The Question Carlin Left Behind: What is Obscenity?
By Danny Schechter
Created Jun 30 2008 - 10:48am
Is ****ography an obscenity or an act of free speech?
The recent death of comedian George Carlin reminded us of one of his
greatest routines and most bizarre encounters with our media. It led to a
Court determination that there were 7 dirty words that could not be used
on
the airwaves.
This decision codified one aspect of a much broader and still selective
interpretation of obscenity laws -- an issue that is still with as network
censors who operate under the sanitized idea of "standards and practices"
try to cleanse the airwaves of images and ideas deemed objectionable and
offensive.
At the same time there is growing push-back on all sides. Some church and
conservative groups act as the morality police patrolling the culture for
any breaks with norms they believe should be upheld. Ironically, it is the
Fox Network, owned by the right-wing mogul Rupert Murdoch that has been
most
combative with regulators and challenge their prohibitions of ***ually
charged programming while refusing to pay FCC imposed fines.
On the liberal side, the Civil Liberties Union rejects censor****p on first
amendment grounds.
Part of the problem is that there is little agreement on what constitutes
obscenity. It usually has a ***ual connotation, but in Latin, obscenus,
means just "foul, repulsive, detestable." Go to the Wikipedia and you
find:
"the word still retains the meanings of "inspiring disgust" and even
"inauspicious; ill-omened", as in such uses as "obscene profits", "the
obscenity of war", etc. It can simply be used to mean profanity, or it can
mean anything that is taboo, indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting."
Puncturing the pervasive hypocrisy on this issue have been comic social
commentators like Carlin and Lenny Bruce and other writers, theater
artists,
filmmakers and not always well liked mavericks like New York's Ugly George
who drew large audiences for ***ually titillating TV shows.
"Ugly", aka George Urban, was a public access cable pioneer who became a
global phenomenon even as his show was tossed off Manhattan public access
five times. Today, TimeWarner, the company that runs the access channels
does far more explicitly ***ual programming on its pay TV channels like
HBO.
It was that phenomenon that led to me to investigate this issue for a new
film, just out on DVD from Pathfinder Pictures. It's called Boob Tube:
***,
TV and Ugly George [1] They hype it this way:
"Before reality TV, before "Girls Gone Wild", before the idea of young
ladies baring their breasts for the camera became vogue, Ugly George
roamed
the streets of New York and persuaded young women to undress for his
camera.
How did he get away with it? Why would any woman in her right mind
cooperate? Could he possibly have had *** with more ladies than Wilt
Chamberlain, as he claims? "Boob Tube" do***ents two stories, one about a
one man crusading machine against hypocrisy and two, about society's deep
rooted obsession with ****d women."
A website that reviews DVDs picks up the story:
"This film, directed by 'News Dissector' Danny Schecter, is a very
structured look at George Urban's life-long obsession with the ladies,
tracing his youth, his legendary role in the early days of cable
television,
his more recent activities and his legacy. Loaded with ***ual footage from
George's series and archival photos, it tells several stories, using
George
as a focal and jumping-off point. First and foremost is the is the growth
of
*** in the media, moving from the underground of stag reels to mainstream
America, a change that coincided with George's glory days.
Ugly George's story is not a positive one, as, despite being a part of
cable's massive growth in the '80s, he never made much money doing what he
did, and in the age of the Internet, he's a bit of a relic, battling for
attention with incredibly easy access to much more explicit ****.
Unfortunately for him, he's not exactly a sympathetic character, claiming
responsibility for half the innovations in TV and possessing an incredibly
sleazy personality. Plus, the fact that someone so kooky could convince so
many women to get ****d, isn't about to get him a lot of compassion from
men
or women, though Schechter manages to find a few people who fondly
remember
George (or more precisely his show.)"
The idea that only "sympathetic characters" are legit subject of films
leads
to the homogenizing and sanitizing of issues. In point of fact, many of
the
most unsympathetic characters in TV are the shadowy ones with power who
conceal their real agendas or kebosh programming about far more serious
obscenities. Which George, for example, do you believe has had the ugliest
impact on the world? Bush or Urban?
When a television station in Australia aired the film recently, the Sydney
Morning Herald reviewer raised a key issue posed in the movie:
"Is ****ography simple perversion or an act of free speech? Does the
****ographer seek to exploit or provoke political dissent? It's an
argument
that rages even in this raunch-cultured world where the stand-off between
art and **** is yet to reach an agreement. Where "Ugly" George Urban fits
into all this is by claiming credit for kickstarting the mainstreaming of
****, or at least being there to capitalize when "tits and ass" took to
small screens across America."
In this context, Ugly George's story is still timely. Most media reformers
avoid these issues even as the public remains fascinated by them. "Ugly"
fought for more overt *** on TV, and in the end was dumped from the
airwaves. Today those same airwaves are overloaded with commercialized
***,
ads for erectile dysfunction pills ("Call Your Doctor If Your Erection
lasts
For More Than Four Hours") and every perversity -- except perhaps real
footage of the carnage of war.
The name "Ugly George" seems to have become an eighth dirty word, He is
treated like a leper of licentiousness, a man who most recoil from rather
than embrace. His angry outsider persona makes most people uncomfortable
and
that makes him easy to dismiss. And yet, his own one of a kind creativity
made him almost a force of nature and an unlikely celebrity, a man who
could
have, with the right breaks and financing, become a, um, "contender."
Paranoid, contemptuous, aggressive, self-involved are four words I have
heard describe him but his story is worth watching and his contempt for TV
***ual hypocrisy worth hearing. It may be outrageous, even ugly but it is
very real. Boob Tube has been on the boob tube in Australia, but what
about
the USA?
Do any TV stations have the guts? Knock, knock HBO.
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.
I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an op****tunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are
at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
|
