Censorship

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

In terms of swearing and context, there is a world of difference between someone in their late 20s turning to his friend, who has just done something stupid, and saying "You're a ****ing idiot" and a father aggressively saying the same thing to his young son in a drama.

[Boo Radley]

Ha!! You wish! I will moan and bitch about censorship till I'm old and bald! .... Okay, older and balder.

Since we're on that subject, (Cough, cough..!) let me tell you what winds me up even more than our ridiculous censorship guidelines.

It's film fans that are so apathetic and PC brainwashed that they agree and will argue in defence of the BBFC rulings. It appears, to my very narrow mind-set, that there are great swathes of you (No, not you personally...) that really don't care if a film is cut or not. They then try to twist it back onto you, if you champion a particular scene they personally dislike, by either labelling you or making you out, in the best Daily Mail fashion, to be a deviant sick individual that gets off on images considered too graphic for general consumption.

"Oh, I won't watch anything with real animal violence in it as it's just not acceptable in this day and age and if you do, then you're sick!" he says in his leather jacket and shoes, tucking into a bacon sandwich watching the news on telly showing dead children in Syria.

Films are historic documents, they have their place in human history, reflecting the morals, attitudes and visions of artists submerged in the deceit of their times. They are important. To remove scenes is a sin. We look back on Victorian sensibilities that chiselled off male genitalia on statues and shake our heads in disbelief. They never achieved anything, just mutilated a work of art. Cutting films is no different. In fact if you look at what the BBFC does to pornography, it's very similar.

A film fan agreeing with censorship is like an art critic agreeing to painting black boxes over area's of a picture or saying H R Giger is too sexual and banning certain of his pictures. The art world would erupt in a furore but in the moving picture genre too many are prepared to go along with the flock, nod their heads sagely and say, "Well... even though no one on the planet has ever committed a crime because of violent images in a film, there ARE people out there, who could, maybe, in the future, see such images and copy them and we have to protect society from that 1 in 7.5 billion chance."

For me, if you are a fan of extreme cinema then you automatically have to be against censorship. It's a given. You cannot be pro film and pro censorship. They are diametrically opposed to each other and mutually incompatible. We all have limits to what we consider unacceptable but I believe these to be self evident and need no debate whatsoever, we are talking Fantasy Films here, not crimes....yeah?

And when film fans sit back and accept the ruling elite dictate what they are allowed to watch or not, with no set parameters or cohesive laws to refer to and stay silent on the subject, or even worse, become collaborators to the fact, it nips my arse something chronic!! You're meant to be a film fan, for facks sake, choose a side!!
See come the revolution...... first up against the wall!

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

There is a degree, at least there is for me, of accepting the BBFC (in one form or another) will always exist because the laws necessitating it will never be overturned by statute, so it is a case of hoping for the most lenient censorship body. Compared to previous incarnations, the BBFC now is very consistent and fairly lenient. I don't like its existence, but I'm not going to lose sleep worrying about it.

It is a great shame that we don't get to see the uncut versions of films which are precut by distributors aiming for the biggest market possible so, just thinking of recent films, it is extremely unlikely I will ever be able to see James Watkins' preferred version of The Woman in Black, only the one which was cut prior to release.

As a vegan, I have my own thoughts on animal cruelty, so there is no hypocrisy on my part when I speak out against horse falls and other examples of animals dying unnecessarily for our entertainment.

[Boo Radley]

The BBFC, as much as I love them, unfortunately do not exist just to enforce laws already in place. The "Law" as it stands says that we should be protected against images that have the potential to "corrupt and offend", but then do not stipulate what exactly is corruptible or offensive leaving it wide open to interpretation for a very select few individuals.

When we are brought up we are imprinted with the morals and values of our parents, family and society. I have yet to hear of anyone who has looked at an image and then been corrupted by such. How does watching a fantasy film corrupt one? How does one define the "potential to corrupt?" Utter tosh! Makes about as much sense as "War on Terror..." Okay, open myself up for a barrage here, I'll go one step too far, but if, just for the sake of an argument, I saw a child porn image, it would disgust and appal me, make me angry and fill me with sadness at the state of the world we live in...but would it corrupt me? It definitely would sicken me, but corrupt...no! How could it?

No image has the power to corrupt you. "I saw A Serbian Film and now I'm a drug fuelled child molester.." If someone watches something and then decides to re-inact what they've seen, then the corruption was well established long, long before said scene was witnessed. As for being offended, I can honestly say I have never been "offended" in my life. I have been angry, sad, amazed, confused and elated at things I've seen or heard but never once do I think something has genuinely offended me. There are way too many people nowadays who "decide" to be offended because of the image they are trying to project of themselves to the rest of us.

If I choose not to watch animal violence in the cannibal genre or other films because of my own personal beliefs based on my upbringing, then that is my own decision and no one can tell me it's wrong. But if I then have a position of power where I can force my own morals and opinions on you, then that is wrong. (And Draconian, Demdike!!)

I do agree that the BBFC have gotten much more lenient over the last 10 years or so and people seem to think we should be thankful for that.
I don't.
In the bad old days you knew who the enemy was. No doubt about it. It was Ferman and his gang of "Yes" men who mutilated and restructured an art form to prescribe to their own personal agenda. The British Board of Film Censors. When the ridiculous fiasco of the Video Nasties hit and they realized just how fragile the foundations of their oppressive regime was, they had to change tactics. They were no longer censors.... they were "Classifiers" - which gives an impression of something they totally are not - again, two diametrically opposed concepts. As proved beyond all dispute just by the very fact that Suzi brought up earlier, 41 films cut by the "Classifiers" (Not censors...no!) in 2014.

Todays censorship is so much more insidious and underhand than the chop, chop style of yesteryear. Now they tell filmmakers what is acceptable at a level they have made up out of thin air and because of the monetary aspect, filmmakers have to comply or risk losing their investors money. Sly, sneaky BBFC bastards who can then say the censorship is not on them but down to the filmmakers themselves. "We didn't tell them to cut anything, we just told them what has to be removed to get their film distributed, due to no laws but our opinion that a 17 year old can only hear a swear word x amount of times in 90 minutes."

Now we get apologists stating that it's not the BBFC's fault at all. It's the filmmakers choice....
Bullshit! That doesn't even make sense!
This new form of censorship even denies us the faint prospect of ever seeing films as they were intended to be seen by their directors. At least in the old days if a film was cut here you always knew that somewhere would release the full uncut version and you'd be able to get your grubby little paws on it eventually. But the BBFC knows that too and every time someone watches a film cut or banned by them, inevitably someone will ask why in God's name did they bother in the first place, which starts to undermine their authority and reason to be. But....If you cannot get hold of the directors integral vision, then their dominance is complete.

Now we are also hearing that the standards set by our bunch of pompous self appointed moral guardians are to be used as the world standard, it just beggars belief. A NWO of censorship straight from Soho Square. The world is on the brink of a financial crash and so money is tight. The film studios do not green light anything that is in the slightest bit risky in fear of losing money so we have been bombarded with generic shite and sequels for the last decade. The very few contentious films that creep through usually are from independants but there is even a dearth of these. Treasure your film collections, my friends, believe me when I say their like will never be seen again.

Shit! Sorry! Sort of went into one there! How un-like me.... what was I answering...? Ahh, bollox...Happy New World Order of Censorship Year..or something. Yeah.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

There is also the argument that films are never profitable because that would create taxable income, hence why most big films lose money, but that's for another day!

[Crimson Blade]

The fact that the BBFC cut nearly 7 minutes from Sexy Battle Girls shows that they are far from liberal in some regards. Yet on the other hand, they're quite happy to pass Nekromantik and Cannibal Holocaust with barely a cut.

[MuckyFunster]

Originally Posted by Make Them Die Slowly

Do the BBFC have a ratings scale of swearing and insults and how does that work taking into account swearing and insults within the context of different cultures.

I'd like a look at that list. Would be a giggle! I bet there's be some draconian swear words on it I'd have endless pleasure trying to work into my day to day vernacular!

There's a scene in the movie "Holy Flying Circus" where the actor Alex MacQueen plays someone working for the BBC and is dictating a letter of unacceptable swear words. Its all willys and bums. It's hilarious

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by MuckyFunster

I'd like a look at that list. Would be a giggle! I bet there's be some draconian swear words on it I'd have endless pleasure trying to work into my day to day vernacular!

If I recall correctly, the BBFC had to think about the certificate for The Avengers (Avengers Assemble) because Loki calls Black Widow a "mewling quim" (an old term for what would now be "whining c**t"!

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

If I recall correctly, the BBFC had to think about the certificate for The Avengers (Avengers Assemble) because Loki calls Black Widow a "mewling quim" (an old term for what would now be "whining c**t"!

I've done a bit of research and apparently quim is within the remit for films and TV shows rated 12, as an episode of Firefly contains that word.

[MuckyFunster]

Mewling quim that's tremendous! Lol. There were a few old school swear words in Boardwalk Empire. "Cunnie" was used a few times in Series 5. I had to google it, they've just replaced the T with an NIE.