I think the fact that the BBFC pass 99% of films that come their way uncut means that they have very little concern about violence. In fact violence is no longer cut and only a certain type of sexual violence causes them concern. It's something they don't see much off either. |
Actually I'm surprised the BBFC didn't cite the OPA when rejecting Grotesque because it definitely sounds like it would fall foul of this law ("corrupt and deprave"). |
Well said Angel. :nod: |
But again, I ask, 'deprave and corrupt' who? Why can't the BBFC and their panel of experts actually define who it will 'deprave and corrupt'? That's my problem - there's this creation of a Boogeyman, that a film like this will cause danger out there...somewhere. They don't know where and to whom...but it might. So we start to move into the area of thought-crime or even anticipating criminal behaviour that hasn't happened yet. So...my question to the BBFC is this: define exactly who will be affected? Although I can see in certain instances the link between sex and violence in films - most notably in scenes of rape, obviously, it doesn't create that correlation in me. For it to do that I would already have to have made that link within myself, to have connected to that concept. If I've already done that, then surely any scene depicting violence towards women would have the effect of arousing me. Wouldn't it? So just who are these dangerous people out there and - more importantly - have any sex crimes ever been committed as a result of watching a film like Grotesque? |
Quote:
German fans have to import the uncut "Grotesque" in an expensive limited edition via Austria....:der: |
I also doubt the film would fare at all well in Australia. They did pass I Spit on Your Grave uncut there but Grotesque sounds much stronger. They haven't even submitted Murder Set Pieces over there yet but again I can't see it passing. Presumably Grotesque would also be banned in Ireland. No doubt it would get an uncut 15 in Sweden. Norway are getting strict again so it might be banned here. I can see it having problems in New Zealand. |
Quote:
|
To be honest as long as they keep passing older films like Caligula , Last House etc uncut i dont care if the bbfc rejects films like Grotesque. By the way here is the Daily Mails view: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rror-film.html |
Grotesque is one of a number of very violent Japanese films (eg Toky Gore Police, Machine Girl etc) that have been submitted to the BBFC recently and there are more on the way. The uncut Ichi The Killer is also up for re-submission as well. Remains to be seen what happens there. It would be nice to see the Guinea Pig films getting a release here as well. |
There's no question the BBFC have moved on in leaps and bounds over the past few years and, indeed, it it highly unusual for them to cut a film these days, never mind ban it. I'd certainly have them over the MPAA or ( god forbid ) the German censors any day. I think it's ( yet again ) their inconsistancy here. Why is Grotesque suddenly more 'harmful' than Saw / Hostel / Martyrs and any other number of 18 rated movies that have featured extreme violence and / or sexual violence? It's a similar situation to them passing Irreversable uncut, yet removing 16 seconds of fumbling from Tombs Of The Blind Dead. Or, indeed, Shameless' own Venus In Furs. From what I've read and heard, this ban has been widely criticised by the general public, so the widespread public support for this action isn't there - including the Daily Mail's own website, interestingly enough. Part of me ( the cynical bit! ) wonders if maybe Grotesque was a bit of a kneejerk reaction to recent pressure on the BBFC from certain quarters? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
In films like Saw and Hostel, violent as they are, there is no sexual violence and very little in the way of sexualised violence, this is in contrast to what happens in Grotesque. Also in Saw/ Hostel, there are often fairly lengthy gaps between the violence. I know in the first Hostel, there was hardly any violence in the first half. In the case of Grotesque it would appear to be totally unremitting. Also Violence, sadism and sexual sadism for the sake of it. It's not surprising it fell foul of the VRA. The reason the BBFC passed Irresversible uncut in 2002 was because there was nothing to cut. The rape scene did not focus on the woman's naked body like it clearly did in Tombs of the Blind Dead. I'm glad that the general public are not suportive of the ban although I wonder how many of them have actually seen it. To have passed Grotesque uncut would have put the BBFC in a difficult position as it would mean they would not be able to justify the cuts or bans to numerous other films in recent years which were all cut and banned for the same reason. |
Thanks for the reply, angel. You have a good insight into the BBFC's workings and I always enjoy reading your posts. I personally have been a big supporter of the BBFC in recent years and I understand why certain ( very few ) titles can run into problems. It really is unusual for a film to be cut, let alone banned these days, so maybe this is why this has caused such a stir. Quote:
The BBFC's worry about justifying other cuts is interesting. My only worry is this could work the other way round and those advocating more censorship could point to Grotesque and argue why the BBFC could'nt have cut / banned other similar movies. I applaud the BBFC for the way they have treated horror movies in recent years. I just hope this doesn't inadvertently lead to backward steps in future releases of films which, up until this point, would have remained uncut. |
Excellent post Mojo. :coolblue: |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I always watch whatever I can regarding what the BBFC cut and ban just to see if the cuts really are justifed. So far from what I have seen they all seem to check out. So I am looking forward to seeing Grotesque for this reason. |
Quote:
To be perfectly honest, the reason I have applauded the BBFC recently is mainly because of the way they are ( by and large ) treating people who watch 18 rated movies as responsible adults, rather than the patronising attitude of the Ferman era. I used to feel sorry for innovative companies such as Redemption back then, tracking down these rare cult movies, only to see Ferman & Co charge his extortionate fees and then hack them to pieces because he didn't like them. Thankfully, the present board seem to be a million miles from this nonsense. In more recent times, I still don't agree with the cutting of Tombs Of The Blind Dead, for example. I think the UK would have survived without descending into chaos if it had remained intact. And anyway, everybody just went out and bought the uncut R1 release, making the cuts pointless and robbing ABUK of much needed income. But, again, that was a few years ago and it's been pretty good form from the BBFC since then to say the least. So here's hoping they keep moving things forward in the way they have been and ignore the whingings of the likes of the Daily Mail, who rarely ( if ever ) watch any of the films they complain about. :crazy: |
Quote:
|
Oh yes, please don't think I'm unhappy with the BBFC, by and large I think they do an excellent job in this day and age. Things are pretty much as they should be - I also think they have a decent attitude to horror and its fanbase, unlike under Ferman. They now realise we're not salivating maniacs (well, most of us aren't, anyway LOL) and understand that the gore in horror is purely of the fantasy variety. It's just that when they do cut or ban a film, I like to know the rationale behind such decisions. In this case, I'd like to know who they think will be harmed by a work such as Grotesque. |
Just fin watching grotesque.. not into these type of films in any sense Imo i dont see the need for this type and style of film but each to there own. Deffo not my cup of tea |
Having recently caught up with asain gore films, can anyone recommend me some titles that i may have missed out on like Grotesque, Meat Grinder, Invitation Only, I am familiar with most of the recent jap splat.:confused: |
Quote:
|
Great fun films they are too. Tokyo Gore Police was the bloodiest but both films are daft & enjoyable entertainment. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
but for some intense extreme horror you should check out films by Daisuke Yamanouchi or Tamakichi Anaru |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
Also Re: Grotesque getting banned in the UK; if anyone is searching for this uncut on R2, AWE have just released it. |
Quote:
|
I am quite interested in seeing Serbian Movie. Not sure why though :lol: |
What is Serbian Movie about? Can't say I've heard of it. It's not on the IMDb. |
Quote:
|
|
Regarding "Serbian Film": I've been following discussions on German boards regarding this one and it certainly appears to be the next "big taboo breaker" (though with a little more thought behind the "shocking bits" than the likes of AU and MSP). As it's said to contain- apart from the "usual" graphic sexual violence- very disturbing scenes with a baby, I'll most likely pass:ack:...There's enough other "extreme horror" titles left to catch up with.:lol: |
Quote:
a very enjoyable and gory romp from Japan, it is very much like Junk/Stacy rather than the cartoon gorefests more recently released like tokyo gore police etc. It does make a pleasant change to see that Japan is still producing more "traditional" horror as well |
Quote:
|
here is a trailer for Serbian movie http://www.belgraded.com/video-reade...-movie-trailer beware it's definietly NSFW |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright © 2014 Cult Laboratories Ltd. All rights reserved.