The 2017 revival did not occur in a vacuum. It coincided with the rise of the #MeToo movement and an intense cultural debate about masculinity, power, and consent. Critics on the left occasionally questioned Tom’s aesthetic: was his celebration of the “male animal” simply a replication of toxic, patriarchal power structures? Were his depictions of uniformed authority figures (cops, soldiers) politically problematic in an era of police brutality and militarism?
By the close of 2017, Tom of Finland was no longer a secret. The Tom of Finland Foundation, based in Los Angeles and dedicated to preserving erotic art, saw its membership and donations skyrocket. Major fashion houses—Saint Laurent, Balenciaga—explicitly cited his line work in their collections. His imagery, once hidden in wallets and tucked under mattresses, was now available on phone cases, coffee table books, and (briefly) official postal mail. tom of finland -2017-
The centennial of 2017 accomplished what Laaksonen, who died in 1991, could never have dreamed: it transformed him from a niche pornographer into a master artist, a national hero, and a philosopher of desire. In celebrating his 100th birthday, the world finally caught up to Tom of Finland. The men in black leather no longer had to hide in the shadows. They had stepped, fully erect and grinning, into the bright light of history. The 2017 revival did not occur in a vacuum
Pekka Strang delivered a haunting performance as Laaksonen, depicting him as a World War II veteran whose wartime experiences—shooting Soviet soldiers and witnessing death—informed his later obsession with powerful, uniformed men. The film showed Tom not as a hedonistic provocateur, but as a shy, chain-smoking graphic designer by day who built a fantasy world at night to escape the crushing loneliness of 1950s Helsinki. It highlighted his decades-long love affair with his partner, Veli “Nipa” Mäkinen, a relationship that provided domestic stability while his art ran wild. By humanizing Tom, the 2017 biopic ensured that the man was not lost in the mythology of his own creation. Audiences left understanding that the hyper-masculine posturing on paper was a form of therapy, a tool for survival. Were his depictions of uniformed authority figures (cops,