Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel  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.