On Being Exposed To "A Serbian Film"

If you live long enough, if your age brings you to wisdom instead of foolish conceit, you will find that you learn new and important things from people half, a third a quarter of your age.  I did the other day from a feminist of college age who, as I was telling her how much I despise porn and the porn industry, told me about the 2010 movie "Serbian Film" and told me that it was an attempt to make the most extreme and disgusting porn film ever made.  She is one of the young generation of feminists who seem to be getting over the "free speech feminists" promoted by the porn and publishing industry in the 1970s.  I see them as one of the few signs of hope in this area. 

I'd not yet come across the film in my investigation of how bad porn is so I can address one half of the porn-industry "free speech" catch 22* that if you haven't seen porn, you are not qualified to judge it and if you've seen it you're a hypocrite for condemning it because you've seen what you're talking about.   Oddly, enough, that rule, so often cited by the critical wing that champions absolute "free press - free speech" doesn't apply when they give bad reviews of something, it is reserved for the one and only act of condemning pornography.

I have looked into it, even to the extent of watching some clips online (watch out, luckily my malware kicked in at one point in that exercise, you pick up porn at risk of infection) and am convinced that the film is, in fact, if not the most extreme and disgusting porn film ever made, close to it.  The movie apparently has the distinction of depicting the creation of a new genre of porn, the rape of a new born baby, and that is only one of the evils it elevates on the plinth that porn is.  

The excuse for  Srđan Spasojević the filmmaker son of the kind of dodgy millionaire who rose in post-Tito Serbia was some line of "allegory" a symbolic attempt to condemn the corrupt degeneracy and evil of Serbian society, not only the very society that made the pornogrpher's father rich, but which created the milieu in which this "film" joins a flourishing industry in other porn, including some of the worst of actual, non-simulated child porn which you can see images on of just about any google search using any porn implicated terms.  But in reading what the dirtbag has said about his snuff-porn, baby-rape movie flick, his statements have about the same self-contradictory consistency as a week of Donald Trump tweets.  I think the safest conclusion to reach is that he wanted to become famous and, most likely, rich by making an extremely evil and disgusting porn film that would make him famous (as it inevitably would if it were bad enough) and which would make him money.   How this differs from the allegedly corrupt country he is alleged (sometimes by himself, just about always by the critics and academics who have praised the degenerate bit of art) to be allegorizing.  I think it's safe to say that easily 999 times out of 1000 that the word "allegory" is used to describe a violent, porn film, it is an obvious, self-serving lie.  

A movie is about what it shows on the screen, first, second by what it says, the insertion of a line or so of "social criticism" here and there, amidst the rape and torture and murder and the presentation of the male rapist, torturer and murderer as the hero AND FOR FUCK'S SAKE, THE HEROIC VICTIM of the film (easily 9999 out of 10,000 porn films are all about the rapist), means nothing.  Some of the critics have complained that the DVD release of the movie and the extensive online pirating of it have removed the filmmakers BS intro in which he declares his attempt at an ultimate slasher-porn child rape necrophiliac "film" has the "redeeming value" of social and political criticism" but that act of removing that lie might be the only honest thing that has been said by those who champion the film.  The "critics" especially those who are self-employed online, some of the academics, are just liars, they a. aren't much bothered by the content of the film, b. they want to be seen as falling within the perverted, inverted morality that always is the end of "free speech -free press" absolutism.  

In one of the many twists and dodges in attributing "meaning" to his movie Spasojević is quoted as saying it's a protest against "the fascism of political correctness," "political correctness" being, as well one of the bogeymen of America's resurgent neo-fascist-neo-Nazi-Trumpian fascist movement.  It is a clear signal what is wrong with that slogan that this "protest" against it depicts acts that could come right out of the worst indictments of fascist torturers and the catalogue of crimes of the like of Lavrentiy Beria for the thrill of sicko-degenerate men and the journalistic and academic au courant  

That is the thing about the 18th century "enligthenment" version of laissez-faire liberalism, of unregulated, unrestrained commerce, of the kind of thing that the post-Revolutionary French secularism produced**, its freedom accrues to those who already have power (wealth) and those who are more ruthless in pushing their exercise and enjoyment of power (wealth).  The liberties that are gained, generally, are at the expense of those with less power, that is the liberty which the world of pornography promotes at the expense of women, children - now including new borns) less powerful men, anyone who can be turned into a victim for the pleasure of snuff-porn heroes or torturers and rapists who haven't gotten round to delivering the coup de grace within cinematic time frames.  

It was one of the anomolies of the Paris Commune that the women successfully appealed to the leaders of it to temporarily liberate prostitutes from the prostitution they were forced into.   That atypical act of the suppression of sexual commerce in 19th century Paris was, alas, as short lived as the Commune fell and the normal civil order restored the liberty and fraternity to that area of Paris which, certainly, didn't result in equality.  

* From dear old and always new, Merriam Webster 

Definition of catch-22

1 : a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem or by a rule the show-business catch-22—no work unless you have an agent, no agent unless you've worked— Mary Murphy also : the circumstance or rule that denies a solution

**  One of the higher falutin' critical voices of praise for Serbian Film made the typical degenerate intellectual resorts of comparing it to the degenerate French monument of such freedom, Le Théâtre du Grand-Guignol 

"the dark Grand Guignol that shreds its celluloid victims with unconcealed intensity while showing in full color and detail, the collapse of the last bastions of decency, morality, and rationality."

Yes, that pretty well sums up what morality becomes in the catechism of "free speech - free press" absolutism.  Remember that list of inverted-virtues  the next time you are horrified at the latest depravities of the Trump regime by way of "collapse of the last bastions of decency, morality, and rationality".    There is a direct connection between the two, including the fact that Trump as President of the United States is 100% a product of commercial entertainment.

The creators of the Grand-Guignol considered themselves to be such champions of freedom as they used the violent exploitation of the underclass, prostitutes, homeless children, the male gangsters who raped, tortured, exploited and destroyed them for the money-making entertainment of the fashionable and decadent intellectuals seeking to stay up with the latest thing and, heavens forbid, wanted nothing to do with anything unfashionably moralistic. 

What is it about saying "French Revolution" that inevitably blinds intellectuals to these products of it, making more generally available to rich men the perverted pleasures and evil delights of the worst of the aristocratic class that it took over from?   Is it because so much of the evidence is in French and most of them don't read it that well?  Or does it being in French make it exotic and so safe for them?