#831
| ||||
| ||||
In the case of Soulmate, the imitable behaviour argument is similar, but far from identical, to the area which covers press reporting of suicides. This prevents newspapers from going into detail about a particular case: Important areas of public concern where the Code already applies include: • Graphic images illustrating suicide methods were often upsetting to relatives and friends. Under the Code, such images would normally have to pass the ‘excessive detail’ test. • The cumulative effect of repeated media inquiries to family members also caused unintended distress. Here, too, the PCC can help by passing on ‘desist’ messages via its arrangements for handling media scrums. • Glorification of suicide: Stories presented in a way likely to romanticize suicide could have a serious influence, especially on vulnerable young people. Full article here.
__________________ |
#832
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
To wit; Classify. To arrange or organize according to class or category. Censor. An authorized examiner of literature, plays, film or other material who may prohibit what he considers morally, politically or otherwise objectionable. Even their own name is a lie, for goodness sake!! |
#833
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
You could use that very same argument for any death in the movies. Because someone got shot in London we should ban all films with guns in it so that it can't happen again? This is no law, this - again - is judgement by the examiners and as such can be interpreted different ways by different examiners. Can anyone explain why a suicide technique is fine to be shown uncut on the telly but cut for DVD release in the same country using the same "laws"?? |
#834
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
If they had said "remove the word 'mother****er' or the film will not be released", that would be a very different matter. In terms of their remit, doesn't that come from the government so, basically, it is the government which demands classification and the BBFC to draw up guidelines based on what is socially acceptable. That obviously differs from person to person and things which would have given a film a 15 certificate five years ago now means it is eligible for a 12 certificate shows the BBFC is willing to change with the times and differing moral standards in society.
__________________ |
#835
| ||||
| ||||
The flip side of the argument is that if the BBFC allowed a certain word into a 12A film which would be better suited in one with a 15 certificate, they would no doubt be inundated with complaints (as they were with Woman in Black which, ironically, was pre-cut by the distributor to secure the lower certificate) so, when advising a distributor about the likely certificates, it is sometimes the case that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
__________________ |
#836
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
|
#837
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
__________________ |
#838
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
The guidelines (which do not exist by the way, try and find them, I wrote to the BBFC years ago asking for them and was told it is the examiners discretion utilizing their years of experience and MORAL opinion that forms them!) and laws have not changed one bit over the last ten years so a film like Cannibal Holocaust was totally banned due to these laws and guidelines. THEN WITH NO CHANGE IN THE LAW OR GUIDELINES whatsoever it is deemed acceptable. How can that be? Nothing has changed. We still use the same laws today as we did back then. Either the BBFC were vastly overstepping their authority ten years ago or are totally disregarding it now. They are opposites where there has been no change, they cannot be compatible, it is impossible. Also the AHS suicide. What guideline or law states suicide can be shown uncut on TV but cut for DVD. There is none - because they decide on their own moral stance on the subject. At least if we had set down laws about exactly what was acceptable or not we wouldn't be debating now, it would be clear and precise, not at the whim of an examiner who believes this film is a work of art and directed by a renowned director so should be let through uncut but this other one is a cheap exploitation flick therefore has no merit in the examiners eyes and should be cut or banned. Elitism at its finest based on personal opinion. Our censorship body! |
#839
| ||||
| ||||
Okay, I'm back!! Hopefully I didn't annoy and upset too many people (Nos, cough, SShaw, cough, ) with my rants over the weekend but at least we debated and talked about stuff rather than just posting the latest film we've bought, and that got me thinking..... So leaving behind the destruction of my beloved horror films, I'd like to dip my toes into even murkier water to see what the "general attitude" to porn is like out there..... First let me put forward my stance on the subject. I was brought up in Africa, like some of you know, and back in the '70's porn was completely forbidden in any form. You know that song from Rocky Horror, Touch-a touch-a touch me, I wanna be dirty.... (Listen to that echo around your head, now!!) well, even that was completely cut out of the film in the cinema, so I never saw any porn till well into my 20's. Perhaps because of that it is not a thing I indulge in very often at all, I much prefer to lol at blooper clips than sit staring at two people doing the body bump. But, in my opinion, two consenting adults can do what they like to each other and if they want to film it and let people view it, then I also see nothing wrong with that. So I wrote to the BBFC asking them their laws and guidelines on extreme pornography and have been told that they actually have real laws on this subject, unlike our previous discussion. They told me to look at Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 c. 4 Part 5 Pornography etc. Section 63 (Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) so I did! I found it fascinating. An extreme pornographic image is pornographic IF said image is made solely for the intent of sexual arousal and is (Section 6b) grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character. (Section 7a-d) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following— .an act which threatens a person's life, .an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals, an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive) and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real. I wrote back to them asking what criteria or scale is used to decide if something is grossly offensive, disgusting and obscene, after all, my aunt thinks all of those criteria about the Sun's page 3 and it pretty much covers every painting Rick Melton (Stunner) has ever done....How can you tell if an image is all or one of these things? So far, no reply. Then if we go through the 4 examples given by The Criminal Justice Act, a lot of questions come up. "Threatens a persons life..." I'm struggling to think of a sexual act that does this apart from strangulation which I'm reliably informed is enjoyed by a few. However to threaten somebody's life by doing this would mean that you would have to carry on strangling them for more than a couple of minutes after they had lost consciousness which is no longer a sexual act but one of murder. Or would a line of dialogue be enough to trigger this law? Then we get "...results in, or is likely to result in, serious injury to anus, genitals and breasts." The kicker here is, "likely to..." A needle through a nipple, is that a serious injury? A sown up vagina? Fisting? Prolapsing? A man who sticks a jam jar up his anus that breaks, leaving blood pouring from his rectum? Who decides if whatever action is taking place "..is likely to..." ? A Doctor? A lawyer? BBFC Examiner? (Soz! Couldn't resist!) and what precedents are involved? Sex with a human corpse. Okay. I know that this has happened in various morgues around the world. One chap was caught just the other week in USA. But I have never, ever heard of an actual porno flick ever going this far. For real, I mean, not Nekromantik, Aftermath or Lucker, and how is it possible for Nekro to get a release under this law? Is it because the corpse is not real? Animals.....I remember back in the day a tape did the rounds that was known as Animal Farm. It kicked off with Bodil and scenes from A Summers Day and then went into a load of clips of horrendous stuff. NEVER have I heard of anyone (admitting!!) this stuff sexually aroused them - a prerequisite of a pornographic image. People watched it (once!) for the pure jaw dropping insanity of it and to see if the rumours were true. The reaction to it made reactions to 2 girls 1 cup look like nothing. It was "lolz..." (OK, bad choice of words!!) Also while we're here and it's in my head, I've heard of people being done by the law for cartoon porn. You know the stuff, like The Simpsons, Family Guy, etc, how can these be described as obscene or is it only if Bart, Lisa, Millhouse, etc are involved and then comes under child pornography? Or Brian the dog, does he count as bestiality? It seems a bit of a stretch of reasoning to me, but hey, what do I know, that's why I'm asking. If I drew a picture of Nelson making the beast with the two backs with Marge would that be obscene, disgusting and offensive or just funny? Would, could, anyone be sexually aroused by said image? Now don't get me wrong and twist my words, I'm NOT saying that I disagree with these laws like I do about fantasy horror films, but what I'm asking is how and who decides and where is the line drawn? It all looks a bit fuzzy and again, open to interpretation of the person viewing it. My aunt....MTDS....Me.....You, yes you, we all have differing tolerances for what we perceive as obscene. Anyone want to share thoughts on this....... |
#840
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
|
Like this? Share it using the links below! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
| |