Perversion for Profit

Perversion for Profit (1965)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

George Putnam, listed in the credits as being an "outstanding news reporter", tackles dirty magazines that were on bookshelves back in 1965. Standing in front of a map of the U.S., Putnam talks to the viewer about all the evil magazines that are turning people into perverts, lesbians, homosexuals, child molesters and various other sexual evils. As you can tell, the main draw to a film like this is just like the draw of REEFER MADNESS and that's just to see how much b.s. they can fit into one film. The film is quite funny because of how politically incorrect the film is so if you're easily offended then you might want to stay away. I personally never knew how many adult magazines were available back in the day so it was very interesting seeing the covers and what was being passed off as sexy then. The narration is so over the top and the stories he's telling are so stupid that you can't take them seriously for a second. The stuff dealing with homosexuals trying to lure young boys was outlandishly surreal. The entire film is a nostalgia trip for those certain people pushing their viewpoints with lies.

After watching a few Ed Wood films, I think I can safely say that if you want a bad film that is truly hilarious, you should look for this one instead.

The narrator very sternly intones against the "flood-tide of filth" that he considers against Christian values, and carefully and methodically gives examples of this "filth," showing almost as much as you'd see if you'd bought it yourself. But it's not all pretty pictures: the narrator explains a bit about it as well: that people can get sexual satisfaction from hurting themselves or others, and that various forms of fetishism deserving thorough discussion are "threatening our children": "the extreme spiked heel and the tight boot, the burning cigarette, the laced leather garment, the nakedness," "the worship of the whip, the riding crop, rubber and leather garments."

Aside from the S&M, which didn't disturb me at all, the film does also focus on child pornography; it's hard to dismiss that.

Yet still, by the end of it, the film has given so much detail in decrying all these "perversions" that one wonders whether the protest were a bit more personal than the staunch narrator pretends. It's easy to imagine the writers stacking up more and more magazines, saying to themselves "oh, that /is/ perverted ... yet oddly intriguing... such a nice boot...."

Presented and narrated by veteran newscaster and later right-wing pundit George Putnam (A registered Democrat FYI) and funded by fraudster/anti-porn crusader Charles Keating this production is what is often described as the "Reefer Madness of Porn". Various ludicrous postulates of the most alarmist nature are asserted as pure facts.

The censorship brigade which. by the time this was shot and cut. likely shared membership lists with the Temperance Union and other flaky outfits. The sheer panic that somebody might be getting sexual fulfillment literally anywhere probably horrified them enough to get them to watch this silliness over and over.

Even a prude (I'm one of those guys who complains to convenience store owners about porn being in full or partial view of minors) like me was disturbed by the moral arrogance and conspiracy theorist-style paranoia not merely present in the actual production but the forces behind it's conception.

The idea of it all being subversive was of course absurd in most of the examples presented. But the attitude, which at the time was so prevalent. meant that it was an underground industry which mafiosi produced for massive profit which financed other illegal enterprises. The notion that it was a gateway to depravity was only true because it had been driven underground into the clutches of organized crime.

Featured are nudist magazines which were of course just pornography masquerading as lifestyle magazines - a silly pretense employed to vend porn which fooled no one. Along with that are muscle and fitness magazines which in some cases they really were just that, but in other cases were openly gay erotica.

With it's paranoic's homophobic stance and junk science we get an idea of not only of the kind of prudery so dominant before the Sexual Revolution but the kind of virulent prejudice that now appears to have been an inseparable.

Keating, later convicted of fraud, racketeering and conspiracy used his public stance as defender of morality to hide behind. The anti-porn stance was an utterly brilliant way to win the confidence of crazy old ladies with money which they were only to happy to let him make off with in his various scams.

Keating testified before congress that he believed pornography was part of a communist conspiracy. All part of his narrative. All part of his scam.

I'm only guessing that most of the money put up for this production was spent on Putnam's services and his cachet as a news gatherer/presenter. Shot inside an office, with a map of the United States as backdrop and picture cards as props, his voice and presence are the one aspect that aren't bush league.

"A flood tide of filth is engulfing our country in the form of newsstand obscenity, and is threatening to pervert an entire generation of our American children!" So says 'reporter' George Putnam, who is not only upstanding but 'outstanding' as well! Putnam, a natty, well-dressed guy with Brylcreem in his hair, seems like the righteous sort of family man you might see volunteering as usher at your local parish. He uses amusing placards to warn us that magazine pornography (a two billion dollar a year business!) and other forms of filth reach 75-90% of our children (so much for that clever hiding space!) and that perversion is like an octopus reaching its tentacles out to the malt shop set--luring them into the insidious world of unnatural desires. "There are more than 800 distributors" peddling porn, and--no thanks to rapid transit and mass distribution--our children are being exposed to homosexuality at a faster rate than ever! Such dated naiveté is then accented with pulpy paperback covers and vintage sex rags which would go for big bucks today on eBay. One has to hand it to Putnam: he stands tall and holy, like a mighty Sequoia, putting emphasis on words like 'whips' and 'bestiality' with authoritative conviction. One can just imagine him hitting the local pub after the long film shoot, chatting up the neighborhood trollop and heading back to her place for a little R 'n R.

I've seen a number of reviews here by people who seem to think that this film is some kind of documentary. It's nothing of the kind. This is nothing more than a good old-fashioned exploitation film.

This film had no more intention of "saving souls from smut" than "Reefer Madness" had of dissuading people from smoking pot. The whole point of the exercise is to circumvent the legal and moral restrictions of the day and to make a fast buck while doing it.

These films all follow the same pattern:

1. "XYZ is evil/immoral/deadly"

2. "Here are some examples of XYZ so you'll know it when you see it."

3. "Fight XYZ!"

As the Master of Exploitation, Dave Friedman, points out in his autobiography, "A Youth in Babylon," the idea was to get the rubes to part with a few bucks to see something they could never see at the local Bijou.

Disguise it as "hygiene" or wrap it in patriotism or religion and the cops won't bother you.

Some other classic examples of the genre are "Mom and Dad," "Sex Madness", "Exposing the Nudist Racket". I believe all of these are available online.