Is film censorship in the UK an important safeguard or an unnecessary evil? Join the debate about the world of extreme, controversial and challenging movies, but remember your manners!
We should be brave enough not to censor anything based on the content alone. Instead, we should look more carefully at the film-makers motives, and censor films according to the director's malicious intentions. A film might be feature violence in an educational manner, but it could also show violence which really did happen to the actor/actress. This would be wrong. For instance, we learnt recently on the Linda Lovelace documentary that Linda Lovelace was forced to act in Deep Throat. Her former husband/manager threatened her life and the bruises he inflicted on her can be seen on the film. This is wrong, however, the content itself is acceptable. What do you think? More control on directors but less concerns about the content?
quote:Originally posted by davidkessler: ... More control on directors but less concerns about the content?
Whoa ! What a dangerous notion. Why stop there ? Why not have a BBDC (British Board Of Director Classification), which runs a psychoanalysis of each potention director before allowing them to make any films ?
I think you may have forgotten that we have laws that should protect people from harm and exploitation by others, whether it's on a film set or in any other workplace.
The entire point of fiction is that it allows artists to explore the unpalatable, the dangerous, the illegal, the obscene, etc.
I pretty much agree with what Scabby says. It should be our choice to view what we want to. The only reasons these censorship guidelines are in place are to 'protect children', but that is what the classification system is for. We should not have our cinema going experienced dampened because a few parents allow their children to view inappropriate material and then complain about it.
<Dave (the Fave)>
Posted
Censorship is very dangerous indeed. Only if there is a real proven danger that a film could have a harmful effect on potential viewers should it be banned. Censorship in this country is mostly about denying films a voice because certain sections of society do not understand them, or have no personal wish to view them. Reasons given- moral protection for example- while being a view that can be respected as being individual to that person, are often irrelevant as exposure to the subjects/issues/images in the film are present in other areas of culture in general. Classification is another matter entirely. While these days, it might seem futile or pointless to classify films PG, 12, 18 etc. because people believe that if they want to see a certain film they will at all costs, they also give some idea as to what the film will cover. While not judging a book (or video) by its cover, a film which is PG is probably family orientated and is probably not a film I would consider watching at the drop of a hat (my taste is for weird/cult/challenging/difficult/art films).
<wickaman>
Posted
good films make us think. but most people don't watch films for thinking. they watch them for a throwaway buzz. so i reckon good films should live free from the fear of the cutting room floor and "movies" should get chopped like the council cutting your hair.
<benoitfunk>
Posted
Sorry wickaman, but sometimes good films don't make us think. And thank God they don't. Certainly in the discussion of censorship, you're dealing with a lot of films whose primary reason for being is giving audiences the giddy thrills of blood and boobs, all for the purpose of making a bit of money. Think Blood Feast; think The Burning; think EXPLOITATION! Do they make you think? Largely, no. Should they be censored? Dear God, no!
If you're dealing with the issue of censorship, you must be prepared to tackle the subject knowing that you cannot differentiate between 'types' of films. It's all or nothing, otherwise any argument falls flat. This is its main problem. Should we ban hardcore porn? No. Should we ban paedophilia. Yes. And here lies the main issue. It is knowing where to draw the line. The criteria should NOT be whether the film makes you 'think', cuz that's not the point.
I agree that censorship is annoying. I agree that it's arbitrary, judgemental, and sometimes even rather stupid. But film lovers should join together against the censors, not blame less 'deserving' films.
<wickaman>
Posted
though i'd like to see the line drawn by us the people and not the likes of alexander walker. how that can be acheived (and prof critics opinions merits as much as all others) i don't know. does the law come into it? but laws are different from land to land so you get segregation when films can be used to bring us all together. the usa has got the biggest propaganda unit in the world, yeah called hollywood that has no qualms about changing the past to suit their future. is this a bigger issue or is it the same as the censors chopping what they think we shouldn't see?
"good" films do make us think, even wiz of odd for example. we watch them thinking this is good and we watch other films thinking this is "bad" so i guess i should elaborate... we are forever evolving our minds fed by our senses. we hope the world will be a better place in the future and see it as our job to help in some way towards this. paying �6 to afford entrance into your local cinerama should ensure not only entertainment but some positive attempt to help the future - even if the film explores negative aspects.
and its interesting that those with the most resources to make righteous films don't. hollywood US gov PR dept for example. land of the free. and those in that land swallow it while many others around the world aspire to the american dream. and the studios get paid bigtime in full. sick. not saying righteous films don't have the right to make cash but should endeavour to attain righteousness with ching-ching expectation. a for the concept of eliteism it would depend on the motives of said elitists. if motives were righteous and pure in spirit to a better future, ten that might not be a bad thing. but power usually corrupts so best have no censor and let the people decide.
Censorship is rubbish. I've been watching 18+ films since I was nine. Most stuff on TV or the cinema is there for people to see through choice. If it wasn't for free will, we'd watch everything. Free will, is our choice. If you don't like whats on, you naturally don't watch it. Some will watch through fascination, others because they can't believe its there for people to see. You got to take everything with a pitch of salt. See whatever for what it is and not to believe in it like its for real. Censorship, makes you want to watch it, like drinking and drugs. You do it for yourself.
Importantly, you've got to be open minded. And don't dismiss something just because you dislike it. But to accept it as part of our society.
If the film makers are will to make a film and the actors are willing to act then I think we should be able to whatch it, hats of to them all!!
<wickaman>
Posted
as long as it ain't harming no one involved and wouldn't afford fascination to those that might harm others, then yeah why not. we pay our money and takes our choice.
<benoitfunk>
Posted
"as long as it wouldn't afford fascination to others"
This sounds like the censor's wet dream, the very mantra that gets them up in the morning and sends them into work without a hint of guilt. They are protecting us from susceptible types, who might see a gun in a film and realise that they too could get a gun and, yes, kill someone. Never mind the fact that anyone who kills, or even hurts, another person because of a film is probably susceptible to any number of stimuli. (Like, I don't know, the world around them.) I'm no psychologist, but I'm sure the mind of any wouldbe killer (or rapist or child abuser for that matter) is a lot more disturbing than any scene conceived or realised by any filmmaker in the world. As I've already suggested in this forum, it's all or nothing in censorship - we should stop passing the buck.
Same goes for all this talk of films with righteous intentions. Films should NOT make us hope for a better future - we should be doing that ourselves, regardless. Films should be there for that hour and a half/two hours when we don't want to care about the future. If that period of time means that we want to watch a brutal serial killer exploitation sickie with multiple gory murders and, yes, even a rape scene, then why shouldn't we be allowed that right?
Imagine a government that concedes there is more to the violent person's psyche than what's in their VCR ... Nice, isn't it? Now imagine the government that we have at the moment (and any government for the foreseeable future), which allows people to be locked away in mental hospitals for displaying psychological symptoms that MAY IN THE FUTURE lead to violent behaviour. Suddenly puts the censorship argument into an interesting context, doesn't it?
<mr flibble>
Posted
film censorship is an obsolete notion. there are laws already in place which govern what we can and cant see, including what can physically and ideologically be made (i.e regarding assault laws, minors, animals, racisim, sexisism and incitement to violence etc). when the censorship of theatre was abolished it meant that a greater diversity of art could be shown legitamately. true there was some trash that was dragged along the way, but it did at least mean that some of the greatest theatrical artists could finally express themselves. trash tv,film or theatre will always remain so. the less noise that is made about them the better because the best way to get rid of that cr*p is to ignore it.......no publicity=no profit and a bad film will fade very quickly into obscurity. where would half the banned films from the post 1984 video recordings act peiod be if they had not gained infamy from the tag of being banned?
<whiterabbit1000>
Posted
Ahhhh, its so nice to see the Banned thread again, after sooooo long. Pity all the arguments are the same...
Censorship of films is quite wrong. It is utterly un-necessary, as responsible adults are able to make up their own minds about what they want to watch. That's in an ideal world, unfortunately, we do not live in such a place. In a society based in 'freedom' there is precious little of it shown when it comes to film; every film/video HAS to go before the BBFC before we the great British public are allowed to see it.
But wait, perhaps that ideal world does actually exist, I've seen it, its called the internet. Anything can be bought, bypassing our draconian censors (actually that is a little unfair, they have improved beyond all expectation in the last two or so years).
The point of all this, fighting the good fight gets the message across, without it Straw Dogs would never have been released, but in the meantime use the internet to supply yourself with everything that is currently unavailable here.
Simon
Favourite Quote, "I like to watch" Chance the Gardner
