there is a reson for sensorship, there is a film that has not made it to the cinemas about a woman who is rejected by her boyfriend and keeps him traped, like missary only she cracks his chest open with a crowbar, how many people realy want to see this, if there was no certificate your kids could wonder in and watch this. no sensorship eaquals no certificates how would you safe gared people who do not want to see porn or vilonce on the tv/cinima?????
quote:Originally posted by Channel4 Film Editor: 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!
Censorship is essential - human beings, particularly young ones are curious and will be drawn to look at what they have not seen before. What they see will affect their attitudes and to a lesser extent their behavior. If you need proof of that talk to advertising executives.
It is not therefore possible to argue that material has no effect on the individual and what affects the individual is highly likely to affect society or at least that bit around the individual. How many women submit to practices in their own homes which they or their partners have been led to believe are the norm by widely available pornography. What about the attitudes to violence among many young people brought up on a diet of horror, police and gangster movies showing ever more detail.
What behaviours society permits to be shown on its TV and cinema screens reflects to many vewers society's acceptance of those behaviours. Violence unodubtedly begets violence and sexual promiscuity creates unwanted and frequently uncared for offspring let alone the rampant spread of STDs. The circle is indeed vicious.
Family breakdown and a philosophy of life whch centres on the gratification of the individuals wants are all contributors to the deterioration of life in this country.
NO doubt we shall be able to view the detail of disembowelling and virtually any activity of a sexual nature (violence and sexual extreme are not aften far apart) before the next decade is finished. The majority of contributors to this forum will no dobt be pleading for the removal of any remaining strictures on the satisfaction of their appetities. Live suicides perhaps? Does society really want to pander to people whose appreciation of art(or enjoyment) involves watching extreme violence or the sexual abuse of others. The actors in these films are presumably paid for their work but to the impressionable the fact that they can see these activities on screen gives them a legitimacy which can fuel their transfer from fantasy into reality. If 2100 years of civilisation is going to take us back to the Roman amphitheatre what was it all for?
I don't suppose I am saying anything new here but the fact is that all the artistic freedoms we have gained since the 60s have brought little in the way of quality, enlightenment or happiness to a civilisation which shows many signs of decline.
there should be places to go to get unceneored films be they horror, action, porn or whatever. i don't think they should be readily avalible. no 8 year old should watch the thing. If you actualy make a concious effort to go and get your goor fix then no 8 year olds will accidentley see a mans head turn in to a spider, or at least not as many. if you see what i mean.
Yet more friends censoring today - on hearing the news Pheobe (sp?) is going to be a surrogate for her brother and sister in law, he innocently asks the question "so you're actually thinking of having sex with your brother?" (He's not the brightest)
Or he would have if it hadn't been censored, obviously for fear of causing a national incestial epedemic.
Dear all, been a while since I've looked here, I see not much has changed, however, I couldn't leave without a short reply to Jamieson, since I'm sure s/he must be mistaken about the censorship debate.
Lets take w quick glance at the post:
"Censorship is essential - human beings, particularly young ones are curious and will be drawn to look at what they have not seen before."
I'm sure you meant Classification here, and I agree with your argument, but from here on our opinions differ somewhat.
Sorry to be the barer of bad news, but advertising is not a finite argument against censorship; neither does it affect people at such a base level. Sure, you might be try a new soap powder or toothpaste, but I'm sure a hypothetical advert promoting a positive aspect of euthanasia wouldn't cause anyone to go out and shoot granny. People are not mindless automatons despite the BBFC or governments perception of such; thus positive (or negative) aspects of media do not have any significant effect on anybody; and certainly not to stimulate anti-social behaviour.
"How many women submit to practices in their own homes which they or their partners have been led to believe are the norm by widely available pornography."
Wow, where do you live, 'widely available pornography', where? R18 certificate material is currently only available through licenced sex shops, about 120 or so in the entire country, how this can constitute 'widely available is beyond me. However if the BBFC, due to their own guide lines, deem (so called) hard core acceptable for over 18's then why can't it be more readily available; it no longer "deprave or corrupts" as it used to in 2000.....
I'm afraid I don't know of any young people brought up on a 'diet of horror, police and gangster movies', however I am not as foolish to think that such films contribute to anything other than being a film; certainly such media is not to blame for any attitude in young people; at least there is no evidence of anything of the sort.
Perhaps films reflect society; and not as you would have it the other way around; and how can you possibly blame media for "unwanted and frequently uncared for offspring"?
"Family breakdown and a philosophy of life which centres on the gratification of the individuals wants are all contributors to the deterioration of life in this country." I am sorry to have to say this but you are talking utter rubbish here, you must have a very low opinion of your fellow man; Once again films and TV are not to blame here.
"violence and sexual extreme are not often far apart" does this explain your attitude towards women re fifth paragraph?
Hopefully, as you say, adults will be treated like adults and finally allowed to watch films without censoring them; and I suggest the the majority of the country (let alone this forum)would be pleased at that outcome; and as such there would be no need for further relaxation.
As for " Live suicides perhaps", well there's that low opinion of mankind again.
And once again the great myth that all anti-censorship lobby wants is to see "extreme violence or the sexual abuse of others"; let me put you straight, anti-censorship is for the right to make a choice to see such material is one wants to; currently no-one has that choice (thought it is far batter than it used to be) as it is in the hands of a very select few, and that is wrong.
And you know what, the Romans knew how to live, with sexual liberation, freedom and ordered society (downsides being the slavery of course). Yet once Christianity took hold that they were overthrown, a new 'civilised' era ensued with sexual repression, thought control and 'Holy Wars' bent on killing those that do not love their God... Personally I prefer the Roman philosophy.
One final note, it is quite clearly stated in law that restrictions of media can only be enforced when evidence of harm is produced, and I'm afraid such evidence does not exist; and yet there is still censorship.... can you not see this is wrong?
Kind regards
Simon
Favourite Quote, "I like to watch" Chance the Gardner
the reasons for certificate's r cos if ur young and watch a horror film it will put images in ur head!! and make it so that u cant sleep even some film's r scary to 18+ so god know's wat it wud be like to young en's. if u watched 100 scariest moment's wen they got to exocist ppl were sayin they cudnt sleep and neither cud i and alot of ppl who i no who's seen it ! ( the orginal not the re)
quote:Originally posted by tomrulz03: the reasons for certificate's r cos if ur young and watch a horror film it will put images in ur head!! and make it so that u cant sleep even some film's r scary to 18+ so god know's wat it wud be like to young en's. if u watched 100 scariest moment's wen they got to exocist ppl were sayin they cudnt sleep and neither cud i and alot of ppl who i no who's seen it ! ( the orginal not the re)
T0lVll2UlZ04!!
It appears to have an adverse effect on spelling and grammar also *Cripes*
Apologies for that its just I find such writing difficult to read, and in my personal opinion it does nothing but make a poster look foolish; grammar and spelling are not hard things to grasp and it make for a far more intelligent discussion.
That said you are correct, certificates are in place as a warning that a film may or may not be suitable for curtain age groups; an 18 certificate should not be watched by a child due to its content (quite obviously) yet said film IS suitable for adults and therefore should not be cut in any way shape of form.
I thought the 100 scariest moments was shown after the watershed, and with sufficient warnings.... perhaps that might indicate its potential audience....?
Regards
Simon
Favourite Quote, "I like to watch" Chance the Gardner
White Rabbit obviously you're correct on both of your points (above). However in a society which claims to advocate free speech, and which (in my opinion), couldn't be further from the truth, how do we get to a stage where we are trusted as adults to make our own decisions about the consumption of media that we desire ???
I happened to catch an interview yesterday with Mark Kermode on the radio, concerning the area of extreme cinema and the classification problems we encounter within this country. He had an interesting point to make with regards to a listeners question.
The question being that while films such as Lord of the rings have an enormous ammount of violence, and yet obtain a rating of 12, how can films such as Love actually which contains no violence and only a little sexual inference, can raise a 15 certificate. The answer is of course the use of language, and a films use of swear words.
So why does (bad?)(opinion!) language cause such a fuss for the classification board. Well apparently they have more complaints for foul language than for any other aspect of modern cinema. So one or two "Fu##'s" endorses an unrealistic portrayal of life does it? Where as the decapitation of an Orc or two is of course more normal and acceptable for young impressionable minds.
So when I have kids I'll tell them the the normal and moral thing to do when having an arguement with their playground chums is not to swear at them because someone might complain, but instead to chop their friends head off ! Makes sense doesn't it ????
i think we need some sort of guidlines, but they need to change. i rekon they should get rid of the 18 certificate. it doesnt stop people watching them,whether they sneak into the film, or watch them later on video. i think that by the age of 15, we are able to choose what we want to watch. we know what we like, and what we wouldnt, and we would not go and see any thing that would make us uncomfortable. we see images of graphic violence, real violence on the news everyday, the age of consent is 16, so why should we b shiedled from images of sex on the big screen just bcause we arent 18?
thats the change i think should be made. as for younger children, i think that 12a is a good idea, as it helps the parents, although in that way, its esentially a pg certificate.
"I have two words that are gonna take all your troubles away...Miniture!Golf!"
"Maybe its because of all the horrific things we've seen, but hippos wearing tutus just dont unnerve me like they used to."
Because Em that the nature of Violence and bad language account for the other % where ratings come into play. As though being of a certain age discounts the possibilty that you could see these things; violence - bad language in real life.
i think the only time a movie needs well setup censorship is when the movie is not fictional cause when you do see and movie or documentary that features real life people its more powerful and disturbing and it also triggers the mind.
I think we should be allowed to watch what we want. The difficulty is that "we" don't want kids to watch certain programmes and some selfish people believe that programmes which they find offensive shouldn't be shown. What we need is customized televison where we can choose what we want to watch ie if you want to watch porn then it is available to subscribe to as long as you are 18.
I am sick of watching "reality" TV, documentaries and all these stupid period dramas that plague the TV. I also wish some channels would reduce their monotonous sports coverage of Wimbledon, horse racing, snooker *yawns* and motor sports. Every person can list programmes they don't want to watch, why can't TV be customized to suit our tastes?
if they did that there would be more of the stuff you hate
you think many people share your tastes?
how deluded can you get
<DanWilde1966>
Posted
I have always felt strongly about the issue of censorship, but wonder now whether or not the debate has become somewhat obsessive and academic. The rise of the internet has meant that the BBFC (or whoever) can rant and rail as much as they like about this or that title, but what they say is irrelevant: it is now possible to buy films online, in any cut, and have them sent directly to your house. Censorship laws in this country, such as they are, are something to disagree with (maybe), but they hardly prevent us from searching out the films we want to see. Add to this, the fact that the UK has liberalised a great deal in the last five years... Ten years ago, I remember documentaries on Channel 4 about A Clockwork Orange and the life of Mary Millington - the first rattling on about the Kubrick film not being available in the UK, and the second impatiently grumbling about the illegality of hardcore porn. Well, in 2004, the Kubrick is now available (admittedly, as a result of the director's death) and uncut Jenna Jameson vids are freely available in licensed sex shops. A lot of the barriers that we ranted about at November 2000's Filmfour day of discussion on censorship, have been stripped away. Anomalies persist (Last House on the Left), but these titles are available from overseas. The work of people like Peter Woods has helped enormously in the process of getting movies such as Straw Dogs out (indeed, I have watching him in pubs, chipping away at BBFC people), but has the censorship debate now become somewhat habitual?
quote:Originally posted by DanWilde1966: I have always felt strongly about the issue of censorship, but wonder now whether or not the debate has become somewhat obsessive and academic. The rise of the internet has meant that the BBFC (or whoever) can rant and rail as much as they like about this or that title, but what they say is irrelevant: it is now possible to buy films online, in any cut, and have them sent directly to your house.
And it is often far cheaper than going down to HMV to purchase them. And you don't feel pressured - unlike in the big stores.
quote:Originally posted by DanWilde1966: Anomalies persist (Last House on the Left), but these titles are available from overseas.
And others such as Cannibal Holocaust and I Spit on Your Grave (both nasty pieces of celluloid) are still only available in bowdlerized versions but those two aren't worth watching in any case. The BBFC do still ban films but this is now more a case of law.
quote:Originally posted by DanWilde1966: The work of people like Peter Woods has helped enormously in the process of getting movies such as Straw Dogs out (indeed, I have watching him in pubs, chipping away at BBFC people), but has the censorship debate now become somewhat habitual?
Wasn't it the case that the BBFC didn't actually have a real problem with the uncut version of Straw Dogs but did with the first THE release eventually rejected outright in 1999?
The censorship debate is pretty much academic now. Censorship in this country is far more sensible today on the whole.
I think the nature of theatre as a medium makes it rather difficult to "censor" as we understand the term in relation to film. Either the production goes on, or it does not. Existing laws preclude "live sex acts", for instance. It would be a very meat-headed theatre producer to stage this kind of material, knowing that the work would be prosecuted sooner or later...
even some film's r scary to 18+ so god know's wat it wud be like to young en's. if u watched 100 scariest moment's wen they got to exocist ppl were sayin they cudnt sleep 
and neither cud i and alot of ppl who i no who's seen it ! ( the orginal not the re)
its just I find such writing difficult to read, and in my personal opinion it does nothing but make a poster look foolish; grammar and spelling are not hard things to grasp and it make for a far more intelligent discussion.
