What’s the problem here?

The LA Times is upset that the LA Coliseum was used for a porno shoot. But given the new emphasis on safe sex in the industry, what more appropriate venue could there be than the home of the Trojans?

The LA Times is upset that the LA Coliseum was used for a porno shoot. But given the industry’s new emphasis on safe sex, what more appropriate venue could there be than the home of the Trojans?

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com

12 thoughts on “What’s the problem here?”

  1. The LA Times is ranting over footage shot in 2001? The “movie” was released 2002; evidently no one in LA or any UCLA grad ever saw it and mentioned the Coliseum.

    Did everyone in LA take Memorial Day week off? This is news 10 years later?

  2. So, Mark, it is being alleged that they used condoms in the movie?? ; >

    I won’t ask if you’ve seen it, since that would be rude. I haven’t — I only watch humanely-made porn, which as far as I know doesn’t exist yet.

    People are getting kind of grumpy around here lately. Has anyone else noticed? What’s up?

  3. Mark, it appears the Times’ point is not so much that this ten year old filming is, in and of itself, an outrage.

    Rather, it is that someone at the Coliseum had to have gotten the porn folks into the locked stadium and turned on the field lights and that this is somehow tied into the litany of corruption stories coming out of the Coliseum management lately. In other words, something has been rotten at the Coliseum for at least ten years or more.

    While there is no doubt that there is plenty of corruption blame to go around what with the L.A. County Sups getting oodles of free sky box tickets a lot of the recent exposes appear to have some connection to efforts to get the County and State (which owns the land) to effectively give the Coliseum to the USC football team for nothing.

    1. If the producers paid for it legit, and not directly to the pockets of the folks who manage it, I can see no legal issue.

      But as nobody has come forth to say they did it, there is a strong assumption of dirty play.

  4. Given the, ummmmm, comprehensive nature of the California State Constitution, I’m a little surprised there is no anti-donation clause contained in it.

    On the other hand, it’s been pretty effectively demonstrated that in terms of receiving legislative love, the two things a university wants are (1) a law school, and (2) a winning football team. USC has both.

  5. Chill. I’m not expressing any view about the existence of a scandal, or not: just making an old joke at the expense of the University for Stupid Children.

    A Bruin lives fifty years, but a Trojan …

  6. About half of the 90-minute movie was filmed elsewhere. . . .he [Marcus] remembered the movie was shot on a cool night starting about 7. “We were probably there until 11 p.m.,” he said.

    There must be a lesson here in the economics of filmmaking. Half of a feature-length movie was shot in four hours. Four hours on a Hollywood movie gets about thirty seconds.

Comments are closed.