I am writing in response to "Spanking The DFS," (Sept. 28, 1995) wherein Matt Nisbet uses his "Right From The Start" column as a springboard to personally attack me as the man who has single-handedly assaulted the values and morals of our institution with this term's "Sex In The Cinema" film series. According to Nisbet, after seeing "Spanking The Monkey" last winter, I hatched a plot to tarnish the purity of our institution by creating the sex series, and now the entire Dartmouth community is being subjected to the fruits of my amorality.
The personal attack I can handle; the shoddy and irresponsible journalism I cannot. For one, the idea for a film series about sex was hatched long before I saw "Spanking The Monkey" and was developed, through extensive research and discussion, between Michael Ellenberg '97 and myself. Secondly, had Nisbet done a bit of his own research, he might have discovered that the purportedly anti-family values Dartmouth Film Society included both "Forrest Gump" and "The Lion King" -- the films Nisbet holds up as the ones Jane and James America so very much want to see -- in our summer series, and moreover, that in the past year, we've shown "The Sound Of Music," "The Wizard Of Oz" and "Aladdin"-- among many other "family films"-- on the Spaulding screen.
He is also wrong on a number of other counts. I did not "exercise my influence as a DFS decision maker" in order to bring the series to fruition. Ellenberg and I, exercising a right that every single member of this campus has, put forth the series proposal to the Film Society directorate. After a two-round voting process, the directorate chose our series idea over three others that had been proposed. Both Ellenberg I are members of the directorate (which anyone can become part of), along with about fifteen or twenty other undergraduates, professors and administrators and again. It was a decision reached -- certainly not unanimously, but by a very close, majority consensus -- by a group of people.
A group, of course, which Nisbet says consist of a bunch of "out-of-touch decision makers," following "their strange proclivities [in] churn[ing] out film series suited only to their tastes." Perhaps. But again, it was the same group of people that approved the summer series called "Blockbusters," in which we showcased some of the most popular commercial hits ever made. Certainly Jane and James America would have approved of that! But surely a film series structured around hit Hollywood films each term would be a bit of a bore -- particularly at college, where ideally we should be exposing ourselves to new ideas and works of art that won't regularly be encountered in our respective hometowns.
But, in many ways, I'm nit-picking. Fundamentally, Nisbet is correct is suggesting that what I wrote in my original column -- that Dartmouth needs "to be aroused, to be shaken up, to see that sex can be pretty cool, even sexy" -- is in some way behind my proposing this term's film series. In fact, Nisbet's own column has only strengthened my resolve about what I wrote. Single-handedly, he manages to prove the very thesis of my "Spanking The Monkey" article -- that people are Dartmouth are extremely uncomfortable talking about sex.
Before "Kids" -- the film which seems to have inspired all of Nisbet's wrath -- was shown, a reporter for The Dartmouth asked me if I thought the film was "too liberal for Dartmouth." My answer was, "I hope not," but I guess Nisbet's answer to that question would be a resounding "yes." Apparently, if it pushes too many buttons or shows us something that might not be safe or traditional, then the film should not be shown at all. (I won't get into how depressingly reactionary that all sounds).
Nisbet though, is either unable or unwilling to talk about the issues that these films raise. Instead, he can only talk about how they should not be shown to begin with, and how Dartmouth would be worlds better if we had shown "The Flint-stones" instead of "Kids."
In the end, this film series, like any other, is about two things: seeing good movies and creating dialogue about the issues that the films raise. With the likes of Oshima, Bunuel, Pasolini, Almodovar and Lynch -- all masters, all working at the peak of their abilities with the films in our series -- being showcased, as well as hard-to-see gems like "Art For Teachers Of Children" and "Desert Hearts," I'm rather certain that if the Dartmouth audience gives these movies a chance, they will discover some truly superb works. Moreover, the inclusion of "Deep Throat," "Porkys" and "Female Misbehavior" suggests that there truly is something for everyone in our series!
As for opening up dialogue, that part seems to be working too. But I wonder if dialogue such as the one instigated by Nisbet is counterproductive and ultimately a bit harmful. It is a bit too easy to pull back from the films, to dismiss them as the product of hyper-liberalism or anti-family values. I certainly do not deny that many of the films in our series are disturbing or strange or perhaps even pornographic. They will, without question, provoke strong response, both pro and con. Yet isn't that what art is all about? Isn't that what a film society at an Ivy League institution should be about?
Nisbet though, like many students at Dartmouth, whether they go to the movies at Spaulding or not, is essentially ignoring the real issues at hand -- the real issues of the films and the real issues at Dartmouth. In Nisbet's case, with his talk of "family values" and "strong bipartisan support for moral attacks on Hollywood," he resorts to the political dogma of silly Sunday morning talk shows.
But in a community like ours, where the issues of sexual assault, homophobia and misogyny still plague us, an unwillingness to think seriously and talk intelligently about sex disturbs me far more than anything we are showing in Spaulding this term.
