5/25/00 11:35 a.m.
In Defense of Sleaze
Two cheers for sleazy movies.

Robert A. George is an editorial page writer
for the New York Post------------------------------------RAGGEDmail@aol.com

ex, sleaze, and crass jokes. No, not another day in the White House, but a special (belated) "Spring Break" edition of Ragged Thots. Unyielding servant of the popular culture that your humble columnist happens to be, he's off to the movies to consider the conservative case for sleaze and pseudo-porn. No, this is not going to be a typical Clinton-bashing column. Instead, this just observes that, when we celebrate the human condition, we must recognize that base vices are always hard at work trying to overcome our virtues. And they often win out.

This seems like the perfect time for such a consideration. Look what else is going on: A person who made his early career on recording "ribald" lyrics, The Artist Formerly Known As The Artist Formerly Known As Prince, is now once again — formally known as Prince. President Clinton, meanwhile, is trying to prevent getting disbarred after his "creative" testimony over what he did or did not do with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky and on and on.

We also had a Supreme Court ruling this week that sharply curtails Congress's ability to prevent dirty movies being played on cable networks across the nation. (As an aside, one must tip the hat to Justice Clarence Thomas. John O. McGinnis writes quite eloquently on the site about the two competing conservative interpretations that led Thomas to a different decision than that of Antonin Scalia on this case. Far be it for me to choose between the two. However, considering everything that happened to him during his confirmation nine years ago, Thomas certainly demonstrated a lot of guts to step forward as the deciding vote for a majority decision that could be interpreted as pro-porn.)

One of the enduring myths of young adultery, uh, adulthood is the fleshfest that is "spring break." It is a myth continually regurgitated by MTV, but has roots in the slightly more chaste Frankie and Annette '60s "beach" movies. Upgraded — or perhaps "degraded" is the proper term — for the modern day, yes, but a line can definitely be drawn. Anyway, realizing that NR would not expense a "research" excursion to Ft. Lauderdale, my choices were limited. So, instead, your intrepid columnist went to the local movie theater to catch the latest "teen-sleaze" movie, Road Trip.

Many readers at this point are asking, "What the heck's going on here? A defense of sleaze at National Review Online and then an admission that the writer went into some adolescent sex comedy?"

Well, yes, because someone has to stand up for suggestive material, even if it borders on, by almost any criterion, true trash. Conservatives must recognize that salaciousness actually has a rather impressive history. Strong defenders of the Western canon, such as Bill Bennett, must recognize that Aristophanes' The Clouds, Rabelais's Gargantua and Pantagruel and Chaucer's Canterbury Tales are classic works that contain more than their share of bawdy and, in certain places, near-obscene material. And for a long time, there have been many that have demanded that offensive material be expunged.

The fact that such behavior exists in various works that have stood the test of time long enough to be considered classic suggests that perhaps we should not always be so quick to dismiss offensive material. Over the last couple of decades, a cottage industry has developed of teen "coming-of-age" comedies. Fast Times At Ridgemont High is one of the most famous. Porky's, with various obnoxious shower scenes, is perhaps the most notorious; last year's American Pie seems like an homage to both of those movies.

The one element all of these movies have in common is the obligatory "loss of virginity" scene. Fast Times may be unique in the genre as it actually includes the perspective of the act from the female point of view (not quite the triumphalism that young men are portrayed as experiencing). Porky's is a low-budget north-of-the-border export that will undoubtedly cause many people to (in the words of South Park), Blame Canada. While it is difficult to say that the movie has any socially redeeming value, it is very funny. No, Bill Bennett will not like it. American Pie, of course, was devoted to four teen boys trying to "become men" in the most crass, cliched ways possible. American Pie is a funny movie and surprisingly warm-hearted as well, considering that more than one character suddenly realizes that — Wow!! — life isn't only about appeasing one's hormones. It would be so wonderful, if a certain 50-something baby boomer could learn such a valuable lesson.

Should pre-marital sex, underage drinking, and various forms of substance abuse be applauded? Well, no, as an idealized human "lifestyle," no ,they shouldn't. But it's not always a good idea to condemn such behavior out of hand. To do so ignores a basic truth: Our failings and temptations can indeed lead us to tragedy and degradation. But they can also lead us to recognize the silliness and foolishness of being human. Occasionally, that leads to wisdom. To the extent that art can reveal these truths, it should be, at the least, tolerated.

Oh, and Road Trip doesn't quite match up to Fast Times, Porky's or Pie. All the cliches are there: Inappropriate carnal behavior, crass scenes with small animals, blowing up dad's car, etc. But the individual scenes are better than the whole picture.

On the other hand, it is cheaper than a trip to Ft. Lauderdale.