a lot of the points made by the film--that people should be able to look at what they want; that exposure to sexual content can help people be less inhibited--but it certainly revealed a very entrenched point of view, namely that of a straight man. This is a universe where gay men (and gay porn) do not exist. At all. There are a few shots of two women together, but in a purely performative or leading up to a threesome way.
This is definitely a world where porn is made by straight men and for straight men. A scene where we watch Bruel participate in a porn shoot has some weird, creepy vibes to it. Four men crowd around her, giving her directions. It's meant to seem fun, but even the music is a bit off (and the Tubi subtitles seemed to agree, I can't remember the exact word used, but it was like "unsettling music"). The movie frames porn as something that women experience, but only ever by being on a date and having a man pull a magazine out of nowhere. Oh, and if the woman you're with doesn't like what you're doing and tells you to stop, don't worry: "I don't know what it is that [women] say no when we really mean yes!". We also see very little content that suggests what would be helping women enjoy themselves more, as most of what we see is nude women staged different ways. (I do give the film credit for including some male nudity, including outside of just scenes involving intercourse, and for matching the age and attractiveness of the male performers with the female performers).
It might sounds like I'm taking this sex comedy fake documentary too seriously, but I think that even in this type of movie it's worth noting whose perspective is being taken and who is being excluded. On the surface this movie is very sex positive, but only around certain types of bodies and preferences.
A fun little film. Maybe someday I'll catch those missing 30 minutes.