Showing posts with label BBFC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BBFC. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

A Serbian Film: BBFC Cut version [18]

DIR: Srdjan Spasojevic
CAST: Srdjan Todorovic, Sergej Trifunovic, Jelena Gavrilovic

You really can’t separate A SERBIAN FILM from the hype that has surrounded it since it was first seen in January. Horror cinema has lately been going through another of those periodic patches in which it is becoming notably more extreme, with each release seeming to aim for a new high (or low, depending on your point of view) watermark in how testing an experience it can be for its audience, and it seems that for many people A SERBIAN FILM is that latest high (or low) point – that said I’ve since heard that another Serbian film; THE LIFE AND DEATH OF A PORNO GANG, is even more extreme. Certainly this film has attracted more criticism for its violence than almost any in recent memory, with mere descriptions of scenes, especially the now infamous ‘newborn porn’ scene, serving for some as an indictment of how far the horror genre will stoop to excite its audience. It is perhaps this infamy, rather than the film’s content as such, which has resulted in the BBFC demanding 49 separate cuts – a total of four minutes and twelve seconds – to the version of the film I’m now reviewing.

This hype was one of two things I carried with me into the screening. The other was an awareness of director Srdjan Spasojevic’s repeated claims that his film, far from being a mere exercise in prurient violence, is in fact an allegorical tale about how Serbia has been mistreated by the political class. On the surface, at least, the film is about Milos (Todorovic), a former porn star who is lured out of family life with a big payday to work for a director (Trifunovic) who says that he wants to make a hardcore art film, and tells Milos that he’s to know nothing more about the project. As the film becomes more and more depraved, with violent sex scenes, often performed with young children watching, Milos decides that he wants to leave, but when he tries he is drugged and forced to continue with ever more depraved scenes for the film.

Whatever A SERBIAN FILM is, subtle it is not. Once you are made aware of the fact that the filmmakers claim that it is an allegory that fact is obvious in almost every scene, in fact it’s an incredibly simplistic message, casting Serbia as a rape victim and ‘porno artist’ Vukmir as the corrupt political class beating it and fucking it, if only from a distance. This is never more nakedly expressed than in the ‘newborn porn’ scene. Perhaps if I knew more about Serbian society and politics this would seem insightful and clever, but to be frank I just felt like someone was shouting an unconvincing argument at me. For all its heavy-handed attempts at bringing this message to bear on the film, I found it an empty experience. Even in this cut version it is relentlessly (often boringly) brutal, and I found little of the intelligence and weight that lifted films like MARTYRS and ANTICHRIST out of the torture porn ghetto.

I can’t deny that A SERBIAN FILM is well made. The gore effects are brilliantly handled, with a decapitation towards the end of the film being especially nasty and convincing, and Srdjan Spasojevic definitely shows promise as a director, as the level of craft that he’s put into the design of his shots here (especially during the shooting of Vukmir’s film) is diverting. This is when it’s a real shame that the film is so heavily cut, because there is obviously real thought behind the film’s visuals and its editing (it’s notable that there is actually relatively little really explicit gore here, much of the worst violence is cleverly shot to hide some of the detail without losing the impact). There is also an almost surreal quality to the film within the film, and that sense of Milos’ entering another world when he steps on to set is heightened by the stark and stylised lighting choices and the strange, structure free, dialogue of the porn film. The acting is also largely impressive (though Sergej Trifunovic does push the boat out too far towards the end, becoming a cartoonish embodiment of the already bludgeoned in message), but whatever the level of craft there was just something missing here for me.

A SERBIAN FILM wants to shock you. It probably will, but personally I need to be really involved in a film to be affected by it in that way, and I just wasn’t with this one. The message was so front and centre that it really got in the way, for me, of engaging with the characters on a purely human level, to me everything in this film ends up feeling like a piece of Spasojevic’s personal allegorical jigsaw. There also came a point at which the film was pushing the boat out so ridiculously far in its violence and transgression that I began guessing at the most fucked up thing they could do next, and ended up guessing much of the content of the last quarter of an hour. The one moment I didn’t see coming, by the way, is so utterly ridiculous that it too undermined any shock value of the scene.

As unconvinced and as disappointed as I am by A SERBIAN FILM as a whole, there is enough going on here to interest me in Srdjan Spasojevic’s next film, providing that he elects to tell a story rather than provide a blood drenched and unconvincing lecture. There is, of course, the possibility that restoring the missing four minutes and twelve seconds will transform the film into the masterpiece that some have claimed it to be, but somehow I doubt it.

Friday, August 27, 2010

News: A Serbian Film PULLED from Frightfest



I was wanting to wait to watch A SERBIAN FILM when it was released in the UK, but now it seems that I'll have to see it online if I am ever to see the whole film. The BBFC apparently demanded almost 50 seperate cuts to the film (about four minutes of footage) for an 18 certificate. Without a certificate, the folks at UK horror festival Frightfest sought the permission of Westminster Council (final power over film exhibition in the UK lies not with BBFC but with individual councils) to screen the film uncut. They were refused.

Frightfest's Alan Jones said
"FrightFest has decided not to show A Serbian Film in a heavily cut version because, as a festival with a global integrity, we think a film of this nature should be shown in its entirety as per the director's intention."

If a festival can't show it uncut, then we will likely never see this film released uncut here. It's a real shame, because I imagine that A SERBIAN FILM was a big draw for this year's Frightfest (and it's not as if that audience wouldn't know what it was in for).

I'll have more on the BBFC in coming days, because there are signs they are beginning to come down harder on horror again, after 15 years of liberalisation.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

BBFC Report

There's just not enough material to do this every other week, so the BBFC report will be a monthly feature. Here's this month's.


THE RAILWAY CHILDREN - Contains scenes of characters in danger.

NANNY MCPHEE & THE BIG BANG - Contains no material likely to offend or harm.

DIRTY OIL - Contains no material likely to offend or harm.

THE GREAT FIRE OF PONTYPANDY - FIREMAN SAM - Contains no material likely to offend or harm.

L’ELISIR D’ AMORE - Contains no material likely to offend or harm.

RAINBOW MAGIC - RETURN TO RAINSPELL ISLAND - Contains no material likely to offend or harm.

HUBBLE 3D - Contains no material likely to offend or harm.

LOVE’S LABOUR’S LOST - Contains no material likely to offend or harm.

24 CITY - Contains no material likely to offend or harm.



HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON [2D / 3D] - Contains frequent mild threat.
FLIPPED - Contains mild language.

STREETDANCE [3D] - Contains mild language, sex references and violence.

CLEO DE 5 A 7 - Contains mild language and infrequent natural nudity.

AS YOU LIKE IT - Contains mild language and one scene of moderate bloodshed.

DIARY OF A WIMPY KID - Contains mild language.



WHATEVER WORKS - Contains moderate sex references and suicide references.

THE BOUNTY HUNTER - Contains moderate language, violence and sex references.

REMEMBER ME - Contains infrequent strong language, moderate sex and violence, and smoking.

THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE - Contains moderate violence.

GOOD HAIR - Contains strong language and moderate sex references.

CLASH OF THE TITANS [2D / 3D] - Contains moderate fantasy violence.

IT’S A WONDERFUL AFTERLIFE - Contains comic horror and infrequent soft drug use.

THE BACK UP PLAN - Contains moderate sex, sex references and one use of strong language.

THE BROTHERS BLOOM - Contains strong language, moderate violence, gore and sex references.

PRINCE OF PERSIA: THE SANDS OF TIME - Contains moderate violence.



JOHN RABE - Contains strong bloody war violence and injury detail.

SHANK - Contains strong language, once very strong, strong violence and drug use.

STATEN ISLAND - Contains strong language and strong bloody violence.

BURIED - Contains strong language, once very strong, and sustained threat.

CEMETERY JUNCTION - Contains infrequent very strong language, strong language & sex references.

LEONERA - Contains very strong language and bloody injury detail.

I KNOW YOU KNOW - Contains very strong language.

CHATROOM - Contains suicide theme and strong sex references.

STORM - Contains strong language.

THE JONESES - Contains strong language and nudity.

COK FILIM HAREKETLER BUNLAR - Contains strong language.

IN THE LAND OF THE FREE - Contains strong language.

LATAK - Contains strong language, sex and drug use.

THE CALLING - Contains strong language and implied sex scenes.

HOT TUB TIME MACHINE - Contains strong language, crude sex references and drug use.

FOUR LIONS - Contains strong language and sex references.



THE KILLER INSIDE ME - Contains very strong violence, sadomasochistic sex scenes and child abuse.

MAN SOM HATAR KVINNOR - THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO [Dubbed version] - Contains scenes of sexual violence.

THE HEAVY - Contains very strong language and strong bloody violence.

NIGHTWATCHING - Contains very strong language, strong sex, sex references and nudity.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

BBFC Report 1

This first BBFC report, which will detail classification decisions on most theatrical and selected DVD and Blu-Ray releases, will be longer than those that will follow. In future I’ll publish this article every other Wednesday. I’ll note any cuts, and provide a link to the BBFC’s cut details where appropriate. I won’t be reporting on R-18 films, because this blog doesn’t deal with porn.

Within each certificate films are listed alphabetically by title



HACHI - A DOG'S TALE Contains no material likely to offend or harm.
LOURDES Contains no material likely to offend or harm.


ALICE IN WONDERLAND [2D / 3D] Contains moderate fantasy violence.
EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES Contains mild language
THE LAST SONG Contains mild violence, language and emotionally intense scenes.
OLD DOGS Contains mild slapstick violence.
OCTPOB [ISLAND] Contains mild language and violence.
THE SPY NEXT DOOR Contains moderate comic action violence.
TOOTH FAIRY Contains infrequent mild language and sporting violence.
WHEN IN ROME Contains mild language and comic gore in a magic trick.


THE BLIND SIDE Contains infrequent moderate violence, language and sex references.
CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY Contains strong language.
DEAR JOHN Contains infrequent moderate sex and violence.
GENTLEMEN BRONCOS Contains infrequent crude humour.
MY LAST FIVE GIRLFRIENDS Contains infrequent strong language.
NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT PERSIAN CATS PERSIAN CATS Contains moderate injury detail.
ONDINE Contains moderate violence, injury detail and infrequent strong language.
LE PERE DE MES ENFANTS [THE FATHER OF MY CHILDREN] Contains moderate violence and scenes of smoking.
THE SKY CRAWLERS Contains moderate violence.
WHIP IT Contains moderate language, drug and sex references.



BLACK DEATH Contains strong violence.
BOOGIE WOOGIE Contains strong language, sex and nudity and hard drug use.
BRONCO BULLFROG Contains strong language and one written use of very strong language.
CASE 39 Contains strong sustained threat and bloody violence.
CENTURION Contains frequent strong bloody violence and strong language.
CHERRYBOMB Contains drug use, strong violence and strong language, once very strong.
COP OUT Contains strong language and sex references and infrequent strong violence.
DATE NIGHT Contains moderate sex references and one use of strong language.
EXTRACT Contains strong language, sex references and drug use.
THE GHOST Contains strong language, once very strong.
GREENBERG Contains strong language and sex and hard drug use.
GREEN ZONE Contains strong language and violence
I LOVE YOU PHILLIP MORRIS Contains strong language and sex.
THE INFIDEL Contains strong language, once very strong, and depictions of racism.
IO SONO L'AMORE [I AM LOVE] Contains strong sex.
JOHN RABE Contains strong bloody war violence and injury detail.
KICK-ASS Contains strong language, once very strong, & strong bloody comic violence.
KICKS Contains strong language, sex and injury detail.
LEGION Contains strong language, once very strong, and strong bloody violence.
LIFE DURING WARTIME Contains very strong language, strong sex and references to paedophilia.
MOTHERHOOD Contains one mouthed use of very strong language.
PARANORMAL ACTIVITY [ALTERNATE VERSION] Contains strong language and threat.
PERRIER'S BOUNTY Contains very strong language, strong violence, sex references and drug use.
PSYCH 9 Contains strong violence, psychological threat, language & sexual abuse.
RAGING PHOENIX Contains strong violence. [DVD]
THE REBOUND Contains strong language, moderate sex references and soft drug use.
SAMSON & DELILAH Contains frequent substance misuse and strong language.
THE SCOUTING BOOK FOR BOYS Contains strong language,. once very strong and one scene of strong violence.
SHELTER Contains strong threat and menace.
SHE'S OUT OF MY LEAGUE Contains strong language and sex references.
THE SHOUTING MEN Contains strong language and sex references.
SHUTTER ISLAND Contains strong language, bloody injury and disturbing images.
SKATE OR DIE Contains strong language, sex and drug use.
VINCERE [WIN] Contains strong sex and nudity.



THE DISAPPEARANCE OF ALICE CREED Contains very strong language, strong sex, violence and threat.
DOGTOOTH Contains incest theme and infrequent real sex.
HEARTLESS Contains one scene of very strong gore.
THE HOUSE OF THE DEVIL Contains strong violence and gore.
THE KREUTZER SONATA Contains strong bloody violence and strong sex.
MAN SOM HATAR KVINNOR [THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO] Contains scenes of sexual violence.
[REC] 2 Contains strong bloody violence and sustained terror.
REPO MEN Contains strong bloody violence.

Friday, October 9, 2009

BBFC Update 3


Vanishing of the Bees [very mild language]


Toy Story [3D] [mild violence, scary scenes and some dangerous behaviour]
Fantastic Mr. Fox [mild violence and scary scenes]
Fame [mild language and sex references]
Seraphine [infrequent mild sex references and scenes of emotional distress]
Where the Wild Things Are [mild threat and brief violence]
A Christmas Carol [2D and 3D Versions] [mild threat, scary scenes and mild language]



Driving Aphrodite [moderate sex references]
Cold Souls [one use of strong language and moderate sexualised nudity]
Glorious 39 [strong language and one gory image]
All About Steve [moderate sex references0
Departures [emotionally intense scenes of bereavement]
The Boys are Back [one crude sex reference and implied strong language]
Gentlemen Broncos [infrequent crude humour]
2012 [sustained moderate threat and one use of strong language]


A Serious Man [strong language and soft drug use]
Ip Man [moderate martial arts violence and bloody injury]
Monty Python: Almost the Truth - The Lawyer's Cut [strong language]
Johnny Mad Dog [strong violence, sexual violence, sex and frequent strong language]
Pandorum [strong language and bloody violence]
Surviving Evil [strong violence and language]
Goodbye Solo [strong language]
Ong Bak - The Beginning [frequent strong violence]
Love the Beast [strong language]
L'Enfer 'Henri-Georges Clouzot [sexualised nudity]
Pontypool [strong language, threat and menace]
Dead Man Running [strong language and drug use]
The White Ribbon [child abuse references]
Dark Nature [strong bloody violence]
Carriers [moderate horror]
Humpday [strong language, sex, sex references and soft drug use]
Leaving [strong sex and language]
Couples Retreat [moderate sex references]


Colin [strong bloody violence and horror]
Vinyan [strong sex]
Ninja Assassin [frequent strong bloody violence]
Halloween II [very strong bloody violence]
Saw VI [strong bloody violence]

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Cinematters: Makin' the law, Makin' the law


As previously reported, the Video Recordings Act, which has regulated film censorship for the home in the UK since 1984 was, by some oversight by the Government, never actually enacted into law. Of course the act will be re-enacted, and in the interim all is proceeding pretty much as normal. BBFC recently released a statement on the matter on the front page of their website. It reads, in part…

The Government has set in train the actions necessary to remedy this situation as soon as possible and, as part of that process, have notified the Commission of the new draft Act and the Labelling Regulations deriving from it.

The Government has made clear to the BBFC that, once the process of re-enacting the VRA is complete, all video classification certificates issued by the BBFC since 1984 will be valid, and the legal consequences of non-compliance with the classification regime will be re-instated and enforced as vigorously as previously. Any video recording containing an unclassified video work which has been released in the interim period will need to be withdrawn from sale once the new Act is in force, unless the work can claim exemption.

The Government has therefore urged the industry in the interim to comply with the provisions of the VRA on a voluntary and best practice basis. The BBFC will continue to classify video works submitted by distributors on a voluntary basis for this period.


Essentially, for the moment, little is changing. However, in a climate that has recently seen the tabloids kick up a huge fuss about the release of Antichrist, asking whether it’s uncut certification means that censorship has been rendered pointless, this 25 year old oversight provides the Government a very easy way to tinker with the law, and possibly score some populist points in the run up to an election. So, if the VRA is going to be revised, I thought I’d put my two cents in, and rewrite the British film censorship system, as I would see fit.

1: It will be written into the VRA 2009 that at 18 the assumption will be that adults should be free to choose their own entertainment.
This is already BBFC policy, but enshrining this in law would make it considerably harder for films intended for adults to be censored. This, of course, would not include images that would fall foul of common law. Whenever the discussion of essentially repealing censorship of films for adults comes up somebody, who always seems convinced that they are the first to think of these questions and thus will really stump me, tends to ask one or both of the following questions.

Q1: If we’re going to allow everything does that mean that child porn should be legal?
A: No. Idiot. Because both the acts of producing, purchasing and viewing that material are already illegal, and punishable by custodial sentences, under common law. The same goes for so called ‘snuff’ films (which likely don’t exist, but are so pervasive an urban myth that they often come up in this discussion), for the sort of spycam videos that BBFC have previously refused to classify and for films and sequences of genuine cruelty to animals.

Q2: So you think children should be able to see all the sex and violence they want?
A2: Again, no, of course not. But I’m a responsible adult without children, it’s not my responsibility to make sure that other people’s children don’t see sex and violence, it’s theirs. If they aren’t able to do that then that’s their fault and they should have to deal with and answer for that. The thing is that some people want to limit my freedoms, and yours, because some people are crap parents, and they shouldn’t be allowed to do so. It is not hard to keep kids away from films that are unsuitable for them, my parents managed it and that was without the technology that is now available to make it easier.

2: The VRA 2009 will not be linked to the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
The OPA, as you might expect, is a hopelessly outdated piece of legislation, and yet, our censorship system is still largely predicated on its rule that an article is obscene (and thus subject to suppression) if…

its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.


This is a ludicrous standard, by which almost anything could be deemed to be obscene. It’s also problematic because it provides no definition of what it regards as a tendency to deprave and corrupt. In the US there was a shooting at a screening of Schindler’s List. Does this one incident at one screening of a film seen by millions mean that the film exhibits a tendency to deprave and corrupt? Certainly you could make the argument. Does the fact that Jeffrey Dahmer, the infamous cannibalistic killer, sometimes wore yellow contact lenses so he would more resemble the Emperor in his favourite film - Return of the Jedi - mean that that innocuous seeming film depraved and corrupted Dahmer? Is that enough to constitute a tendency? What about the several cases of murderers who cited Natural Born Killers as an inspiration? The only one that came to trial (backed by John Grisham, whose friend had been a victim in that series of crimes) was thrown out of court in very short order. In all the hundreds of times that films have been cited as inspiration in the commission of serious crimes not once has the connection been proven, nor, even in the cases in which a film may have inspired a method of murder has that film been shown to have been the direct cause of that crime. No film has ever been banned of withdrawn as the result of a crime, with the exception of A Clockwork Orange. That’s a special case; it was not withdrawn under the OPA, but by Stanley Kubrick himself, as a result of threats received to his family.

This is not to say that no films have ever been found to be obscene, many of the films on the DPP list that led to the foundation of the VRA in 1984 were convicted, and people even imprisoned for supplying them. Zombie Flesh Eaters, Tenebrae, Driller Killer, Possession, Dead and Buried, The Bogeyman and The Toolbox Murders were all convicted, among others. All of these films, with the exception of The Toolbox Murders, are now available uncut.

This point leads on to another massive flaw in the OPA; the sentence that is its very foundation is one that cannot be objectively applied, it simply can’t be done. What one person (or twelve people) considers depraving and corrupting is a value judgement. Values vary not just over time but also from person to person, and thus trying to regulate art on that basis is ludicrous.

3: Enforcement has to mean something.
The problem of children seeing films that are unsuitable for them arises not from the fact that the VRA is unfit for purpose but the fact that enforcement at both shop and police level is extremely lax. Countless are the times that I’ve seen a clearly underage kid buying an 18 certificate film, or, worse, a parent purchasing an 18 rated film for their very young child. Honestly, what kind of parent buys a copy of Robocop for a nine year old? I understand that a shop assistant can’t do much about the latter case (at least at the till, a friendly word of advice on the shop floor couldn’t go amiss though) but in the former case assistants need to be trained to question younger shoppers more frequently.

Prosecutions under the VRA tend to be for piracy, which is fine, but if the rules are truly going to work then shops need to be made to understand that if they are caught selling films to underage purchasers they will be prosecuted. We don’t need a draconian law, because we ought to be encouraging both artistic freedom for filmmakers and freedom of choice for audiences. We may, however, at least for a while, need draconian enforcement, because the laws need to work, and there are always going to be films that need to be restricted, as effectively as possible, to an adult audience.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

BBFC Update 2



Tinkerbell and the Lost Treasure Contains mild threat.
The Red Shoes Contains mild threat, injury and smoking.
Hero of the Rails Contains no material likely to offend or harm.
Citizen Kane Contains infrequent mild violence.
Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs 3D Contains one use of mild language and scenes of mild comic threat.
Ponyo Contains very mild threat.


Creation Contains mild language and emotionally intense scenes.


9 Contains moderate sustained threat.
The Cove Contains real footage of dolphin killing.
The Box Contains moderate horror and psychological threat.
Tales From the Golden Age Contains two uses of strong language.
Love Happens Contains moderate sex references.
 

District 13: Ultimatum Contains strong violence and language.
City of Life and Death Contains strong battle violence and sexual violence.
Soroity Row Contains strong violence and horror.
The Scouting Book For Boys Contains strong language, once very strong and one scene of strong violence.
Big River Man Contains strong language.
Le Donk and Scor-Zay-Zee Contains strong language and sex references.
Coffin Rock Contains strong language, sex and violence.
Welcome Contains strong language.
1 Day Contains strong language and violence.
Ghost in the Shell Contains strong violence.
Born in '68 Contains strong language and sex.
An American Werewolf in London Contains strong language, once very strong, bloody violence and gore.




White Lightnin' Contains strong bloody violence.
The Beaches of Agnes Contains strong sexualised nudity.
Jack Said Contains very strong language and strong bloody violence.
Harry Brown Contains very strong language, strong violence, hard drug use and sex.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Cinematters: Offend in every way



Movieguide.org, a US website that bills itself as “A family guide to movies and entertainment” has recently declared that the ratings system of the MPAA (American equivalent to our BBFC) has “failed”. In an article posted on their website on August 13th Movieguide founder Ted Baehr called for a return to “A standards based code of decency”. Baehr said “it is clear that the entertainment industry must return to the kind of system it had during the Golden Age of Hollywood and the Golden Age of Television, when it was a wonderful life in America because Mr. Smith went to Washington, Ricky still loved Lucy, and the Bells of St. Mary's rang out across the whole land.”

The system he is referring to is that of the Motion Picture Production Code, better known as the Hays Code. The code, though adopted in 1930, was enforced between 1934 and 1968. Prior to the code censorship in America was State run and unpredictable, because producers had to deal with many different sets of censor, each of whom might have different standards. The code wasn’t forced on Hollywood; rather it was adopted as a way to avoid the advent of central governmental censorship.

The code set out three general principles:
No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.

Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented.

Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.


These would seem to be a reaction to the gangster films that were popular in the early 1930’s, and certainly the code had a major impact on the original 1932 version of Scarface (a film still violent enough to get a 15 certificate in the UK, to be fair). The original version was judged to glorify gangsters, and so censors insisted on a title change (Scarface: The Shame of a Nation), the addition of a text introduction and the softening of the film’s ending. Director Howard Hawks disowned this version of the film.

The code’s more detailed rules and prohibitions were grouped together under headings like… Crimes Against The Law, Sex, Vulgarity, Obscenity, Profanity, Costume, Dances (i.e. suggestive movements), Religion, Locations (i.e. the bedroom), National Feelings, Titles and "Repellent Subjects" (extremely graphic violence). The code included rules on such petty considerations as how long a kiss could last (three seconds) and the position a couple could be seen in on a bed (at least one foot had to remain on the floor). Alfred Hitchcock, ever the prankster, circumvented the three second rule in this famously sexy scene from Notorious.



The code also included prohibitions that would today seem, at best, outdated and at worst - as in the forbidding of the depiction of interracial relationships - offensive in themselves. Of course Movieguide may not be suggesting that we re-adopt the Hays Code as a whole, but that we apply the morals of today to generating a new code. Fair enough. Whose morals? The answer, of course, ought to be ‘those of the majority’ which is, essentially, what MPAA and even the less restrictive BBFC do in applying their certificates. What Movieguide are suggesting, actually, is that movies should be governed by the morality of the small minority that is the Christian right, for no reason other than, well, that’s what they think.

The problem with basing censorship on moral, rather than legal, grounds is that morals change a great deal, in short space of time. Here is a film that, when first shown in 1896, got this notice from a contemporary commentator: "The spectacle of the prolonged pasturing on each other's lips was beastly enough in life size on the stage but magnified to gargantuan proportions and repeated three times over it is absolutely disgusting." What do you think?



Okay, they aren’t the world’s best looking people, but surely there is nothing remotely offensive about that. At the time though people wanted it banned. Of course you can make the case that the reaction to that particular film was because film itself was so new that seeing these images was shocking, so let’s move forward a bit, to 1953. That year The Wild One came before the BBFC, it was deemed scandalous and dangerous, a charge exemplified by this famous quote:
Mildred: What're you rebelling against, Johnny?
Johnny: Whaddya got?
The film was banned for 15 years, finally receiving an X rating in 1968. Forty one years later, The Wild One is a PG and few, I imagine, would try to argue that rating.

The other problem with basing a censorship system on morals is that everyone’s morals differ. Mine are not even the same as my parents’, so how can we possibly find a representative system this way? This is not to say that there aren’t films being made that I find morally objectionable, there certainly are, in fact there has been a glut of them this year. The thing that has troubled me most lately is that many Hollywood films seem to have adopted a vein of misogyny, played for laughs, which disgusts me. For example Summit Entertainment (a subsidiary of Sony) released The Hottie and the Nottie, a disgusting, body fascist movie that tells its audience of teenage girls that they must subject themselves to painful surgical procedures to fit the ideal of beauty. Lionsgate released Crank: High Voltage, in which every single woman is either a stripper or a prostitute and Columbia and Sony are both involved with The Ugly Truth, which tells women that if they want to meet and keep a man they must live as a reductive male fantasy. I find all those movies morally repugnant, and I would assume that Movieguide (and British counterparts like Mediawatch) would agree with me. The difference between me and them is that I don’t assume that my being offended trumps either a filmmaker’s right to say what they want to say, or anyone else’s right to watch them say it, even if it is repugnant.

Another problem with introducing a moral code is that it can be argued that offensive films (and books, and music) are actually good for us as a culture. A healthy culture has a wide variety of forms of expression, it allows people to tell the stories they feel they want or need to tell, in the way that best suits those stories. That might mean Pingu, but it might also mean Antichrist. Boxing filmmakers in with set of largely arbitrary and draconian rules will not enrich our culture, it will deaden it. Some of the greatest films ever made have been considered, in their own times, to be offensive. Take Universal’s horror cycle of the 1930’s and 1940’s, produced under the Hays code, but still judged so dangerous that the BBFC created a whole new certificate to cover them: H, for Horrific. Those films didn’t pass the Hays office without incident though. One of the best scenes in Frankenstein was long thought lost because the Hays office insisted on its deletion; that lyrical scene in which the Monster accidentally drowns a little girl is one of the most beautiful in James Whale’s film, it was restored in the 1980s for a video release. Also deleted by the Hays office was the climax of the scene in which the Monster is created, with Colin Clive shouting, “Now I know what it feels like to be God.”

Perhaps the most repugnant film ever made is DW Griffith’s 1915 landmark The Birth of a Nation. Racist doesn’t even begin to describe this adaptation of a story called The Klansman. It depicts black people (mostly played by white actors with boot polished faces) as little more than animals, and ends with the Ku Klux Klan riding to the rescue of the main characters. However, hateful as the film is, you can’t deny its brilliance. Griffith pioneered many of the techniques that made film the artform it is today, without The Birth of a Nation cinema itself would be very different. You shouldn’t ban films like this, or like Leni Riefenstahl’s documentaries, because they feature repugnant philosophies, and if you shouldn’t do that then you shouldn’t be able to suppress films on any moral grounds.

Blasphemy is an interesting case, largely because I imagine that Movieguide would consider a ‘blasphemous’ film a prime target for banning. Only one film is currently, officially, banned in the UK because it is blasphemous. Nigel Wingrove’s Visons of Ecstacy is a 19-minute nunsploitation short, eaturing a depiction of Saint Teresa of Avila caressing the body of Jesus on the cross. Here’s a clip, if you watch it please don’t send me mail about how offended you are, I’ve warned you about the content.



However, blasphemy has come up in reference to other offensive films such as The Last Temptation of Christ, Monty Python’s classic The Life of Brian (you can throw that DVD away if censorship is considered under a moral code) and even the Harry Potter films. Religious issues are also interesting because they have a tendency to expose the hypocrisy of those who seek to censor. Lets take a look at CAPalert, the site of Thomas Carder (who is, essentially, a more bonkers version of movieguide). Carder says that he makes no allowances for the message of a movie in analysing it for ‘sinful’ content. Well, in his review of The Passion of the Christ, while he notes how violent the film is, Carder offer excuses for the violence “The Passion of the Christ,… is viciously brutal and intensely violent, but it truthfully depicts what Jesus suffered for you and I that we might have eternal life.” He even suggests that you might want to let children see this (18 rated) movie “That it is truthful to the actual events does not excuse exposing your kids to it unless you, mom/dad, say so.” Let’s, just for a second, imagine that there was a film with the exact same content as The Passion of the Christ, but that it was about a man named Ted, rather than a man named Jesus. Would Carder then suggest that it should be seen by children, or indeed by anyone? Morals are malleable, and thus you can’t base censorship on them.

We need offensive films, just as surely as we need completely inoffensive ones, if only because if we attempt to remove all offensive material from films we’ll end up with no film at all, because whatever material you have you’re almost certain to find someone who for some reason finds it offensive.

Monday, August 17, 2009

BBFC Update

No cuts to report this time out, fortunately.



Morning Light [mild language]

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus [infrequent strong language, scenes of threat, hanging and smoking]


Blind Dating [frequent moderate sex references]
Birdwatchers [strong sex and scenes of hanging]
Bustin' Down the Door [strong language]
The Final Destination 3D [strong gore, sex and language]
Jennifer's Body [very strong language, bloody horror, sex references and drug use]
Taking Woodstock [strong language and hard drug use]



The Firm [very strong language and strong violence]
Gamer [strong bloody violence and sexualised nudity]
Sorority Row [strong bloody violence]
Thirst [one use of very strong language, strong bloody violence and sex]

Sunday, August 2, 2009

News: 2/8

New Posters


Only / Motherhood / The Informant!
The Cabin in the Woods (x2)

Ridley Scott to direct Alien prequel
A script is currently being written by an, as yet, untested screenwriter named Jon Spaihts. We may not have seen anything from Spaihts yet, but studios sure seem to like him, and like him for sci-fi in particular. This is a prequel, but Variety says that Spaihts “won the job with an "Alien" reboot take that the studio and Scott loved.”
Of course the big news is, after years of discussion, and the recent suggestion that a commercial director named Carl Rinsch might take the helm, with Scott producing, that in the franchise’s 30th anniversary year, Ridley Scott has signed to return to the director’s chair for his first sci-fi film since Blade Runner. We’ll probably see the results of this deal some time in 2012.

Fantastic Mr Fox Trailer
In the same week that Wes Anderson’s Roald Dahl adaptation has been confirmed as the opening film for 2009’s London Film Festival the first trailer has emerged. I’m not entirely won over by it, but you can judge for yourselves here.


Send in the lawyers
Apparently there’s this franchise called The Twilight Saga, and it’s sort of a big deal, at least to teenage girls. It’s become a little more interesting in the last week, what with dueling reports from cast member Rachelle Lefevre and producers Summit Entertainment about Lefevre’s abrupt firing, and Bryce Dallas Howard being called in to play the character of Victoria in next year’s film Eclipse. You can read both statements in full here.
Lefevre says: ”I was stunned by Summit’s decision to recast the role of Victoria for Eclipse. I was fully committed to the Twilight saga, and to the portrayal of Victoria. I turned down several other film opportunities and, in accordance with my contractual rights, accepted only roles that would involve very short shooting schedules… Given the length of filming for Eclipse, never did I fathom I would lose the role over a 10-day overlap. I was happy with my contract with Summit and was fully prepared to continue to honor it. Summit chose simply to recast the part.”
While Summit replied with: ”We at Summit Entertainment are disappointed by Rachelle Lefevre’s recent comments which attempt to make her career choices the fault of the Studio. Her decision to discuss her version of the scheduling challenges publicly has forced the Studio to set the record straight and correct the facts… Ms. Lefevre took a role in the other film that places her in Europe during the required rehearsal time, and at least ten days of The Twilight Saga: Eclipse’s principal photography. This period is essential for both rehearsal time with the cast, and for filming at key locations that are only available during the initial part of production.”
This much more entertaining than Twilight

BBFC Decisions

Inglourious Basterds [strong bloody violence]
Chiko [very strong language, strong bloody violence & hard drug use]


Home [one use of strong language and strong nudity]
Rage [strong language]
Mesrine: Public Enemy No. 1 [infrequent strong bloody violence, strong language and sex]
The Informant! [strong language]


The Time Traveller’s Wife [brief sight of bloody injury and scenes of emotional distress]
The Yes Men Fix the World [one use of strong language]

On DVD Monday

It has been confirmed that the UK DVD release will use the original theatrical subtitles, not the simplified ones prepared for the initial US DVD release.

At Cinemas Friday


Adam / GI JOE: The Rise of Cobra / Mesrine: Killer Instinct
Orphan / The Ugly Truth / The Yes Men Fix the World