Was Lenny Bruce right when he said that films that glorify war are more pornographic than pornography is?

Question

Just in case....Lenny Bruce was a stand up comic of the sixties who was one of the first to use large amounts of profanity in his act.

Answer 1

I am quite aware of who Lenny Bruce was...

Recently (2001), there was a film, 'Behind Enemy Lines' which was called just that - pornography, or "war porn" or some such name...by a film reviewer in a local free weekly newspaper. I have watched 'Behind Enemy Lines' twice, and found it quite similar to the late 60s - 70s war films; but while I can understand why Lenny Bruce made such a comment, I found the film reviewer's comment in keeping with her own bias -- and thus I discounted her use of the label.

What consistutes "pornography" is still up to community standards.

Answer 2

2

Answer 3

It would depend, I'd say, on how you define pornographic.
If you use the definition "designed to arouse lust", then no.
But if you use pornographic as a synonym for "obscene" with the meaning of "abhorrent: offensive to the mind; foul, repulsive, detestable", then I'd say that Lenny was absolutely right.
Killing and maiming seem a LOT more "obscene" to me than coitus.

By the way, Lenny was a trailblazer, and his premature death was also obscene:

"On August 3, 1966, Bruce was found dead at the age of 40 in the bathroom of his Hollywood Hills home at 8825 Hollywood Boulevard. The "official" photo, taken at the scene, showed a naked Bruce, a syringe and burned bottle cap nearby, along with various other narcotics paraphernalia. His official cause of death was acute morphine poisoning caused by an accidental overdose"

Answer 4

I think so. In the United States people would rather see things blown up, than to see someone blown.

Answer 5

It's a differnet kind of pornography to some people. Some are horrified byt it though.

Answer 6

yes I think so

Answer 7

yes