Critique of Black Pilled’s video regarding Arbuckle, and the sexual nature of films.

I gave Black Pilled an opportunity to respond to my comments on his video.  He hasn’t.  It could be because he gets so flooded with comments he doesn’t have time to read them all (understandable), or that he doesn’t care enough, not even on Gab.com.  I said I would post my youtube response on my blog site if he didn’t respond.  So that’s what I’m doing.  The below paragraphs were the comments I left on his video.  I primarily critique the first 8 minutes of the video, “Pawnbreaking Our Culture.”

This is the first video you’ve made that I take issue with, particularly the righteous attitude that, while admirable at points, can become misguided. I challenge your standards of decency.

First off, the whole thing about sexual situations being alluded to in the 40s, and even in the 50s, rather than being shown. This statement seems to be made under the assumption that these sexual situations weren’t anymore explicit prior to that time period. This is not the case. In 1915, that is when the first stag films were being made. Granted, it was more of an underground market where you had to go to “gentlemen’s clubs” to see them, but they were there. And they continued to be in circulation all the way through the 1960s until porn decided to go a little more mainstream in the 70s. There’s always been an audience for it. It was only inevitable that audiences would want to see this sort of thing in more mainstream films. The problem was that, back then, there wasn’t a rating system. There wasn’t anything to give warning as to what they were about to see at the cinema. It wasn’t until the MPAA was formed in the 60s that a rating system was setup.

And that whole thing of child porn as you call it, with 1978’s “Pretty Baby,” which I haven’t seen yet (but thanks for giving me knowledge of another film to check out), you also went too far down the road for when this was a thing. There is a film called “Child Bride” from 1938, which beat out Pretty Baby by 40 years. And it did so under the guise of being an independent “educational” film to warn of the dangers of child marriage (which was still sort of a thing back then in some areas). The film shows a girl swimming completely nude, with not much left to the imagination (you see tits and ass in all their glory). The actress, Shirley Olivia Mills, was also 12 years old at the time the film was made. And in her later years, people were coming up to her asking about her being exploited for that film. But the thing is, to her dying day, she claimed she never was, and never felt exploited, at all, during the entire filming endeavor. Not even during the controversial swimming scene. In fact, she felt she was getting more harassed and exploited by the people who wanted her to admit she was exploited during filming. In any case, that kicks you theory of women and girls being “exploited” during the 60s and onwards at the latest right in the keister.

It also doesn’t seem like you’re too familiar with the time period that many would call the Jazz Age of cinema (let alone some silent films like Intolerance which also had its fair share of topless women), which was basically between 1927 and 1934, when sound went mainstream. There were several films that not only went a bit far with female nudity (the last one of the era likely being 1934’s Tarzan and his Mate, which also had a nude swimming scene, shot underwater), but also had films about women using their sensuality to exploit men. The main example of the latter can be found with the 1933 film Baby Face, which is all about a woman sleeping her way to the top of the corporate ladder with the goal of gaining wealth.

And when Will Hays (who’s arm was basically twisted by Joseph Breen, and the government along with religious groups) finally got the Hay’s Code to be enforced in 1934, those films depicting women who were capable of doing that largely went away. That subject matter was off-limits. And plenty of films suffered for it because that subject matter was too risque. For example, 1932’s Rain had Joan Crawford’s character criticizing the nature of the Catholic church, how they’re too narrow minded and not as caring of what other people feel as they claim (in that they rely too much on the “my way or the highway” mentality without taking other factors into consideration; it’s an argument for how context can change the appropriate answer/response). The Hay’s code prohibited more than just sexual decency and dress codes and foul language, it prohibited forms of criticism.

And newsflash, an argument can be made for pornography being a form of art. An easy example to support such an argument can be found in the film Shame, directed by Steve McQueen, starring Michael Fassbender, from 2011, about a man whose sexual addiction harms his ability to connect with others on a deep emotional level, making him incapable of forming a bond that can lead to love. And this is shown through the sexual acts, how he is disconnected from such relationships during those acts, contrasted with the one time where he tries to have a serious relationship with someone during the act of lovemaking. Sex scenes, when filmed correctly, can be used as character and plot development, let alone for metaphorical/thematic purposes. It’s no different than the argument that a film like The Passion of the Christ can use acts of violence (which many would dismiss as torture porn) to make such points. The way some cause violence, how some enjoy it, how some are revolted by it, how the blood symbolizes the washing away of humanity’s sins, and thus much must be shed in order to cleanse the world of those sins. It’s all about the context, and a simple dismissal of the idea that porn (either sexual or violent) should never be allowed because it has no artistic merit and will lead to a degeneration of society is complete and utter bullshit.

This isn’t to make an excuse for cast and crew who acted depraved behind the scenes by sexually exploiting some member of the cast. Of course those people should be decried for those acts. Of course some form of punishment should be had towards them for doing that. But that doesn’t mean that automatically applies to every cast or crew member of every film that has “pornographic” depictions. As much as you would hate to believe this, sometimes these films are made without any ruckuss or unwanted exploitation behind the scenes. But many wouldn’t want to accept that possibility, which is why this whole Michael Jackson “Leaving Neverland” condemnation is a thing, which is literally kicking a dead horse. Go watch Razorfist’s videos which debunk that bullshit.

This isn’t a shift in the culture, this is culture being let loose from restrictions and letting people have what they want on the big screen. Considering how much the mid-late 30s all the way to the early 60s deprived audiences of stuff they were starting to get during the pre-Hays code days, it’s no wonder this whole “pornographic” era as you call it of the late 60s to the 70s exploded when it did. People were sick of being hindered. It’s especially infuriated considering how often the Catholics, those who called for decency in cinema, were the ones banging the kiddies behind the scenes (roughly 18% of Catholic priests from what I understand). Society didn’t become depraved, it was always depraved. And if that’s not enough of a reality check for you, consider that the legal age of marriage during the 1880s was as young as 10 years. That’s right, during the 1880s, it was legal to marry a 10 year old.

Regarding the alleged rape of Virginia Rappe by Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle, you appear to state that incident under the impression that that is exactly how it happened. And I call bullshit on that too. There are at least 2 books written on the subject that go in-depth with the coverage of all that, along with the historical context surrounding the incident. “The Day the Laughter Stopped” by David Yallop (1976), and “Room {1219}” by Greg Merritt (2013), which lay out a convincing case that Arbuckle didn’t rape Virginia, that it’s far-fetched at best that he did. Considering how Virginia’s “friend” Maude Delmont was the main person who made that claim in the first place, and has been known to blackmail rich men in the past for their money, and likely made that claim for the sake of blackmailing Arbuckle, and considering the prosecution didn’t think her a solid enough witness to have as a witness during the 3 separate trials (the first 2 were mistrials, the 3rd had Arbuckle acquitted), that’s already enough to cast doubt on the whole incident. And when Arbuckle was finally acquitted, not only did the jury acquit him, but they also wrote a statement which basically stated that “Acquittal is not good enough for Arbuckle.” In that he deserved more than acquittal. He deserved apologies from everyone involved, and maybe even compensation for having his name and finances dragged through the muck during this whole ordeal, especially by both the papers (mainly by William Randolph Hearst) and the religious organizations. But he didn’t get that. Even during the time of the trial, Hollywood was looking to make an example out of Arbuckle to sooth the mobs who wanted something done about the controversies that were coming out about Hollywood at the time. Which involved deaths, murders, drugs, orgies, and booze (which was outlawed due to prohibition at the time). And after the trial, they made Arbuckle’s life hell. He couldn’t get any real acting gigs after that, and his career was finished, despite the not guilty verdict. Quite the justice system we have hear, especially when someone like you, in this day and age, is still willing to give the dead guy shit about it when it’s more likely he didn’t do it. Do some friggin’ research before making statements like that why don’t you? The only people who were bribed were the studios and William Hays, who was approached by some executives from Paramount studios to get him to announce Arbuckle being blacklisted from Hollywood.

As for the religious organizations bringing pressure on Hollywood to force them to implement the Hay’s code, it’s not that simple. You’re leaving out a huge chunk of context. The Great Depression was in swing during that time period, leaving many without much cash in hand. Hollywood was able to keep afloat of this for a while, but eventually even they started to feel the financial burn, with less people (and thus less cash) flowing into the cinemas. Combine this with the fact that the Supreme Court ruled, unanimously, in 1915, that films were not protected by the first amendment, and Hollywood would be under pressure not just from religious organizations for alleged moral reasons, but also from federal and state forces which could shut them down at their leisure. Especially when many in government were of a religious influence and had connections with these religious groups. So it wasn’t just the pressure from those arguing for morality, it wasn’t just pressure from federal and local governments, it was also the pressure of losing money by having less customers who were less willing (if not altogether unable) to shell out cash to see films because there wasn’t much cash to go around during the Great Depression. Not to mention the guy who was putting pressure on Hays himself to implement this code, Joseph Breene, who arguably had more influence than Hays did in his position, was a religious person himself who was practically in bed with the religious organizations. Hay’s didn’t force the film industry to follow the code because most audiences demanded it, Hay’s convinced them to do so in order for the film industry to survive. It was for both monetary reasons, and to avoid the risk of the government coming in and regulating films themselves, which they attempted to do at earlier points in history.

Bottom line, both the Catholics and Jews are assholes. It was just the Catholics who were assholes first.