Cult Labs

Go Back   Cult Labs > Film Discussions > Horror > The 1970's And Beyond > The 2010's

Like Tree2Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 20th August 2009, 05:37 PM
Daemonia's Avatar
Cult Addict
Good Trader
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel View Post
They could have passed it if they felt it was worth doing so but with the cuts having to be so extensive it would have been pointless. Indeed people would have said with cuts like that they may as well have banned it.
Please don't take this as an attack on you, Angel, it's not - this is aimed squarely at the BBFC. They don't 'have' to cut anything. They choose to cut based on guidelines they've drawn up themselves, with minimal public consultation, in spite of their claims. Most people don't care if films are cut or not and few would ever bother to visit their website to fill out their questionnaires. I can understand that they perceive themselves as moral guardians, empowered by Government authority, and so feel a burden of responsibility. But to whom and why? I'm certainly glad that the BBFC are more relaxed these days - but please, don't forget that we were only about 30 years behind the rest of the world before this happened. It only took 3 decades or so to catch up, not bad (but it does make us seem like a morally bankrupt country where its people are not entrusted to handle controversial material in an adult fashion). And...wow...the BBFC suddenly realised people actually had sex and watching people having sex isn't evil (even if it is maybe a bit perverse).

As for violence begetting violence - I don't really buy that. Following in the wake of the VRA films were heavily cut, almost shorn of all violence completely. In the years that followed the legally available films became less violent due to heavy-handed censorship, yet violence in our society continued to escalate. So the correlation simply isn't there. In fact, most of us who grew up on video nasties are appalled at the violence committed amongst young people/adults these days, so it's not even as we're desensitised to violence either. So...you know...it's all psycho-babble bullshit.

As for the sexualised violence excuse (which is pathetic IMO), it just doesn't hold water. A man who gets turned on by seeing a woman hurt and humiliated doesn't need to have it presented in a sexualised context, I wouldn't have thought. He'd be just as aroused watching a woman getting a back-hander in Eastenders, which is far from sexualised. What I'm trying to say is that if your kicks are from seeing women (or men) physically abused, a sexual context isn't needed. All that is needed is the presentation of violence by a man to a woman (or whatever your bag is). So how do you monitor that? Do you censor everything? And who are you protecting? I don't need protecting, because I doubt I'll ever be beaten by someone for sexual gratification. So what are the BBFC saying? That films with a perceived sexual violence quotient may act as a stimulus; a trigger to latent rapists or whatever? But, as outlined above, if that's the case - an episode of Eastenders could just as easily act as a trigger. Couldn't it? Just how powerful do they think film is? That it can actually trigger latent tendencies in a person or heighten them? I'm curious, I'd like to know exactly what threat these films pose to society at large. Am I, personally, going to find myself in more danger because Grotesque came out on DVD in the UK? Some perspective is needed, I reckon, and I'd like to know the rationale behind the BBFC's thinking. How do the examiners themselves know it won't trigger latent tendencies in them? After all, if it's latent, you're not consciously aware of it. What makes them immune to this 'danger of harm'? And exactly how does it trigger these tendencies? Who is in danger? Who will be harmed by these films? Some explanation is needed - and one that's grounded in fact.
__________________
Sent from my Hoover using the power of Uri Gellar
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 20th August 2009, 05:55 PM
Kyle's Avatar
Cult Acolyte
Good Trader
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stoke on trent
Blog Entries: 20
Default

well said
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 20th August 2009, 09:10 PM
Cult Addict
Senior Moderator Alumni
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default

The BBFC also has the OPA to contend with. This has the potential to cause even more problems than the VRA these days. If the BBFC passed material that contravened the government's 1977 act amendment then they run the risk of prosecution themselves.

I wonder what the German & Australian censors will make of it?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 20th August 2009, 09:36 PM
Daemonia's Avatar
Cult Addict
Good Trader
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Blog Entries: 1
Default

The OPA isn't so much a problem as the Dangerous Pictures Act. Under the OPA nothing can actually be legally classed as obscene unless a jury in a court of law deems it obscene. And only then that it will offend its intended audience. That's how it's supposed to work anyway. Technically, the DPP's list was only a list of prosecutable titles - only a handful were actually classed as contravening the OPA in a court of law, in their uncut form at least. The DPA on the other hand almost gives the license to brand something as obscene without ever seeing the inside of a court room. Therefore it's probably the ridiculous DPA that will cause more headaches these days.

A question, though - I'm to understand that the BBFC keep a copy of all submitted material on file. Aren't they technically, then, in possession of illegal material, if it does indeed breach the law? They sure have the powers of the gods there at the BBFC, don't they? Watch everything uncut then tell us what we can and can't watch. It's a ridiculous state of affairs. What kind of totalitarian regime are we living under? I'm glad the BBFC have moved with the times - but I can't help feeling insulted when they decide that something I might view will actually cause me harm or make me a danger to society. Why? Because I don't move amongst 'polite society' and too uneducated to able to properly digest and distinguish what I see on screen? It's ****ing bollocks. Let me judge for myself. By all means classify and restrict viewership to the proper age groups - but to outlaw something completely because it might trigger a sex offender is ridiculous. Show me concrete evidence that genre films do this and I'll listen. Until then, they're talking out of their arses. I've seen many nutters over the years claiming 'God told me to' and yet I see no blanket censorship of religion - why? If religion triggers religious mania, why not ban that too?
__________________
Sent from my Hoover using the power of Uri Gellar
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 20th August 2009, 09:44 PM
Cult Addict
Senior Moderator Alumni
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default

When it comes to the subject of films influencing people I do agree that no concrete evidence has ever materialised proving this, and I also feel that very often certain elements of the media use this as an excuse without any proof whatsoever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonia View Post
A question, though - I'm to understand that the BBFC keep a copy of all submitted material on file. Aren't they technically, then, in possession of illegal material, if it does indeed breach the law?
To my knowledge they keep documentation of the film (in essay/list form) rather than a copy of the film itself. Very often they don't know if a film that has been cut or rejected in the past will pass intact today until it's been resubmitted to them.

Do you feel as equally strongly about the MPAA?
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 20th August 2009, 09:56 PM
Daemonia's Avatar
Cult Addict
Good Trader
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vincenzo View Post
Do you feel as equally strongly about the MPAA?
Oh yes. It's because of the MPAA that many films only exist in heavily cut form - like the Friday the 13th films. It's become a lot worse since the Studios took control of the cinema chains too. Yes, there's the unrated option in the age of DVD - but back in the day, a gory horror had to be trimmed or get an NC17 (commercial suicide as many cinemas won't show NC17 films) or go unrated and try and get someone to actually screen it.

The MPAA are the real reason we still can't see many of the F13 as intended - they were either trimmed by the MPAA or pre-cut by nervous stuidios dreading the NC17 rating.

So yes, I feel as strongly about the MPAA.
__________________
Sent from my Hoover using the power of Uri Gellar
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 20th August 2009, 10:00 PM
Cult Addict
Senior Moderator Alumni
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default

Unlike the MPAA the BBFC had no problems passing the unrated versions of Friday The 13th, House III, Candyman and A Nightmare On Elm Street.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 20th August 2009, 10:08 PM
Daemonia's Avatar
Cult Addict
Good Trader
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Exactly. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a system of classification and restricting viewing to certain age groups. If parents are irresponsible, that's not my problem. I don't think there's a cure for stupidity. If it triggers latent psychosis in someone, again, not my problem (not that I particularly believe it does). I don't agree that my freedoms should be curtailed because it might harm someone else. Knives are useful kitchen implements - but sick people turn them into instruments of aggression. Should we ban kitchen knives because someone might misuse them? Why not apply the BBFC's arguments to everything. Why single out one strand when there are plenty of others to also choose from?

I'm aware that there have been times when the BBFC have been far more lenient than the MPAA. On the other hand, why are people settling for this sytem whereby a few people can decide whether you can see something or not? No-one asked me if I agree with it - so therefore I'll take no notice of it.
__________________
Sent from my Hoover using the power of Uri Gellar
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 20th August 2009, 10:13 PM
Daemonia's Avatar
Cult Addict
Good Trader
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vincenzo View Post
Unlike the MPAA the BBFC had no problems passing the unrated versions of Friday The 13th, House III, Candyman and A Nightmare On Elm Street.
But let's not also forget that the MPAA-approved versions of Candyman and A Nightmare on Elm Street are what we've been served up on DVD. Guess it was just easier to use the R-rated digital master worldwide - which probably means we'll never see them uncut again in this glorious digital age.
__________________
Sent from my Hoover using the power of Uri Gellar
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 20th August 2009, 10:15 PM
Make Them Die Slowly's Avatar
Cult Addict
Cult Labs Radio Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2009
Blog Entries: 5
Default

I have a feeling that the BBFC don't actually believe that a film will make somebody commit a crime directly from watching a film but certain images in a film could be seen as normalising deviant behaviour to those who are disposed to such behaviour,so if you are a rapist, then repeated scenes of rape in a film that shows no consequences for the crime could normalise rape.In "Grotesque" the female victim and male victim are both masturbated to orgasm by the killer thus implying that sexual assult is a pleasurable experience.As dvd can be replayed and edited at home,I'm guessing that the BBFC are concerned such scenes can be taken out of context and used to fuel fantasy which in a very few people becomes reality.
Reply With Quote
Reply  

Like this? Share it using the links below!

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Our goal is to keep Cult Labs friendly. If you feel discouraged from posting by certain members' behaviour then you can e-mail us in complete confidence.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
All forum posts are contributed by members of the site; Cult Labs cannot take responsibility for all content posted on the site. If you have an issue with content posted on the site please click the 'report post' button.
Copyright © 2014 Cult Laboratories Ltd. All rights reserved.