The Tin Drum

Though at first glance, watching what looks like a little boy anxiously putting his face into the crotch of a young woman may cause one to be uncomfortable or even offended, it does not necessarily mean that the film need be banned or even labeled as child pornography. I recognize that within the film, The Tin Drum, there are several scenes that metaphorically represent sexual simulations, and I do not doubt or deny that some scenes personally caught me off-guard and offended me at least a little. But I would like to apply the harm theory here, which then moves me to protect this film because it did not truly incite immediate violence against me. Though a viewer might be disturbed or angered when Maria, in bed with Oskar, licks and eats the fizzy candy mixed with Oskar’s saliva in it off of her hand, the viewer undoubtedly was not physically harmed. It is a different matter when one is offended and one is harmed by something, as proven in Cohen v. California. In Cohen, the language that was used in this case was not considered obscene or of fighting words, though some may take the word “fuck” to be offensive. However, this type of expression is protected by the Constitution for several reasons: 1) it is not possible to come up with a list of acceptable and non-acceptable words, 2) provocative language can communicate valuable ideas and emotions, and 3) when the state attempts to prohibit words, they are also suppressing thoughts and ideas. In the same way, if we prohibit certain images that, in one country, may be viewed as art, and in the US a select handful of people may be offended, it would be limiting another’s artistic expressions to not protect The Tin Drum.

The Tin Drum is an award-winning film that gained much admiration and respect from film-reviewers and fans, which had much artistic and historical value behind it. According to the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1966 (CPPA), child pornography “is defined by law as the visual depiction of a person under the age of 18 engaged in a sexually explicit conduct… Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity…”. In New York v. Ferber, “sexual conduct” is defined as “actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sadomasochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals.” However, the possession of such materials is not to be considered a crime. If we were to apply Baker’s theory here, not only should the possession of such materials not be considered a crime, but the production of such materials should be protected as well, as I will soon address. There is no SLAPS exception within Ferber, though I would argue extending it so that literary, artistic and political value is recognized, which there clearly was in The Tin Drum. Along with these examples are philosophical views that help to reason my argument for protecting The Tin Drum.

First, Thomas Emerson’s view on freedom of expression makes it clear that expressions that do not turn into actions should have absolute protection. If we were to think along his views toward freedom, The Tin Drum could be classified as an expression. However, I recognize that Emerson may consider some of the scenes in the film as obscene. This would have to be a case carefully examined if basing premises on Emerson, but I do think that the majority of Emerson’s views would contribute to protecting most of the content in The Tin Drum, classifying it as a means of artistic expression.

Edwin Baker is a philosopher grounded in a view that every individual has their right to express their creativity, whether that may be shown through a painting, a comic book, or a film, and so on. Baker protects the right of individuals to make their own judgments and choices about creating and/or consuming sexually simulating materials. His liberty theory suggests that “free speech becomes primarily a listener’s right to hear, not a speaker’s right to speak” (page 441, Tedford & Herbeck). Baker’s liberty theory is supported by two key values, which are self-fulfillment and participation in change, both pointing towards freedom and equality for individuals. I agree with the way Baker believes in protecting self-expressive and creative material that “protects nonviolent, non-coercive practices” (page 442, Tedford & Herbeck). Basically, the First Amendment protects individuals to make their own choices about whether they make or watch sexual materials.

In a society where we have teens prosecuted for “sexting,” I would argue that the scenes of The Tin Drum are not classified as child pornography, but rather, a film that has artistic value, in which some may not be able to understand while others are able to appreciate the film for what it is. In The Tin Drum, the boy who played Oskar was not forced to play the role, which I believe makes it acceptable for him to be Oskar, despite his actual age. Though in the United States we might think it is outrageous to view such a film where two young children are engaging in sexual activities, in countries like Germany, their culture is different from ours, which makes it okay to produce such a film with that storyline. Again, I do not dismiss the fact that one could be offended by knowing that the true age of the actors, but it does not harm anyone by knowing the numbers. Instead, it is a matter of offense, which I have suggested earlier in my analysis.

In conclusion, child pornography, or the definition of it at least, should be carefully considered because it seems to suppress the ideas of expressions of artists and filmmakers. If we extended the definition and allowed it SLAPS value, perhaps First Amendment rights would be much more granted. With Baker’s theory in mind, The Tin Drum is a film that offers literary value, especially for those who live in Germany who may understand the symbolisms in the film more than viewers in the United States, especially those in Oklahoma City. Nevertheless, the film, though it may have a select number of scenes that may be considered “uncomfortable” to view for most American eyes, is a film that holds a wide array of values for many viewers, thus allowing it to be viewed and purchased today.