I’m conflicted by a film that stopped through Atlanta. It’s called Tearoom and it’s part of the 2008 Whitney Biennial. Essentially the movie is surveillance tape compiled by police during a 1962 sting operation in a Mansfield, Ohio public restroom.
In just under an hour, I witnessed more gay sex than I have in my entire life. Now I’m sitting at home thinking about whether what I saw was art (as it has been called by many critics) or voyeuristic porn.
I have one basic problem in calling this art. There is precious little filmmaking involved in Tearoom. This is pretty much the raw video shot during the surveillance operation. It is provocative. It is titillating. It is sure to be controversial. But so is porn. What makes this any different?
On the other hand, the sheer weight of societal oppression is evident in every frame of the film. As a historical document, it is undoubtedly important. These are men of different races and classes all mashed together by the mores of 1962 into a position stripped of all dignity. But does it become art simply because it serves as evidence of a time and space?
The art or porn question is the most obvious, but I have a larger nagging criticism of Tearoom. The footage it contains was used to convict some 60 men of sodomy under the laws of Ohio in 1962. These are real men. They aren’t characters in a screenwriter’s imagination. Many of them are no doubt still alive. What are the ethical considerations that “filmmaker” William E. Jones owes to these men?
I can only assume that the sponsors of tonight’s showing intended Tearoom to serve as testament to the results of persecution of homosexuals. But are we sure that all of these men want to be trotted out to the public in service of that cause? I can’t be so sure. And shouldn’t they have at least been given the choice?
