Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient: Victoria University of Wellington Students' Newspaper. Vol. 32, No. 6. 1969.

Focus

page 5

Focus

FebMar., 1969 VOL 3, No. 1

Where in the world are we going ?

Reporter Saunders: 'Boy-Scout earnestness'.

Reporter Saunders: 'Boy-Scout earnestness'.

In its current February-March issue, Focus runs a half-page ad lor subscriptions under the rhetorical question "Jan Palach burned himself For a tree press—would you pay a dollar?" The self-adulatory paragraphs that follow include a quote attributed to Prof. W. H. Oliver, who on 12 July, 1968, apparenttly dubbed Focus, "our best journal of opinion". While a journalistic lapse or two might find Prof. Oliver still sticking to his guns—it is almost certain that Jan Palach would burn nothing more serious than the particular issue of "Focus" that ran Part II of a projected three-part "investigation of pornography".

With boy-scout earnestness the article draws-up its manifesto: ". . . we will examine just some of the methods used by the peddlars of what could be called pornographic material . . ." Why the pejorative "peddlers", if any doubt exists as to what 'could be called pornographic".

However the dictionary defines "pornographic", the article itself seems bent on dragging as deep as the net will reach: not content to confine itself to what is printed or filmed, it throws in a bonus bit of instant sociology: "In addition we will reveal how such activities as wife-swapping are arranged through a Directory service." The context here leaves doubt wheher it is the wife-swapping itself that Focus deems "pornographic"—or whether the "Directory" falls into that category. Certainly, a privately produced "Directory" is mentioned in the article, but in a later paragraph we are told that people hell-bent on wife-swapping are just as likely to by-pass its depraved columns and deposit their pornographic little swap-ads in a wide range of otherwise innocent publications: "In the course of six months' research, Focus traced over sixty such advertisements, from couples spread throughout New Zealand." that's over two ads a week! I bet you never guessed there was pornography to be found in those dull-looking classified columns, eh?

It would seem that all this guff about advertised adultery in suburbia is so much erotic padding, for at no time does Focus seek to show a causative link between immoral behaviour and the pornography bit—all those "blue movies", or "books that would automatically be declared indecent by the Tribunal", or the "substantial mail order business in pornographic literature" —that the article purports to be all about.

Purports to be all about, for Focus seems undecided whether to get on with the printed filth around us, or merely to take us on a sort of "Town and Around" of New Zealand erotica. Remember the Directory? The one the wife-swappers use (also, by the way, homosexuals and other assorted perverts)? Well, did you know that ". . . a later supplement promotes crutchless panties"? Well, crutchless panties might still belong to the realm of "Pornography in New Zealand", but the following item of information almost certainly doesn't: Focus spoke to one man who unsuccessfully attempted to import an electric artificial penis . . . " Interesting? Well perhaps to the Power Board as a yet untapped market For off-peak electricity; but surely the only "pornographic" element about such a machine would be the instructions manual?

If the purpose of pornography is to titilate, then Focus achieves nothing less with its coverage of "blue movies". In case you thought the latter drew their name from the colour of the projection screen, Focus sets the record straignt: "Blue Movies are films which concentrate on sexual scenes. They are popular in places like Hong Kong amongst servicemen on leave." Also apparently, among their more libidinous civilian counterparts in places like Wainuiomata—for a few paragraphs on we read that ". . . evidence indicates that there is a New Zealand circuit". Half the trouble seems to be however, that the home audiences, for all their enthusiasm, lack the stomach of the servicemen on leave in . Hong Kong: "One . . . scene showed a woman lying naked on a bed taking part in various perverted activities with two men . . . . that so shocked the audience at this particular showing that some present were actually physically sick." Not, fortunately, the Focus reporter, who missed this particular screening though he got the full story hot from the lips of "Mr. X", Wellington organiser of blue movie shows who, "indeed invited Focus's interviewer to attend his next screening." Dare we hope that by the next instalment, Focus's interviewer will have braved nausea to give us a more objective film review.

And after two pages or so of such unrelated fact and anecdote, what conclusions does our "best journal of opinion" come to? ". . . This investigation by Focus into the pornography business, though by no means Complete, has showed that despite considerable legislation the trade is quite active and profitable." Well, we certainly wouldn't conclude it was profitable from reading the article. Take "Mr. X" for instance, the above mentioned impressario of blue movies, who ". . . claims he doesn't make a profit . . . as he charges only enough to recover (the cost of film hire) from among the number attending . . ."

As for the actual New Zealand produdcers of blue movies, it appears that they work under conditions considerably less ideal than those of the National Film Unit—by all accounts they are forced to operate out of ". . . a sleazy basement studio in the Bohemian Parnell of Auckland." Or take the nameless pander who has been at it for over a decade and who, ". . . according to his friends actually produces about 80% of the pornography sold on the New Zealand market." Here, if anywhere, one might say in a case of monopoly capitalism Well, when Focus finally ran him to ground, it was to no luxury lair but merely ". . . a good but not extravagant house in Aucland . . ."

So much then for the market analysis— the economic incentive seems at best doubtful 'raison d'être' for the business. Could there be some hidden psychological motivation? Focus weights-in with a banal suggestion: "There seems to be a certain number of people who need more than Man magazine to titilate them . . ." You've raised a good point there, boss. Otherwise how do you explain all those wife-swappers crutchless pantie manufacturers, basement film studios, not to mention our friend the frustrated artificial-penis importer.

All good, healthy, muck-raking the sort of coverage of the national sex scene we get week-by-week from Truth, But Truth, for all its prurient prolixity, seldom pretends to be higher journalism. When it "tells it as it is", it does not speak with the voice of "Man" while assuming the editorial stance of the New Statesman. It is the journalistic lapse of coming-out-in-dress-suit-with-fly-undone :hat makes the Focus assessment of pornography in New Zealand pretentious, "Our best journal of opinion"? St. Jan Palach pray for us!

By Frank Romanovsky