This anti-porn short film shows a flood tide of filth engulfing the country in the form of newsstand obscenity.This anti-porn short film shows a flood tide of filth engulfing the country in the form of newsstand obscenity.This anti-porn short film shows a flood tide of filth engulfing the country in the form of newsstand obscenity.
Damian O'Flynn
- The Judge
- (uncredited)
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaAt one point announcer George Putnam, arguing for the banning of "obscene" materials, says, "This is a nation of laws". The uncredited producer of this film, Charles Keating--the founder of an "anti-pornography" organization called Citizens for Decent Literature, which actually produced the film--was on President Richard Nixon's Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography in 1969. He is the same Charles Keating who, as president of Lincoln Savings & Loan in the late 1980s, was convicted of multiple counts of wire fraud, racketeering and conspiracy due to his involvement in financial shenanigans which led to the collapse of Lincoln Savings, which ultimately cost the US government over $3 billion and which resulted in more than 23,000 depositors losing most or all of the money they had deposited in Lincoln Savings. He served 4-1/2 years in prison before being released in 1996.
- Quotes
George Putnam: Hello there. I'm George Putnam. I'd like to begin with a fact, a simple yet shocking fact. It is this - a floodtide of filth is engulfing our country in the form of newsstand obscenity and is threatening to pervert an entire generation of our American children.
- Crazy creditsThe opening credits say "with George Putnam, outstanding news reporter"
- ConnectionsFeatured in Heavy Petting (1989)
Featured review
Fascinating, funny and very, very unsettling
"They lack the dignity of our dutial Christian heritage." So says "outstanding news reporter" know-it-all George Putnam (pronounced 'Putt-Numb', the man can't even pronounce his own name!). He is referring to the mongers of perverse material that are covering the nation with smut and trying to corrupt our youth (let's face it, they don't have anything better to do). We sit and watch as this creepy guy narrates, talking directly to the camera (staring uncomfortably right at you) about the evils of girly magazines, nudist journals, physique pictorials "and all the rest" (as he puts it). Since soft-core pictures of women's boobies will automatically turn you into a perverted slob.
Shots of him are intersperced with barely censored illustrations from said magazines. Full page spreads from Playboy, One, Sunshine and other tepid publications are displayed, with pieces of colored tape covering objectionable areas. That is, just barely.
This movie leaved basically nothing to the imagination, in terms of whit it exhibits visually. When seen today, the film becomes something else: a fascinating look at an underground Adults Only culture. The skin magazines of the 1950's and 1960's, which were legal, were hardly as `perverse' as the harcore 16mm `blue' movies that were being made at the time. Putnam promises that `What you have been shown here is not the worst' and he'd be right, but according to him, shots of half-naked women sitting around at a pool looking bored were depraved and deranged. Of couse the major bone that the consevatives have to pick is mentioned over and over: kids can legally get this stuff. There's no drive towards a solution, though, like maybe restricting the ages, plastic wrap, etc. How typical.
Of all profiteers of perversion, it is the homosexuals who fair the worst. Putnam holds up an image of a ten-year-old boy in a g-string (not a very pretty sight if you ask me - and I'm gay), and says `See at what tender age homosexuals prefer their conquests!' And he promises us that there are also slides and movies showing tawny young men in alluring states of undress (yummy).
Also glowered upon is sado-masochism. While recent films like Secretary attempt to explain it in a positive light, most of the world is still in the dark when it comes to S/M. Can we expect a thoughtful, positive or at least somewhat enlightening view on the subject in this film. No. Mr. Putnam treats it the same way he treats everything else, by doing the verbal equivalent of stamping a great big OBSCENE on every last image he shows us.
So, it's a sad story. This film that apparently conservated a lot of peoples minds on the the subject of obscenity. Despite Putnam's claim that they aren't trying to sensationalize their presentation, it's clear that that's what they had on their minds. Yet the movie is also talky and dull. Skip to the good parts, and then never, ever watch this movie ever again.
Shots of him are intersperced with barely censored illustrations from said magazines. Full page spreads from Playboy, One, Sunshine and other tepid publications are displayed, with pieces of colored tape covering objectionable areas. That is, just barely.
This movie leaved basically nothing to the imagination, in terms of whit it exhibits visually. When seen today, the film becomes something else: a fascinating look at an underground Adults Only culture. The skin magazines of the 1950's and 1960's, which were legal, were hardly as `perverse' as the harcore 16mm `blue' movies that were being made at the time. Putnam promises that `What you have been shown here is not the worst' and he'd be right, but according to him, shots of half-naked women sitting around at a pool looking bored were depraved and deranged. Of couse the major bone that the consevatives have to pick is mentioned over and over: kids can legally get this stuff. There's no drive towards a solution, though, like maybe restricting the ages, plastic wrap, etc. How typical.
Of all profiteers of perversion, it is the homosexuals who fair the worst. Putnam holds up an image of a ten-year-old boy in a g-string (not a very pretty sight if you ask me - and I'm gay), and says `See at what tender age homosexuals prefer their conquests!' And he promises us that there are also slides and movies showing tawny young men in alluring states of undress (yummy).
Also glowered upon is sado-masochism. While recent films like Secretary attempt to explain it in a positive light, most of the world is still in the dark when it comes to S/M. Can we expect a thoughtful, positive or at least somewhat enlightening view on the subject in this film. No. Mr. Putnam treats it the same way he treats everything else, by doing the verbal equivalent of stamping a great big OBSCENE on every last image he shows us.
So, it's a sad story. This film that apparently conservated a lot of peoples minds on the the subject of obscenity. Despite Putnam's claim that they aren't trying to sensationalize their presentation, it's clear that that's what they had on their minds. Yet the movie is also talky and dull. Skip to the good parts, and then never, ever watch this movie ever again.
helpful•299
- Kieran_Kenney
- Jan 19, 2004
Details
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Извращение ради прибыли
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime29 minutes
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.33 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content