Hi, I'm a new user and I thought I would go straight for the juguler:

The argument that censorship is unnesesory is vacuous.

The 'censors' (what's their proper name these days? The BBFC?) have shown that if a film has any merit then it will be given a certificut. They have also began recertifing movies like Texis Chainsaw Masicure and Straw Dogs. What more do you want?

Do you realy need the exorsised few seconds form movie x or y to apresiate it as a peice of art?

'Ye without that beheading/ aterial flow the themes of urban alianation and loss of self in a mechanised sociaty are not properly explored.' Get real folks!

We do not need gratuis rape or blood flow in our movies and if they get removed by the censors then I'm not complaining.

Sociaty NEEDS protection anyone that dosn't think so is empty headed. It dosn't need protection from Art but from Trash posing as art. Who desides what's art and what's trash? Well there my friends is the problem and there is where we the general public come in. We can make sure that the baby isn't thrown out with the bathwater as has been done with the recent release of Straw Dogs on DVD.

And in parting: we spend so long talking about the role of clasification bodies and ignore other forms of censorship. I'm thinking of the example of the hell Romero is going through trying to get his fourth zombie movie 'Dead Reconing' off the ground. Censorship anyone?

Tired and emotional

Welcome James, glad to have you aboard.

I hope you forgive me when I say that although you write an interesting post, I feel you are either ill-informed or ignorant of the fact regarding censorship, and have unfortunately fallen into one of the biggest misconceptions about anti-censorship there is. I hate pulling part apost, but in this instance, can figure out no other way to do so.


"The argument that censorship is un-necessary is vacuous."

How exactly is this so? Such a statement needs some sort of qualification no?

"The 'censors' (what's their proper name these days? The BBFC?) have shown that if a film has any merit then it will be given a certificut."


Correct, the BBFC. You highlight one of the great and unfathomable inconsistencies that are the BBFC, why should unmitigated self indulgent (usually French) film be regarded as Art and pass all but unscathed through the hallowed halls of Soho, yet, bottom of the barrel exploitation get cut or banned outright? Are not both films, are not both entitled to equal merit?


"They have also began recertifing movies like Texis Chainsaw Masicure and Straw Dogs. What more do you want?"


Almost correct, Straw Dogs always did have a certificate, just not for home viewing. And in answer to the question, quite simple really, ALL films to be certified uncut so that any adult can chose weather or not to view said film.


"Do you realy need the exorsised few seconds form movie x or y to apresiate it as a peice of art?"

And here is what I mean about 'misconseption of anti-censorship'; it is not about 'the few seconds cut' it is about the freedom of being able to make a choice about seeing a film uncut or not. In the present climate that choice is taken from us, by an un-elected body of people who have been allowed to control what everybody sees on film or video. Clearly this is wrong no?



"'Ye without that beheading/ aterial flow the themes of urban alianation and loss of self in a mechanised sociaty are not properly explored.' Get real folks!"

Erm....okaaaaay


"We do not need gratuis rape or blood flow in our movies and if they get removed by the censors then I'm not complaining."


Perhaps 'we' do not, but if a film maker makes the choice to include such images in his/her films then why don't we have the choice to see them?


"Sociaty NEEDS protection anyone that dosn't think so is empty headed."


What? Clearly you do not know what you are talking about, and I find your sweeping generalisation quite insulting.


"It dosn't need protection from Art but from Trash posing as art."


What? See above.


"Who desides what's art and what's trash?"


Who indeed, but in the context of film the BBFC seem to make that judgement for us.


"Well there my friends is the problem and there is where we the general public come in."


Ahh, but we don't do you see?


"We can make sure that the baby isn't thrown out with the bathwater as has been done with the recent release of Straw Dogs on DVD."


I have no idea what you are talking about here. Straw Dogs is one of the most provocative and thought provoking films there is, as powerful today as it was thirty years ago, have you even seen it? Without the tireless efforts of distributors, anti-censorship lobbies, indeed members of this forum (e.g. Peter Woods) and even the forum host F4 this film would still be in limbo at the BBFC.


"And in parting: we spend so long talking about the role of clasification bodies and ignore other forms of censorship. I'm thinking of the example of the hell Romero is going through trying to get his fourth zombie movie 'Dead Reconing' off the ground. Censorship anyone?"


That at least is true. Though I know nothing about Romero's attempts to get a finance his film, censorship is at least a viable option, but more probably it is scripting and/or money and/or distribution causing the problems.


So James, in short, I don't think you have properly thought out an argument for censorship, at least I can't find one in amongst the sweeping statements above, though it is a worthy effort, keep trying.


Simon

Favourite Quote, "I like to watch" Chance the Gardner

i quite agree whiterabbit1000.
the old arguement (and one undoubtably familiar to this forum) is that if this stuff is so utterly corruptable then how do the censors themselves come away from viewing such debauchery survive without being commited to an asylum.
there is little doubt that there will always be a small element that will be influenced by a film or book etc but do we legislate for the minority? i for one do not want to be bound by the limitations of the sponge brained weaklings we are supposedly being protected against. if we are gauged by our weakest link then how do we progress?
a weak film is a weak film whether or not it has blood, guts or sex within. the weak films will die and the good stuff will survive.
as i have said before, the crap will disapear very quickly. the viewing audience is surprisingly good at weeding out the poor quality material.
as for the influence of these movies in creating acts of violence etc i would have to say that religion is probably the greatest cause of war/conflict throughout history. the bible (and its equivilants and interpretations throughout the world) is responsible for so much killing that i can't even say how much. protect us from that, not fictional events portrayed on screen.

we wouldn't think of banning religion on the strength of a few (rather bloody and real) wars now would we?

Unfortunately, intellectuals do. In other words, not film fans. The new head of the BBFC doesn't even like films, for Chrissakes! I wouldn't even TALK to someone who's never seen a porno, let alone allow them to decide what I can watch.

Intellectuals watching a gory cannibal movie are always gonna say it's trash. But that's the point. A horror fan watching a gory cannibal movie is gonna say it's trash, too. But trash doesn't mean it's bad.

Here's to a BBFC staffed entirely by films fans. My proposals if anyone wants me for the job:

*All films cut to 90 minutes.
*Unnecessary (or boring) dialogue thrown in the bin.
*All bright white teeth pixellated.
*Fast MTV cutting banned entirely. This is especially true for large scale battle scenes in 'epic' historical snoozefests.
*Films without a sex scene shall have one imposed on them (randomly).
*Any evidence of a social message shall be removed, for fear of post-film boredom from dim-witted 'clever'-types.

Here's to censorship!

I don't want to sound like an apologist for the censors, but...

I feel justified in saying that I think I know how the BBFC operates better than most people.
Although the BBFC does make mistakes, I have to say that we've seen some real changes for the better over that last few years.

If you look at their record (rather than wittering on about how bad they are), you will see that they are EXTREMELY reluctant to cut any "18" film in the cinema. Note, however, that the films that are cut are usually foreign-language ones. So the argument that foreign films are given an easier ride than English-language ones is clearly not true for the cinema (which is where the BBFC are least constrained by the law).

Video is different because the BBFC have a legal obligation to interpret the Video Recordings Act.
The BBFC have undoubtedly been far more lenient with "18" videos over the last few years. The "Last House On The Left" appeal, however, demonstrated that the BBFC themselves have to be careful. It's well known that the Video Appeals Committee rejected an appeal against the BBFC's cuts to the video. What is less well-known is that the committee made it clear in their report that the BBFC had been TOO lenient...

I think the BBFC are an easy target but I have to say that I think they are on "our side" at the present. It's too early to judge the new president but given that allowed an uncut release of Irreversible, it's clear that he is not afraid of courting controversy (even I found it extremely difficult to watch...).

No, I think the BBFC are doing a good job.

If we are going to spend time and effort fighting censorship, I recommend we look at the regulation on TV. The ITC (the body which regulates commercial TV) is asking for a good kicking, yet we all let them get away with the most ridiculous, narrow-minded actions imaginable.

FilmFour, the one channel that really cares about its audience, has suffered more than any other at the hands of the ITC. F4 have tirelessly tried to get the ITC to change just one of its petty rules. Nothing. Nada. Zip. The censors at the ITC have simply dug their heels in and refused to budge (because they're all after jobs with OFCOM, presumably).

Look at www.melonfarmers.co.uk and read the item about the Adult Channel. ONE viewer complained that it was showing material that was a bit too explicit, so the ITC have immediately threatened severe fines.

If anyone here cares about censorship, for God's sake stop winging about the BBFC and complain about the ITC.

Peter Woods

Ah, too true, Peter.

I couldn't believe the Adult Channel story on Dave's site. But you and I know, Peter, Guy Phelps is a weasel, in fact he is worse, in any correspondents I've entered into with him, he meanders about the issues in a very non-commital way; the perfect 'politicians' answer, ie speaking but not answering the question, it is so exasperating. That is not to say it is not worth taking issue with the ITC, rather it needs more people to do so, exactly as you say, perhaps he will take notice, something I feel he does little of at the present time.

I get the feeling the ITC might consider more liberal views with a different head; the BBFC has changed radically without Ferman, perhaps the ITC could without Phelps....

Simon

Favourite Quote, "I like to watch" Chance the Gardner

Yep: I second (or third) everything Wabbit and Peter have said above. I remember going to the Sexual Freedom Coalition AGM with Peter and Dave Taylor a couple of years ago, and there was a BBFC examiner there, as I recall. She struck me as being extremely level-headed and open to our arguments, and the proof of this openness is in the fact that Peter's continued meetings with the BBFC have resulted in the release of the Straw Dogs DVD. I agree that the BBFC is on "our side", and that there has been somewhat of a watershed in liberal decisions since 2000. Hardcore pornography (within the R18 guidelines) is now legally available (at last), and a whole roster of once-demonised films are now available for home viewing uncut. This is an astonishing contrast to fifteen years ago, when the Video Recordings Act was just kicking in, "video nasties" were still a contemporary moral panic, and blind ignorance characterised the enforcement of the law (with copies of Apocalypse Now being seized by the police, because of the title-similarity with Cannibal Apocalypse!) Those were indeed dark days, and the climate today is much more reasonable and forgiving.

...and while there is still some way to go in terms of getting us to exactly where we want (need) to be, less of the blame for this lies with the BBFC, rather more with the distributors, who still accept the cuts imposed on them by the BBFC for the sake of a more commercially-friendly certificate. While I would not go quite so far as to say that the BBFC is on "our side", if you look at recent works that have been cut, the BBFC has been at great pains to make a more mature certificate available.

I have always thought of this issue as less of a debate, more of a trench war - you win some, you lose some - Straw Dogs gets an uncut DVD release, and it's hailed as a victory for the liberalists, but on virtually the same week, an uncut release of LHOTL gets laughed out of court, and you have a crashing defeat for the cause of free artistic expression. It's kind of what makes it all fun, these trade-offs...but on balance, it is a war that we are decisively winning against The Daily Mail classes.

I for one am glad to have seen us come so far in such a relatively short space of time, and the departure of Ferman was of course the real watershed - Ferman never made any bones about the fact that he admired The Exorcist and Straw Dogs, which perhaps more than any other factor tied them up in classification deadlock for so long. I do not miss the days of reading depressing articles in film and video magazines about the home video market creaking under the weight of the litany of cuts and banned titles.

I would venture back even further then Ferman's departure, to the furore surrounding Reservoir Dogs in the early nineties, brought about in part by the reaction to the murder of James Bulger, whose death was shamelessly exploited by the po-faced political agendas of anti-libertarians like David Alton, whose proposed amendment to the Video Recordings Act would have seen Schindler's List removed from the shelves. This, together with the delay in Reservoir Dogs being awarded a video certificate was ultimately self-defeating, because it significantly raised public consciousness to the oppressive censorship climate we had lived under for almost a decade. When politicians stick their noses in where it's not wanted, the tide will always turn against them - and you only have to look at this week's fire strike to know that.

quote:

---

The entire point of fiction is that it allows artists to explore the unpalatable, the dangerous, the illegal, the obscene, etc.

---

Not quite the entire point, eh? Unless of course your raison d'etre is based solely on "the unpalatable, the dangerous, the illegal, the obscene, etc." I am glad to say mine isn't. Art fulfils many functions: as well as allowing us to wallow in our own filth it can also reflect the nobler and more virtuous qualities of humanity. Some would say that is all it should do. Of course I'd never presume to dictate, but your summary of "what fiction is all about" is a rather meagre measure of the human condition.

Take care of yourselves... and each other

quote:

---

Only if there is a real proven danger that a film could have a harmful effect on potential viewers should it be banned

---

I advise you read Bandura's study of aggressive role-models and imitative behaviours among children. For some strange reason this study is never quoted by advocates of censorship-free anarchy, I wonder why? Perhaps because it controverts their patently absurd claims that there is no evidence to support the idea that screen violence results in mimetic violence in real life. There is, in fact, wide support for the contrary argument and psychologists have known it for years. Did you really think the BBFC was set up just to deprive you of your jollies?

This Study is not a classic for no reason: check it out.

Take care of yourselves... and each other

quote:

---

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.

---

I've no doubts about YOUR responsibility and sanity mate, but I have said it before and will do so again now: Society has a duty of care and responsibility to its most vulnerable and impressionable members. View the censorship debate, for a moment, not in terms of "taste and decency" but potential harm. Sadly some members of society are susceptible to that harm and it is necessary to protect them. The system as it currently stands IS draconian and in major need of realignment -preferably to the "optional" model of enforcement currently enjoyed by filmgoers and distributors in America. But a land without censorship of any sort is untenable to a just and ethical society.

Take care of yourselves... and each other

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr.Moss:
Sadly some members of society are susceptible to that harm and it is necessary to protect them. The system as it currently stands IS draconian and in major need of realignment -preferably to the "optional" model of enforcement currently enjoyed by filmgoers and distributors in America. But a land without censorship of any sort is untenable to a just and ethical society.

---

This, on the face of it, is a perfectly rational argument. Then again... I am wondering which is more harmful "to some members of our society": the existence of certain forms of cinematic and video entertainment (available regardless of the this country's laws, via the internet) or poverty, the unequal distribution of wealth, unemployment... I would love to see poverty tackled in this country with the same nannying arguments applied to the much easier target of violent and sexually explicit movies...

Hey Alex, very interesting paper.

I must confess to thinking it little relevence to censorship though.

I comes as no surprise to me to know that 2 year old children are cabable of aggressive imitation; children learn by copying, watching adults and following their example, its called parenting. If a child is shown aggressive behavour, then hey, they're gonna act that way. Also, far from me to knock such classic research, but its clearly states that proir to experimentation the children were (for want of a better word) wound up. And one final point, children of 2, would that be the 'terrible twos', that stage of life when a child starts to identify "I" (I want, I want) and as such starts to demonstrate behavoural chnages in the way of tantrums...


I cannot subscribe to a theory that adults would follow such a route when watching films. Pro-censorship lobby's constantly chant "film does influence; look at advertising". Lets look at this; "buy my soap cos its better than that one", maybe I'll give it a try; "Just watched Driller Killer" is the response likely to be 'must buy a drill to kill people? No, more than likely an individual is likely to think 'what a great film' or 'what a crap film' (such are the common thoughts of most of Ferrara's films) So for me, that argument does not wash (soap geddit?) either.

For a film to be censored it must be prven that harm is involved, either in the making of said film, or by people watching it. In either case such harm is not evident; yet this does not stop censorial bodies; potential harm is enough, not proven. Which is why the VRA is such a wall, its wording is such that, even though the BBFC are constrained by it, it can be interpreted by them to fit any argument they want. Okay, perhaps not any argument, but with the Last House on the Left case, thats how they won; thats why Ichi the Killer has been cut by over three minutes; thats why A Ma Soeur! had an uncut cinema release, but has been cut by a one and a half minutes for video.

Simon

Favourite Quote, "I like to watch" Chance the Gardner

I would add the following: the idea that films somehow act upon vulnerable, putty-like, impressionable humans (of whatever age), ignores the fact that filmic entertainment is consumed like cans of coke and McDonald's hamburgers. It's not just a matter of how films act upon people -- but about how people act on films. There is a two-way relationship here... I will always remember the fact that serial killer Jeffery Dahmer's favourite, most-watched video was Richard Marquand's Return of the Jedi - a film released in 1983 with a U certificate. He liked it because the character with the burning red eyes appealed to his voyeurism, and to his need to be watched. He consumed the film in a manner that was completely unintended by LucasFilm - and yet pursuing the cheesy old arguments of Raj Persaud and his ilk, one would be forced to conclude that the ewok-infested, muppet-style sequel was in some fashion responsible, or at least an accessory, to Dahmer's crimes. This is patently a nonsense - but it illustrates the pitfalls of not realising that people can consume films in whatever manner they please, regardless of the film-makers' "intentions". Students of literary theory will remember Barthes' essay "The Death of the Author", and its contention that the key to the reader-text relationship is not how the text acts upon the reader, but how the reader acts upon it...

Since no one has added to this thread in a few days, I thought I would have another quick nip...

It is often said that people who are exposed to lots of violence in films, somehow become "desensitised" to it. The argument is that there is apparently an "accumulation effect", like old bits of food getting clogged up in a drain, so that after mucho-exposure to cinematic ultra-violence, it is not as shocking to the viewer as it once was...

To me, this is another plausible-sounding argument, which actually doesn't stand up to much scrutiny at all. Again, I go for a semiotic approach: violent films (eg, specific kinds of horror movies) are like any other genre, in that they are made up of a set of codes and conventions, which the film-maker follows consciously or unconsciously. A kung-fu movie will have certain characteristics... Film noirs share certain features in common - and so on. So it is with violence. As the viewer absorbs more of a particular filmic genre, a process of education takes place, wherein the viewer learns the codes and conventions of that mode of discourse. He or she can read the material in an increasingly sophisticated way. Thus, desensitisation is not desensitisation at all; it is more a process of increasing awareness.

By the time I saw Halloween, I had seen so many horror movies that I could read what Carpenter and and Dean Cundey's camera was doing. I could predict which part of the frame the Shape was going to jump from, because I was sufficiently horror-literate, and thus the effect of the film's shocks was less than if I had come to it as a horror virgin.

The notion of "desensitisation" is nothing more than another Daily Mail-style, emotive magical argument, which sounds self-explanatory, but which is actually bogus and begs many questions. It also underrates and under-values the sophistication of modern young audiences.

Classification (the 'C' in BBFC) is completely necessary and important, i am sure we all agree. So the BBFC shoud stick to what they are there to do and that is CLASSIFY. The days where the word 'censors' appeared in their name is long gone along with their belief that they are "censors". So what has changed? Not much. They are still censors and they are still misinforming the public as to what their job entails. Well, they cut, they classify, they ban, they restrict, they influence decisions and they never wanted to do the right thing by enthusiasts and provide a '21' (or similar) rating for extreme, contencious or uncensored films. Chances of licensed R-18 horror films? Doubtful. Licensed shops for such product? Probably the same.

And your point is... ?

quote:

---

To me, this is another plausible-sounding argument ... (my emphasis)

---

By which, I suppose, I am to take it that you have lumped my post in with the "Daily Mail-style, emotive magical argument[s]" that don't bear any scrutiny. That of course is your prerogative Dan, but it should be made clear that your response was a fallacious argument in itself. You have introduced a red herring: my point wasn't a liberal diatribe and so it was hardly appropriate to meet it with a Marxist treatise on poverty as the root of society's ills.

My point does, in fact, bear scrutiny, and I think most rational people would be inclined to support it. While I have never denied that poverty causes problems, the fact remains that a certain degree of censorship must be maintained for the greater good of society.

I don't believe such "worthy" and inherently "artistic" films as Straw Dogs and The Devils should be banned. I also think that Last House on the Left, as a remake of the Virgin Spring and a crucial work in Craven's oeuvre, fulfils a valid artistic function and should be released uncut. I'd extend this furthermore to purely "entertaining" vehicles as New York Ripper and I Spit on Your Grave. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. Titles like Slavesex and Extreme Torture have nothing to do with "freedom of speech' and "civil liberties", they are purely about degrading, and dehumanizing women and inciting sexually motivated hatred and violence. These titles are illegal under the Obscene Publications Act and in that light, I am very glad it exists.

Take care of yourselves... and each other

As I said, Alex -- apply the same arguments to the other (real) social problems I have mentioned... I am reminded of that scene in Goodfellas, inwhich Paulie's response to all logical arguments against the payment of a monthly debt is "F-uck you, pay me." It would be so great to have censor-like protection against financial "harm", from some quango other. But strangely, such nannying is not forthcoming. I am no Marxist, Alex: merely making a comment about certain "social problems" being more equal than others, vis-a-vis government intervention.

By the way Alex -- the bit you quoted from me wasn't meant for you, or referring to you at all. Keep stoking that anger, man.