I have also been considering teaching a short section of our film course on pornography, using texts like Linda Williams' book. After some discussion with another lecturer in the course, though, we decided that neither of us was willing to screen any pornography for the students. I came to about the same conclusion as James Schamus, that I would feel uncomfortable. I think the reason we can screen violent films easily, but not pornography is that the violent film is a construction, a fictionaliztion of a real act that can be broken down, analysed and "read". The extreme close-ups of genitalia and money shots are not fiction, even if the setting is fiction. This makes the situation too close for comfort - privately - by putting our most private acts on stage. A lot of questions come up... Were the persons involved coerced? Is this film an exploitation of people who are in dire straits economically or socially? I would not willingly see a snuff film where I KNEW that people were murdered in the making of the film. I can, however, watch a film like MAN BITES DOG, the Belgian pseudo-documentary, where people are routinely murdered in front of the camera by a gleeful murderer. In the same way, I can watch a fictional film with fictional eroticism -- simulated to a certatin degree by camera movement, nudity, etc., but have a hard time watching straight on pornography. What we see up on the screen is real, and that changes the way we react to it. Thanks to the participants in this little discussion. The personal experiences of people in their classrooms were very interesting to read. ******************************************************************** * Bert Deivert E-mail: [log in to unmask] * * Film Studies * * Univ. of Karlstad * * Box 9501 S-650 09 Karlstad, Sweden TEL. 46-54-838106 * ********************************************************************