Fragmented images

Scan page 4

ONE image remains. Sinister.

Simple. A man's hand moves lingeringly over a jigsaw, constructing a picture of a pouting, posing, available woman..

You know he's rich by the well-kept nails, the discreetly expensive ring, the neat shirtcutt and glimpse of a suited sleeve. The movements suggest power, self-confidence, control. The uncompleted jig-saw woman is faceless, anonymous, anyone ot a million boringly repetitious images of vapid, exploited female flesh.

This image, from Channel 4's "Pictures of Women Sexuality: Whose Pleasure?' could have stood as a metaphor for the whole programme - on pornography: the construction of an image of female sexuality by and for and in the interests of rich and powerful men: and the consequent fragmentation of women's bodies into key signs — breasts, genitals, mouths and inviting eyes.

It was an object lesson on how images work, how much information can be encoded into a few tell-tale signs. If the rest of the programme had followed through the visual argument and analysed how the images of _pornography construct its particular picture of women's sexuality, for whom and why, then it would have been a stunning indictment of male power and its effects on women.

It might have provided answers to the questions raised in the inter-cut studio discussion, instead of leaving them hanging. What we got instead was a worthy, often thought-provoking, uneven and ultimately frustrating The high-points were definitely the visuals and the music. As well as the jig-saw image, they used, very tellingly, a rapid-fire of images, overwritten with key-words, which looked as though it had been borrowed from advertising - though to the opposite effect - drawing comparisons; making conscious what is so often only mental wallpaper; underlining and drawing attention to the uses of imagery.

But there were too few of these biis. The documentary style clips were lumbering and I couldn't detect a very coherent thread. Some were just cliches - a walkabout round Soho showing the protes, on of so sat's never Interviews with male "experts" on the big-business aspects of porn — again, big news! What there wasn't was any interviews with the women who work in these places, any glimpse of what it's like from the other side of the cage -nor indeed was much clue given as why the women we saw on a Reclaim the Night march there had come, why they felt impelled to protest.

The main problem seemed to be a lack of clarity as to whether the programme's intention was analytical or descriptive (and of course they're not incompatible!) At times, it felt as if powerful arguments were being marshalled on why porn was so pernicious; at other points it seemed to retreat into a kind of false objectivity (''This is what these people think, and here's what these other people think").

Why do feminists focus on porn particularly? What about the argument that porn is per se violence against women? Or vexed problem of causation?

It's certainly possible to argue that porn is the ideological brutalisation of women, that in and of itself it is damaging to women's self-image.

It's also quite plausible to see porn increasing the likelihood of violence against women by legitimising it, by creating expectations in men of what women are and should be like sexually, e.g. we like to be raped, beaten, tortured:

masochism is a necessary part of our sexuality.

It's certainly true that porn condones the subjugation of women, presents male domination as natural, necessary and satisfying. It would be very strange indeed if the demeaning objectifying view of women it portrays didn't infect the consciousness of the • men (and women) exposed to it.

Now which, if any, of these views do the programmemakers nold? Do they disagree among themselves? It was certainly hard to tell from the programme.

Of course, they may not want to put over "propaganda" • But that seems falsely naive view since their technical skill reveals a very sophisticated grasp of how images are constructed to embody arguments even when there is no overt "message"

My frustration with the programme derives from the way it offered tantalising promises of explanation: why is porn so central to feminist agitation at the moment?

Is it, as one of the contributors to the discussion threw out, just a phase (we had beauty contests, Miss World, in the early '70s, advertising in the late '70s and now we've all focussed on porn)?

One very striking sour note to hit me was the treatment (or non-treatment) of Throughout the programme the images, interviews, presenters were uniformly white. No reference was made at any time to particular Women: fragmented images, fragmented lives racist portrayal of black women's sexuality in porn. There was no opportunity to conclude whether black women are bothered by the issue, have a separate view, or are just not interested in white feminists' concerns.

The one black woman in the studio discussion sat silent for most of the time and when she finally spoke was interrupted before she finished ("supportively" but nonetheless differently from all the others who were allowed to go on without having their points "interpreted" for them).

She raised the problem of a are discounted out of line? Yet another unanswered question.

The Pictures of Women Collective set out to raise feminist concerns round sexuality with a wider audience than just the converted. That the programmes appeared at all is a major success. I can certainly never remember a programme raising these issues in this way before. If it starts people thinking and talking, that will be a major achieve. ment.

RACISM is rife in the Tory party Did it succeed in making these issues accessible to "ordinary women"? Apart from being broadcast at 11 p.m., which is out of the control of the makers, there were enough high points, impressive technique and wonderful music to grab the attention.

I can't help feeling though that impact was often sacrificed for fear of going over the top on "propaganda". • A harder-hitting programme with a 'heavier" •message 32:

We can improve your nightlife. made the whole thing might paradoxically • have more watchable and created a few more converts.

All in all, it was sufficient to determine me to prop my eyelids open again next Monday at 11 p.m. for the next one. Till then, I'm left with the intriguing question which was popped in somewhere in the discussion: can we manage to be as subversive, assertive and threatening in our pleasure as we have been in our anger and displeasure?

----- pull-quotes -----

LESBIANS UNITED.