Precious, Child Porn, Representation

I write this post with a number of recent events and films in my head–Roman Polanski’s arrest, the film “Precious,” and the recent arrest of a Chicago college professor on charges of distributing child pornography.

As the mother of a fourteen year old daughter, I should first say that I am OK with Polanski’s rearrest and imprisonment for the crime of sexual abuse with a thirteen year old in 1977. As a film studies scholar, though, I will add to this assessment that I think the judge should take into consideration issues such as the victim’s forgiveness of the criminal act, Polanski’s own damaged life (mother died in Auschwitz, his wife’s grotesque murder), and the neglect and the inconsistency of Polanski not being arrested earlier by the Swiss police. But, as we should know about the outcome of criminal cases, it all depends on the judge and legal representation…

Questions about consent, abuse, pornography and representation–legal and otherwise–continue to haunt us as a society. The scandal and legal cases surrounding the NEA funding of Mapplethorpe’s gallery shows in the late 80′s included photos of the three year old “Rosie” facing the camera directly without any underwear on (Currently on view at the Guggenheim’s collection web site). Galleries, such as a recent one in Cincinnati, continue to struggle with the legal issue of the representation of children, nudity, pornography and art. One gallery would not display this photo until, as the UK Independent reports, “Rosie’s mother, Lady Beatrix Nevill, signed an affidavit stating that the photograph was taken with her full consent, that she did not view it as pornographic.”

As a culture and nation we still haven’t dealt thoroughly with Mapplethorpe (or homosexuality). Since Mapplethorpe, the U.S. has elected Republican presidents primarily, Clinton and Lewinsky committed their sins in the White House, and the issues of children, sexuality and pornography were suddenly no longer up for any public discussion.

After hearing about the surprising arrest of a colleague on child pornography charges this week, I have to admit that I hesitated to Google the term “child pornography” or to look for the Mapplethorpe photo “Rosie” online. (But after finding it on the Guggenheim site, I felt more comfortable.) Some of the next links that came up when I Googled child pornography online were the FBI “Innocent Images” site, as well as law firm sites devoted to defending clients who have been accused of “computer sex crimes”.

The criminal act of sexually abusing a child for the purpose of producing pornography is not legally separated from the consumption of it, including the manufacture or digitally altered representation of child pornography (although the sentences may differ). These tragic acts of sexual abuse are often connected to the distribution of the pornography (but not always) The sentences for consuming and distributing representations of child pornography are severe–minimum of 5 years in prison. Based on the number of law firms advertising on the web in computer sex crimes, I assume that there are plenty of clients right now.

Like many audiences, I was emotionally overwhelmed by the enormity of the abuse and denigrations that Claireece Precious Jones had to endure under the supervision of her sexually abusive parents in the film “Precious.” The depiction of incest or childhood sexual abuse is a brave and neglected topic in the media; in part, because of the legal complexities with the representation of children as the victims of criminal sexual acts and childhood pornography. The depiction of Precious’s father raping her at a young age is carefully shot and edited. As A.O. Scott’s NYTimes review describes these criminal acts of sexual abuse, “the facts of Precious’s life are also laid out with unsparing force (though not in overly graphic detail).” But the questions of representation and legality of showing child sexual acts are still in my head. Even though the 26 year old Gabby Sidibe brilliantly depicts the abuse and recovery of the teenage Precious–it is still the depiction of an underage teen in a sexual act.

Precious is an important step in the direction of having a more open discussion about both incest and child pornography. (Just as the US State dept is starting to more actively address the global problem of child sex trafficking). We should allow this powerful story to help us think about legal questions connected to representation, sexuality and the internet.

The Internet has the ability to function as a kind of addictive informational drug. Not all Internet ‘users’ are strong enough to withstand the open access and availability of illegal pornographic images. A combination of the law and required mental health counseling for the damaged seem required before we lock the doors and throw away the keys on First Amendment violators.

We at least need more of a discussion about access to images of sexuality and the denial of that access.

Interested in more reading?
See Amy Adler’s “The Perverse Law of Child Pornography” in The Columbia Law Review
Laura Kipnis, “Bound and Gagged: Pornography and the Politics of Fantasy in America”