This is not porn

On the new Swedish Government funded porn film, \”Dirty Diaries\”:

Cissi Elwin Frenkel, a spokesman for the Swedish Film Institute – the government body that backed the film – insisted that it was not \”regular porn\”. \”Everyone in the films is over the age of 18, no one is doing anything against their will, everyone shares equally in the money from the films,\” she said. \”All of this makes Mia Engberg\’s project different from regular porn in many ways.\”

Yes, it\’s still pictures of people fucking and sucking but if it\’s done by a worker\’s cooperative then that\’s different you see.

I have to admit that I\’ve never quite grasped this point: a can of baked beans from Waitrose is a can of baked beans from a worker\’s cooperative while a can of baked beans from Sainsbury\’s is one from the capitalist patriarchy.

Still a can of baked beans.

Oh, and quite why using £40,000 of tha taxpayers\’ money as a grub stake is different from using £40,000 from a capitalist entrepreneur makes any difference to the baked beanness of the can of baked beans I\’m not sure either.

It\’s still a can of baked beans.

8 thoughts on “This is not porn”

  1. I’m not sure if she uses the government money in the same way, because about a half of the Film Institute’s money comes from the movie theaters, broadcasting companies and such trough the so called Film Agreement.

  2. “…insisted that it was not “regular porn”.”

    I thought ‘not regular porn’ was the type they locked you up for, not merely the type that came with a government stamp of approval!

    Government approved porn…can anyone tell me why any porn addict would want it, given what other government-provided goods and services tend to be like?

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    Ian B – “Er, nobody in “regular porn” is under 18 or doing anything against their will either.”

    While I agree with the general, um, thrust of your argument I have four words for you: Tracy Lords Linda Lovelace.

  4. Erm. Mr Sublety,

    As I understand it while Tracy Lords might have been under 18 when she gave her performances, she lied about her age in order to get the part (no pun intended). The film was also declared “irregular” as soon as Ms Lords’s underagedness became known.

    As for Ms Lovelace, I lost count of the number of times she changed her mind and declared she was/wasn’t forced to perform and hated/loved her career in movies of the Swedish educational genre.

    BTW, Dennis, isn’t a surcharge levied on the cinemas and broadcasters just a tax by another name? It ultimately comes from the pockets of the movie watching public, after all.

    On a more general note, did the beans have a big part in Ms Engberg’s movie?

  5. Mr Gillies,

    Surely the point is whether the porn watching public want to watch horrid little socialists screwing each other.

    I’m minded of PJ O’Rourke’s response on being labelled a fascist: “Nobody’s ever fantasised about being tied to a bed and ravished by a liberal*”

    So to answer the question: The fact that this appears to be the world’s first state subsidised grumbleflick seems to indicate that people don’t.

    *That’s “liberal” in the American sense, of course, not the correct one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *