Quote:
Originally Posted by nekromantik  wow
21 secs was cut!!
Wont be seeing this or buying this in the UK then.  |
Read it again - it's actually 43 seconds of cuts, but some have been replaced with substitutions leaving it 21 secs shorter than when submitted. But there's actually 43 secs missing.
Hmmm...tough one. Do I go UK or import this one?
Oh, I see on the BBFC site we're back to this non-existent issue of 'potential harm'. Probably to that group of undefined males who might commit acts of sexual violence. But they don't know who it will affect or why it will do this, nor even that there's any evidence that anything has actually incited some unidentified male to rape or sexual assault. Who makes up this stuff?? Ridiculous.
But this is the bit that really pisses me off:
in this case, shots of nudity that tend to eroticise sexual violence and shots of humiliation that tend to endorse sexual violence by encouraging viewer complicity in sexual humiliation and rape
So are the BBFC saying that if we saw these terrible frames of celluloid that that in itself means that we, the viewer, are endorsing such acts? I feel like ****ing suing them for making comments like that!