Did the Story of O film have to be so bad? (part 2 of 4)

Now why would Just Jaeckin’s (JJ) film be that way, aesthetically pleasing, but superficial, shallow --- bad? Did it have to be, AD 1975? JJ was a photographer and interested in beautiful images. He does succeed there, but I have tried to argue that he misses the point of the book. The book is grittier, earthier, not soft, no matter how compliant O's character is. It is certainly about a mental journey that O follows from René’s vanilla lover, to his submissive to that of Sir Stephen. Assuming JJ had wanted to do the book full justice, and that he would have been capable of doing so, could he have succeeded? I believe he could have, if he had been a different man and cunning, perhaps by being restrained on the showing and let O speak more, literally or figuratively. I grant that a mainstream film would not easily have succeeded. The JJ version as it is was banned in the UK and US, I think, no matter how innocent. There is the nudity to deal with, the whipping etc., and the humiliation, of a woman as a woman... Political correctness? Would that have been in the way? Feminists disagree on the quality or the morality of the book. But Pasolini made Salo around the same time, a quite extreme statement. True, he dealt with scores of young women and men, instead of concentrating on a single woman. Salo caused uproar, but it was shown and still is. Not that I would have recommended Pasolini to do the O film. He is not straight enough. The example of Salo merely demonstrates to me that my ideal O film could have been made at the time. My favourite would have been a Stanley Kubrick, who could have done it at the time, had he wanted.